In africa itself, there is a large variety in skin tone, which makes me doubt a purely developmental change model. Central africans can be very dark, almost blue-black, while southern africans are often very light tan. Thus I prefer the ambient UV approach.
Any comments on the following?
"Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."
Also, aesthetic choice doesn't quite cut it as an explanation IMO. Because it is not clear why, out of the blue, an aesthetic that had presumably previously been perfectly happy with people in various browns suddenly decided to prefer paler versions.
quote: ok how's this. lighter skinned black women are becoming more and more prevalent while darker skinned black women are becoming rarer. darker skinned black men are becoming more and more prevalent and lighter skinned black men rarer. why? because that is what is (and has been for a long time) viewed as attractive. so it is sexually selected for (by choosing partners esp. that the alternative do not reproduce as often... well this is the general idea.). this has no relationship to latitude.
Now a CULTURAL aesthetic influence I could buy. First question though, where is this process supposed to be occurring? How fast? Is it a real phenomenon, or just something local, or just a misaprehension?
In the west, a white aesthetic predominates. It seems to me that women, the major recipients of "attractiveness programming", respond to this by duplication. What this means fior non-white women is skin-lightening acids, hair straightening etc. Equally, black women selected to appear on TV or other mass media - that is, selected to be attractive by the prevailing white aesthetic - are those that carry the most caucasian features. Beyonce is an excellent case in point, barely a trace of African descent in her bone structure. This applies even in the case of, say, rap music videos, in which there are very few actually african-looking women, merely caucasians with a dusky tone.
quote: i'm not talking about popular culture in america.
And I was not talking about popular culture IN AMERICA either. Britain colonised huge chunks of the planet, and it is hardly as if prior to the invention of celluloid there were no depictions of people. There was plenty of poster art alone, for example, that propagated the dance-hall culture and could easily have had much the same role as modern hollywood (if rather less intensely).
As was mentioned above, the Victorian and prior aesthetic for the upper classes was to appear pale, and be therefore definitely not be identified as one of the "horny-handed sons of toil", tanned by wind and sun.
I find it prima facie plausible that men on aggregate are darker than women in a given population, but cannot see how this can give rise to a specifically white local population alone. Because if lightness of tone is a female sexual signifier, and so is darkness in men (the tall, dark stranger of fiction one presumes), then the next generation should show much the same dimorphism, not be driven down only one path.
quote:i think it's quite stupid to bother avoiding sounding like anything... people who make accusations of such are simply looking for trouble.
Really? The theosophists claimed the dark-skinned people were less spiritually developed than light skinned people, rather similar to certain Fascist ideas. It is not stupid to seek to AVOID sounding like a reflexive racist and ensure that your analysis is actually grounded in fact when there is so much history of exactly this sort of argument being put forward for supremacist reasons.
So if I understand the argument being put forward here then, it is that masculine darkness arises mainly from male-on-male competition, and that in the ABSENCE of polygynous social arrangements, this competition will be muted, resulting in male selection for female lightness more or less alone.
Is there any evidence indicating that the population groups which became white caucasians were the earliest developers of monogamy? That would seem to be the implicaitons of the argument.
As an alternate hypothesis, I would suggest the same result would be achieved by the conversion of women to chattel property, in that their ability to select their mates would be radically curtailed, leaving male-selection-for-lightness to operate without a counter-selection by women.
Demonstrating the level of your intellect, Brenna?
quote: me not wanting (or more specifically not caring) people to accuse me of racism simply because i sought out different options has nothing to do with theosophists. stupid people are stupid.
Yes thats true. And overnight, I hacve decided that you are completely stupid. Becuase it takes a total retard, IMO, to assert that the only people who worry about racism are "causing trouble". You clearly live in a fantasy land of your own imagination.
quote: no. people who accuse people of racism while involved in an intellectual discussion (in which foolish things like racism have no place) are being argumentative and irritating.
Why? Again you forget reality - that eugenics and race-dominance theories were perfectly respectable and have a good intellectual pedigree. you can;t just start from the assumption that everyone thinks racism is foolosih - even if thats what you believe, you cannot project it onto others. This is the internet for fucks sake how hard is it to verufy this delusional perception? Even on this very board racism has been tolerated and condoned, and yet you pretend to find it so unthinkable that you can freely assume that anyone suggesting a problem is malicious. Get real.