Are Men Just As Affected By Colorism?

[wheel]

They certainly do, they definitely dont have it as bad as the women, but it exists, including the contemporary arab-features idolizing aspect of somali culture where light skin is elevated and dark skin is stigmatized. I certainly experienced it when i was a kid.
Watching that video annoyed me though, dude was giving his $0.2 as a dark skinned and it was disgusting how they dismissed his struggles, and tried to tout fetishism as a plus. Also worth noting that this discourse is usually centered around women's struggles too. No attempt to empathise and understand the other side. Appalling behaviour.

 

[Nilotic]

Still confused as to where this stereotype came from. Masculine? I can hardly think of any instances in history where this seems to be the case

Dark skinned populations were enslaved, genocided and relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy in almost all socieities (and still are). The men were slapped around like weak b1tches, never being able to defend their people. They can’t provide, or build strong civilisations for their women and children.

so where is this mythical masculinity these men have?

Contrary to the revolting self-victimisation narratives spun by some African men... slavery was mostly a result of greed and betrayal by various African kingdoms in West and Central Africa; it was not a result of direct conquest. The Europeans could not dominate these kingdoms.

The Zulu fought valiantly against the British, however, they were technologically at a disadvantage and were eventually defeated; there was no cowardice involved.

My own people very bravely fought the Arabs for centuries and lost millions as a result of keeping them out of the South; if it wasn't for us, the Arabs would have penetrated deeper into Africa.

Your people eventually succumbed to Western military power, but there was bravery involved in the resistance prior to that.

The Haitians defeated the French and gained their independence as a result; the problem with Africans and their descendants is that they didn't follow through (in political & economic terms) after showcasing their bravery.

 

[El Nino]

Contrary to the revolting self-victimisation narratives spun by some African men... slavery was mostly a result of greed and betrayal by various African kingdoms in West and Central Africa; it was not a result of direct conquest. The Europeans could not dominate these kingdoms.

The Zulu fought valiantly against the British, however, they were technologically at a disadvantage and were eventually defeated; there was no cowardice involved.

My own people very bravely fought the Arabs for centuries and lost millions as a result of keeping them out of the South; if it wasn't for us, the Arabs would have penetrated deeper into Africa.

Your people eventually succumbed to Western military power, but there was bravery involved in the resistance prior to that.

The Haitians defeated the French and gained their independence as a result; the problem with Africans and their descendants is that they didn't follow through (in political & economic terms) after showcasing their bravery.

Colonization in Africa is a story of spineless men selling even their own ethnic people to the europeans for nothing.

I have a theory that these men sensed the europeans technological advantage and attached themselves to europeans. This is why the elite in african countries are usually descended from those who worked with the europeans in the colonial period.

 

[Angelina]

Colonization in Africa is a story of spineless men selling even their own ethnic people to the europeans for nothing.

I have a theory that these men sensed the europeans technological advantage and attached themselves to europeans. This is why the elite in african countries are usually descended from those who worked with the europeans in the colonial period.

Contrary to popular belief, they never sold their ‘own’ to Europeans. They sold men and women from different groups after going into battle with them. It was equivalent to a Beligium selling a German. Apart from skin tone, they didn’t see each other as being the same whatsoever. Different languages, traditions and cultures.A Fulani was not the same as an Ashanti, a Yoruba was not the same as a Hausa.

White Europeans also didn’t have race loyalty towards each other before converting to Christianity. That is why you’ll find the Vikings often enslaving and selling the Irish Celts and Ango-saxons and Slavs. However, once Christianity became dominant in Western Europe, the buying and selling of Christians became illegal.

Africans at the time didn’t have a unifying religion that would stop them from enslaving their fellow black men. You need to understand that the concept of race or race loyalty didn’t exist and every man was only loyal to this ethnic group (tribe).

I think it’s easy to simply blame Africans when at the time skin color meant nothing to people and how could it when everyone one on that continent was black as well? Did race loyalty stop Greeks from enslaving and selling the Goths, did it stop the Vikings from terrorizing and enslaving multiple White European ethnic groups?

 

[Nilotic]

Colonization in Africa is a story of spineless men selling even their own ethnic people to the europeans for nothing.

I have a theory that these men sensed the europeans technological advantage and attached themselves to europeans. This is why the elite in african countries are usually descended from those who worked with the europeans in the colonial period.

The period of colonization took place only after Europe perfected their use of gunpowder and introduced cannons and machine guns; they couldn't do much to African kingdoms prior to that period, however, they did find a continent full of warring kingdoms that would supply the Europeans with slaves sourced from vanquished foes.

Colonization was global, but the Asians and others learned from it and can't really be disrespected now; you're right that most of our 'elites' were Western sycophants.

 

[Lebron James]

Of course, for both men & women the darker you are the worse other people treat you.

 

[El Nino]

Contrary to popular belief, they never sold their ‘own’ to Europeans. They sold men and women from different groups after going into battle with them. It was equivalent to a Beligium selling a German. Apart from skin tone, they didn’t see each other as being the same whatsoever. Different languages, traditions and cultures.A Fulani was not the same as an Ashanti, a Yoruba was not the same as a Hausa.

White Europeans also didn’t have race loyalty towards each other before converting to Christianity. That is why you’ll find the Vikings often enslaving and selling the Irish Celts and Ango-saxons and Slavs. However, once Christianity became dominant in Western Europe, the buying and selling of Christians became illegal.

Africans at the time didn’t have a unifying religion that would stop them from enslaving their fellow black men. You need to understand that the concept of race or race loyalty didn’t exist and every man was only loyal to this ethnic group (tribe).

I think it’s easy to simply blame Africans when at the time skin color meant nothing to people and how could it when everyone one on that continent was black as well? Did race loyalty stop Greeks from enslaving and selling the Goths, did it stop the Vikings from terrorizing and enslaving multiple White European ethnic groups?

I agree a lot with this part however colonisation wouldn’t happened without local involvement. Also I wasn’t speaking about slavery.

I focused on how did the continent get colonised without large amount of settlers (few countries not included). Local people who did the dirty work for white people were the key. I suspect these people knew cadaan folks were more technologically advanced so they played their cards and decided to betray their people ( even their own ethnic group)

 

[Angelina]

The period of colonization took place only after Europe perfected their use of gunpowder and introduced cannons and machine guns; they couldn't do much to African kingdoms prior to that period, however, they did find a continent full of warring kingdoms that would supply the Europeans with slaves sourced from vanquished foes.

Colonization was global, but the Asians and others learned from it and can't really be disrespected now; you're right that most of our 'elites' were Western sycophants.

That is why you’ll find that colonization only started to take place towards the end of the 19th century, after the industrial revolution in which the Europeans at the time were more advanced than the majority of the global populations. It’s difficult to win against people with sophisticated and dangerous weapons against a common spear regardless of how brave and great your battle strategy is.

 

[Chase]

The period of colonization took place only after Europe perfected their use of gunpowder and introduced cannons and machine guns; they couldn't do much to African kingdoms prior to that period, however, they did find a continent full of warring kingdoms that would supply the Europeans with slaves sourced from vanquished foes.

Colonization was global, but the Asians and others learned from it and can't really be disrespected now; you're right that most of our 'elites' were Western sycophants.

Exactly, specifically the Gatling gun:

Most of the world had single-fire rifles, European armies had no answer when the playing fields were levelled, it was the Gatling gun that changed everything.

The Gatling gun is a rapid-firing multiple-barrel firearm invented in 1861 by Richard Jordan Gatling. It is an early machine gun and a forerunner of the modern electric motor-driven rotary cannon.

 

[Angelina]

I agree a lot with this part however colonisation wouldn’t happened without local involvement. Also I wasn’t speaking about slavery.

You can’t win against people with gun powder and steal. At that point in history due to the industrial revolution, the UK was the most advanced nation on earth and was able to colonize much of the world. I’m sure you’ve heard of the say, ‘the empire on which the sun never sets’. That was to illustrate the vastness and power of the empire.

I focused on how did the continent get colonised without large amount of settlers (few countries not included). Local people who did the dirty work for white people were the key. I suspect these people knew cadaan folks were more technologically advanced so they played their cards and decided to betray their people ( even their own ethnic group)

The local people were threatened with weapons of destruction their mere spears couldn’t overpower. The reality is that bravery and great battle strategy wouldn’t be able to overcome them. There were groups outside of Europe who had guns and cannons like the Ottomans but unfortunately, Africans didn’t.