Skip to main content

Guylian's 'Solitaire'. Racially offensive chocolate?

The following are thoughts on Brad Farless's 'Does this chocolate offend you'. The chocolates in question come in the flavours, 'Asian Dark', 'Aztec Gold', and 'African Ebony'.

Brad had accompanied the image above with, 'The only thing it’s missing is Caucasian White.'

'Caucasian' is also a scientific reference for quite a few people occupying regions extending from India to the Middle East, amongst others. The common usage of the term is incorrect, and perhaps, it is still used by 'whites' as a subconscious effort to distinguish themselves from 'others'.

With regards to the chocolate, no, i don't find it offensive - especially since i find the various tones of brown to black to be very beautiful. In fact, the 'blacker' the woman is, the more i go, 'wow! damn gorgeous!' I suppose i find a 'richness', 'strength', and passion' in such colours as opposed to its subtler counterparts.

I suppose one could find the above presentation offensive in a climate where white, as opposed to other tones, is deemed to be beautiful. That is when the above becomes 'stereotyping'. If such insensible colour bias didn't exist, as it does amongst the Chinese throughout s.e.Asia, and even Indians, the above could then be seen as a celebration of those colours as opposed to a 'rubbing it in' sort of insult.

Anyway, the value of offence should not lie in how people feel about something, but if that something can objectively be verified as offensive. To just deem something as offensive, and therefore offensive per se, can also mean that we are ourselves defensively biased. That can only serve to maintain a less then desirable status quo.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…