I've seen studies like this before (I'll have to google some sources).

As painful as it is to admit, these stereotypes are still with us today.

You must have me mistaken with someone else to assume that I have time to go through your old posts and send you examples of what you say on GC. Last time I checked, YOU posted that people PM YOU asking about your membership in my Sorority. Thus, then, and therefore, OBVIOUSLY you must be saying things that give people that impression, correct?

As I said before, you do the math.

I didn't ask for an in-depth research of everything I've ever said...is that seriously how you took it? :confused: I sincerely asked you to let me know what you see that I might be doing to offend you or anyone else so that I can change it and stop giving off the wrong impression unintentionally. If you can't/won't do that, then what was the point of putting me on front street about it? Just to take a stab at me with no constructive intent? :confused: I've never known you to do that, but hey, first time for everything. Doesn't change my respect for you, so oh well.

Wheverever you were going with that, I obviously missed the bus, so I say back to our regularly scheduled thread we go...

OK, maybe you are not reading my posts well, so I'll break it down.

1. You know that I am an AKA, right? How? Because a) it's has been in my signature or b) because you have read posts with me referencing such.

2. If I didn't have a signature stating my affiliation, then you would have what to go off of? MY WORDS.

3. Hence, people get impressions from what they read when there is no additional supporting evidence. Just like you may have never taken notice of AKA being in my signature, you seem to be pretty aware of my posts to have noticed at one point or another that I stated being a member of AKA or may have spoken in a matter-of-fact fashion about AKA or greek life in general.

4. Therefore, those persons that contacted you about being a member of my Sorority must have gotten the impression from the way you speak, be it about an affiliation or in a matter-of-fact tone.

You are trying to make this situation about me and you, but it's not. I don't have to try to put you on blast. You brought it up. Did you really expect me (or any of my other Sorors, for that matter) to not say something about it? I am stating to you why some PEOPLE would assume that you are a member of my Sorority. I don't have to document nor fish through all 976 of your posts to pinpoint specific instances. How about you contact those persons who PMed you and ask THEM WHAT gave THEM the impression that you were an AKA and let me know.

RD:

LOL, to be quite honest with you (and you can cyber-slap me for this, I won't fight you) I never noticed you were an AKA until your first comment in my direction in this thread. I thought you were in another sorority b/c I misread your screename. If it was in your sig, I truly never noticed. ":rolleyes:" on me.

Did I expect you to say something? Yes, which is why I ended the message with a question to prompt further discussion. If you felt it was a stupid question, then okay, ":rolleyes:" on me again. But I never wanted you to go through however many posts I have to pinpoint things. That's really misconstruing things and blowing it out of proportion. All I meant was if you stated I was "swerving out of my lane," then there must be something I said that you were thinking of when you brought that up, so let me know what it was so I can make sure not to do that again. But thanks for the convo, I appreciate the last post, it was very clear and gave me some things to think about.

Back to the thread. :)

You know what I actually like how you replied to this whole matter. I really think you tried to be humble and sometimes don't realize how things can be percieved. Just take note on what you say, people should not have to point it out to you.

I agree back to the thread!

CG:

As I previously stated, you CONTINUE to make this discussion about ME and you. I don't know how else to simplify it for you. One LAST time, if OTHERS (NOT RD) are construing that you are a member of the Sorority, it must be based on something you said. Since a person cannot see you through a messageboard and make assumptions about your affiliation based on appearance (as is the purpose of the thread), one (NOT RD) can only make assumptions based on what you say on this messageboard. Since RD is NOT one the persons that has made the assumption about you, RD is NOT the one to pinpoint what you have said. As previously stated, you need to address with THE PERSONS WHO HAVE PMed YOU as to why they made the assumption you were a member of my Sorority. RD can draw her own conclusions and RD will address them when they need to be addressed.

I hope that you get what I am saying now. If not, *shrug* I can't break it down any further. Take it for what it's worth. I agree with everything Soror Wonderful has stated. Remain humble and be mindful.

Proceed with the previously scheduled discussion.

This, we can agree on. And Wonderful: thanks. ;)

Forgive me for the thread crash, but just wanted to mention something that I have always found to be bizarre...

As you ladies have documented so thoroughly in this thread, there are people (black and white) who have a preference for lighter skinned black people, for whatever reason. (I think its craziness myself, but anyhow...)

And yet, white people subject themselves to dangerous levels of sun exposure to try to tan and make themselves darker. For those people who have wised up to the health risks of excessive sun exposure, there are a variety of self-tanners to fake the appearance of darker skin. We're expected to avoid being pale at all costs.

I'm pale - about as pale as a person can get (comes from being a redhead). I can't even begin to count the number of times some "well-meaning" individual has told me to get a tan, or to try one of those new self-tanning products on the market, etc. I've had guys (thinking that they are giving me a "compliment") tell me that I'm attractive for someone "so pale" or that I "could be attractive if I got a tan." No thanks. I'm content with myself the way that I am, and that's good enough for me.

I've just always found it to be strange and confusing why so many members of the white race make every effort to be darker, and yet discriminate so unfairly against people who naturally have darker skin. Its a crazy world we live in.

(Personally, I think that we should appreciate the beauty in all of us...and not just physical beauty, but beauty in character also. Too much emphasis these days is put on external appearance. :( )

You are not crashing, we welcome everyone whith respectful comments:)

True!

Hi Susan. You aren't crashing.

I think that the White people are able to discriminate against persons with naturally darker skin because despite tanning and all of their efforts to appear darker (temporarily), THEY ARE STILL WHITE at the end of the day. Even with a slightly sunkissed tone, they still do not lose the privileges that are afforded to them because of their race. They still have to option to NOT tan and remain just as pale as they want to be. While persons of darker skin tones never have that option.

Not sure if you get what I'm saying, but it's all a matter that goes to the discussion of White privilege. I'm sure we've discussed that a time or two here on GC.

I do understand what you're saying, as far as even the deepest tanned white person still being white at the end of the day goes.

I still think its hypocritical to hear someone who puts a lot of effort into making him/herself darker make ignorant comments about people who naturally have darker skin. (Its offensive no matter what the shade of the person who said it - there's just an added layer of irony that goes with it when that person is obsessed with trying to be darker themself.) Perhaps the reasons you cited above are why they don't see the irony/hypocrisy of their own actions?

Hmmn, now that I think about it, this whole conversation makes me think of a story that was relayed to me recently. My grandmother passed away on Easter, and at her funeral last week people were sharing lots of stories. One of her sisters mentioned that they tried as hard as possible to cover themselves and avoid getting tan while working the fields. (My grandmother was raised on a farm and worked the fields, tended the animals, etc.) Apparently back then, being tan was a dead giveaway that you came from a poorer family. I wonder when the perception changed that being tan was a "bad" thing to being a highly desired thing?

(Sorry, I know that last paragraph is straying a little from the topic at hand - all the talk about tanning reminded me of that story, and of course my grandmother has been on my mind lately with her recent passing.)

When most people no longer had to work in the fields, rich or poor. Then tanness became a sign of being healthy and physically fit.

In the early 20th century being tan started to mean that you were more well off (at least in Europe) and no one would confuse your golden tan from the French Riviera as a farmer's tan. By the '60s tan was in and pale was out.

See: Wiki on Sun tanning :D

Funny this topic came up. I was having a discussion about this very phenomenon with a white co-worker the other day. The more things change, the more they remain the same. :cool:

So, how come there are several cultures worldwide that avoid having exceptionally darkened skin? Of course most of sub-Saharan African cultures are quite dark and could never absolutely lighten their complexion--except in one instance that still occurs. Albinism at the Tyrosine locus.