# Has there ever been a society in which darker skin = higher status? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466 "2009-01-22T15:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/21 "2009-01-22T21:18:49Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Also - “High?” “Yellow?” Does anybody even say that anymore? I thought that crap died out ages ago. I don’t think I’ve personally ever heard “high yellow” used in an non-ironic context. At any rate, I don’t think it was ever meant in a derogatory way. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/22 "2009-01-22T21:43:50Z")
Jamaica, especially during the Rastafarian movement in the 70’s. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/23 "2009-01-22T23:18:38Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I don’t think I’ve personally ever heard “high yellow” used in an non-ironic context. I think I’ve seen it on runaway slave posters in textbooks, but that’s not exactly recent use. > [@](#): > > At any rate, I don’t think it was ever meant in a derogatory way. No, but I imagine it was demeaning. Anyway I was surprised to hear **pancakes3** suggest it’s in recent circulation. ---
**Author:** ![spike404](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@spike404](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spike404)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/24 "2009-01-23T00:00:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Also - “High?” “Yellow?” Does anybody even say that anymore? I thought that crap died out ages ago. Not even close. Before I retired, I worked with a number of blacks. I often heard them use the term. In fact, I once overheard one of the black guys telling another, " My wife’s family are all high yellows, they call me the darkie". ---
**Author:** ![AdmiralCrunch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6f9a4e/32.png) [@AdmiralCrunch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdmiralCrunch)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/25 "2009-01-23T01:18:11Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > Apart from just women, if you walk into a predominantly african american neighborhoods like compton, parts of brooklyn, south-side chicago, **hotlanta** , charlotte, anacostia in DC, etc, you would find them more accepting of a darker man than a whiter man. If you walk up to a black club, you’d be hard pressed to make your way past the bouncer if you were a white guy. I thought **pancakes3** was ill-informed until I read this particular piece of information that formally established his “street credentials.” Hotlanta. What’ll they think of next? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/26 "2009-01-23T02:05:51Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > The explanation I have seen for this is that menial labour now tends to be indoors, so having a tan means that you have the spare time to go outside to sunbathe, swim or whatever, instead of being stuck in an office from 9 to 5 every day. So being a redneck now is the new upper class? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/27 "2009-01-23T04:39:12Z")
> [@Webner](#): > > Has there ever, in all of human history, been a society in which darker skin is an asset, and lighter skin in discriminated against? One could make a decent argument that the United States right now fits the bill. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/28 "2009-01-23T04:42:55Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > One could make a decent argument that the United States right now fits the bill. How so? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/29 "2009-01-23T04:50:04Z")
> [@Ro0sh](#): > > How so? Have you done any of the following: applied for a scholarship, tried to get into college, looked for a support group or promotion or networking opportunities at work (in certain industries, specifically in law in my experience)? If so, having darker skin would have made things easier for you. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/30 "2009-01-23T05:01:22Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > In the U.S., perhaps, but not elsewhere. In the Philippines, for example, darker skin due to the sun is a symbol of lower status - it means that you have to work outside. > > In Western countries, it was much the same until about the 1920’s - a tan meant manual labor, and thus lower class. This changed as Western countries urbanized, and the lower class started to spend their time indoors, in factories and the like. A tan then became a symbol of higher status because only those who didn’t have to work inside and/or had leisure time to spend outdoors got tans. > > Sua RIght, I don’t believe that that’s true. ---
**Author:** ![spike404](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@spike404](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spike404)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/31 "2009-01-23T05:04:11Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > One could make a decent argument that the United States right now fits the bill. Ain’t that the truth! The prez has a secret Columbia transcipt, and his appointment to the Harvard Law Review is also suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/32 "2009-01-23T07:25:53Z")
> [@Rand Rover](#): > > One could make a decent argument that the United States right now fits the bill. […] > > Have you done any of the following: applied for a scholarship, tried to get into college, looked for a support group or promotion or networking opportunities at work (in certain industries, specifically in law in my experience)? If so, having darker skin would have made things easier for you. 😕 ??? It sounds as though you’re conflating **affirmative action** for (some) darker-skinned people with **higher social status** for darker-skinned people. But that’s simply absurd. The only reason that affirmative action programs exist in the first place is because darker-skinned people have traditionally had, and still to some extent have, **lower** social status than light-skinned people in American society. Blacks are not America’s high-status ethnic category. Blacks as a group do not possess disproportionately large amounts of wealth, control disproportionately large amounts of power, or stand in culturally and symbolically for American society as a whole. Whites do. Heck, that’s been made blindingly obvious just this week, with the widespread amazement and awe manifested at the fact of inaugurating a black man as President of the US. The reason so many people think this is such a gobsmackingly amazing historic event is precisely because blacks have historically been a low-status group in the US, and the election of someone from that group to represent the whole of US society in its highest official position is absolutely unprecedented. The election of a **white** person in that role, on the other hand, is absolutely commonplace and taken for granted. In short, legally mandated racial preferences to counter the effects of persistent racial discrimination != high social status. (Moreover, the legally mandated racial preferences in American society operate on the basis of membership in specific socioethnic groups, not on the basis of skin color _per se_. A dark-skinned child of immigrants from southern India, for example, isn’t a member of a racially disadvantaged group in education and so isn’t eligible for affirmative action consideration in college admissions, even if s/he’s darker-skinned than the average African-American.) > [@spike404](#): > > Ain’t that the truth! No, it ain’t anything even remotely resembling the truth. Yes, the US has race-based affirmative action policies that mostly favor darker-skinned people. No, this does not mean that darker-skinned people have higher social status than lighter-skinned people in US society. Equating the two is just sloppy thinking. > [@spike404](#): > > The prez has a secret Columbia transcipt, and his appointment to the Harvard Law Review is also suspect. I have no idea what you think President Obama’s academic record or the impact of race-based affirmative action policies on his individual career success has to do with this debate. As far as I can see, it’s completely irrelevant. Even if you gleefully proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the President was a totally unqualified incompetent who would have achieved nothing without unfair advantages from affirmative-action programs, it would be totally beside the point. We’re not talking about **legally mandated preferences** benefiting dark-skinned racial groups, we’re talking about the **social status** of dark-skinned people as a category. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/33 "2009-01-23T07:29:02Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Have you done any of the following: applied for a scholarship, tried to get into college, looked for a support group or promotion or networking opportunities at work (in certain industries, specifically in law in my experience)? If so, having darker skin would have made things easier for you. You’re more likely to be in college if you’re white. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/34 "2009-01-23T07:48:00Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 ??? It sounds as though you’re conflating **affirmative action** for (some) darker-skinned people with **higher social status** for darker-skinned people. > > But that’s simply absurd. The only reason that affirmative action programs exist in the first place is because darker-skinned people have traditionally had, and still to some extent have, **lower** social status than light-skinned people in American society. > > Blacks are not America’s high-status ethnic category. Blacks as a group do not possess disproportionately large amounts of wealth, control disproportionately large amounts of power, or stand in culturally and symbolically for American society as a whole. Whites do. > > Heck, that’s been made blindingly obvious just this week, with the widespread amazement and awe manifested at the fact of inaugurating a black man as President of the US. The reason so many people think this is such a gobsmackingly amazing historic event is precisely because blacks have historically been a low-status group in the US, and the election of someone from that group to represent the whole of US society in its highest official position is absolutely unprecedented. The election of a **white** person in that role, on the other hand, is absolutely commonplace and taken for granted. > > In short, legally mandated racial preferences to counter the effects of persistent racial discrimination != high social status. > > (Moreover, the legally mandated racial preferences in American society operate on the basis of membership in specific socioethnic groups, not on the basis of skin color _per se_. A dark-skinned child of immigrants from southern India, for example, isn’t a member of a racially disadvantaged group in education and so isn’t eligible for affirmative action consideration in college admissions, even if s/he’s darker-skinned than the average African-American.) > No, it ain’t anything even remotely resembling the truth. > > Yes, the US has race-based affirmative action policies that mostly favor darker-skinned people. No, this does not mean that darker-skinned people have higher social status than lighter-skinned people in US society. Equating the two is just sloppy thinking. I knew someone (or everyone) would post exactly this post. I thought about pre-empting it in my original post to this thread but didn’t. In any event, none of the above applies, and I don’t disagree with the broad strokes of what you are saying. Read my first post in this thread again and pay attention to the question I was responding to. I wasn’t saying anything about social status or social class. I was simply responding to the qustion I quoted. The OP asked lots of different things and I responded to one of those without responding to the others. ---
**Author:** ![willthekittensurvive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@willthekittensurvive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/willthekittensurvive)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/35 "2009-01-23T08:01:34Z")
Maybe present day South Africa with its affirmative action laws?. I’m not sure about the details but used to hear a lot of college graduates complain that there were no jobs for young white people. Goverment and companies would only hire blacks. Maybe some of the SA dopers can tell more? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/36 "2009-01-23T09:24:35Z")
> [@Rand Rover](#): > > Read my first post in this thread again and pay attention to the question I was responding to. I wasn’t saying anything about social status or social class. I was simply responding to the qustion I quoted. The OP asked lots of different things and I responded to one of those without responding to the others. And I think you misunderstood the question you were responding to. Here’s the OP again, in its entirety: > [@Webner](#): > > Has there ever been a society in which darker skin = higher status? > > The title of the thread pretty much sums it up. I’m taking a class about Modern India right now and once again the society I’m learning about has a bias against darker skin. Has there ever, in all of human history, been a society in which darker skin is an asset, and lighter skin in discriminated against? > > I’m guessing no. I know that part of the reason for the bias against darker skin is that those with darker skin are darker because they have to spend more time working in the sun, a result of their lower status. The OP is clearly asking about social status and societal bias, **not** about legal mechanisms such as affirmative action, which are deliberately instituted to **counteract** prevalent societal bias. > [@kitten](#): > > Maybe present day South Africa with its affirmative action laws?. I’m not sure about the details but used to hear a lot of college graduates complain that there were no jobs for young white people. Goverment and companies would only hire blacks. Once again, affirmative action laws aren’t the same thing as high social status. Affirmative action laws are designed to benefit **low** -social-status groups. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/37 "2009-01-23T09:31:31Z")
South African doper here - even amongst Blacks, lighter skin = higher status. Darker skin is more characteristic of West African origin, and immigrants are treated hostilely here. Also, the market for skin lightening products has never gone away. Yes, there are AA laws, and these have an _economic_ effect but being White or Coloured doesn’t imply lower _social status_, which was the question. And also _within_ those White & Coloured communities, darker often = lower status. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/38 "2009-01-23T10:26:41Z")
**kimstu** , I believe **spike404** ’s post may have been a woosh. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/39 "2009-01-23T10:55:18Z")
Thing is that, historically, race-based discrimination, as opposed to the one based on wealth, religion or social status, is sort of new. You could say that in the ancient world the Persians looked down on the northern Barbarians, but their race wasn’t actually the factor, and Ancient romans were as likely to have blue-eyed blond slaves as black Africans commanding their legions. In America, you could claim that the pale-skinned Irish immigrants weren’t well received from the 1800 to the first half of the 20th century. The term “redneck” itself is a slur against them getting easily sunburned while doing manual labour. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466/40 "2009-01-23T13:05:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And I think you misunderstood the question you were responding to. Here’s the OP again, in its entirety: > > The OP is clearly asking about social status and societal bias, **not** about legal mechanisms such as affirmative action, which are deliberately instituted to **counteract** prevalent societal bias. > Once again, affirmative action laws aren’t the same thing as high social status. Affirmative action laws are designed to benefit **low** -social-status groups. Whatever. I posted an answer to a question, which I still stand behind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-there-ever-been-a-society-in-which-darker-skin-higher-status/482466.md?page=3)