I grew up in the north west, attended a mixed race state school. We didn't "see" differences among us, we were just a bunch of Aussie kids.
Mr Hagen's articles always have a 'victim' whinge about them, has he ever heard of Reverse Racism? it just oozes out of his posts.

Shorbe and Reynard - yes, I'm well aware that white skin is regarded as the province of the elite and dark skin of the peasant class. This after all was part of Hitler's reason for his plan to rid the world of gypseys of all kinds, including the Romany: they did not conform to the Aryan ideal of pale, blonde heauty. He succeeded almost as well as he had hoped.

My confusion though, stems from the fact that Mao Zedong spent decades stamping out elitism - communist rule still maintains this societal levelling. I pointed out that Western colour prejudice had never pertained in China. So I find it peculiar that in the last ten to twenty years this prejudice - which must be elitist - has surfaced once again to the extent that some of my students experience self-esteem issues.

The Cultural Reolution furthered the levelling of caste prejudice by producing a society in which even the respect traditionally given to scholars, artists and poets was tamped down. The Worker became the cultural hero; ergo one would expect that differing complexions would not be regarded as signifiers either of beauty or its lack? Or, if they were, that paler complexions would not find favour. That's why I find the implications give much food for thought.

Regarding another point made by a previous poster who asks whether the author has ever heard of "Reverse racism"? This is not the first time I have seen the phrase used in OLO forums and I confess to finding it confusing. Racism is prejudice directed towards someone as a result of their race. Surely then the obverse of this - "reverse racism" - would be lack of prejudice directed towards someone as a result of their race. Why would this be a bad thing? Isn't that exactly what we are all striving towards?

Romany, Why must it be elitist. Australians, Africans and South American and North American and Polynesian Natives etc. painted themselves. White happens to be a contrasting colour for them as it is for Asians. Celtic tribes at one time painted themselves red, yellow, blue, or black depending on the availability of mineral or plant dyes. These colour contrast well with while skin.
It's like saying Polynesians chose to tattoo themselves with a black ink because it was a cultural way of celebrating their blackness? Then again if your brought up on racism your sure to find it everywhere if you look hard enough for it.
You can't say you haven't taken your prejudices with you. Everything doesn't distill down to race. Sometimes it just about colours and how we untilize them because they contrast.
And what is Mao's "decades of stamping out of elitism. China has a very active elitism under Mao's politburo and always has. China today(last couple of decades) has had a triple tiered society. The governing class, those working the economic zones( a separate group of elites income wise) and every one else who live and work outside of the economic zones. There is a fourth if you want to dissect rural farm life in China.

Romany, "reverse racism" - would be lack of prejudice directed towards someone as a result of their race."

Reverse racism or reverse discrimination includes discriminatory policies or acts that benefit a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically minorities or women), at the expense of a historically socio-politically dominant group (typically men and majority races).
Particularly in the United States, the term is used to imply that underqualified members of minority groups are being hired and promoted instead of more qualified members of majority groups.
In particular, racial quotas for collegiate admission to government-run institutions were held to be unconstitutional in the United States.

Aquavius - Thanks for explaining about reverse racism. I now understand in what context it is used.

But am still having trouble getting my head around it: the verb "to discriminate" means to treat differently- either favourably or unfavourably - because of racial or social grouping rather than individual merit.

Promoting or accepting someone based only upon their membership of a different socio-economic/racial group is discrimination. Whether they are a member of the dominant group or not, and whether they are being discriminated against favourably or unfavourably they are still not being accepted on merit. Do you see what I mean? And do you also see that I am not blaming/slating/accusing/burning anyone else for my own inability to see the validity of the term?

And whoa...hang on there a minute, mate. Where did the accusation of racism spring from? Did you read my first post? I noted it curious and puzzling that in modern China a huge growth industry has emerged based on whitening creams and lotions. I didn't draw any conclusions from this observation.

In both that post and the second I specifically pointed out that this trend was not, either culturally or historically, underpinned by racism or elitism.

Why elitism? Well, because, as others also pointed out, another reason those with dark skin have been taught to believe this is not a good thing is because milk-white skin was once considered the province of the elite, non-labouring classes. I went on to point out that if this were the reason the trend would still be puzzling in China because workers have been glorified.

The author of the article - which is what we are discussing - was saying children are conditioned by society to think white is wonderful and so considered dark ugly. I was just observing that in a country where you can't blame social conditioning a trend is also growing that considers white is desirable and wondering why. I thought maybe others would also either find it peculiar or speculate upon reasons. No personal conclusions. Just the observation of a strange phenomena. Period.

Arjay, predictable post from you again. You want everyone to believe Steve Hagan's little boy is not a victim of racist violence because it doesn't fit with your white epistemology of the world. You're a hard man.

Romany, my post wasn't supposed to come off accusatory. I should have wrote "we can't say we don't carry our prejudices with us."
I'll restate. Then again if your brought up on racism your sure to find it everywhere if you look hard enough for it.
There is all kinds of racism. What you see with the Chinese girls using skin whiteners(?), whites have been doing the same for as long as I can remember. Sun tanning ring any bells? Do we say whites hate themselves because they're not golden brown. Tanning Salons on every street corner. That they're conditioned by society to be not white? We brag about how well we tan or as a kind of reverse racism we brag about how fair we are and that like vampires we just mustn't spend anytime in direct sunlight.
Your very right to wonder especially with the ease by which some "sociologist" like to attribute a sinister anti social "reason" behind the most mundane human expression that crosses all colours and cultures. Trapped by the limited understanding of their own history and selling a liberal view of human socialization, much of the sociology of the last 50 years is left trend reverse racism or anti-white bias intent on manufacturing victims of the white hoard as it swept across the globe nonsense. Of course they always seem to conveniently forget to include the many other "hoards" that have swept the globe through out human history, and with out cultivating a total cultural and racial guilt trip.