Flesh Colored Paint

The other day I was wandering Durbar Square when I happened upon an art supply store. I had been wanting to purchase some watercolors so I went inside and bought a cheap set for 100 rupees. After getting back to my room and inspecting the colors that came in the set I noticed that one of the colors was titled "Flesh Color." The color that is of flesh is that of a pale peachy pink, like the skin of Europeans. I thought this was interesting that "flesh color" in this part of the world is the color of flesh of people in a whole different part of the world. The closest color in the set to the flesh color of people here is called "Burnt Sienna." I thought then, well maybe this set of paints was made in the USA (although not likely) or maybe it was make in some other part of the world where people have pink skin. After further investigation I found that the set was made in India where the majority of people I believe also do not have skin the color of "Flesh." This I thought was a very interesting discovery. I wonder why the "Flesh Color" of the paints of South Asia is not a deep beautiful brown, but is rather pale European pink. How strange.

Do white skinned people so dominate that skin colored paints in South Asia are made the color of a foreigner's skin rather than their own color of skin? Maybe I am reading too much into this but this thought brought on many others that I have been thinking about. Mainly the idea of "white-priviledge." I remember debating for many hours with my room mate about the idea of "white-priviledge." She said the idea was ridiculous and that there was no such thing. I said that the idea was not ridiculous and that it fully existed and was thriving. I cited to her a study I had read about in Sociology class: equally qualified people of different races applied for all different sorts of jobs in different sectors. Even when a person of color was more qualified than the white person, the white person was more likely to get the job. This is just one example that I could think of. Especially in a third-world country that is also a tourist destination the huge gap between the locals and the travellers (no matter their skin color) is always apparent. I then began to wonder how white people have become so very dominant in the world? (Note: I know I am making some broad generalizations here, so if anyone does not agree with me or has other opinions, please tell me! I am eager to learn other view points.)
So lucky me should I stumble upon a book that addresses this exact (or close to it) question. It is called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. The aim of the book is to figure out how and why Eurasian people have become dominant, conquering multitudes of people throughout the course of human history. I quickly purchased the book and have been studying it ever since. Some people will say: well it is because Eurasian peoples invented many technologies, and invented guns, and created tools of metal. Well why did not this happen in Africa instead of in Europe of North America? Some people will say that certain people are genetically smarter than others, but I do not think this is true. So soon I shall learn why different continents and different communities progressed at very different rates, and the reason (according to Diamond) that Eurasian people have come to dominate much in the world. I have just started to book so I may already be drawing the wrong conclusions from the first part of the book or making assumptions. But this book is very interesting so far, and I am excited and interested to learn more about this subject.