Saturday, May 11, 2013

Unfair Fairness

I am going to put aside more pressing issues to have a little (okay, maybe big) rant about something that affects me very much on a personal level. 

I was reading an article about "Why the world still favours white models" on Daily Life and it brought back many frustrating memories and realities like crashing waves against my mind.

The article discusses how the fashion industry is dominated by the white face, even in countries like Brazil where over half the population is either of Black and/or multi-racial decent. "In its entire 118-year existence," the article states, "Vogue has featured just 14 people of colour on its cover." The article argues that despite its shameless and constant misrepresentation of other skin tones, the fashion industry feels no impedance when using exotic, Eastern inspired backdrops for their photo-shoots. Coloured people often embody the role of props or a second grade subject complementing the white person in the foreground. And quite often their few black models only exist as a result of tokenism, to uphold a facade of integration and racial diversity to it's audience when in fact the reality is dishearteningly to the contrary. 

--- --- ---

I won't delve too deeply into the discussion of racism in fashion. What affects me more is when similar attitudes are reflected in communities where a vast number of people are of a darker skin tone, but still have to face this continuous harassment by the media and society which insists on portraying their skin colour as detestable and unattractive. 

Below is a recording of an advertisement for Fair Look cream. I have seen this ad playing on Indian television only a few weeks ago. This is a prime example of how media is contributing to a certain lack of self-esteem visible in dark-skinned people. The cream claims to lighten your skin tone and eliminate blemishes. The ad also features a number of alleged users of the brand, with obviously fake before and after shots of each person.



"Before, people used to call me Uncle. Then Fair Look removed all the marks and darkness on my face, and now I look younger!" One male user exclaimed. "I used to completely avoid sleeveless tops and skirts before because my arms were so black! But after using fair look I've become so white it's hard to believe!" Another female user cries breathlessly, "and now I can wear anything!"

Dark skin is hideous. Dark skin equates to an acne-prone, rough and aged appearance. Dark skinned people cannot wear whatever colour or style of clothing they choose. Dark skinned people have trouble finding a job. A dark skinned woman is unwanted for marriage or relationships. The sub-continental community is inundated with these ugly stereotypes. This is a disgusting and dangerously subtle form of racial apartheid in advertisements and TV shows that regularly go unnoticed by it's complicit viewers. But the psychological impacts are inevitable, and sadly many of our dark-skinned friends have conceded to their state of imposed inferiority. But where did this worship of fair skin spring from?

Some say it is because of the British colonial era, that is, as the rulers were fair toned, Indian people aspire to be like them. Others go further back than that, to a time when the Aryans came to India and founded the religion of Hinduism. In the ancient Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, the term used for caste is varna, or 'colour'. 
"...in the context of the arya's disparaging comments about the 'black' dasa (or the indigenous population of India) is often taken to mean that the higher castes also considered themselves to be fairer-skinned. This is now disputed. According to the Mahabharata the 'colours' associated with the four castes were white, red, yellow and black; they sound more like symbolic shades meted out by those category-conscious brahmanical minds..." (India: A History, John Keay, 2000)
Whether the justifications are rooted in Hindu scripture or British colonialism is besides the point. It is safe to say that the reasons for it are unscientific, racist and although each individual is entitled to a personal preference for a particular skin colour, these ideas have no place in the media, and fair skin or any other trait should not be exalted and imposed as an immovable standard of beauty by society. 


--- --- ---

Now, what does science say?

Skin colour, has evolved primarily as a regulator for vitamins in our body. I will quote extensively here to explain the natural history of skin colour development from the linked source:
"Between 4.5 million and 2 million years ago, early humans moved from the rain forest and onto the East African savanna. Once on the savanna, they not only had to cope with more exposure to the sun, but they also had to work harder to gather food. Mammalian brains are particularly vulnerable to overheating: A change of only five or six degrees can cause a heatstroke. So our ancestors had to develop a better cooling system.
...Early humans probably had few sweat glands, like chimpanzees, and those were mainly located on the palms of their hands and the bottoms of their feet. Occasionally, however, individuals were born with more glands than usual. The more they could sweat, the longer they could forage before the heat forced them back into the shade. The more they could forage, the better their chances of having healthy offspring and of passing on their sweat glands to future generations."
Increased sweat glands in the body went hand in hand with less bodily hair, as less hair ensured that humans dried up faster when perspiring. However, hairless skin was susceptible to sunlight. The evolution of melanin was hence required to control the entry of UV light in our bodies. Excess UV light reduces folate in our bodies - a component of vitamin B complex. Inhibition of folate is detrimental to sperm production, and correlates with neural tube defects in infants. Hence melanin has evolved for dispersing the adverse effects of increased sunlight exposure.  
"Unlike folate, vitamin D depends on ultraviolet light for its production in the body. (It is) believed that people who live in the north, where daylight is weakest, evolved fair skin to help absorb more ultraviolet light..."
--- --- ---

Rather than feeding useless messages of shallow intolerance towards people of colour in the media, the world would be much better off if they had dedicated advertisements to educating people about the essential vitamins they should keep under check, the dangers of tanning and skin cancer, bleaching products and alike, and to maintain a balanced and healthy diet. 

People should be encouraged to be confident about their unique qualities, and not present any one characteristic as being more desirable than another. Every person appears beautiful to their loved ones and most importantly, to themselves. And no filthy advertisement should attempt to pollute this idea!


Friday, May 3, 2013

Selective Sensibility

Really enjoyed reading an article by Australian columnist Waleed Aly today. The article begins with examples of recent Hollywood movies (namely, Iron Man 3, Skyfall, Looper) in which filmmakers have been driven to acknowledge China as a rising superpower in the global market and therefore cater to its audience. Iron Man 3 premiered in Beijing with China-cised screenings of the movie containing extended scenes by the nation's actors and incorporated Chinese product placement.

Waleed Aly alludes to the turning course of globalisation as the West begins to include Asian/Middle Eastern cultures in the media. This can also be demonstrated by stars from Bollywood crossing over to Hollywood as well as figures such as PSY of Gangnam Style achieving incredible fame in the West. Waleed discusses how Western news headlines have sometimes depicted these events as representing the growing subservience of the West to Eastern sensibilities, which of course is a double-standard considering the obvious/widespread influences the West has had on the Eastern culture.

But what bewildered me the most was the story of Australians' outrage at Qantas's changed menu for flights into and out of Dubai, as a part of their new partnership with Emirates. Qantas will now be serving 'halal' accredited meals on flights through Dubai, and leaving pork and alcohol based items off the menu. For this they've attracted nicknames like 'Al-Qantas' or the 'Mosque-a-roo'. The comments made by readers of the Daily Mail reflected a shocking intolerance towards anything Islamic, especially for a matter so silly. Here is a screenshot of the top comments by readers:


I am not here to discuss whether the Islamic (or Jewish) tradition of not eating pork is justifiable by logical reasoning or modern science. It probably is not. But I believe this outrage is somewhat biased, based on racism, ego and to a degree, ignorance. Let me give some reasons why I think it's unreasonable to be protesting about this:
  • Firstly, it is common practice for airlines to adjust their menu according to their fliers' dietary requirements and/or tastes. Qantas itself does not serve pork en-route to Jakarta, for example. I have traveled on airlines on which they've served Bangladeshi specials such as kichudi and beef curry. It's a nice gesture to consider the sentiments of customers and there's nothing outlandish about it.
  • In my opinion, it would be annoying for stewards working on such flights to be constantly bombarded with specific requests for pork or alcohol to be excluded from meals. Not serving it at all is the most practical solution, especially considering that they don't offer a diverse menu on planes anyway!
  • Waleed's article quoted one reader saying "[our] religion has been disrespected by removal of pork products" - Waleed rightly points out that eating pork is no "religious sacrament" for any religion, so it's ridiculous to claim that their religion has been disrespected. This is tantamount to accusing Indian/Pakistani/Indonesian/Middle Eastern restaurants of disrespect for not serving pork. It is simply better business for them as it attracts a larger pool of customers.
  • On objecting halal slaughtering methods - I understand why this might be concerning. In Australia, animals are stunned by electricity or a captive bolt in the brain before slaughtering so that the animal does not feel pain. In halal slaughtering, or dhabihah, the animal is conscious. Although common sense will tell you that the stunning system is probably more humane, surprisingly, the matter is subject to research and debate which can conclude that both methods are suitable if performed correctly. In essence, the process of farming and slaughtering animals is inevitably cruel regardless of the method used. I am sure the airlines will have vegetarian alternatives for those concerned.
  • And finally, the fear that Qantas is bowing down Arab sentiments is an unfair assumption, since almost all Middle Eastern flights serve alcohol to it's customers, counter to their religious customs. So dropping pork from a menu of a few items is really not that big a deal.
I think it's a great thing the West is taking Asian cultures seriously. People should really let go of their double standards and embrace the multicultural world we live in. I strongly agree to condemning the practices of any culture/religion that is oppressive, discriminatory and inhumane, but there are many traditions that are relatively harmless. So to violently oppose them is a somewhat unnecessary and only fuels the growth of racism and intolerance in a world where there is no shortage of it.