This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Territories This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Territories of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject United States TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject United States TerritoriesUnited States Territories ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AustinEmho.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdmarte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M.Magpali. Peer reviewers: Jessicajiang, Kelvin wong hk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section suggested that the topic of an 1898 short story (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1898/07/the-wife-of-his-youth/306658/) was a real thing. It also was poorly written and logically incoherent (it suggested the fictional organization was both a society for "mulattos" and for whites). 134.240.59.102 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is all BIAS every article about Filipinos in relation with Spain, the Mestizo in our country, statistics are all not fact. I cannot believe all this non factual things your saying about this. Excuse me please not all Filipinos favor or like Filipino-Mestizo and do not forget that Mestizo in the Philippines anything that is "MIX FILIPINO" not just Spaniard-Filipinos and please all your Statistics where on earth did you get this????

Another article with racist opinions against hispanics from Al-Andalus

The preference by the blond hair, the slim and tall women ot the blue eyes are not a consequence of the Spanish colonization in the Americas or Phillipines. This preference occurs in parts the Wester World, including France, Italy or the own Spain, where the most of the population is brown. This beauty canons are not a Spanish invention.

Al-Andalus would have to criticize the prevailing canons of beauty, already from the Renaissance, and to leave his racist commentaries about the horrible nature of the Hispanics.

Gimferrer

Firstly, use spell/grammar check before you post.

Now, secondly, you've basically summed up what the article states. They are WESTERN ideals of beauty. They are not global ideals. The fact that you haven't been able to divorce these two notions demonstrates that you are indeed one who her/himself probably falls into the colonial mentality basket. Blonde hair and light eyes are the ideal of the WEST, "including France, Italy or the own Spain" as you say. But these are regions where this phenotype is common or at the very least not uncommon.

The concept of Colonial mentality to describe the ideals of a people only applies when it is a foreign population that has adopted the ideals of another people. And this is not confined to physical appearance.

Are you attempting to suggest that before the arrival of the Spanish, in the Philippines the ideal was to be mestizo? Of course not! How could the Filipino ideal of beauty of mestizo appearance date back before the Spanish, when prior to the arrival of the Spanish there were no mestizos on whom the ideal is now based on. Hence, the Filipino ideal must be a very foreign concept that was introduced to Filipinos. Just because a people (in this example Filipinos) have adopted the ideal, it doesn't mean that it the ideal is natural to them. Hence, it is not a world ideal as you suggest. It's still a WESTERN ideal, only that now it is adhered to even by nations of people that are genetically incapable of producing said idealised beauty.

Think about it. How could the Filipino ideal of beauty (the mestizo look) not be a foreign concept, when the genes needed to create such "ideal" doesn't exist in the Filipino genetic pool?

And finally, how could it be "another article with racist opinions against hispanics from Al-Andalus" since Filipinos aren't Hispanic. Al-Andalus 16:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blue eyes, and especially blond hair, is not that common in those three countries (Italy, France, Iberia). The Spanish and Italians are actually Southern European and tend toward dark skin (by European standards) and dark eyes/hair. Chiss Boy 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that the Western canons of beauty are the only ones. Also, such beauty canons in the Wester World has been changing. That I say is that they have been extended more that others in the world and they prevail at the moment. As I said to you, most of the Spanish women are brown, but many dye her hair blond. We did not speak, therefore, of beauty canons of Spaniards. It is a beauty canon imposed to Spaniards and Latin American, not a beauty canon imposed by the Spaniards on the latinoamericans. I deny that, against which you have added to the article, the abundance of blond women in Television or any other Latin mass media, is a consequence of the Spanish colonization in the Americas. It is a consequence of mass media influence from the United States which they imitate, as the journalistic format or that detail of white, tall and blond women. It is not consequence of the preaching of the spanish priests in the New Spain.

On the Philippine mestizos, I don't understand you talk about. An ideal of Philippine mestizo cannot exist, because the mestizos are very different. He is not the same a mestizo from Chinese and Spanish, a mestizo from tagalo and Chinese, or a mestizo from African and Spanish. Spanish colonization couldn't impose an ideal of Philippine mestizo, because they are very different.

Your Philippine affirmation of "the Philippine ideal must be to very foreign concept that was introduced to" is absurd, since there are not Filippinas before the Spanish colonization. There were different ethnic groups or nations, like the tagalos or the cebuanos, but nobody that we could denominate Philippine.

You also say that your hypothetical Philippine beauty canon "is still to western" canon. Have the descendants of Chinese and Spanish or the Chinese and Tagalog the same appearance than the Mexican or Spanish people? The beauty canon of the Filipinas will be, therefore, an Philippine ideal, created and maintained by own Philippine people, and non the spaniards o mexican people.

And yes, you have written in this article another sample of your racism against the Hispanics. The consideration of the Philippine persons as Hispanic or not, is another subject, their subject. The certain thing is that, in your article, you talk about to the Philippines as a country colonized by Spain and Mexico.

Gimferrer

Obviously, you are being racist to Filipinos and Latin Americans

This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Things should be FACTUAL and NOT Opininated. Most of your posts are opinionated. I am not against your topic on Colonial mentality, but since this is an encyclopedia, you should ONLY define what colonial mentality is, and you, too, should avoid mentioning countries or nationalities.

If Gimferrer sees Filipins as Hispanic, fine. No argument with that since it is udeniable that Spain has somehow influenced the Filipinos(although not as much as in Latin America). If he sees Filipinos as asians, let be it since Filipinos are culturally Asian, too. Most Spanish-Mestizos in the Philippines consider theirselves Asians, and not hispanics and many of them, too do not speak Spanish anymore except for those rich Spanish businessmen.

Laloy 12:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, Laloy, interesting point. But remember, Filipinos do tend to have these issues. Many Pinoys I have met insist that they have Spanish blood. They show me their beautiful celebrety pictures. Many look Spanish. Also, Many Japanese do not have so called "Chinky eyes". This word itself is racist if you insist that you are not racist and accuse other of being racist. Remember that Pinoys are Asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There does seem to be at least one Wikipedian who tries to emphasize Filipinos as being a bunch of wannabe Europeans/European descended Americans. There are probably plenty of those, but also those who are confident in there own appearances. The Filipino culture IS decidedly Western, though. Almost half a millennium of direct or indirect Western control, and no unifying culture much less advanced civilization to begin with will do that to a people. Chiss Boy 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eventhough I'm not really Filipino (I'm Chinese), I still have to defend my country which I live in at the moment. Just because many Filipinos claim to be or to have Hispanic lineage, you suddenly have to make it all controversial? That's not right. I have some idea you might be White or Hispanic. If you are White, well, I must say that this is natural for you to take part in racial discrimination. Although I'm only a kid, I already know about the White dicriminating the Negroes... And if you are Hispanic, maybe you're just looking down too much on us Filipinos. I KNOW Filipinos are Malays.. but is it their fault if Magellan comes conquering our land, claiming it as theirs, along with the Filipinas? So yea.. You can't say they're JUST Malays... Actually, most of the Filipinos here really does have Hispanic blood. Hell with the research you did. Most of them are inaccurate anyway. =_= It's better that you go here and take a look for yourself. Stop being so judgemental.

I removed the part where it shows it states the the colonial mentality in the Philippines and Latin America. This is an online encyclopedia, so I think we should stick to the DEFENTITION. Colonial mentality does NOT only occur in the Philippines and Latin America

I have put everything back to normal for Laloy is vandalizing everything about the Philippines. He is thinking that Filipinos are like Americans. Mix of everything and Caucasian. There is Colonial Mentality in the Philippines. Please do not erase this!

I am NOT making the Filipinos like Americans. Most things written here are not NPOV but the APOV. Go read some books written both by Filipino and non-Filipino Historians, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. I do not deny that Colonial Mentality does exist in the Philippines, but why is it that the topic on CM is concentrated VERY MUCH on the Philippines and Latin America. Where's the neutrality there? Laloy 22:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We need to seriously think about Laloy's action here in Wikipedia for he is vandalizing every articles based on his fantisy.

Of the current Philippine demographics; Caucasian-based mestizos account for only 1%, those with significant amounts of Chinese ancestry to be classified as Chinese-mestizos are estimated at around 2%, while unmixed native Filipinos constitute 95% and number over 80 million.

The biased favouritism responsible for their overwhelming presence in film and television is deeply-rooted on established Filipino "Ideals of Beauty" that are determine based on the possession of at least partial European ancestry, an ideal that stems from colonial concepts first introduced by over 300 years of Spanish colonial rule, then by a further generation of Anglo-American occupation.

I just want to be brief as there is no need for me to give examples of pure pinoy and mestizo movie stars. Sure, our film industry has a biased favoritism to white skin and western looks, but to say that "caucasian and chinese mestizos have an overwhelming presence" in our tv and film industry is not true. A few of our most famous personalities are mixed but that is the exception not the norm. Apart from the latter, most of our entertainers are light skinned "unmixed native" filipinos, just like many pure pinoys, some share features that might give the impression that they are mestizos but they are not. Watch other asian channels like indonesian tv, they have many light skin newsreaders, some don't even look like classic javanese but they dont claim to be of mixed ancestry. I might be wrong to judge you on your article but it seems you're saying that only mestizos and not "unmixed native" filipinos meet "ideals of beauty" criteria. Whether they bleach their skin or falsely claim mixed ancestry is another matter. That part would probably go in the "IMSCF" article section.

What's with the 'Anglo-American occupation'? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was the one who controlled the Philippines. It was not some joint venture with the British, and short of taking over Manila for around a year in the Seven Years War, direct British influence in the Philippines was minuscule. Chiss Boy 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why very predudice againsts hispanics and philippinos?

In singapore, majority of the population is chinese. the ideal of beauty there is having big eyes, same case with japan. I think it would be colonial mentality, too.

Gimferrer, colonial mentality has a definition, and it is stated in the article. Yet you have still reverted the article and reinserted "willing within one nation to expand its own culture and its political and economic control in other countries" as an alternate meaning. I am very sorry Gimferrer, but what you keep on trying to insert into the article is the definiion of Colonialism, and it already has an article. There is no getting around the definition with your constant nonsense trying to cloud it.

As for the edit summary which accompanied your revert, I just ask you what in the discussion page are you refering to? "REc inf eliminted by Al-Andalus (See discussion page)", There is nothing here. You have not posted anything new on this discussion page. Al-Andalus 19:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Does anyone agree with me that this article talks a little too much about skin lightening? Is that the defining hallmark of a colonial mentality? Or should a lot of that information move to Skin whitening? I've just created redirects to this page for Slave mentality, Serf mentality, Peasent mentality. Maybe the article could be morphed into a more general article discussing the other "subjugated" mentalities? Ewlyahoocom 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Thai people: they've never been colonized -- so why do they love that white skin? Ewlyahoocom 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb on this worldwide is that a darker complexion has traditionally meant that you're a peasant -- has to work outside in the sun all day, while a lighter complexion means that you're an aristicrat -- can sit indoors all day eating sherbet with somebody fanning you, and if you do go to visit the Prince or something you ride in a sedan chair. -- 201.78.233.162 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom is this the rule of thumb? You? Not good enough. Moreover, if this is so, then why is there a multibillion industry in the West (the majority of whose population is currently "white") for various skin-darkening procedures and treatments (not to mention various other procedures to enhance other physical features associated with "non whites")? Poisoning oneself with arsenic to get that ghostly white complexion went out of fashion among European aristocrats during the 18th century, and the Victorian bustle eroticized a model of feminine beauty that few European women could achieve naturally (the combination of full bottoms, small waists, and ample chests were previously considered to be traits of "primitive" [read: non-European] women). The trend continues. Also, many Asian societies valued white skin long before Europeans (whom they called hairy barbarians) establised sustained contact; Northern Chinese, Koreans and Japanese tend to have "white" complexions. That said, this article is far too slanted toward "racial" discourse. There are many forms of ethnocentrism, and most of them have nothing to do with "race" since ethnocentrism and imperialism have existed for thousands of years, while racism (an extreme form of ethnocentrism) is a rather new ideology. Kemet 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, ethnicity and ethnocentrism can also be cultural, not genetic. Case in point, many Americans and French are ethnocentric--they consider their culture to be number one--while not being racist. Chiss Boy 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the example for the former Soviet Union is at least controversial if not outright wrong. Ukraine has never been a colony, but an integral part of the Russian empire, and the eastern parts of Ukraine (where the Russian language is used the most extensively) had already been a part of Russia when a great number of Ukrainian peasants settled these lands fleeing from the Polish yoke in the mid-XVII.

If there are no objections, I think that this part should be removed as inaccurate.

The Ukraine could actually be considered the homeland of the Russians (the Rus). Chiss Boy 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As could Sweden.... people migrate after all.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 03:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an account because the affirmation about TV Azteca is completely wrong. As a mexican I never heard someone talking like that about TV Azteca, actually is the complete opossite, most people refer to TV Azteca as "TV Naca", "TV Chichimeca", the public perception is that TV Azteca has more dark skinned actors, way more than Televisa. The ratio is still towards whites, but again, some people, including magazines and media people enfatize that about TV Azteca. Several publications use those names when talking about "La Academia" winners, Toñita and Erasmo Catarino. I feel that article part was made by a non-mexican, clearly because of the TV Azteca reference, and the cowardly us of "unmixed European" clearly of fear that many of the white actors have indeed indigenous heritage. Terms like "mostly indegenous" and "mostly European" are better

Putting aside the fact that the very notion is a fallacy from the 15th century, why is there all this focus on people of different races? How about Irish people who try to act more English to get into the yacht club, or Madonna going through her English accent phase! Colonial mentality is not about skin colour alone! Miken32 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, racism is not just against races, but also against ethnies/cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This IS not only about race. Plenty of European descended Latin Americans and Canadians look up to Europe as being sophisticated. Even some Americans hold this view, although today it is Europe that is largely in the United States' sphere of influence. Chiss Boy 23:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin color is not race BTW. Eg all Amerindian are brown but are divided in several sub-species with distinct corporal and facial traits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.136.251 (talk) 20:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Colonial mentality is also a main reason why Philippines' has a dislike towards India and things Indo-Pak/Desi/South Asian, whereas other countries in Southeast Asia are into things Indian besides Chinese. And I'm embarassed of this b/c I'm a Filipino who is into things Bollywood/Desi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.92.188 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is it so much that they are against Indian culture, or that Indian culture is more foreign to them? You should take into account that the Philippines is on the eastern edge of Southeast Asia, and in Asia has had closer ties to China that India than some of its neighbors (a little bit of American spelling for you). Furthermore, it has been under Spanish or American control/hegemony (considering it and much of the world to currently be under an American cultural hegemony) for almost 450 years, and its culture COULD be described as Western--much more so than Japan or South Korea: Western is not synonymous with wealthy or developed. It isn't shameful for an Asian country to have a Western culture any more than it is for Americans of African, Asian, or Amerindian descent (etc.) to have a Western culture. Or for Europe to consider the roots of Western civilization being--at least partially--JUDEO-CHRISTIAN (see southwestern Asian/Middle Eastern) in origin. Chiss Boy 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section talks only of skin whitening and beauty standards. Is that it? If there is nothing else then I would say that it's irrelevant because tastes of what is considered beautiful change like fashion really. It's not like the West didn't have different standards for beauty 1400 years ago!! Actually, they (both the west and the east) had different standards 90 years ago, when there really was colonialism in the Arab world! --Maha Odeh (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to me to put too much emphasis on the racial and not enough on the cultural aspects of the colonial mentality.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is there an article about colonial mentality with the appearance of europe over here? This article is flagrantly biased towards recent eras as it fails to take into account europe's inferiority complex. See the institutional structures and philosophical bent of claiming greece/rome is the founding source for european "sophistication" (for lack of a better term). You have Roman law, Greek philosophy and Stoicism, not to mention christianity over virtually every square inch of europe. You have a leaning saying europe is "judeo-christian," well neither is judaism nor christianity european.

See this definition from the page (uncited as it is): the "concept essentially refers to the acceptance, by the colonised, of the culture or doctrines of the coloniser as intrinsically more worthy or superior." Clearly, as has been pointed out colonial doctrine and culture has not just been accepted, it's been wholly used as the source of the civilization.

Oh, and the article needs a lot more citations to gain some notability. Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added recentism and globalize tags. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the best example of Kipling's racism towards Indians that could be found? It actually refers to the U.S. in the Philippines! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.137.116 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRC have there wikipedia I have time & time again suggested the same for Britannia . Yes we "love" being civilized by a country which never had the Renaissance or is under utter delusion that Shakespeare was a writer .

Also on Macaulay Sanskrit is a dead language & Persian was only popular with early Mughals.Although Farsi was never ever widely used as medium of instruction . I would love to see factual research on these claims

This article needs to cover colonial mentalities in Africa and Asia, and the influence of other European colonial powers such as Belgium, France and Germany. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP:OTRS complaint about that section at ticket 2010010110017111, which reads in part (omitting information that makes the sender identifiable):

In the section of the article dealing with the former Soviet Union, I found the following (exact quote):

"In some of the successor states of the former USSR much of the local, ethnically non-Russian population sees Russian culture as superior to the local ones. This has been the case in Ukraine, for example, one of the more advanced successors, whose post-Soviet history has been marked by a preference for all things Russian and an overwhelming presence of the Russian language in politics, television, the internet and music, at least.[11][12][13]"

The three books mentioned in the footnote (allegedly supporting that statement) argue precisely the opposite point. They say that in postsoviet countries the use of native languages increased dramatically and the celebration of native history increased. This is particularly true in Ukraine where university studies and the publishing business have vigorously turned toward the native tongue.

How do I know? I am the author of one of the three books mentioned.

The other two (...) I reviewed for two different scholarly journals in the United States.

Coming from an official university e-mail address, this sounds credible to me, and I am editorially removing that section until it is shown (through Google Books or verbatim quotes from the sources) that these books do support this content.  Sandstein  20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article really belong in Wikipedia? I'm not proposing an answer to to that question, but it needs to be asked.

"Colonial mentality" is an idea about history and sociology. People can and do disagree about what constitutes colonialism. In addition, it is not clear that a deep interest in, admiration for, or even wholesale adoption of, the values of a different culture is restricted to cases of colonialism or subjugation. Culture boundaries do change, after all, for all kinds of reasons. Similarly, even in the stated examples, are we talking about feelings of general inferiority, or simply a few stray aesthetic ideas which transfer easily precisely because they don't have much real importance. For example, when I lived in New England, I learned to talk baseball. In Texas, I learned to talk football (both kinds). These are easy social conventions which allow people to get to know each other. They work precisely because, like hair color, almost everybody agrees they're interesting, but unimportant.

So, the idea of a "colonial mentality" actually combines a necessarily imprecise (and perhaps necessarily controversial) theory about the historical behavior of states or classes ("colonialism"), with rather value-laden ideas about cultural change, including, perhaps, the normative judgment that people should stick to the cultural values of their birthplace. That political theory may be correct, the value judgment may reflect sound psychological reasoning, and the two may be causally connected as implied by the phrase "colonial mentality." But, then again, it isn't necessarily so. Colonial mentality may easily be a non-existent phenomenon or (much more likely, I'd guess) a collection of real phenomena which are not strongly related.

If this is so, a neutral article on the "colonial mentality" should be a discussion of the history of ideas. Who has used this concept? In what way? Is it really used in the same way by all writers? Has the use of the idea been associated with particular schools of thought in other areas? Those are appropriate issues.

By contrast, I wonder whether an article which assumes that "colonial mentality" is a real, valid and useful historical concept can ever meet Wikipedia's neutrality and objectivity standards. Whether, and under what conditions, "colonial mentality" is a real, valid, and useful concept is a good subject for debate. But, given such a high-level concept, carrying so much intellectual baggage, with so many moving parts, Wikipedia should be describing that debate, not getting involved as a debater. Augwhite (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources and the biased opinions in the articles are reason enough to have the contents of this page consolidated with the main article about the history of the Philippines, Spain, and/or United States since all three nations did share a common history riddled with conflicts. An article that discusses the social reactions to colonialism should be given a background on colonialism in general and is considered inaccurate and biased when it assumes that all colonial empires and subordinates are the same.

The colonized indigenous people of British East Indies were not treated the same way as the colonized indigenous people of Australia or New Zealand, and by any means not treated similarly as the natives of North and Central America were, all of which were different depending on the (lack of?) progress in the philosophy of individual human rights in the context of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century. Besides, the subjective arguments in the article, like the mention about hair color and "eye widening," whatever that is, are very misleading. With that line of reasoning, how do you explain "Jersey Shore" then? Or Venice beach, Daytona, and all the spring break spots where white people almost look like they're trying to look, uh oh, brown? What's going on? Should there be a page about the opposite effect of colonialism, or can it be attributed to a more recent pop culture phenomenon?

I think, as every other sensible person who is attuned to the fickle nature of physical appearance would think, this is a case of the grass being greener on the other side. I don't know of a single white person who prefers their pasty white mug in winter time over a healthy bronze, whether it can be acquired naturally or not. And for that matter I know of several Asian and black people who wouldn't mind the blond glow as much as they like spoilers in their 4-cylinder car and 20" wheels.. it's more of a fashion thing. And I'm not sure whether it actually has anything to do with colonialism. As for the surnames, Filipinos were mandated by the Catholic church to change these back in the 19th century along with ALL foreign nationals residing and conducting trade in the colony who is not European. Like the German "Schmidts" who happily anglicized their names to "Smith" to fit in the Anglo-dominant culture during one of America's many Migration Periods, its a simple case of people trying to fit in and assimilating to the dominant culture. As for any claims by Filipinos about their "Spanish-ness," that should be treated the same way as an American claiming "native American blood," with suspicion. I'm sure its in there, but is there any way to prove it besides getting your genes sequenced or government records checked? Besides, who really gives a poop? m315t3r x3n0ph0n (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody up to write a section on Algeria and Tunisia, using the same discursive model as the Indian subcontinent - use of the French language, a French-educated official class, adoption of westernized lifestyles, and skewed notions regarding lightness of skin and hair ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.156.67 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria and Tunesia are even worth two sections, as there are two layers of colonialism. In 670, an Arab invasion force occupied these regions, wiped out local culture, language and religion, and imposed the Arabic ways. The colonisation was so successful that it is hardly remembered, most colonised Tunesians and Algerians consider themselves as Arabs, and remnants of the old culture are still discriminated against - social advancement is difficult for those speaking the old languages. The occupation stretched out to West Africa. It is part of such mentality to hide the crimes of slave trade perpetrated by the Arabs since those times, and to deny the contempt the Arabs show for the locals. Such section on Arab-centered colonial mentality (present in North and West Africa) however would not fit in the general tendency of a lemma intended to present only the West as imposing colonial mentality.Riyadi (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were no citations in this section. It was poorly written. I came here to do a copy edit, but this page is far from being ready for that. WomanEsquire (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "colonial mentality" a description of the mindset of colonized peoples or of how colonizers view those they colonize (it could be both). The article does not makes this clear. Lfstevens (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many significant issues with this article, as listed below:

1. The information is presented is not supported by credible outside sources, and is thus, plainly wrong. The lead definition is not sufficiently supported by anything in the main body of the article. The body is written without keeping the definition of colonial mentality as "the attitude that colonized peoples feel themselves to be inferior to their colonizers based on the fact of colonization", as a psychological impact of colonialism, in mind. It jumps from one vaguely related topic (i.e. Latin America's colonial demographics) to the next, and fails to center the definition around the effects on the previously/currently colonized.

2. It includes information that has no relevance/connection to the topic (off topic)- For example, "Critics claimed that Rudyard Kipling's portrayals of Indian characters generally supported the colonialist view that colonized people were incapable of surviving without the help of Europeans, describing these portrayals as racist.[1] Examples of this racism are mentioning "lesser breeds without the Law" in Recessional and referring to colonized people in general as "half-devil and half-child" in the poem The White Man's Burden." Based on the information provided, I fail to see the connection between Rudyard Kipling and colonial mentality, and the citations/sources provided do not make this clear. Another example of this is the entire introductory section of the Spanish empire, which outlines the history of colonization in too much detail and does not make any reference to the topic at hand.

3. It makes original claims that are not supported by third party publications- For example, "In the Philippines colonial mentality is most evident in the preference for Filipino mestizos (primarily those of mixed native Filipino and white ancestry, but also mixed indigenous Filipino and Chinese, and other ethnic groups) in the entertainment industry and mass media, in which they have received extensive exposure despite constituting a small fraction of the population.[7][8][9]" Source [7] is a dead end, the link provided does not lead to any information. Source [8] is a news article highlighting the controversy surrounding the racist practices of a fashion advertisement, and does not mention colonial mentality whatsoever. Source [9] This article was written using secondary sources to come to general conclusions, not based on available and credible outside information but rather on the connections made directly by its authors (similar to the style of a research paper).

4. The effects of colonial mentality are divided into “English-speaking Societies” and “Spanish Empire"- This mode of organization is wrong because it implies/assumes that (1) the countries listed were colonized only once and (2) English was and is the only language used by these societies.

5. It lacks logical, coherent organization- The history of colonization in these regions are important to their (supposed) subsequent development of colonial mentality; however, this information is written without that structure in mind. Too much detail is placed on the history of colonization and it does not adequately explain connection to the effects it has on the colonized (colonial mentality). Context is introduced without any inclusion of the actual relevant information.

6. It cites sources that have no connection to the information presented in the piece. For example, "One of the more adverse physical consequences in the idealization and acceptance of colonial mentality can be seen in the high rate of consumer demand for skin bleaching products used by some indigenous women and a smaller percentage of indigenous men and dark-skinned mestizas and mestizos, in the Philippines.[7][14]". Again, Source [7] is a dead end. Source [14] mainly discusses the dangers of skin-bleaching, not its connection to colonial mentality (however, it did reference the brief psychological causes of these practices.)

7. Many sources are unreliable (i.e. blogs, newspaper articles), namely References 1, 7, 8, 9, 15, and García.

M.Magpali (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colonial mentality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715193304/http://www3.niu.edu/ptaa/beauty_in_me.htm to http://www3.niu.edu/ptaa/beauty_in_me.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to add a bunch of citations to this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. I also think that introducing a section on the case of Algeria is entirely relevant and would greatly improve the page as is. The Spanish section is also quite biased and takes up too much of the article (relatively). Here are some sources I'm looking to use to do so:

Silverstein, P. A. (2004). Algeria in France: Transpolitics, Race, and Nation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lyons, A. H. (2013). The civilizing mission in the metropole: Algerian families and the french welfare state during decolonization. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Loyal, S. (2009). The french in Algeria, Algerians in France: Bourdieu, Colonialism, and Migration. The Sociological Review, 57(3), 406-427. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01847.x

Seth, S. (2007). Subject lessons: The Western Education of Colonial India. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Stephenson, A. (2012). The Whig Interpretation of History Applied to the Empire: Macaulay's Minute on Indian Education. Cercles: Revue Pluridisciplinaire Du Monde Anglophone, 24, 29-45.

Sullivan, Z. T. (1993). Narratives of Empire: The Fictions of Rudyard Kipling. New York; Cambridge [Eng.];: Cambridge University Press.

Felipe, L. (2016; 2015). The Relationship of Colonial Mentality with Filipina American Experiences with Racism and Sexism. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 25-30. doi:10.1037/aap0000033

David, E. J. R. (2010). Testing the Validity of the Colonial Mentality Implicit Association Test and the Interactive Effects of Covert and Overt Colonial Mentality on Filipino American Mental Health. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 31-45. doi:10.1037/a0018820

David, E. J. R., & Okazaki, S. (2010). Activation and Automaticity of Colonial Mentality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(4), 850-887. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00601.x

AustinEmho (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same highly controversial paragraph has been spammed into 16 different articles. I don't consider the encyclopedia.com source reliable, the article dabs are very poor and the whole paragraph bordering on racist. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

… was [1]. I'm not sure whether it was justified (and the debris can be swept) or it should be reverted, so I prefer to leave the article alone. 89.64.81.123 (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the last paragraph in the Philippines section talks about light skin and skin bleaching, but im seeing a lot of problems with these citations. so, the first sentence of the last paragraph talks about "binukot". the only citation given for this is "Abrera & 2008-2009", but it isn't defined! oh well, if i cant find the title of what this mysterious "Abrera" author wrote, im sure i can find a replacement. ok so then it talks about "adverse physical consequences of skin lightening" and the percentage of skin bleaching products by various genders in the Philippines. but here is the deal: neither of the two citations for this say anything at all about the percentage of different races or genders using these products

Brown is Beautiful Llewelyn Muriel Austria-del Rosario American Chronicle, July 9, 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20071009164900/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11261 Whitening skin can be deadly Counter, S. Allen Boston Globe, 16 December 2003 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2003/12/16/whitening_skin_can_be_deadly/

actually, i want to point out that the second citation (Boston Globe) doesnt say anything at all about filipinos. i checked it with a fine tooth comb, ya know...

ok, since everything on wikipedia needs to be verifiable. i believe we need to replace some of these sources and amend the main body a bit. the boston globe article talks about the destructive impact of skin bleaching on communities in Tanzania, Mexico, et cetera, so it should IMHO be kept in the article. The American Chronicle article is more like a personal missive about the author's personal feelings. not encyclopedic.

sources to offer:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Filipino_American_Psychology/-jsLtMfDDekC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=filipino+light+skin+status+pre+colonial&pg=PA97&printsec=frontcover "First, while it is unclear whether pre-colonial Filipinos placed importance on skin color or skin tone" ... from page 96-97 it talks about this https://www.google.com/books/edition/Asian_American_Psychology/w7K4bRyidcoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=filipino+light+skin+status+pre-colonial&pg=PA159&printsec=frontcover page 159 it talks about the origins of skin preferences in philippines. they suggest maybe pre colonial, or maybe colonialism reinforced the preference.

These two articles describe the discussions about pre-colonial skin lightening and gender, and support a pre-colonial origin: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/filipino-calgary-skin-lightening-karina-zapata-1.5908655

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2016/11/25/real-reason-why-so-many-asian-men-are-using-skin-whitening-products

that's all i have to add for now. bless you. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:909D:9136:2A63:C8EB (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]