The Color Complex

“while white racists had never deemed black people beautiful before, they had a higher aesthetic regard for racially mixed black folks. when that regard took the form of granting privileges and rewards on the basis of skin color, black people began to internalize similar aesthetic values.” ~bell hooks

The color complex. Seems like a slightly trivial aspect to the struggle, but it can be, as its name suggests, complex.

Crunk Feminist Collective wrote a really interesting post about the color complex entitled the Huey Newton Complexes as well as a follow-up entitled More Musings on Melanin (or lack thereof). Very enlightening and definitely a must read. My homegirl Yvette linked me to this youtube video entitled Complexion Obsession. Marita Golden also wrote a really good book about the color complex called Don't Play in the Sun that’s definitely a must read as well.

I think it’s really important for all black people to understand the workings of the color complex because it IS racism; it is the inferiority that we have been forced into; it IS the superiority that those with lighter skin have designated themselves. If we do not understand the ways in which favoritism and preference for lighter skin can wreak havoc in our communities, then it is arguable whether we can truly understand the workings of the apartheid that has pushed us to the undesirable end of the racial spectrum. If those of us in the black and brown communities cannot admit our individual privileges, then how can we expect whites, males, and the upper class to admit their privilege?

Not only that, but how can we progress as a community unless we all admit that the color complex is perpetuated every day in our community?

how many people do you see or hear perpetuating the color complex that more and likely have no idea where it comes from? Friends on my facebook update their status all the time with comments like “ain’t nuthin better than a light-skin chick…” or “I love me a light-skin girl”. What? and rappers who only want light-skinned girls or girls of other ethnicities in their videos…and men who only date light-skinned chicks…and people who unconsciously think only dark skinned men are violent…and…and….and. yet these people have typically never asked themselves why they have this preference.

although the color complex is maintained by colored people on other colored people, it is not a cause, but a symptom of a society based on a racial hierarchy. it's not just about wanting to be white. it's about status, about wealth, about health, about nearly anything positive you can think about. for too many centuries and in too many colored nations, whites have been the ones in power, making the decisions, and making the most money. when the United States was early in it's formation, ethnic groups that weren't white or black (Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, etc. ) tried for years through legal means to be considered white. being white wasn't/isn't just about aesthetic preferences (nothing is ever really just about aesthetics), it was the difference between being free and being doomed to slavery; between owning land and not; between having legal rights and not.

i think we can all benefit from having a discussion about how the color complex and converse about things like...how some of us maintain it in our sexual or relationship preferences (brothers or sisters who only date light-skinned people), our ideas of beauty (all the people you want to be with and the people you wish you looked like are all light-skinned), our speech (comparing dark skin to negative things like dirt, coal, stained, tar), our stereotypes, etc. when was the last time you heard someone say "you're pretty for a dark-skinned girl"? or heard comments about the beauty of a female that only describe her light skin? or hear a mother tell her children to stay out of the sun for fear of getting dark? i think we need to start collectively probing and questioning these manifestations of colorism.

"why can't she just be pretty AND dark-skinned?", "why are all the females you like light-skinned?", "yo i fucks with your album....but why aren't there any sistas YOUR skin tone in the video, Rick Ross? whats really good, Wale?" "i like playing in the sun, mom, what exactly are you afraid of?"

heres a video (in 3 parts) about the color complex in Southeast Asians.

and some good spoken word by a rad sister.

here is one about the notorious doll test.

and a really good video about it from some intelligent brothers (when they aren't being homophobic and anti-reproductive rights):

comment. think. criticize.

this post is kind of everywhere, but hopefully the links i provided will fill in some of the gaps.

Homophobia and Condoms!

so, i was watchin this video earlier today. i watch one of their videos whenever i find one i haven't seen. i really like their different perspectives, and the majority of the time, i agree with them. however, that is not the case for one portion of their message in this video.

if you go to about 7 minutes and 50 seconds in, they will be talking about the different forms of genocide that are encompassed in the word. and around this time, they say that birth control as well as homosexuality are forms of genocide. the brother on the left even goes as far to say that it is the "vilest" form of genocide against blacks.

now, i definitely have problems with both of those assumptions.
for one, the claim that birth control is a form of genocide is just asinine. my friend Yvette brought to light the fact that they may be coming from a historical perspective of the idea of birth control, which is very much so racist and was a blatant attempt to kill or lessen the number of blacks, Chicanos and Native Americans. heres a pretty good article that goes in detail about Margaret Sanger's crude means of experimentation as well as her Eugenics agenda. Margaret Sanger is hailed as one of the biggest advocates for birth control, and many even pay respects to her today. birth control (abortion as well as contraceptives) were started by a racist for a racist and genocidal agenda. period. so, on that level, i would agree with them. however, i would completely disagree with them if they are asserting that any female who takes contraceptives or has abortions in this day and age is adding to the genocide of our people. when they want to take on the behemoth challenge of caring for or adopting the THOUSANDS of children that are born each year to parents (or just mothers...)that don't want them, who then have to battle the foster system full of pedophiles and physical abusers only to be thrown out with no help at the mere age of 18, then maybe i would back up their point. but thats never going to happen.
and second, AIDS/HIV is one of the biggest if not THE biggest killer of black people. blacks here in the United States, in the West Indies, in South America, and in Africa. it is an epidemic. and one of the biggest defenses against this is a condom (as well as birth control which stops women from giving birth to children with the disease). Christian missionaries have already done of a good job of convincing our people that condoms are "playing god" or some similarly absurd bullshit (....but if i wanted to play their god, i'd start by going on a killing spree...), as well as telling them that a child is a gift from their god, even if you can't afford to feed or clothe them, and no matter what type of shitty situation you're going to bring this child into. so the last thing any person of color needs to be telling other people of color is to stop using contraceptives. the parallels between what the Sons of Malcolm asserted in this video and right-wing overzealous and often racist Christians have to say about birth control and homosexuality are astounding. this is reason to be alarmed.
women are not just on this earth to pop out babies and raise them. this is the idea that has aided in our subordination. and considering women will be left raising a child 9 times out of 10, we have to use means of eliminating the case for a pregnancy or an unwanted child. how interesting that these two men, who will never have to face an unwanted pregnancy, never have to bring a child into this world, who probably don't even know change a fuckin diaper, think they can tell a woman that a contraceptive is wrong. the audacity...
the problem with most people on this planet, not just people of color, if that there are too many people bringing children into this world that they don't want; that they cannot support-financially and/or emotionally. not only do situations like these add to the stress of the parents in the situation, but it also is simply infair to a child.

and to the second point-the assertion that homosexuality is a "the vilest" form of genocide. this is equally as asinine as the first statement. in the awesome book i just finished reading-Gender Talk, these two women do a fantastic job of showing the problems with homophobia, as well as the myths involved in it, and the inherent problems with their assertions. the chapter starts on page 154 entitled Black, Lesbian, and Gay: Speaking the Unspeakable. not only do they show the many similarities between homophobia, racism and patriarchy, but they also show that many homophobics that fight for the end of racism usually believe that homosexuality is a perversion brought on by Europeans that was never present in Africa prior to colonization. Johnnetta and Beverly do an excellent job of showing the flaws in this stance:

in order to contextualize the debate about "homosexuality" in Africa, it is important to take into consideration the complexity of same-sex practices in cultural contexts around the world and to recall the reality of "homoerotic" practices among most human cultures, according to scholars. in other words, what cultures consider to be normal and natural in the sexual arena varies considerably around the globe. ... there are societies in which same-sex erotic behavior is frequent, though they lack a concept of the "homosexual" person or homosexual identity. in other words, a connection is not made between who one is and what one does. being involved in an intimate or erotic relationship with a person of the same gender does not necessarily result in the society attaching a "homosexual" label. it is mainly in the west and only since about 1700, that we have divided human being into two oppositional categories: heterosexual and homosexual. ... 'our sexual culture is not universal to the human species'.... despite widespread notions about the decadence of the west...some scholars argue that 'western societies have been fare more repressive toward homosexuality than the indigenous cultures of Asia, Africa, and the Americas.'

they then go into citing book by Africans that explain some of the sexual relations in African societies involving same-sex unions as well as some women in some societies taking on the role of a man and taking up multiple wives.
Samori says that it is a form of genocide because it hinders procreation. so does menopause, so does abstinence, so does any form or sex that doesn't result in a child. just because an act is hindering procreation does not by default make it genocidal. aside from the typical definition of "genocide", i think there are connotations as well that present genocide as an active form of killing individuals of a group in order to exterminate that group. one woman having an abortion, or two men never biologically producing a child is not genocide because it is not an attempt to exterminate a group of people. making an absurd claim like that almost trivializes the reality of genocides like ones in Rwanda, Sudan, and the Jewish Holocaust. and in addition, homophobia within the colored communities not only separates us as brothers and sisters but also has many devastating consequences. in places like Jamaica, where homosexuals have to fear for their lives, granted they're open about their sexuality, it also adds to the spread of the diseases i was talking about earlier. health clinics that have been set up specifically for the assistance and testing for AIDS/HIV have been violently targeted (because people have come to label AIDS/HIV as a "homosexual disease")by homophobics, it only adds to the spread of this deadly disease.

when people who want to end all forms of oppression cannot see oppression in other arenas other than racism, like patriarchy and homophobia, then how can they expect to properly battle any form of oppression. oppression is oppression, and you cannot battle one and truly expect to change it while leaving the others as they are.
i still like these guys, because i agree with most of the other things they bring to light, however, there is a problem when you cannot see oppression in it rawest form.

think. criticize. comment. look at their other videos.

....so Obama isn't the messiah?

a week or so ago i saw this video by the Sons of Malcolm about Obama and pretty much how they don't like him. and i've been having somewhat of an ongoing conversation with my bestie Yvette about people who support him, people who don't, what his presidency means for people of color and whether or not its actually something to celebrate. so i've been thinking about what i think about him and what is presidency means.
up until about 2 months before the election, i was still deciding whether i was going to vote or not, and if so, what candidate i would root for. i was on political forums constantly discussing the ABUNDANCE of problems with the United States, with the actual voting process, with the candidates, and the common disconnect between what the candidate says and what the candidate ultimately does. when there are so many limitations, issues with media coverage, and financial situations candidates have to face in order to even get their name on the ballot, then in what reality is this considered democracy? it isn't. its some diluted, edited by-product of democracy. so for some time i wasn't going to vote at all. i felt like it was pointless, at at best, it was giving approval of a faulty voting system that is in desperate need of a reformation.

but, sometime in the middle of these discussions, i was thinking that none of this is going to change in this one election, so its best if you just vote for the candidate (those that have the minimum monetary means, have filed their petitions, met their state requirements for being on the ballot, and has made their faces known through proper media coverage to the majority of the american public...)that i most agree with. and considering that the democrats and republicans like to bulldoze any other party in the election, theres really only two individuals who actually have a chance of winning. this causes many people, myself included (at the time...) to vote for the "lesser evil". when it gets down to just two candidates, i think most people have given up any chance of voting for someone that will be the change this country really needs (and not the "change" on the back of bumper stickers and posters, but actual change)and just vote for whatever candidate they think will fuck up the country the least.

and i voted for Obama (for Edwards in the primaries, although i would have loved to see Dennis Kucinich win...). i voted for him because i agreed with him on healthcare, i agreed that we needed to get our troops out of the middle east in a timely fashion, and i agreed with him on reproductive rights. i also considered the way he spoke about respectfully encouraging dialogue between the United States and Iran (mainly because i thought it showed the way in which he will deal with other countries). i even campaigned for him. at the time, i lived in Pensacola, Florida, and they had an Obama Headquarters there for him, and the community college i went to had a club called Students for Obama that i got really involved in. we did cookouts on the campus, giving people info on him and informing them about early voting, and where to vote. at the headquarters, we went on foot door to door to the houses of individuals that voted democrat in the past or in the primaries and reminded them of early voting, the last day to do so, where their district votes at, and offered them a ride to the booths on the last day of election if they so needed it. i was even there at the Civic Center when Michelle Obama came to Pensacola and made posters that decorated the walls and stage. i put up a poster of Obama in my apartment window and wore an Obama/Biden '08 pin on everything i wore. i was all for Obama. but was i caught in the hype; in the togetherness blacks were feeling at the time?

i would say no. i had clear cut reasons why i voted for him, and that was that. but i cannot say that it wasn't something more when he won than just another candidate winning. i felt, at the time, that this was a step in history for all people of color that have been oppressed in this nation; it was a "fuck you!" to any bigot that still thought of us as less than and less intelligent.

but why? what did his win actually mean to race relations in this country? how many bigots think differently now about people of color than they did prior to November 4th? what has changed since he won? what kind of change did we expect that never came? how many of us were expecting a revolution?
its been a year since Obama has been in office, and what can we say has really changed? are we still in the middle east fighting a pointless, unnecessary, destructive war that has no positives? yes. do the majority of us still have shitty or no healthcare? yes. is there still racism, bigotry, and discrimination? absolutely (some have even argued that Obama's win made race relations worse because now, bigots who voted for him or showed respect to him after his win now act as if they can say any racist comment and then balance it out by saying how much respect they have for Obama). do blacks still possess the highest unemployment rate in the country? yep. do people of color now feel as though our voices are heard just because we have a black president? no (not most of the one's i've spoken to anyway...).

my friend Yvette, who i think really grasps the situation, has said that it doesn't matter if he's black-if he's not doing anything for people of color and ignoring racism, problems of capitalism and patriarchy, and doing nothing to progress this country, then he's no different from any other white man who doesn't get it. it isn't just enough to be a black president. theres so much more to it than these types of superficial aspects.
we cannot just follow any man or woman with dark skin that says they're here to make a change in the system. you have to actually do it.
and thus far, he has not.

comment. think. criticize. register to vote. don't register to vote.