No, only in the case where the dark skinned are powerless. And that was my example to prove that statements regarding skin colour are nothing in themselves - they are only potent when connected to who has the power in situations of subjugation.
Take the case of the Thais who have never experienced a conqueror of any other skin colour who stuck around and rendered them powerless.
Calling a southern Thai "black" ie., scorning him for his skin colour would have no effect at all - except to make him bemused or to laugh at a statement of the obvious. In fact he may well consider himself brown, not black, and a very healthy one too.
It has no power subtext for him as there is no power difference - the Thai has never been conquered and occupied.
That's why when a dark skinned person calls one a "white c**t" one might be quite happy to ignore it as the subtext is "you are the acknowledged superior in this society".
White people tell me that they have no idea why those of dark skin take such great umbrage to being called "black" when they themselves would not react in a similar way to being called "white".
It's because the power subtext is favourable to those acknowldedged as being "white" in our society.
It was the same in South Africa under apartheid where brown people sought desperately to be "reclassed" as white. And after they were, you could call them "white c***s" all you liked - they'd revel in it!
(Sir) Lunchalot
Let us honour if we can The vertical man; Though we seem to value none But the horizontal one.
