Some of you may be familiar with the Clark doll test which has been performed several times in the US. In it, young children of all skin colors and racial backgrounds are asked to ascribe certain traits and attributes to a variety of different colored dolls. Almost all children, including the darker colored ones, ascribe positive attributes, like honesty and beauty, to the lighter skinned dolls - whereas almost all children ascribe negative attributes, like ugliness and stupidity, to darker skinned dolls.
The test is used predominantly as an example for how even young children in America are ingrained with racist, anti-black attitudes.
However, I cannot find any sort of evidence of this test being performed on predominantly black populations like in Africa. Would the results be different, as these children do not have any experience with anti-black attitudes, or would they perhaps be different?
>>481651
They did one with afro-latinos but not sure about African youth but really it won't be all that different when bleaching is common and European/American manufacturers seek such things down there along with chemical relaxers.
Probably because the person asking is white, and the kids are afraid to disappoint or offend
>>481659
Also I'd like to add if you think being around a bunch of black people in today's day and age can nullify societally entrenched anti-blackness you're very incorrect.
>>481661
The recent ones were black led.
>>481675
source?
>>481680
You can YouTube the most prominent video, a young black woman did it.
>>481651
all this shows is that children of those ages havent been indoctrinated yet
Wherever there is a lighter skinned/darker skinned racial dichotomy of a country, the lighter skins dominate media and are typically better off, everywhere
even in African countries
>>481714
When it happens time and time again, is it bias, or just the inherent power of being lighter skinned, for whatever reason
maybe it is more attractive generally, and attractiveness is tied into greater success
>>481651
Might it have anything to do with the fact that the researchers are looking for a specific bias and are leading the kids into replicating that bias?
Because at this point, replications especially are basically taking a preconceived conclusion and working to provide evidence that supports it.
What kind of controls were used?
>>481751
Light skin does not imbue some magic power of success.
>>481758
This does seem to be a problem in all the tests, especially the more recent ones. The researchers go in with an expectation of racism and receive it.
>>481775
It imbues subconscious feelings of appreciation in others if they think it's attractive
>>481714
Same thing happens outside of sub-Saharan Africa with EVERY dark skinned group of people. Not just American blacks.
But of course, leftist idiots will blame this on the racism bogeyman and blame white people.
>>481651
>Anonymous
it is more evident to the natural law and truth of racial discrimination.
lighter skinned people are off spring of people smarter than darker skinned.
>>481838
this is evident in all races and cultures.
>>481780
I was going to ask about double blinds, but I don't think you could at this point.
The type of test has gained so much notoriety that it'd be obvious to any researcher what they were attempting to measure, even if they weren't outright told what the experiment was attempting to cover.
>Had family over for Christmas
>Two little kids, 8 year old girl cousin and 9 year old boy brother
>Decide it would be fun to perform the Clark Doll test on them for a laugh
>Buy one of them a black action figure
>Buy another one a white action figure
>Expecting them to fight over who gets the black one
>They don't fight
>They play together pretty innocently
>try to experiment to see if it works
>sit and watch them play with the toys for 3 hours
>try to mark down any triends
>when they play fight scenes the winners are evenly split
>when they have tea parties each toy gets a roughly even number of sips
>when they make the toys hug the black toy is at a slightly dominant angle
>end up getting mad and painting the black toy white to prove they won't care
>they start crying
this test is bullshit, fuck this test
>>481819
It's clearly about anti-blackness which actually is common even in places that have dark/light skin people. India and Iran have a long history of discriminating against their black populations, even by non-black dark skin people.
It's a global cultural institution.
>>481922
Anti-blackness and "cultural-discrepancies" between light/dark skinned groups are not the same thing.
It's evident you're working backwards from a preconceived conclusion and picking supporting evidence as you please.
Stop trying to place Americanized social-justice blankets over shit that has nothing to do with American socio-relations and drop your problematic collegiate-academic worldview.
>>481939
Anti-black cultural bias exists everywhere black people exist, through racialized notions of superiority or inferiority black people often the darkest people in a given nation are place in the cultural rubric of the ultimate Other.
You can they and evade or twist however much you want however we see in society and websites such as 4Chan the very specific and intense hate of black people over nearly all others.
Anti-blackness goes beyond the United States, it's stupid of you to even say that half seriously.
>>481659
Why do Americans bleach their assholes anyway?
>>481922
>India and Iran have a long history of discriminating against their black populations
No, they have a long history of discriminating against DARKER skinned Indians and Iranians.
"Black" has nothing to do with it, as it's simply a matter of who is darker, and who is lighter.
Regardless, this probably stems from the fact that if you take a perfectly clean white piece of cotton, in time, it becomes ugly and DARK, and must be washed to be clean and white, again.
I imagine if the earth was made of white sediment, and things got whiter when they collected white mud, then the roles would be reversed, and darker skin would be preferred.
>>481983
If you want to ignore the words of the Black communities in Iran, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka than so be it but it doesn't change the fact at all.
>>481965
>Anti-black cultural bias exists everywhere black people exist
Sure as hell did in sub-Saharan Africa, where blacks selectively chose other blacks to conquer and sell off to north African, Arab, Roman, and later, European slave traders.
>>481992
>If you want to ignore the words of the Black communities in Iran, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka than so be it but it doesn't change the fact at all.
YOU want to ignore the words of the non-black dark skinned peoples the world over, including American blacks. Hell, the bias toward lighter skinned people even existed in North America BEFORE blacks were imported as chattel.
You truly are a naive, and misinformed individual.
>>481983
Maybe young children prefer light to dark more generally, day to night etc.
>>481965
>Anti-black cultural bias exists everywhere black people exist
Except you're also claiming it exists in places where there are no or no large population of 'black' people.
> black people often the darkest people in a given nation
Darkest people in a given nation =/= black people.
Not everyone on the darker end of skin color spectrum views themselves as "black", or are even referred to by others, of lighter skin tones or not, as "black". Again this is your Americantric view warping the issue.
>Anti-blackness goes beyond the United States, it's stupid of you to even say that half seriously.
It's stupid of you to insinuate that the discrepancy you're talking about can boiled down to "anti-blackness", because again, only in the US do you see such a socio-relational struggle even remotely evident.
Again, you have a predetermined conclusion you are actively working backwards to find supporting evidence for. As such, nothing you put forward is anymore than biased, baseless conjuncture built on cherry picked evidence and anecdotes.
Also, you are essentially a black white-supremacist. Congrats, you academia has paid off.
>>482000
Possible.
What happens when you drop a doll into the mud? It gets dirty, and dark.
This could also contribute to their preferences as well.
>>481992
>If you want to ignore the words of the Black communities in Iran, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka than so be it but it doesn't change the fact at all
You keep interchanging darker skinned communities with 'black' communities. They are not interchangeable.
It's clear from your continued habit of this that you don't have a single working fucking clue about any of the populations you think you're advocating for.
They would spit on you for being an ignorant American, and in your decadent academic foolishness you'd probably thank them for it.
>>482016
You literally did not read what I wrote.
>>481992
Fuck off back to tumblr holy shit. Dark skinned indians were treated like trash long before your pet monkeys were imported there by the british. Your afrocentrism is retarded.
>>482018
>It was a musket war situation of enslave or be enslaved.
That's literally human history in a nut shell.
>>481751
In pre-colonial Nigeria, jet black skin was seen as preferable to the usual brown
>>482031
I didn't know there was a body of work in pre-colonial Nigeria that spoke of a universal beauty standard for dozens of ethnic groups.
Source?
>>481983
Thing is Southern India is actually better then Northern by a stretch so it's just funny seeing people relatively Northabooing Northern India despite it being the center of so much fucked up shit about India.
>>482018
>It was a musket war situation of enslave or be enslaved.
>early Arabic and roman empires
>muskets
You do know there's a lot of history before the invention of gunpowder, yes?
>You don't even know there are black communities exist there so why are you talking?
I didn't say they didn't exist, they most certainly do. I said they're not interchangeable with "dark skinned" as you keep trying to assert out of your own biased worldview.
>>482020
>You literally did not read what I wrote.
I did, you just don't like the response I gave and don't want to address it because it means facing the fact that you're simply another ignorant American with a coddled world view and a savior complex.
Constantly whining about what you wrote not being read is a clear cop-out tactic, if it's all you're going to say everytime someone criticizes/refutes your points, you may as well hang it up now. Covering your ears and screaming LALALALALA doesn't prevent your shitty assertions from getting BTFO.
Meanwhile, in India:
https://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/dusky-bollywood-divas-went-skin-lightening-treatment-124013314.html
>It was a musket war situation of enslave or be enslaved.
The Arab slave trade existed LONG before the use of muskets, pal, and African tribal leaders were more than willing to capture other Africans and sell them to the highest bidder.
You act like blacks were the only ethnic group in the world ever to be enslaved.
You do realize what the Roman economy was based on, right? Or the ancient Greeks? It wasn't free trade, Shaka, it was SLAVE labor that drove their economies, and while black Africans were indeed enslaved, they got the majority of their slaves from white Europe.
>>482034
Because the subject is anti black attitudes. You post makes it sound like Sub-Saharan Africans only enslaved each other to prevent Europeans, Arabs or North Africans from enslaving them. All those three groups enslaved each other, and the Africans were really just being like everyone else and some wanted to keep at it even after the British wanted to stop the Atlantic slave trade. It's not like they really saw the other tribes as their fellow blacks, just some other group of assholes to enslave. Pan-Africanism has never really been cool outside of Marxist revolutionaries in the 20th century and African-Americans.
>>482070
The slaving societies of west Africa utilized a very different form of labor that as a result creates a different kind of slavery. It's not the same as Chattel slavery.
You also clearly did not read what I wrote, when you do totally message me back.
>>482077
The Trans Atlantic Slave trade is not the same as the Arab slave trade, no one said that. It seems you are changing goalposts.
>>481841
So melanin reduces intelligence?
>>482085
Anti-black rhetoric was not utilized as a reasoning to enslave fellow Africans in the trans Atlantic slave trade. Anti-blackness is the topic of discussion, I think it's best you keep going that route.
>>482039
It was for the Yoruba, and from the journals of a british army captain.
I doubt there is much more literature than that but depictions of the Yoruba goddess associated with beauty give her dark skin, even today.
bit of a babe 2bh
>>482108
That was my point, I was getting the impression you were saying it was.
We're literally agreeing on the subject, so imma let it go.
>>482097
>The slaving societies of west Africa utilized a very different form of labor that as a result creates a different kind of slavery. It's not the same as Chattel slavery.
Until they could profit from it by selling weaker tribes off to Europeans.....or Arabs, or anybody with cash willing to pay them.
>>482097
>The slaving societies of west Africa utilized a very different form of labor that as a result creates a different kind of slavery. It's not the same as Chattel slavery.
And how does that apply to your statement about "musket war situation, that he was replying to?
Where did anyone specifically mention west Africa before you?
>ctrl f "west africa"
>one result, from you. two with this post
Huh, no where.
How are you not moving goal posts?
>You also clearly did not read what I wrote, when you do totally message me back.
I did, I've been copying and green texting it as well so you can see exactly what I'm replying to, like right now. I understand you don't like what I'm saying because I'm disagreeing with you, that doesn't mean I didn't read what you wrote. Stop being disingenuous.
>The Trans Atlantic Slave trade is not the same as the Arab slave trade, no one said that.
You're the first person to specifically mention the trans-atlantic slave trade. Again, moving goal posts.
>It seems you are changing goalposts.
>Move goal posts the whole thread
>Accuse others of moving goal posts or pretend they simply didn't read what you wrote
>Cover ears and scream LALALALA as you continue to get BTFO.
Please continue, this is excellent practice for everyone replying to you.
>>482111
That is a modern interpretation of the orisha through the lens of Santeria practitioners.
It sounds like everyone is stretching for excuses other than racism or prejudice.
It is human nature to judge people by their appearance, haircut, clothing, subculture, taste in music, accent and other random things that really shouldn't matter. Apparently some people think being quiet is "creepy", literally doing nothing can get you hated. Skin color is included.
Liberals believe everyone is innately good, they like to blame a conspiracy by "the man" to use subliminal messages to make everyone subconsciously racist, this doesn't sound very feasible. The Klan never was very good at making propaganda. It is mainly prejudice, the same natural prejudice that made them bully the kid with the pointy out ears back in school, they just don't want to admit it.
I believe that human nature is something to be controlled, not repressed like the victorians, we just need to understand our emotions and find healthy alternatives of expressing ourselves that do not harm anyone else in the process. Maybe when enough liberals admit they were wrong we can start trying to make the world a better place, we will solve racism and a lot of other problems too.
>>482130
I know, I posted because it was hot
>>481651
I don't think this test has ever been conducted in Africa. If I were to estimate though, the African kids would by and large prefer the black doll, except in areas where Arabs exerted cultural influence which might lean white if their standards of beauty have been changed
>>482166
>nobody wants to interview hot guys
shaking my head if we're being honest, family
>>482126
Actually this is very incorrect, West African societies based their wealth in subjects not their output necessarily.
>>482128
Because the person I was responding to was speaking about black americans who are the result of the trans atlantic slave trade.
I'm not covering my ears or changing goal posts, others are speaking of my supposed Americanisms which given the basis of the original topic makes sense.
I'm contextualizing my responses first and foremost as anti-blackness seen in America and Latin America is symptomatic of a global anti-blackness. I later used Black populations in South Asia and Iran to give an example of that global anti-blackness.
Still my statements are only to clarify OPs naivity about the results, it's not some localized fluke of a specifically American problem.
Anti-Blackness and dark skin discrimination are two different things but they interact with each other. Like because of the Anti-Blackness there is dark skin Discrimination or the converse because there is dark skin discrimination there is anti-blackness when key word here "the situation arises".
>>482181
>Actually this is very incorrect, West African societies based their wealth in subjects not their output necessarily.
Sure, pal.
Pic related: King Ghezo, from an area that is now modern day Benin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghezo#Slave_trade Dude LOVED selling him some slaves. The British even tried to stop this fucker, but he didn't.
Funny how that worked, isn't it? British trying to stop Africans from selling other Africans.
>>482262
>>482262
Most of Africa most their ability to compete economically because all industry was destroyed through European goods with China tier quality which is what he meant by domestic pressure. He did want an expansion of expansion of palm oil trade but hat didn't work out. He either would've chosen stop his slave trade but lose economic power then get eaten by the Brits or continue but get BTFO like he did.
>>482181
>I'm not covering my ears or changing goal posts, others are speaking of my supposed Americanisms which given the basis of the original topic makes sense.
You're doing it right now, because the original topic as you brought it up wasn't about America, is was about global concepts, specially in India and Iran >>481922
Don't accuse others of not reading what you wrote when you're not even reading what you wrote. Again, stop shifting goal posts.
>I'm contextualizing my responses first and foremost as anti-blackness seen in America and Latin America is symptomatic of a global anti-blackness.
Now you're bringing up Latin America for the first time this thread, claiming that was what you were talking about before when it, again, was not mentioned until now.
>I later used Black populations in South Asia and Iran to give an example of that global anti-blackness.
As I just pointed out, that's where you started. Again, stop shifting goal posts, and keep better track of the writing you falsely claim others aren't reading.
You're continually disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, and at this point are a continuing joke in the muddled shape of a sheltered academic with a savior complex attempting to Americanify non-american issues.
Stop shifting goal posts, stop being disingenuous, in fact just stop posting all together. It's past your bedtime.
>>481651
Well it's ain't Africa, but the test was conducted in Trinidad and they actually had an even highest preference for the white doll than the US black kids did
>>482262
Ghezo came well after the traditional economic systems collapsed
I suggest you read about "Wealth in People"
You also have to recognize that the forced shift into a slave trade based economy made it so many African leaders at the later stage had only that to sustain their kingdoms.
Economic dependency is a thing in single export nations.
>>482297
Oh, I see, so slavery is justifiable when blacks do it to support THEIR economy, but not for whites.
Got it.
This is why nobody likes black people, anon.
>>482271
Not defending what he did. Many rulers were against the trade and many were victims themselves with some returning to tell the tales since no one there knew what the fuck goes on in the new world.
>>482278
Yeah what I find flawed with the test is that barely anyone sees a black doll at all.
It just looks so plain off just like if the Flag for Fascist Spain was Blue and Gold, yeah it's accurate but the coloring is just too off. That's why I think in >>481846 the kids didn't care, action figures at least look more accurate, most baby dolls that are Black are just painted brown and call it a day since there's little to no demand like brown flesh toned band-aids.
>>482309
They didn't imply that.
>>482309
>This is why nobody likes black people, anon.
I can easily see white people saying that too
