system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The same lens of racism cannot be applied across the world and some terms referring to person's skin colour can be acceptable in a non-American or non-Western context

This thought comes from a recent controversy where a West Indian cricketer (a cricketer from the Carribean, not the western part of India) was very upset that in his years playing in the Indian Premier League (a cricket league in India), he was often called "kaalu", which literally translates to blackie.

I'm Indian myself. I would never deny that Indian society is racist - in fact Indian society is quite racist and colourist (if that's a word. Basically practicing colourism). India has a massive fairness cream industry and fetishes fair skin to a great degree. (I'm glad to say that these are slowly changing off-late and some celebrities are refusing to endorse fairness creams)

However, the word in question here is very commonly used in India and does not constitute "racist abuse". It cannot be compared to words like the N-word or other derogatory terms used in American contexts since those words have huge historical baggage and was used exclusively to put down people of a certain race and skin-tone. The word carries with it this gruesome history.

Let me say that the skin-tone of the cricketer in question here, Darren Sammy, is not very untypical for Indians. Indians range from quite fair to quite dark-skinned. We Indians a have a lot of nicknames based on physical features. In my mother tongue and most Indian languages we very often and sportingly call each other words that mean "shorty", "fatty", "baldie" and yes, blackie. I'm slightly fair-skinned by southern-Indian standards and in my mother tongue for some reason, there exists a term "white cockroach" that I have been called, just as a friendly nickname.

None of these nicknames have a history of being used by a set of people to perpetrate any kind of discrimination or atrocities. I understand 2 things - 1) Dark-skinned people are not treated as well as fair-skinned people in Indian society in general today. 2) People could be affected quite seriously or offended by constantly having others point out certain physical characteristics, such as height, girth, hair density on head or skin-tone and we must stop if they are not ok with it.

My main submission however is that in India, Darren Sammy being called "blackie" is not racist abuse and since it does not come with local historical baggage, casual usage of this term is not to be unexpected. It should be condemned as strongly or weakly as say the usage of a term like "baldie" or "fatty". And if the cricketer in question is uncomfortable with being called by this term, he should certainly not be called this term. But let's not make too big a deal out of this.

If we reverse the lens and look at it as well, Indian society practiced (and continues is some pockets to this day) the inhuman practice of untouchability. Maybe if "untouchable" is a way to call someone in some country, to insult them lightly in some way or even in a friendly way (it's hypothetical), I would expect an Indian to brush it off. In India, however, calling someone untouchable should be and is completely unacceptable and out of bounds. Even an Indian calling another Indian this in some other country would never be acceptable according to me.
gpt
Yes colorism is a thing. It's basically being racist about skin colour.

And yes being called blackie is a racial slur. When people ca the cricket player blackiebthey are doing so in order to point of that he is "other" and is different from them, not worth what they are worth because his skin is darker.