fair-fae replied to your post “talk about ffxiv issues in regards to fandom, race, appropriation, etc...”
I don't disagree with the rest as they are legit issues with the game, but the Lakshmi thing /was/ discussed quite a bit within the community around the time it was new content. And it was more or less debunked on top of that. http://kasumi-ffxiv.tumblr.com/post/171779369699 I don't necessarily think it was a good move to give her light skin, but the skin color isn't far off from most actual depictions.
hi! firstly, thank you for being respectful! i will endeavor to do the same.
i’m going to preface this by saying that i’m an indian person (from india lel, just in case anyone needs the clarification), and seeing lakshmi was actually when i started to look back on other parts of the game with a more critical lens. I checked out that post you linked, and while it may seem to be “debunked”, as you put it (altho kind of rudely, but that’s on everyone’s side, i suppose), i don’t quite agree with that.
The way light skin is praised and valued in south asian countries is called colourism, specifically, and is an offset of british colonialism. that mindset is very harmful to people, especially women, and contributes to india’s long-standing class system and treatment of people with darker skin as lesser and subhuman (speaking more specifically about dalits here, but i understand most people won’t know what that means). jameela jamil, if you’ve heard about her, is someone who goes into greater and more easily-explained detail about why that all is harmful. with all due respect, i would rather not.
(edit: also, white lakshmi being the “goddess of beauty” and having the very darkskinned ananta worship her as such is downright skewy at best (especially in consideration of one of the themes of stormblood being “light saviour character saves darker-skinned people”) and extremely insensitive, colonialist, and racist at worst. )
(i could also go off on an artistic tangent about indian art and why it looks like that, but i will not; not only do i not have the knowledge and resources to, but it’s a long infodump i’m sure you’d find boring :p)
what that post describes, taking sri lakshmi’s “culture” and “aesthetics”, and making it “not actually her but based off of her” is cultural appropriation, period. that’s what it is, and there’s no two ways around that. and yes, she is whitewashed (please believe me, an indian person, when i say that not even the bollywood-est north indians are that light).
i’m sure you meant well, and i thank you again for wording your response politely, but this is kind of what i’m talking about. people of a certain culture/ethnicity are always, always going to have cultural insight that people who are not of that ethnicity do not, even with all the wikipedia links in the world. please listen to us over them.