2 ms·

> In what sense is it even wrong? In that it is not hereditary leprosy that causes the differences between whites and non-whites but natural genetic variations

by dpwm 8y ago

> In what sense is it even wrong? In that it is not hereditary leprosy that causes the differences between whites and non-whites but natural genetic variations. There is no "white" skin underneath. There is no cure, nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rus...

gizmo686 8y ago
So, is your factual complaint that dark skin is not literally a strain of leprosy? Because that seems like a relativly minor disagreement, and certainly would not qualify as being "so far away" from reality. Further, my interpretation of the quote is that "leprosy" was intended to refer to a specific disease, but rather a syndrome, (which could be caused by multiple diseases presenting simmilar symptoms). Keep in mind that we did not actually identify the leprosy bacteria until 1873 [0], while Rush died in 1813. >Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. This is a reason that we might not want to call it a disease. It does not represent any factual dispute. >There is no "white" skin underneath. That depends on how you define "underneath". If you remove the melonin, I believe you will get white skin; so "underneath" seems to me to be a reasonable description. Further, my understanding is that real leprosy does not literally create a new layer of "skin", so "underneath" cannot have the most literal meaning here in the first place. >There is no cure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agent... As far as medical conditions go, dark skin seems far more curable then many other things that we have cured. For reference, to a first approximation, we have "cured" the condition of being male/female in transfolks. I suspect that that is a far more difficuly problem then changing skin color. >nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." This is a value judgement, not a factual judgement. Facts matter. It is important to distinguish between disagreeing on the facts and disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts. [0] The first bateria identified as the cause of a human disease.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Most importantly, dark skin is adaptive at low latitudes. Which is why calling it a disease is completely wrong, though understandable from 19th century point of view. It is a hereditary adaptation. That it is malpractice at high latitudes means little. Much like sickle cell trait is adaptive where malaria is endemic. This is why even Caucasians there, especially ones who lived there for generations, are quite brown. (Say, Arabs.) People who aren't dark skinned enough tend to get sunburnt.

by dpwm 8y ago

gizmo686 8y ago

So, is your factual complaint that dark skin is not literally a strain of leprosy? Because that seems like a relativly minor disagreement, and certainly would not qualify as being "so far away" from reality. Further, my interpretation of the quote is that "leprosy" was intended to refer to a specific disease, but rather a syndrome, (which could be caused by multiple diseases presenting simmilar symptoms). Keep in mind that we did not actually identify the leprosy bacteria until 1873 [0], while Rush died in 1813. >Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. This is a reason that we might not want to call it a disease. It does not represent any factual dispute. >There is no "white" skin underneath. That depends on how you define "underneath". If you remove the melonin, I believe you will get white skin; so "underneath" seems to me to be a reasonable description. Further, my understanding is that real leprosy does not literally create a new layer of "skin", so "underneath" cannot have the most literal meaning here in the first place. >There is no cure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agent... As far as medical conditions go, dark skin seems far more curable then many other things that we have cured. For reference, to a first approximation, we have "cured" the condition of being male/female in transfolks. I suspect that that is a far more difficuly problem then changing skin color. >nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." This is a value judgement, not a factual judgement. Facts matter. It is important to distinguish between disagreeing on the facts and disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts. [0] The first bateria identified as the cause of a human disease.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Most importantly, dark skin is adaptive at low latitudes. Which is why calling it a disease is completely wrong, though understandable from 19th century point of view. It is a hereditary adaptation. That it is malpractice at high latitudes means little. Much like sickle cell trait is adaptive where malaria is endemic. This is why even Caucasians there, especially ones who lived there for generations, are quite brown. (Say, Arabs.) People who aren't dark skinned enough tend to get sunburnt.