Your Neighborhood Sociologist Explains Colorism

Actress Thandie Newton is apologizing to her darker-skinned actresses for the colorism that she says contributed to her success in Hollywood. “I’m sorry that I’m the one chosen,” said the actress, who has a Zimbabwean mother and English father. “My mamma looks like you,” she said to her darker-skinned peers as she burrows her head in her hand and weeps. Newton’s comments are on the heels of John Leguizamo saying he “stayed out of the sun so he could work.” Leguizamo, of Colombian descent, said he “benefited from being light-skinned.”

Sky News @SkyNews

Thandiwe Newton has said she wants to "apologise every day to darker-skinned actresses" for not representing them. Read more: trib.al/Um2Anp6

It seems as if Hollywood is coming to grips with its colorism problem. But it is not just a problem in Hollywood. Or the United States. It is a global issue.

Growing up color struck

Readers who are not black or have connections with black folk may not have heard of the term “color struck.” Color struck is a slang term referring to a black person who prefers light skin. I grew up in a community that was color struck. The black community in South Carolina in the ‘80s and ‘90s did not have the benefit of all the critical discussions about race we have going on today. We attributed values, for most of us subconsciously, to a person based on their skin color.

All the guys I knew saw lighter-skinned women as more attractive than darker-skinned women. We liked the Thandie Newtons of the world, not the Lupita Nyong'o and Viola Davises. Lighter-skinned black males were called pretty boys. And by and large, all things being equal, women liked lighter-skinned men.

It is almost embarrassing to think about it now, but my color struck community - including me, would have found Nyong’o unattractive and would have likely made fun of her dark skin.

Of course, this meant that my hazelnut-hued skin was unattractive. I was one of the darkest kids in my cohort, and in color struck South Carolina that was a problem. Taking a page from John Leguizamo, my mother did not want me to stay in the sun too long. She put bleach in my water once to lighten me.

My darkness could always be mined for insults by classmates. I was called an “African Booty Scratcher” more than once. But usually, just saying “you’re black self” was enough to embarrass me and elicit a laugh from onlookers. The insults from my peers indicate that being dark was not solely about physical attractiveness. It was also about class, competence, and civility.

I carried these thoughts well into adulthood. In my 20’s I stayed out of the sun and began using skin lightening cream. I think this was when I was still teaching high school, but I can’t quite remember. But I do remember the cream working. I distinctly recall my stepfather saying, “You’re getting mighty yellow there, boy.” Was I happy at being called yellow? Yes! I was imbued with more class, more competence, more civility.

This was the brand of skin-lightening cream I used when I was “color struck.”

Ironically, it was white people who ultimately changed my thinking. Being in graduate school put me in an environment with people who were not as color struck as those I grew up with. I am sure my skin tone mattered to them in some way, but not to the same degree. It could have been that their colorism was not overt but covert. But it was undoubtedly an improvement. When I started dating women in those spaces, I found that many of them found my darker skin attractive.

What is colorism?

A simple definition of colorism, from an online dictionary, is “prejudice or discrimination especially within a racial or ethnic group favoring people with lighter skin over those with darker skin.” Colorism is indeed prejudice and discrimination against individuals with darker skin. But it is much more.

• Colorism can be overt or explicit. When someone explicitly signals they would prefer to marry a person of lighter skin because they see them as more beautiful, this is colorism. This was me as a “color struck” person back in the day. Although I believe this is more rare, it may be that people will explicitly say that they would prefer to hire or befriend someone of lighter skin.

• Colorism can be covert and implicit. A teacher may, without realizing it, call on the lighter-skinned student more because they implicitly believe that the lighter student has more academic potential. Lighter-skinned people may not only be seen as intelligent but also more civil or pro-social. A lighter-skinned person is given less punishment than a dark-skinned person.

• Colorism can also be embedded in our institutions. This is where Newton’s comments can be better contextualized. It is a mistake to see any “ism” as being reduced solely to individual people acting covertly or overtly. Our institutions may have certain patterns that perpetuate a sense that lighter skin is preferable, even if the individuals themselves are not colorist. If the media shows light-skinned people of color in positions of leadership or on television, then that may become the “model” of what a leader from those populations looks like. And so people may support those models, even if they have no desire to be colorist. Even if Newton finds dark skin beautiful, she is also an actress looking for work. It is not her fault there is a system of cultural expectations supporting the hiring of lighter-skinned actresses, of which she now perpetuates by being hired.

• Colorism hurts women more than men. This is because of modern gender norms. Generally, not having European features is a sign of unattractiveness in a society dominated by a European aesthetic. And because a woman’s value in society is intrinsically tied to their beauty, this severely disadvantages women. It is women who invest the most in beauty products that make them look more European. Meanwhile, in many colorist societies - especially the United States, non-white features are associated with physical strength and sexual vigor. There is value in this for men, who gain some of their status from their physical fitness and carnality.

• Colorism may be more of a problem within communities of color. White society has certainly given privileges to lighter-skinned people of color. A well-known example is lighter-skinned slaves given better jobs by their white owners than darker-skinned slaves. This is the “house negro/field negro” dichotomy that some people believe still is a part of black America. But most research and much of the everyday conversations about colorism are more insular and focus on how non-white peoples use skin tone as a marker of worth within their communities.

How and why colorism?

Colorism is grounded in the domination, over the last 400 years or so, of non-white peoples by white peoples. Theoretically, if African peoples had colonized the world, then colorism would have meant European and Asian people tanning their skin and kinking their hair. But in practice colorism means negative attitudes towards darker skin.

This domination by white peoples has shifted from the physical and military dominance of the colonization and slavery eras to the political and economic domination we see today. Whatever the mechanism of domination is, a social structure is produced in which a white population has a disproportionate amount of power and influence over a non-white population.

I could use the paradigmatic example of American slavery. But let me try a different one.

Imagine a white British family in New Dehli during the era of British colonization. They are wealthier and healthier than the indigenous population. They have the power of the British military protecting them. These power differences over time become a part of everyday life through informal norms. If you are an Indian, don’t touch a memsahib (white woman). Don’t even look them in the eye.

These power differences also become formalized through law. Britain’s Salt Act of 1882 prohibited Indians from collecting or selling salt - something central to their culture but economically damaging to the British. Ghandi’s famous salt march to the sea was in protest of this law.

The differences in status and power between the colonizer British and the colonized Indians can instill a sense that having European features is inherently a good thing. This is not just in the white colonizers but also within the subjugated group.

And so, a hierarchy within a hierarchy is created. Not only are the British given more rights and privileges than the Indians they have colonized, but within the Indian population, lighter-skinned Indians are seen as better than darker-skinned Indians. Indeed, to this day, bleaching cream is a big seller in India. I suspect it is more of a problem in India than in the United States.

What is the evidence?

Social scientists have shown the impact of colorism on a variety of populations using a range of methods. I will list a few below. I will show the abstract of the research, but also link to the full articles just in case someone wants to read them. The articles are parked in my google drive and you can download them.

Research published in 2016 showed that Asians with white skin and Asians with light skin tone are more likely to be college-educated. This is controlling for the individual person’s academic ability and their ethnic origin. Meaning if we had two people of equal ability from the same ethnicity (e.g., Indian) the lighter-skinned person is more likely to be college-educated.

A second example is about Middle Eastern women in the United States. This research provides information in the form of interviews instead of survey data.

The image below shows a selection, by the authors of the study, of different middle eastern women by skin tone and hair texture. According to the authors, these different looks matter, even if the interviewees used other words. According to the authors:

“The findings suggest there is preference to hire lighter Middle Eastern women. Frequently, participants defended their hiring decisions in terms of soft characteristics. Soft characteristics are the woman’s smile, perceived attitude, likability, and professionality. Participants rarely used hard characteristics such as skin color or facial features to discriminate, with the exception of hair. Participants tended to describe curly hair as unprofessional, and thus, participants ranked women with curly hair low.”

A final example is more near and dear to me, as it explores the impact of colorism in the black community. According to this research, if black people perceive they are victims of colorism, their cardiovascular and cardiometabolic health decreases. Wow.

Critical colorism theory

We live in a wonderful time in the West with respect to discussing race. Racial issues are being examined like never before. We understand how past and present racism impacts the lives of all of us. Critical race theory may not be taught in our schools, but the popularity of the term encompasses so many ideas. When you say critical race theory, it brings to mind a collection of people - Ibram Kendi, Nikole Hannah Jones, and ideas - whiteness, white fragility, white supremacy, and policies - diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Colorism is not a part of that national discussion, even as it continues to be a topic of discussion within communities of color. I think that will change, if only because the look of America is changing. Interracial marriages are increasing, and immigration from Asia, Africa, and South America continues. The disparities in social outcomes between light-skinned and dark-skinned will become more apparent.

I will bet money that if I compared the skin tones of the prison population with the skin tone of the non-prison population, I would see that the prison population is darker. I also believe if I could measure the number of “swipes rights” that darker-skinned and lighter-skinned women get on Tinder, I would see that darker-skinned women get a right swipe much less.

Soon we will need to think critically about colorism.