Skin Tanning and Skin-Whitening

I first heard about the comparison of tanning done by white folks as a parallel to skin-whitening done by black folks last year from Jamaican Dancehall artiste Vybz Kartel. His general sentiment was that the same way blacks or darker-skinned persons used skin-whitening or bleaching cream to achieve a fairer complexion, whites and lighter-skinned persons tanned, used tanning agents or bronzers to achieve a darker complexion. This means of simplifying the issue of skin-bleaching and skin-whitening by associating it with the practice of tanning was again mentioned at the Moonlight Gathering (Sunday 3rd June) at North Post Road, Patna Village, Diego Martin.

I strongly disagree with the idea that these practices have similar geneses. Tanned skin can be viewed in two contexts. Firstly, there is deliberate recreational skin tanning which is practiced particularly from the twentieth century onwards. And secondly there is tanned skin that arises from one’s employment (e.g. agriculturists and labourers) or lifestyle circumstances and environment (e.g. walking as a main means of commode).

Recreational skin tanning is commonly practiced by Europeans to give a sense of affluence. These persons engage in tanning to convey that they have spare time and/or the financial resources to travel abroad to vacation in exotic Tropical or Mediterranean locations. Historically, sun tanning became popular when it was recognized that skin exposed to sunlight was less inclined to develop certain illnesses (due to the production of vitamin D in the skin upon exposure to ultraviolet light) and, therefore, was associated with good health. It was based on its association with good health, (especially since wealthier persons are more inclined to have better ‘health’ and access to healthcare) that it later became annexed with beauty.  This must not be confused with the tanned skin of some whites as a result of working for prolonged periods in the sun. Their skins are usually damaged due to overexposure.

When persons speak of tanning as a similar occurrence to skin bleaching, they are most often referring to tanning of a recreational nature, not the kind of tanning that also contributes to discrimination. This essentially is a novelty experience with no negative social and psychological backlashes attached to the practice. It is something that is also temporary and does not convey the idea of rejection of one’s whiteness. They can always ‘reclaim’ their ‘whiter’ hues after a short period out of the sun. People do not attach negative stereotypes to tanning. It does not inspire hatred or hate crimes or instigate violence. Tanned whites are not paid lesser because of their temporary skin colour change. Tanning is not associated with the dark skinned complexion of African people. Further, persons who cannot easily tan - those who become the ‘red lobsters’ - tan for attention. They know their skin will burn easily and not achieve a browning effect but still do it perhaps for the conversation piece that ‘I am so fair I cannot tan.’

Another point about tanning is that, Europeans from Mediterranean and Tropical countries, tend to have more varying shades of white due to the Arab invasions, African, Asian and other historical mixing influences in a largely white population. For example in Portugal, the term ‘moorish’ is used to describe more-easily-‘tannable’ whites. More naturally paler whites would make the statement to ‘moorish’ whites and darker hues, “Look I was in the sun, now I am brown like you,” again to bring attention to their lighter skin complexion. This at times can also be viewed as an attempt to play down other more serious social ills associated with being of darker complexion. However, fairer skinned persons who tan do not suffer discrimination based on their lighter skin -- they are not discriminated against when they wear a tan which is easily identifiable. Their choice to tan their skin is an option without negative social consequences.
 
Conversely, traditionally and historically in countries as diverse as England and China, darker skin was an indicator that those persons had an agricultural or labourer background or otherwise spent a lot of time in outdoor ‘low-skilled’ jobs. Such persons were discriminated against because of their lack of financial wealth, with wealthier persons with greater nobility status being able to afford servants/helpers to carry out their outdoor chores and agricultural work. Therefore, darker tanned whites were discriminated against, considered unsuitable partners or denied opportunities because of their low socio-economic standing.

In the discussion of colour discrimination in Europe, the gypsy community should also be mentioned because, particularly in southern European countries, skin colour and the ability to tan is also a basis for discrimination against such communities. Recognizing the complexity and diversity of the term gypsy, these groups historically have varying degrees of Asian and Moorish ancestry and tend to be darker than the average European. Historically, gypsies have been known to be discriminated and negatively stereotyped for a number of reasons associated with being a roaming society. Those gypsies who leave their communities are often identified by a number of characteristics annexed to skin colour which is viewed in negative light.

It is within the context of annexing skin colour with wealth and social class that the desire to become ‘fairer’ and ‘lighter’ was evident in Europe and Asia. For example, Queen Elizabeth I of Great Britain and both males and females from her era powdered their faces white. Paler faces were associated with greater beauty, wealth and social-standing. Similarly, in Asian culture powdering the face with stark white powder was also done to achieve ‘beauty’ and symbolized ‘purity’. Stark white-faced Geishas are a popular example in Japanese culture, reflecting the wider and older association of whiteness with beauty. In China, Confucian Theory was used as a basis to promote and perpetuate skin colour discrimination. All these examples show that the idea of beauty and whiteness as well as the phenomenon of skin-lightening, even in those times, was closely linked with status (class) and wealth.

Even today, skin-bleaching and skin-whitening products are used to achieve a lighter complexion based on the desire to approach a whiter ideal particularly by non-Europeans. This is a legacy of slavery and colonialism. People perceive that having more European features, including lighter skin, conveys certain advantages.

As implied above, negative colour discrimination (colorism) was first practiced within Asian and European countries and later introduced to Africa and Africans removed from Africa during the era of slavery and colonialism. The European preference for mixed race light skin Africans (initially mostly the product of rape) over dark skin Africans and the observation of white privilege as well as through the imposition of their (European) religion, language and other methods of cultural domination, over time, resulted in many Africans accepting and inculcating colour discrimination into their lives. This includes the deification of whiteness and its value for attaining closeness to upward social mobility and to ‘God’. Aside from Africa, this has been the case in other indigenous cultures as well, but no other people have suffered to the degree of Africans.

Skin-bleaching or whitening, is thus quite psychological. In the context of Africans on the continent and Africans in the Diaspora, in many societies fairer-skinned mates have historically been preferentially selected to ‘whiten’ out the genes within this group. The desired objective is to have mixed race babies with fairer skin or babies with hair textures that were deemed ‘more beautiful’ because they were curlier or straighter or other physical attributes that were perceived as socially acceptable until traces of African ancestry were eliminated. This ultimately meant that they would be preferred and given more or better opportunities or find more financially secure partners. However, there is no overwhelming phenomenon of whites marrying blacks to have tanned and brown babies. If anything, couples with a black/darker and a white/fairer parent see and value more the physical attributes that originate from the fairer parent of their offspring. Coastal populations in southern Europe e.g. Spain and Italy, though being very close to Northern Africa have remained largely white due to racist-related positions to their African neighbours and fore-mothers.

The practice of recreational skin tanning is an issue that is separate from the use of skin whitening agents. The practice of skin whitening should be addressed in the context of it as a basis for discrimination based on skin colour. An analysis into the history of the practice within European and Asian cultures and how it contributes to discrimination within all cultures is key to understanding why the practice is encouraged and persists to this day. History would also disprove the argument that tanning was about colour discrimination in reverse or about whites trying to look or become black. For them, (whites), it is mostly about achieving social mobility based on annexing their colour to health, and wealth.

diyouth,

You quoted me, but did not specifically address my quote. 

I specifically stated that I strongly disagree with the idea that skin bleaching and skin whitening have similar geneses (genesis - the beginning or origin of something).

Perceived ‘wealth, affluence, status, advantages and opportunities’ are reasons/unreasons people may practice skin bleaching/tanning, but they are not the original basis of such practices, which is what I have outlined in my post.

diyouth,

I gave the meaning of “geneses” because your response warranted it.

I did not state what Vybz Kartel said out of context. I mentioned what he said in the general sense as the first time I heard the two practices being annexed, then hearing it again at the Gathering. There is also the possibility that others would be using what he said about skin bleaching as a reason for continuing that self-debasing practice. I do not buy that this practice is about ‘personal liberty’, notwithstanding the fact that people can do what they want with their own bodies.

I am also disagreeing with the idea in the minds of anyone, be it Kartel, the people who were at the Moonlight Gathering or the readers here on this forum, that these two practices share the same roots/geneses. This is to shed light on the possible motives for the practices.

What you are doing here is similar to what you did on the colorism post. You are distorting in order to score points. I will end this exchange with you now.

Man is made in His image, so any personal changes detrimentally away from that may be further out of The Order of the Lion. We ought to be natural and love ourselves.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=326172&playlistId=1.1778282&binId=1.811496&playlistPageNum=1

At the beginning  of this video, the interviewer mentions the popularity of tanning processes, and described  skin lightening desires as going in an opposite direction to such tanning. Thus inferring that the fair skin majority are not attached to their whiteness/lightness.


There are also other interesting parts of the video.