I should like to support what Azizi is saying here on two fronts - although in the past I have been cautiously critical of her for what seemed to me excessive focus on issues of race.

I think she is right that the mainstream idea of beauty in western cultures has been the peautiful plond(e) Aryan.

I also think she is right in seeing a different sort of racial discrimination in valuing those from a range of gene pools as "better" than those who are not. A true lack of discrimination implies just that - non-differentiation on grounds of race.

So differing types of beauty should be equally valued. As the judge at Crufts should not prefer a German Shepherd Dog to an Old English Sheepdog because of the breed, but by the standards of the respective breed standard, so ought we to value equally the different standards of beauty. But also, as a judge at Crufts would criticise a Pointer for having light eyes, or a Weimaraner for brown ones, so ought we to regret, rather than celebrate, the possible disappearance of aspects of appearance that follow from recessive genes - like blue eyes, or red hair (two I happen to be aware of) or any other recessive gene characteristic that is not hazardous in medical terms to the possessor.