Commentators

null 0° London Hi 5°C / Lo 2°C

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: When your skin is just too dark

Asian, Arab and black models may look exquisite, but they can't survive in such a hostile habitat

Monday, 11 August 2008

Beyoncé is not bovvered, it seems. Was she deracinated and "improved" by L'Oréal for one of their adverts? No comment from the singer. As one of their brand goddesses, she perhaps believes there is no point in scratching the hands that gild her. Paid millions, it must seem fair enough to be turned into a fair enough mock-up of her real self. The multi-national cosmetic company vehemently denies the accusation. They would, wouldn't they?

Not again, you think, same old, same old stuff. For those who make and break images, decide who is gorgeous and who is not, light skin and hair and eyes easily please the eye, affirm superior human status. Racism is a given, an understanding infused through the business. Top model agencies will tell you that eager Asian, Arab and black models may look exquisite and flawless, but find it almost impossible to enter, survive or let alone thrive in that hostile habitat. I have written about this abhorrent exclusivity for more than 20 years and to do so again feels like failure.

The beauty and fashion industries still maintain a closed shop when it comes to the selection and promotion of models. In women's magazines, on catwalks, even shop dummies, dark skin is rarely seen. They say it is because customers are put off by such unexpected, outlandish images of loveliness even though a recent special issue of Italian Vogue featured only black models and was sold out worldwide.

Exceptionally, Naomi Campbell and Iman are permitted to strut with their white peers. Let's pray no bus ever runs them over. But this stubborn, institutionally prejudiced gate-keeping is only a part of the never-ending story. Dark skins are considered a blight within black and Asian families, communities and countries – have been for centuries.

I came back from holidays with a tan (yes, Asians do tan) because I didn't stay completely out of the sun. At least my mum is no longer around to nag me about what she thought was extreme foolishness. Blessed, she said I was, my kids too, to have lighter brown skin. That we allowed the stain of darkness upon it wilfully drove her to distraction. When I was growing up, all spinsters in the mosque seemed to be dark and sad. Some tried to cover their shame with dustings of pink face powder and very light pink lipstick. One child in our extended family was darker than her brother and so she tried to rub off the "dirt" with a metal scourer.

And now, with 21st-century globalisation, the ugly rejection of darkness is getting even worse. European definitions of attractiveness – from thin body shape to light colouring – are sweeping the non-western world, making most populations feel envious and sometimes desperate. Ten years ago beauty lightening creams had all but vanished from these places as native pride grew and health risks were better understood. Today these products are shifting like never before. A trader in Acton has just been convicted for selling banned, toxic, whitening creams which can cause burns and rashes.

Old Hindi movies always had heroines of various hues, reflecting India and Pakistan's peoples of many colours. Waheeda Rehman and Smita Patil were two of the biggest stars and both had complexions that would never let them through the film studio doors today when actors have to be white as vanilla ice cream and with green eyes please, even if that means wearing coloured contacts.

Even in South Africa, still emerging from the ultimate evil based on physical types and hierarchies, fair skin is now coveted by blacks. Lorrie, an acquaintance from Cape Town says this is terrific. "We have gone beyond race. The world is opening up and we all want the same things. Why is whiting up any worse than liposuction, plumping up lips, straightening or curling hair? Seems like when black women choose beauty tricks we are self-loathers, but white women are free to re-make themselves. This is a new-world girl, post- racial."

Ah yes the post-racial era. That's where we are at now. Lighten up, say some irate readers week after week and they don't mean do a L'Oréal. Race is old news, stale, an irritant for them and for those black and Asian young folk (including my own children) who think exactly like Lorrie.

A newspaper diary reported last week that Parmjit Dhanda, the impressive Asian MP for Gloucester, was apparently offended when his rival, Tory candidate Richard Graham, made a joke (not a very good one admittedly) comparing the MP's spinning to that of cricketer Monty Panesar, also a British Asian. Dhanda, said his mate "objects to being defined by his race". In the US, savvy and smart politicians of colour – Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark; Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts; Adrian Fenty, Mayor of Washington DC; and most prominently, Barack Obama – have found success by stepping away from their defining racial characteristics and interring historical black grievances.

In his momentous speech on race, Obama said he didn't want the old stories and memories of civil rights struggles and injustice "to overcome and undermine us, to trap us in our history". In some ways these are wise words, and visionary. Group victimisation becomes a habit on both sides and is the hardest thing to let go. Evidently the life chances of millions of dark skinned folk in the US and the UK are today vastly better than were but a decade ago, and globalisation is creating non-white elites like never before. Although new cracks have appeared, old colour lines are dissolving and the future promises better still. It is possible to believe that one day our common humanity will prevail.

But race, though a drag and a bore, still matters, even though it is increasingly unacceptable to say so if you want to go places. An irate African-American blogger points out the obvious: "When we talk about racial transcendence... we are usually talking about transcending the black race; no one talks of transcending whiteness." One day perhaps Twiggy will be touched up to look more "black" and beautiful, Beyoncé will cheerfully opt for an Afro hair-do, and Obama won't have to dissociate from his own name. Not yet, sadly.

y.alibhaibrown@independent.co.uk

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

169 Comments

just returned CuCou to say didn't mean in slavery para `looks' as in anything wrong with the looks but meant obviously different physical looks (in the most generalized way possible) used to make different groups of humans (encouraged no end by that Linneaus chap), different castes of human, and made the currency for different economic opps (once taken to America). Know America not Britain and not now but still something to take into consideration. There, tied in with Beyonce, except she's NOW and she's a star with a big colour-disinterested modern audience and I reckon the lighting isn't such a big deal but can see how some might get sensitive!

Posted by tps | 14.08.08, 21:49 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Like you I dislike gerrymandering but not for the same `white men have been so great' reason -~ my view on them, the ones I like that is, very well done you (genuinely) but also, in most but very exceptional rags to riches cases, lucky you to have been men, white, ALLOWED (by your kind) to do well, and not to have parents in the workhouse or whatever. I dislike gerrymandering - more because I think the ideology is intended to change imbalances NOW and make scoiety more `even' but I think as long as racism and sexism are outlawed government intervention interferes with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to get on in life, and responsiblity of mums, dads, grandparents for their kids (I'm very traditional in many ways CuCou). Anyway, straying too off topic, I think, enough!

Posted by tps | 14.08.08, 20:47 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Slavery was always rife and opportunistic (still is opportunistic, where it continues) but clearly there was a big difference in scale + tone to the systematized transatlantic kind. I can't imagine what it would do to sense of self to have one's own or one's direct ancestors' language and ethnicity and family taken away not purely because of being a random POW (albeit possibly caught opportunistically by Arabs/Africans) but also because of looks.

I FELT this more after learning more about Africa. The more I learnt the more I valued. There's a wealth of knowledge that we lose out on if we entirely shrink into our own kind of knowledge. Same goes for everyone.

You should visit the best of Africa and then at the end of your trip go and stand for a moment or two in a slave dungeon. I think the contrast might just melt your heart!

Posted by tps | 14.08.08, 19:50 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

European cultures certainly made the most of the technique of pinning down and using knowledge in a sophisticated way over the last few hundred years (of course `white men' didn't invent or solely pioneer this technique, way before then, - + it was the last thing on the mind of most Brits' earlier ancestors.) But we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves - v many leaps and bounds in terms of such achievements have taken place elsewhere too, and if we want to use that kind of achievement as a yardstick we owe a massive debt to others before us.

Honestly I don't see the current mapped, measured, exhausted, disrupted, urbanized state of our world as a particularly fabulous testament to our past activities.

Posted by tps | 14.08.08, 19:41 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

tps - yes, but the fact is most of the modern world WAS created by white men. This is a problem, because people want 50% female representation and a large ethnic presence, but compared to the achievements of European white men in the last 500 years, theirs pales in camparison. Just a fact. So what does one do? Big up women and ethnic minorities from history way beyond what they deserve? Well, this is what happens now, thereby distorting real history. But what to do? Reflect reality or be PC? In the past, other parts of the world invented stuff, but Europe has been supreme since the middle ages.

Re the slave trade: slavery has been part of every human civilisation, including nazi germany and commie russia. And the arabs were massive slavers, and africans too. Again there is the 'bash whitie' agenda from the race industry - and far too much forcing black people to selfidentify as slaves too: not healthy at all. Lessons should be put in context, as should all race issues, I agree.

Posted by CuCou | 14.08.08, 19:06 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

stike `almost' unimaginable.

on an unimaginable scale

Posted by t p s | 14.08.08, 18:07 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

well, many academic achievements historically were indeed made by Europeans and also by people from the Middle East, Asia, Far East (er, know they overlap a bit).

I am interested in the (historically) unwritten languages of Africa too, which have a

lyricism, poetry, beauty

that elude many of us, sadly. You know, for all I dislike excessive race consciousness I hope none of us forget that the transatlantic slave trade (which of course was conducted by specific sub-groups, not by the Greater White Race) was a

crime against humanity

on an almost unimaginable scale.

And pupils from the majority and minorities need all kinds of people to relate to in the curriculum including though not only ones that look a little like them. So I've no objection to having Seacole there, and I think she was a very enterprising person.

My beef is with how schools do it, but not that they do it. ONLY to cover achievements by white men would be a rather blinkered narrative, methinks

Posted by tps | 14.08.08, 18:05 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

But tps - Mary Seacole is an interesting but insignificant historical figure and would not be studied if she were white and/or male; Florence Nightingale was bigged up for decades as a feminist icon, and ironically has now become a racist imperialist dragon to be slated in favour of the toofer Mary Yawn! Seacole (toofer=2 for 1, ie black and female). Actually, the person who should be studied is Alex Soyer, the first celebrity chef and the inventor of the smokeless stove which enabled men to eat soup and drink tea in their Crimea positions - but he had the misfortune of being born with a penis and of European heritage (ie white) so's been cut from history!

I agree that Black history month is another example of american style segregationist race relations. As is the MOBO awards and all black-only things - esp as 75% of BMEs in the UK are not afro-carribean! We need integration for f sake! Problem for some is, I suppose, that most historical achievements were by white men...

Posted by CuCou | 14.08.08, 17:27 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

CuCou,

too true there is no need to overplay Mary Seacole, but we should acknowledge she and Florence Nightingale were remarkable for their time and both deserve a mention in schools.

I don’t understand why schools are permitted to describe Mary Seacole as Black, to identify her by RACE with a protective circle around pink in a separatist Black History Month. Or for schools to describe people so overtly in terms of their bodies or some kind of identity through race consciousness at all. It feels USA/Caribbean-centric and comes over as illogical and, well, racist. Time for a subtler approach to the curriculum?

Posted by t p s | 14.08.08, 16:27 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

ps so many angles and depths of perspective one reason aspects of (maybe well-intended) government approved proactive equality ideology seem so simplistic and divisive and generally out of sync. with much private opinion.

does largely come back to the fact that our population dynamics and racial psyche have never really been similar to America, agree on that, and now we’re all being encouraged to (Ayn Rand bar codes next?) actively (rather than, understandably in certain situations quietly, protectively) code people identity politics style as if we all have really shallow group identities (the gender group, the colour group, the age group, the class group) when most interesting to know people aren’t in the slightest bit shallow or overly taken up by their age or class or bodies.

Posted by inky | 14.08.08, 12:55 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

169 Comments

Columnist Comments

deborah_orr

Deborah Orr: One more inquiry isn't going to help

I don't believe a public inquiry into the Baby P case is necessary

hamish_mcrae

Hamish McRae: It will take time, but we'll recover

If officialdom seems over-optimistic in its forecasts, the markets seem too pessimistic

janet_street_porter

Janet Street-Porter: Mother does not always know best

One of the most sensitive subjects for writers is the mother-daughter relationship

mark_steel

Mark Steel: Never mind the baby, just get back to work

The next thing will be an exciting new scheme known as the 'workhouse'