Is this product promoting racism?

[Meclazine for Israel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAXoflCvLws

An Australian company is selling "skin lightening" creams to women in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.



But is "whitening" Asian women a racist pirsuit?



Australian associate professor, Ken Harvey, thinks so.

"It's exporting a white Australia policy [that] pushes a racist idea that beauty is equated with white skin, fuels intolerance of dark skinned people, causes social harm and wastes consumers' money."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-14/skin-lightening-capsules-said-to-be-made-in-australia/11998954

I have noticed an explosion of women in Australia filling, botoxing, lipping, boobing and altering their appearance in the last 5-10 years. It is truly absurd.

[dead0man]

The issue is that an Australian company is selling it?  'cause people in SE Asia (and many other places) have been lightening their skin forever and they'll do it whether they have access to the Australian company's products or not.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

Those are EXTREMELY common here. Almost every girl I know uses skin whitening cream. My Desi friends have similar products.

I dunno. You could argue it is linked to colonialism, but I am not 100% sure whether it is that, or that or simply a local standard which happens to correspond a lot with white people. India historically had a relatively white-looking upper caste (fittingly, originating with the first colonialism - Indo-European expansion), and I think it stuck with them. With China I am not as sure.

[Santander]

It's colorism, not racism. Fair skin is valued all over Asia and Africa.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's a beauty standard that obviously has incredibly ugly race and (even more so) class connotations,* but I don't think there's sufficient evidence to conclude that it's a direct outgrowth of European colonization. The fact that it's an Australian company marketing this specific product is definitely dismaying, but Asian and African countries produce products like this domestically too.

*like almost all beauty standards that don't have a connection to either physical health or an individual's personal tastes

[T'Chenka]

Some South Asian women (I've dated several) are obsessed with lightening their skin or keeping it as light as it currently is. Go watch a Bollywoid movie, all the sexy people of both genders have an "arab" level of dark skin, whereas many Indians have much darker skin than that.

This company is just tapping into a market of people who are self-racist andhabe been for a long time and will continue to be.

[John Dule]

It's ok to be white.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least it's not Darkie toothpaste.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Now, this appears to be a billion dollar industry.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/25/world/as-equals-skin-whitening-global-market-explainer-intl-cmd/index.html

When I was a teenager, I wanted a nice healthy tan.

Now teenagers want to be white?

[Torrain]

It’s worth noting that the “light skin is preferable” thing actually predates colonialism in most European countries.

The aristocracy were shielded from the sun inside their manors, while labourers became tanned and sunburnt after full days in the sun. The expression “blue-blooded” seems to originate from those individuals who were so pale you could see blue veins pushing below the skin. Only the rich could afford unblemished, unfreckled and untanned skin.

In time this found its way into fashion, triggering the rush for white lead as a facial makeup, worn perhaps most notably by Elizabeth I.

These trends would only really be reversed here in the late 19th and 20th century. The rise of tanning as a fashion choice is an odd one, but probably started as a social indicator one was affluent enough to holiday abroad or in warmer locales.

So if we’re being really technical, we could say that it started off as a class thing, and picked up racial baggage along the way.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It’s worth noting that the “light skin is preferable” thing actually predates colonialism in most European countries.

The aristocracy were shielded from the sun inside their manors, while labourers became tanned and sunburnt after full days in the sun. The expression “blue-blooded” seems to originate from those individuals who were so pale you could see blue veins pushing below the skin. Only the rich could afford unblemished, unfreckled and untanned skin.

In time this found its way into fashion, triggering the rush for white lead as a facial makeup, worn perhaps most notably by Elizabeth I.

These trends would only really be reversed here in the late 19th and 20th century. The rise of tanning as a fashion choice is an odd one, but probably started as a social indicator one was affluent enough to holiday abroad or in warmer locales.

So if we’re being really technical, we could say that it started off as a class thing, and picked up racial baggage along the way.

A quick search of the etymology of “blue-blooded” turns up several results claiming that it comes from Spanish aristocratic families boasting of a total lack of Jewish or Muslim ancestry.

[Big Abraham]

Tanning beds are promoting racism against Latinx.