出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』「2015/02/24 10:09:13」(JST)
| It has been suggested that Shadism be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since February 2015. |
| Part of a series on |
| Discrimination |
|---|
|
General forms
|
| Specific forms |
|
Social
|
|
Manifestations
|
|
Policies
Segregation: by age / racial /
religious / by sex
Numerus clausus
(as religious or racial quota)
Same-sex marriage
(laws and issues prohibiting)
|
|
Other forms
Supremacism
|
|
Countermeasures
|
|
Related topics
|
| Discrimination portal |
|
Discrimination based on skin color, or colorism, is a form of prejudice or discrimination in which human beings are treated differently based on the social meanings attached to skin color.[1]
Colorism, a term coined by Alice Walker in 1982,[2] is not a synonym of racism. "Race" depends on multiple factors (including ancestry); therefore, racial categorization does not solely rely on skin color. Skin color is only one mechanism used to assign individuals to a racial category, but race is the set of beliefs and assumptions assigned to that category. Racism is the dependence of social status on the social meaning attached to race; colorism is the dependence of social status on skin color alone. In order for a form of discrimination to be considered colorism, differential treatment must not result from racial categorization, but from the social values associated with skin color.[1]
Colorism can be found specifically in parts of Africa,[3] Southeast Asia,[4] East Asia,[5] India,[6] Latin America,[7] and the United States.[1] The abundance of colorism is a result of the global prevalence of “pigmentocracy,” a term recently adopted by social scientists to describe societies in which wealth and social status are determined by skin color. Throughout the numerous pigmentocracies across the world, the lightest-skinned peoples have the highest social status, followed by the brown-skinned, and finally the black-skinned who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This form of prejudice often results in reduced opportunities for those who are discriminated against on the basis of skin color.[8]
Skin bleaching is popular in Senegal and all across West Africa, especially among women.[9]
In Liberia, descendants of African-American settlers (renamed Americo-Liberians) in part defined social class and standing by raising people with lighter skin above those with dark skin. The first Americo-Liberian presidents such as Joseph Jenkins Roberts, James Spriggs Payne, and Alfred Francis Russell had considerable proportions of European ancestry. Most may have been only one-quarter or one-eighth African American. Other aspects of their rising to power, however, likely related to their chances for having obtained education and work that provided good livings.[citation needed]
In addition to rivalries among descendants of African Americans, the Americans held themselves above the native Africans in Liberia. Thus, descendants of Americans held and kept power out of proportion to their representation in the population of the entire country, so there was a larger issue than color at work.[citation needed]
Coloured people consist of three mixed race populations in South Africa who were given more social privilege than other, unmixed, indigenous African groups. During the apartheid era, in order to keep divisions and maintain a race-focused society, the government used the term Coloured to describe one of the four main racial groups identified by law: Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians. (All four terms were capitalised in apartheid-era law.) Many Griqua began to self-identify as "Coloureds" during the apartheid era. There were certain advantages in becoming classified as "Coloured". For example, Coloureds did not have to carry a dompas (an identity document designed to limit the movements of the non-white populace), while the Griqua, who were seen as another indigenous African group, did.[citation needed]
A popular phrase in Sudan is al-Husnu ahmar (beauty is red). Whiteness is the ideal color in most Arab societies. The second ranking is asmar (light tan), followed by dhahabi (golden), gamhi (wheatish), khamri (the color of wine), akhdar (light black/green). Akhdhar is used as a polite alternative to 'black' in describing the color of a dark-skinned Arab. Last and least is azraq, literally "blue", used interchangeably with aswad to mean "black" — although in the past it referred to whiteness or light skin.[10]
In Asia a preference for lighter skin remains prevalent and skin whitening cosmetic products are popular.[5] Four out of ten women surveyed in Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines and South Korea used a skin whitening cream, and more than 60 companies globally compete for Asia's estimated $18 billion market.[11]
Skin whitening in Asia has a long history and stems back to Ancient China and Japan. To these cultures to be light in an environment where the sun is harsh, meant that one was upper class and rich enough to stay indoors and leave the outdoor work to servants.[5] In many Asian cultures colorism is taught to children in the form of fairy tales, just like the Grimm fairy tales with the light skinned white princess or maiden, Asian mythological protagonists are typically fair and depict virtue, purity, and goodness. Lightness is equated with feminine beauty, racial superiority, and power and has strong influences on marital prospects, employment, status, and income.[12]
With globalization, the obsession with whiteness has become even more prevalent in Asia’s newfound hypercommercialism and consumer culture. In metropolises such as Hong Kong light skinned Asian models cover billboards, magazine covers and counter spaces at department stores. Some two thirds of men surveyed in Hong Kong said they prefer lighter skinned women and almost half of young Asian adults have admitted to use skin whiteners in attempts to achieve a lighter complexion. There have been issues of mercury poisoning in consumers of certain bleaching products in Asia, with some products reported to contain up to 60,000 times the acceptable dose.[5]
Individuals in India have a tendency to see whiter skin as more beautiful. This can be traced to the invasion of Aryans who were mostly light skinned. They referred to two classes of people, the white-skinned Aryans and the black-skinned Indian. The Aryans were religious and followed the Vedas, performing all the rituals while the Dasas (at a later stage) merged into the Shudra .[13]
The major God of Hinduism, Lord Krishna, the Sanskrit word for "Black" or "Dark",[14] was the charioteer of Arjuna, both of whom were dark colored.[15][16] But sometimes Krishna is also translated as "all attractive"[17]
Almost all the Goddesses in every art form are depicted as light skinned except Goddess Kali who has a dark skin and is described as ‘the mother of all’.[18]
The discrimination based on skin color was most visible in British India, where skin color served as a signal of high status for the foreign British. Thus, those individuals with a lighter skin color enjoyed more privileges, were considered to have a more affluent status and gained preference in education and employment. Darker skinned individuals were socially and economically disadvantaged due to their skin tone. The caste system in India too involves complications of skin color. British historians claimed that that since the upper castes were not involved in tedious labor and weren’t as exposed to the sun as the lower castes, they use to stay indoors and thus possessed lighter skin. The lower castes on other hand had higher melanin concentration in their skin cells due to continued exposure to sun from working in agricultural fields and outdoors.[19]
Children are complimented by relatives and friends for being the ‘fairer one’, in teenage[20] and this bias keeps growing with age. It can be blamed on peer pressure, societal prejudices or irresponsible advertising and product manufacturing.
Skin-whitening cosmetics, popularized by Dutch company HUL are a multi-billion dollar industry pushing the idea that beauty equates with white skin and that lightening dark skin is both achievable and preferable. In a country such as India, with issues such as employment and relationships often resting on skin tone, people invest in skin-whitening creams in the hope of a better existence. Capitalizing on this inequality, hundreds of products are peddled by corporations, among them armpit whitener, genital whitener and fairness baby oil.[21] Nearly all major cosmetic companies ( like Dove, Nivea, Pond’s, Garnier, Neutrogena, Olay ) sell products that claim alter genes to suppress melanin.[22]
Skin color preference in matrimonial matters is something certainly not unique to India; however the way it gets expressed is most certainly distinctive from that in any other society. Whether it is sticking to the tradition of ‘arranged marriages’ but evolving from the use of matrimonial columns in newspapers to websites like shaadi.com, bharatmatrimony.com or evolving to the system of ‘love marriages’; people still prefer their partners to be light.
Example: I am a TV journalist and working in no.1 news channel of India. I want to be the most dynamic and popular news anchor of India. I want to earn a lot of money in my life through my occupation. My wife ‘must be very fair’ and beautiful, who can understand and respect my feelings.
The deep-rooted color bias has ensured that in certain professions such as aviation, films and many other white collar jobs, people with light skin are generally preferred. According to The Wife of His Youth The Blue Vein Society is a society of mulattos who's skin were light enough that you could see their blue veins, consisted only of mulattos or lighter skinned blacks who were highly educated. [23] In the western state of Maharashtra in India, about 100 tribal girls, who were trained to be airhostesses and cabin crew under a government scholarship programme aimed at empowering them, were denied jobs apparently because of their darker skin color. Only eight of them landed jobs, but just as ground staff.[24][25]
Indian fashion industry which is based on Western fashion is having fixation with ‘fair’ models is only ¬getting stronger. In an audition for a fashion week, out of the 11 short listed models, six were foreigners. An Indian model confessed that white skin has almost become a prerequisite. Some of the selected models did not even match the minimum height ¬requirement of 5’8”.[26]
Hindustan Pencils, the manufactures of the popular Nataraj and Apsara pencils have started a Colorama crayon series which has a peach-colored crayon labeled as ‘skin’, even though it is clearly not the skin tone of most Indians. In a country with as many skin tones as India, labeling one particular shade as ‘skin’ color and that shade in turn being used to represent skin in all human caricatures unknowingly deepens the color bias against skin tone at a very tender age.[27]
This is not unique to India. Companies like Crayola, Faber-Castell and Camlin have crayons labeled as ‘flesh’ but Crayola chose to rename its ‘flesh’ crayon as ‘peach’ in 1962 in response to the US civil rights movement. It also introduced a special set of eight ‘Multicultural Crayons’ representing different skin tones.[28]
Hindustan Unilever, the manufacturer of Fair&Lovely, under its cosmetic brand name Vaseline, recently launched an application to make the skin of Facebook users look lighter in their profile pictures. There also exists a widespread practice of using photo editing software to make one self look lighter in photographs.
Bollywood filmmaker Shekhar Kapur, who directed films such as "Bandit Queen" and "Elizabeth”, started a campaign with the Twitter hash tag "adswedontbuy" to protest against irresponsible ads, including ads for skin whitening creams.[29] Millions joined the discussion within a period of 24 hours.
‘Women of Worth’ is an organization working towards empowerment of women. It started an awareness campaign called ‘Dark is Beautiful’ that seeks to draw attention to the unjust effects of skin color bias and also celebrates the beauty and diversity of all skin tone.[30] In January, they delivered a petition of 30,000 signatures to cosmetic company Emami, calling on them to withdraw a particularly discriminatory advert for Fair and Handsome. On this Emami's managing director said,"There is a need in our society for fairness creams, so we are meeting that need." He refused to withdraw the ad. Undeterred, Dark is Beautiful is lobbying the Advertising Council of India to legislate against adverts that discriminate against dark skin.[21]
A second-year law student at Bangalore’s National Law School filed a complaint against Hindustan Pencils at the district-level consumer forum in Bangalore in June in relation to the ‘skin’ crayon, accusing the company of being racist for promoting the idea that there is only one kind of acceptable skin color – peach, in a country where most people have darker skin in varying tones of brown. When he lost the case at the district forum in October 2013, he took it up to the State Consumer Commission, where it is now being heard. He has asked for the removal of the label ‘skin’ of the crayon along with compensation of Rs 100,000 for hurting his sentiments. With 10 other people, he has started an NGO called Brown n’ Proud which aims to raise awareness about ‘rangbhed’, or color discrimination.[27] They have also started an online petition with change.org against this ‘skin’ crayon.[31]
Many Bollywood actors have showed support for a change in attitude against skin color discrimination. Actor and activist Nandita Das became the face of the Dark is Beautiful campaign and also believes that the name of a crayon is important, even though it may seem like a small issue. “After all, children are sponges and absorb more than we think they do.” [27] An entire segment in Madhur Bhandarkar's Traffic Signal is devoted to an anti lightness-cream rant. The category's ads has been pilloried in global media for promoting a kind of "racism".[32]
Many people now feel that they do not have to get light skin to succeed in life. Brown or dark skin is being embraced by young consumers which was reflected in the declines of the sales of Fair & Lovely skin lightening products (the largest player with nearly 60% of the market share) by 4.2% in 2013 while the sales of Fair & Handsome dipped by 14%.[33]
The Advertising Standards Council of India, a self-regulatory body has proposed a draft of new guidelines that tells lightness advertisements not to show darkerskinned people as unhappy, depressed, or disadvantaged in any way by skin tone, and should not associate skin colour with any particular socio-economic class, ethnicity or community. According to Sam Balsara, chairman and managing director, Madison World and a former chairman of ASCI, "The reason for these guidelines is to make it clear to advertisers as to what society finds acceptable and what it doesn't." [32] Though the Congress party led by Italy born Sonia Gandhi has done little to implement it.
Brazil has the largest population of African descendants (living outside of Africa) in the world. This large number was a result of the African Slave trade. In Brazil, skin color plays a large role in differences among the races. Individuals with lighter skin and who are racially mixed generally have higher rates of social mobility.[34]
There are a disproportionate number of mostly European descent elites than those of visible African descent. There are large health, education and income disparities between the races in Brazil.[35]
In parts of Latin America, light skin is seen as more attractive.[36] In Mexico and in Brazil, light skin represents power.[37] A dark skinned person is more likely to be discriminated against in Brazil.[38] A fair-featured, Caucasoid person is assumed to be more privileged and have a higher social status. A person with light skin, even if racially-mixed, is considered beautiful and it means that the person either has more wealth or greater opportunity for wealth. Those with dark skin, frizzy hair, and/or other visibly Negroid features tend to be among the region's poorest and most disenfranchised.
Within the United States, colorism can be observed among all races. Although it occurs most notably among African Americans, it also occurs among Asian Americans, Indian Americans, Native Americans, and even among European Americans.[1]
European colonialism created a system of white supremacy and racist ideology, which led to a structure of domination that privileged whiteness over blackness. Biological differences in skin color were used as a justification for the enslavement and oppression of Africans, developing a social hierarchy that placed whites at the top and blacks at the bottom. The desire to rise out of this lower position ultimately caused internalized divisions among African Americans.[39]
Miscegenation, the mixing of different racial groups (commonly through the sexual exploitation of black female slaves by white male slave owners and, after emancipation, black female prostitutes exchanging sex for money with white male customers) resulted in a large number of mixed race individuals with both African and European ancestry. Terminology was also developed to distinguish various levels of African ancestry. The terms mulatto, quadroon and octoroon were used to identify a black person with one-half, one-fourth and one-eighth of African ancestry, respectively.[40] Slaves with lighter complexion were allowed to engage in less strenuous tasks, like domestic duties, while the darker slaves participated in hard labor, which was more than likely outdoors.[41] A partial white heritage also gave light-skinned blacks more economic value and caused them to be viewed as smarter and superior to dark-skinned blacks, allowing more advantages in a white-dominated society, such as broader opportunities for education and the acquisition of land and property.[42]
To prevent any confusion in regard to racial classification and to prohibit blacks with white ancestry from gaining the same legal status as full-blooded whites, the rule of hypo-descent, or the "one-drop rule" was mandated. According to the “one-drop rule," even the smallest amount of African ancestry (or a drop of African blood) legally defined a person as black.[43] After the abolition of slavery in 1865, however, colorism created an internalized structure of hierarchy and division within the black community, as lighter-skinned blacks began to set themselves apart by socializing, marrying and procreating with one another. Around the beginning of the twentieth century, separatist standards, such as the brown paper bag, comb, pencil, and flashlight tests began to be implemented. Also, exclusionary social clubs and societies were developed to create color divisions within black America that would shape socially constructed ideas about skin color.[44]
The phrase “brown paper bag test” along with the "ruler test" has traditionally been used by African Americans throughout the 20th and 21st century with reference to a ritual once practiced by certain African-American sororities and fraternities who would not let anyone into the group whose skin tone was darker than a paper bag. Also known as a paper bag party, these lighter-skinned social circles reflected an idea of exclusion and exclusiveness. The notion of the “paper bag” has carried a complex and obscure meaning in black communities for many decades. The reason for the usage of the "paper bag" is because the color of the paper bag is considered to be the "center" marker of blackness that distinguishes “light skin” from “dark skin” on a continuum stretching infinitely from black to white. Also, the brown paper bag is believed to act as a benchmark for certain levels of acceptance and inclusion.[44] Spike Lee's film School Daze satirized this practice at historically black colleges and universities.[45] Along with the "paper bag test," guidelines for acceptance among the lighter ranks included the "comb test" and “pencil test,” which tested the coarseness of one's hair, and the "flashlight test," which tested a person's profile to make sure their features measured up or were close enough to those of the Caucasian race.[44]
A phenomenon known as "The bleaching syndrome," constructed by Dr. Ronald E. Hall at Michigan State University in the early 1990s which refers to the process of attempting to lighten one’s skin, has made a significant impact on the commercial industry and the lives of African Americans since the beginning of the 21st century.[46] The roots of the skin bleaching phenomenon stem from African Americans internalizing dominant cultural ideas, without the possibility of full assimilation into American society.[47] A psychological conflict is thus created, causing African Americans to develop a disdain for dark skin as it counters dominant cultural ideals. In an attempt to simultaneously reduce this conflict and enable assimilation, many African Americans developed the bleaching syndrome.[48] Since the degree of assimilation correlates with skin color based on dominant cultural standards, light skin is crucial relative to the degree of assimilation in the United States. Coincidentally, lighter skin is thought to be an ideal point of reference for attractiveness and marital partner selection among African Americans. The practice of applying light skin as a point of reference, however, is considered to be culturally self-destructive. Ultimately, the bleaching syndrome is a manifestation of the conflicting circumstances regarding the assimilation of African Americans into dominant cultural values.[49]
The skin color paradox refers to the fact that no matter how differently African Americans are treated based on their skin color, their political and cultural attitudes about "blackness" as a form of identity and their feelings of relatedness and solidarity with other blacks tend to remain consistent. Although light-skinned African Americans receive many socio-economic advantages over dark-skinned African Americans, who have much more punitive relationships with the criminal justice system and greatly diminished prestige, and although African Americans are aware of this disparity in treatment and status, both light-skinned and dark-skinned African Americans have similar political attitudes towards discrimination and race solidarity.[50]
Political scientists would suggest that skin color is a characteristic perhaps equally important as religion, income, and education, which is why this paradox is so surprising, but studies show that skin color has no real bearing on actual political preference. Affirmative action is another example of the paradox between colorism on the one hand and political preference on the other. Studies show that most African Americans that benefit from affirmative action come from families that are better educated and more well off, and historically this means that the lighter-skinned portion of the black group is receiving the majority of the aid. Yet beneficiaries of this special treatment tend to hold on to their political identification with "blackness." [50]
The light to dark hierarchy within the African American race is one that has existed since the time of slavery, but its problems and consequences are still very evident and lead to various stereotypes. Darker skinned blacks are more likely to have negative relationships with the police, less likely to have higher education or income levels, and less likely to hold public office. Darker skinned people are also considered less intelligent, less desirable in women mostly, and are overall seen as inferior to lighter-skinned people.[50]
Studies have shown that when measuring education and family income, there is a positive sloping curve as the skin of families gets lighter. This does not prove that darker skinned people are discriminated against, but it provides insight as to why these statistics are recurring. Lighter skinned people tend to have higher social standing, more positive social networks, and more opportunities to succeed than those of a darker persuasion. Scientists believe this advantage is due to not only to their ancestors' benefits, but also to skin color. In criminal sentencing, medium to dark-skinned African Americans are likely to receive sentences 2.6 years longer than those of whites or light-skinned African Americans, and when a white victim is involved, those with more "black" features are likely to receive a much more severe punishment, reinforcing the idea that those of lighter complexion are of more "value."[50]
The perception of beauty can be influenced by racial stereotypes about skin color; the African American journalist Jill Nelson wrote that "to be both prettiest and black was impossible"[51] and elaborated:
As a girl and young woman, hair, body, and color were society's trinity in determining female beauty and identity, the cultural and value-laden gang of three that formed the boundaries and determined the extent of women's visibility, influence, and importance. For the most part, they still are. We learn as girls that in ways both subtle and obvious, personal and political, our value as females is largely determined by how we look. As we enter womanhood, the pervasive power of this trinity is demonstrated again and again in how we are treated by the men we meet, the men we work for, the men who wield power, how we treat each other and, most of all, ourselves. For black women, the domination of physical aspects of beauty in women's definition and value render us invisible, partially erased, or obsessed, sometimes for a lifetime, since most of us lack the major talismans of Western beauty. Black women find themselves involved in a lifelong effort to self-define in a culture that provides them no positive reflection.[51]
In 2003 researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara conducted a survey of 99 Asian Americans on the issue of colorism in their communities. The ethnicities surveyed included Filipino, Japanese, Cambodian, Korean, and Chinese individuals. The respondents answered a number of questions varying from skin color preference, eye shape, face shape, etc. Certain themes emerged from the survey that indicated that colorism is also a part of the Asian American communities and the consensus was that light-skinned people were more beautiful than dark people. One theme that was consistent was that “beauty is light" and another was to "not be romantically linked with or marry dark people". Many respondents reported that a member in their family had openly discouraged dating a dark-skinned Asian American. Similar to African American communities, Asian American women are more likely to be held to the lighter skin standard than Asian American men. This gender difference is due to the fact that the culture, family, and ideologies are strongly based in patriarchy where a woman submits to the man's "ideal of beauty". The preference for lighter skin in Asian communities dates back to traditional Asian standards of beauty brought over by immigrants, however exposure to images of Western ideal beauty in the media has also reinforced Asian American women's desires for lighter skin.[52] In African American and Latin American communities, various skin bleaching creams and treatments are offered in the Asian communities, promoted by advertisements featuring light, almost pale, skin toned Asian models.[12]
The media is responsible for influencing beliefs regarding ideas of beauty in the African American community. Mass media productions often perpetuate discrimination based on skin color. African Americans possessing lighter skin complexion and “European features,” such as lighter eyes, and smaller noses and lips have more opportunities in the media industry.[53] For example, film producers hire lighter-skinned African Americans more often, television producers choose lighter skinned cast members, and magazine editors choose African American models that resemble European features.[54] As a result, the media industry sends the messages that African Americans with Eurocentric features are more likely to be accepted, diminishing the status of darker-skinned African Americans.[53]
In regards to the magazine industry, African American women are rarely showcased in the most popular magazines. Therefore, African American girls have difficultly identifying with the models showcased in these magazines, because they do not represent the type of women that they come into contact with in their own communities. There are also biases towards Caucasians in the advertisements used in these magazines.[53] Recent studies have indicated that the number of racially biased advertisements in magazines have increased over the years. A content analysis conducted by Scott and Neptune (1997) shows that less than one percent of advertisements in major magazines featured African American models. When African Americans did appear in advertisements they were mainly portrayed as athletes, entertainers or unskilled laborers. In addition, seventy percent of the advertisements that features animal print included African American women. Animal print reinforces the stereotypes that African Americans are animalistic in nature, sexually active, less educated, have lower income, and extremely concerned with personal appearances.[55]
Concerning African American males in the media, darker skinned men are more likely to be portrayed as violent or more threatening, influencing the public perception of African American men. Since dark-skinned males are more likely to be linked to crime and misconduct, many people develop preconceived notions about the characteristics of black men.[48] Through extreme gangsta rap music, reality crime shows, and newscasts, crime has been defined by contemporary media and given a black face despite statistics that paint a different picture. For example, cocaine use has been found to be higher among whites, but African Americans are the dominant figures seen on crime shows such as Cops.[56] However, John Langely, the creator of Cops, has stated in an interview that he actually over-represents whites in order to deflect accusations of racism, and that if he didn't, blacks would be even more heavily represented on the show than they already are.[57]
The negative public perception of darker-skinned African American places them at a disadvantage in other aspects of society, such as the workforce. Skin color plays a significant role in the acceptance of African Americans in the workforce and can even hold more importance than an individual's credentials and ability. For example, hiring managers generally have a different perception of a light-skinned African American female applicant, compared to a dark-skinned female applicant. Light-skinned African American women were found to have higher salaries than dark-skinned women, and light-skinned women were more satisfied with their jobs in regards to pay and advancement opportunities.[58] Researchers have also termed dark-skinned women as being in a “triple-jeopardy” situation because all three aspects of their identity—their gender, race and skin-tone—can have negative and harmful implications on occupational opportunities and overall feelings of competency.[59]
Despite exclusion and bias, the media has made an attempt to correct some of the negative images of African Americans. Examples of shows in which African Americans have been positively portrayed in the past include The Cosby Show, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and A Different World. In addition, new television specials such as Black Girl's Rock and My Black is Beautiful highlight African American men and women for their contributions to society. Overall, these media changes have helped to provide a unique and more accurate representation of black culture in the twenty-first century. Television networks such as Centric and TV One and magazines such as Essence and Ebony play a major role in portraying African Americans in a more positive light than they have been portrayed in the past.[53]
The issue of colorism has gone global especially with the rise of globalization and advancing technologies. Through globalization multinational media conglomerates export U.S. culture, products, and cultural imperialism, including cultural images of race and color preference.[60] The global media implications are that Eurocentric physical features which are less aligned with native ancestry are found to be more attractive.[61] The U.S. exports images of the good life, white beauty and affluence which many people in other poorer countries yearn for. The Philippines is a good example of this due to the fact that the country is an intersection of internalized colonial values and a culture of new global viewing. Just as in other Third World countries, the Philippines contemporary culture valorizes American culture and places high value on white beauty. In Korea, women pay high sums of money for eyelid surgery and skin bleaching products to achieve Westernized white beauty. Plastic surgery and skin bleaching are both derived from the globalization of U.S. dominant views of fair beauty and images of lighter-skinned celebrities are widely valued in the global market place. This is the reason as to why colorism is so difficult to battle, because it is so pervasive with images supporting this system of inequality reaching all over the globe. The advancement of television, film, print ads, and internet featuring lighter skin as a cultural ideal influences Third World and modernizing countries, informing them that to be of lighter skin color is not only a way to live the “good life” but is also culturally imperative.[60]
Skin bleaching has long since been one of the oldest forms of achieving fair skin and has become a multibillion dollar industry.[60] This obsession with whiteness has not faded over time; a survey concluded that three quarters of Malaysian men thought their partners would be more attractive if they had lighter skin complexions.[5] Women in countries such as South Korea, India, China, Saudi Arabia, and Uganda, use toxic skin bleaching creams to achieve a lighter skin complexion. Especially with the increase in globalization, many post colonial and Third World nations have seen a rise in the purchasing of skin lightening creams to achieve a European appearance. Skin bleachers, which are marketed as ‘beauty products’ go by many names: skin lighteners, skin whiteners, skin-toning creams, skin fading gels, etc., however, the promises are all the same: that the product will help to reduce melanin in its consumers. In countries throughout Asia, these skin bleachers can be purchased in malls, drug stores, and even on the internet.[60] These markets thrive on the vulnerabilities, fears, and taps into the cultural beliefs of countries that believe light-skinned is more valued. In the India, the highest selling brand of skin lightening bleach cream, Fair & Lovely, promotes that the product produces dignity and that to be fair skinned is aspirational.[12] There are many reasons for the increasing global phenomenon of skin lighteners, from one’s skin being too dark, to attracting romantic prospects or to be popular and fashionable.[62] However, these skin bleaching products usually contain three harmful ingredients: mercury, hydroquinone, and/or corticosteroids. All of these chemicals can be extremely dangerous and fatal, and most of the products are made outside the U.S. and Europe and are therefore less subject to strict regulation.[60]
In the 20th century there has been a shift towards a preference for darker, tanned skin in white communities. The beginning of this change has been attributed to Frenchwoman Coco Chanel making tanned skin seem fashionable, luxurious and healthy in Paris in the 1920s.[63] Tanned skin has become associated with the increased leisure time and sportiness of wealth and social status while pale skin is associated with indoor office work.[64] Several studies have found tanned skin is regarded as both more attractive and healthier than pale skin,[65][66][67][68] and there is a direct correlation between the degree of tanning and perceived attractiveness especially in young women.[69][70] White celebrities such as Heidi Klum, Victoria Beckham and Katy Perry have used artificial tanning to darken their natural skin tone[71] and self-tanning has become the fastest growing sector in the cosmetics market worldwide.[72] Artificial tanning methods can cause serious health issues, with a 75% increase in the risk of melanoma associated with tanning beds[73] and the potential of inhaling or ingesting potentially harmful chemicals.[74]
|accessdate= (help)|date=, |accessdate= (help)|accessdate= (help)|accessdate= (help)|accessdate= (help)|accessdate= (help)|date=, |accessdate= (help)[dead link]As a girl and young woman, hair, body, and color were society's trinity in determining female beauty and identity... We learn as girls that in ways both subtle and obvious, personal and political, our value as females is largely determined by how we look.
|date= (help)|last1= in Authors list (help)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
全文を閲覧するには購読必要です。 To read the full text you will need to subscribe.
| 関連記事 | 「color」「colored」「discrimination」 |