The film "Precious" premiered in select cities Nov. 6, and reviews are pouring in about the movie with a Harlem teen whose life transforms through education. To say that the circumstances of Precious Jones' life are bleak would be an understatement. Precious is illiterate, living with HIV and has been victimized by her parents in numerous ways, including sexually. Her father has twice impregnated her, and one child she's borne by him suffers from Down syndrome.

"Precious" tackles an array of issues. Because the protagonist is black, however, both the media and the public have raised questions about its effect on race relations. I've summed up two major questions about the film below:

Why do white audiences eat up black films and novels that depict dysfunction, poverty and abuse?

Why are the villains in "Precious" dark-skinned and the heroes light-skinned?

"Precious" is based on the novel Push by Sapphire. Both the film and the book have been compared to Alice Walker's The Color Purple and Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye in that they, too, garnered praise from white critics and featured emotional and sexual abuse of black youth by family members. The fact that these works feature abuse isn't in and of itself a problem. The problem is how the mainstream receives these works. I have no problem if viewers and critics regard "Precious" et al. as representations of particular black families. On the other hand, I do object to viewers and critics who regard a film like "Precious" as the only authentic black experience and a television program such as "The Cosby Show" as inauthentic. The fact is both of these slices of black life are authentic.

I do understand, though, why some members of the black community have criticized "Precious." Positive images of blacks in the media remain few and far between. In comedies, blacks are portrayed as buffoonish, cartoonish and uncouth. Films such as "Norbit," "Doctor Dolittle" and "Big Momma's House," not to mention any Tyler Perry flick, mock black womanhood. And on the dramatic end, we've had stories of gang warfare, virulent racism and abusive or absentee parents.

There's no doubt in my mind that media portrayals of people of color can lead to racial stereotyping. I'm reminded of a former classmate from a Mexican-American family from East L.A. Her roommate freshman year was a Midwesterner who, upon seeing the gang film "Mi Vida Loca," said that she didn't realize my classmate had lived such a hard life. My friend laughed and told her that she had little in common with the "Mi Vida Loca" characters.

In the case of "Precious," critics not only fear that the film will lead to racial stereotyping but that it constitutes "poverty porn." This refers to films that cater to privileged moviegoers who get off on taking in images of poor people in desperate situations. After watching such cinema, the privileged feel like better people just for having seen the film but do nothing to make change in the world they've witnessed on screen.

In a New York Times Magazine interview, director Lee Daniels confessed that he worried about screening "Precious" for a European audience.

"To be honest, I was embarrassed to show this movie at Cannes," he said. "I didn't want to exploit black people. And I wasn't sure I wanted white French people to see our world."

He added, however, that because the world now has a black role model in Barack Obama, a story such as "Precious" can be shared without fear of racial backlash. I don't agree with this, considering that Obama is likely viewed by those in the U.S. and outside of it as the exception rather than the rule as far as African Americans go.

I was also eager to hear Daniels discuss how he feels about exposing audiences to the thread of "colorism" that runs through "Precious." While the evil characters in the film are dark-skinned, the benevolent characters are played by actors so light-skinned they're not easily identifiable as black.

"I'm prejudiced against people who are darker than me," Daniels remarked in New York Times Magazine. "When I was young, I went to a church where the lighter-skinned you were, the closer you sat to the altar. Anybody that's heavy like Precious -- I thought they were dirty and not very smart. Making this movie changed my heart. I'll never look at a fat girl walking down the street the same way again."

I'm glad that Lee's prejudice dissipated during the course of making "Precious," but that doesn't change the harmful message sent by the colorism in his film. In the book "Precious" is based on, a dark-skinned teacher with natural hair changes Precious' perceptions of dark skin from negative to positive. This powerful transformation is lacking in the film because a fair-skinned actress was cast to play Precious' teacher. If Daniels really did become less prejudiced about size and color while making "Precious," hopefully his next project will feature dark-skinned blacks of strong character rather than violent, exploitative brutes with dark skin.

When I posted a blog about Harry Connick Jr. objecting to a group of Australian performers wearing blackface, many readers suggested that it was silly to take offense to the Jackson Jive's performance because group members were of Indian and Lebanese descent and, therefore, couldn't be racist. I tried to explain that the ethnicity of the performers was irrelevant, as people of color are capable of racist behavior as well.

Tyra Banks of "America's Next Top Model" is a case in point. The supermodel-turned-television personality created an uproar last week when her show featured white contestants in dark makeup. The goal was to make the girls appear to be biracial. Banks called it a "fashion interpretation" of culture.

But Dodai Stewart, deputy editor for women's site Jezebel.com, took issue with the "biracial" shoot.

"Race is not silver eye shadow, a bubble skirt or couture gown," she remarked. "It's not something you put on for a photo shoot to seem 'edgy.' Race is not trendy."

Although Stewart, who is biracial, hoped the fact that Banks is black would make her more racially sensitive, Stewart did not completely vilify the television star.

"I have to assume her intent was probably to showcase biracial beauty," Stewart said. "Is this a case in which the action can be forgiven if the motive comes from a good place?"

I'm not sure the intent matters if an act proves to be racially insensitive. Those hurt by racist behavior likely don't care if a perpetrator meant no harm. Take the Jackson Jive, for example. I doubt that those performers had any clue that wearing blackface would offend Harry Connick Jr. and other Americans. The fact of the matter is that their behavior hurt nonetheless.

These recent displays of blackface in fashion--from "America's Next Top Model" to Vogue--do raise questions about whether there can ever be an artistic reason for a white person to don dark makeup. Do these fashion shoots challenge the construct of race for both models and their audiences, or do they simply reduce race to costume?

No baggy pants, no baseball caps, no athletic wear.

These items are among the apparel bars and clubs across the country ban to keep out a certain element. But are African Americans the element they have in mind? According to Macon D., who is white and runs the blog Stuff White People Do, the answer is yes. To make his case, Macon pointed out the public uproar surrounding six black Washington University students denied entry into a Chicago bar Oct. 17 during their senior class trip to the city.

The students claim that white classmates, also wearing baggy pants, were allowed into Mother's Original bar. In addition, the students say that they offered to go back to their hotel and change but were told even switching clothes wouldn't get them into the bar. Adding insult to injury for the students is that the senior class had contacted Mother's before their trip, according to senior class treasurer, Regis Murayi. The treasurer helped plan the Chicago trip to find himself unable to celebrate with his classmates.

"We had prearranged this agreement," he told the Tribune. "We had spoken to these people prior. We had brought a lot of business to them."

In response to their treatment, the students last week filed complaints with the Illinois attorney general's office, the Chicago Commission on Human Relations and the U.S. Justice Department, the Tribune reported.

For its part, Mother's says that some blacks were allowed inside of the bar on Oct. 17 and that gang violence in the area prompted the baggy pants ban. That's fine, but if Mother's is to have such a ban in place it must forbid not just black men who wear baggy pants but white men, Asian men, etc. Assuming that any black man who wears baggy pants belongs to a gang amounts to racism, and if Mother's made this assumption, I hope swift action is taken against the bar.

Mother's human resources manager may have told the Tribune that some blacks were allowed inside, but I'm curious to know if these blacks were male or female. It's no secret that bars benefit from having plenty of female patrons. Also, black women are unlikely to be stereotyped as gang members. Given this, it says little if Mother's allowed attractive black women into the club while denying entry to black men it labeled dangerous.

Unfortunately, this dress code incident isn't isolated. Macon D. posted a roundup of dress codes at bars and clubs nationwide that have sparked cries of racism. One dress code I found particularly disturbing barred admission to anyone with dreadlocks, braids or cornrows, all traditionally black hairstyles. If this isn't a move to keep out blacks, I don't know what is. African Americans of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds style their hair in such ways, so this clearly targets far more than potential gang members.

So, what's going on here? Are these dress restrictions simply 21st century code for "no coloreds allowed?"

By now, you've likely heard about the Louisiana justice of peace who recently denied an interracial couple a marriage license. The justice's move has sparked public outcry.

After all, no matter his opinions on interracial unions, it's no longer illegal for mixed couples to marry. Therefore, Keith Bardwell, the justice of peace in question, overstepped his bounds by refusing a marriage license to Terence McKay, who is black, and Beth Humphrey, who is white. Quotes attributed to Bardwell suggest that the justice considers his refusal to grant McKay and Humphrey a marriage license to be an act of conscience.

According to MSNBC.com, Bardwell said, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Bardwell also commented that he feels neither blacks nor whites accept the children produced by interracial unions.

He shrunk away from the suggestion that racism motivated his actions.

"I'm not a racist," he told the Associated Press. "I just don't believe in mixing the races that way. I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

The fact that Bardwell is patting himself on the back for allowing African Americans to use his bathroom speaks volumes. Separate bathrooms for whites and blacks, along with interracial marriage bans, are relics of the past. That Bardwell is proud of himself for allowing blacks to use his restroom suggests that he still views African Americans as inherently different from whites. Despite his claims to the contrary, his words and actions, alike, belie a racist mindset. The top excuse racists use to protest interracial marriage is the fate of mixed-race children. This reasoning is rooted in the "tragic mulatto" myth which suggests that biracial children are doomed to be tortured misfits whose black ancestry prohibits them from reaping the privileges that white people enjoy. The problem with the tragic mulatto myth is that it blames biracial people for any distress they might endure rather than racism. In reality, mixed-race individuals have emerged as leaders in American society for centuries--from abolitionist Frederick Douglass to President Barack Obama.

There's no denying that biracial people, like any oppressed group, face challenges. But by teaching mixed-race kids to embrace each of their cultures, placing them in schools that celebrate diversity and living in multicultural communities, raising biracial children who are happy and healthy isn't a problem. There's no reason the tragic mulatto myth should be perpetuated in 2009.

As for Keith Bardwell, I have one question: Do you realize that marriage isn't necessary for biracial children to be born? Interracial marriage was banned until the 1960s, yet mixed-race children have been staples of American society since colonial times. Louisiana, in particular, was one of the states where miscegenation boomed. Just read the works of Kate Chopin, who published literature in the late 1880s, to spot this trend. Her writing, much of which takes place in Louisiana, is filled with a catalogue of mixed-race characters. References to "mulattoes," "quadroons" and "octoroons" occupy her pages.

Rush Limbaugh blamed "Obama's America" for derailing his effort to be part-owner of the St. Louis Rams.

The conservative commentator made the remark today on his radio show, according to ESPN.com.

Earlier this year, a group reportedly approached Limbaugh about joining them in a bid to buy the Rams. When word spread recently about Limbaugh's ambitions, however, NFL union leader DeMaurice Smith, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Indiana Colts owner Jim Irsay voiced concerns about having a divisive figure like Limbaugh involved in the league. This led the group that had approached Limbuagh about joining them in the bid to announce Wednesday that they'd dropped him. It's not just that Limbaugh is Republican--so are many NFL team owners--it's that the radio personality has made remarks deemed polarizing at best and racist at worst.

Six years ago, Limbaugh stirred up controversy after commenting on ESPN show "Sunday NFL Countdown" that support of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was race-related.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL," he said. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Historically, African American players were excluded from the quarterback position because quarterbacks are supposed to be intelligent, a quality seen as lacking in blacks. After suggesting that eagerness to right this wrong rather than McNabb's skill was responsible for the support he received, Limbaugh was forced to resign from ESPN. He'd essentially equated McNabb's rise to quarterback with affirmative action.

More offensive than the McNabb comment was when Limbaugh reportedly said in 2007, "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

I find it curious that Limbaugh would seek to purchase an organization he believes consists of thugs or thug wanna-bes. On the other hand, it's very easy to see why black players throughout the league would make a point to say that they would never play for the Rams if Limbaugh served as co-owner. African Americans make up two-thirds of the NFL. Therefore, Limbaugh's remarks alienated most of the league's community. I would hope that this teaches Limbaugh a lesson, but that seems unlikely. The radio host took no responsibility for his failed attempt to buy the Rams. ESPN reported:

"Limbaugh said the real reason he's out is the (National Football League Players' Association's) attempt to influence negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. 'It's designed to intimidate the owners, frighten the owners, and say, 'We're running this league now, gang, not you.'"

Clearly, Limbaugh jests. The real reason he was dropped from the bid is because his racially divisive rhetoric made him a liability. Had he been allowed to co-own the Rams, angry fans could have caused advertising to be pulled from the NFL.

"There's an argument that says the very principles Rush espouses--the free market--are what did him in," conservative radio host Michael Smerconish remarked. "This is the free market. These are private businessmen who made a decision about what was in the best business interest of their thriving venture."

I can't say I feel sorry for Limbaugh. After all, when Chicago was ruled out as a candidate to host the Olympics, he seemed ecstatic. Why? Because Obama had failed, and Limbaugh made no bones about wanting the President to fail when Obama first took office. Why would Limbaugh expect the NFL and America overall to cheer him on now, then? His insistence on blaming his downfall on "Obama's America" doesn't help matters. This is the same sort of racially coded language that made his bid fail.

If Limbaugh should ever decide to bid for an NFL team again, he'd do best to follow the lead of late Republican politician and football player Jack Kemp. Rather than stereotype and alienate black players, Kemp advocated for them, helping to lead the effort to have an all-star game move from New Orleans to Houston when black players complained of discrimination in the Big Easy. Despite his conservative politics, Kemp sought to support blacks in the NFL and otherwise.

Harry Connick Jr. took a stand Wednesday night. While serving as a guest judge on Australian variety show "Hey Hey It's Saturday," the jazz musician reprimanded performers who donned blackface and Afro wigs while spoofing the Jackson Five.

Not only did Connick, a New Orleans native, declare that he wouldn't have appeared on the show had he known about the skit beforehand, he told host Daryl Somers, "I just want to say, on behalf of my country, I know it was done humorously, but we've spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons, that when we see something like that we take it really to heart."

Now the Internet is buzzing with debates about the controversy. Was Connick just being too PC? Did the performers mean no harm? Do Australians simply not get that blackface is offensive because the history and makeup of the continent is so different from America's?

While these are all thought-provoking questions, I am more interested in the message that Connick sent by taking a stand than debating the offensiveness of blackface. (But, yes, I do consider it to be offensive). When Connick spoke out against the Jackson Jive skit, he sent the message that whites have a duty to stand up when racism is at hand. Usually, the opposite message is sent.

It's oft insinuated that racism is the problem of people of color, and, therefore, they alone have the burden of fighting it. In actuality, racism is a problem that affects everyone's lives. If certain segments of the population face educational, employment and healthcare barriers because of race, the whole of America suffers the consequences of it. Our workforce falls behind other globalized nations in ability. We foot the bills of people without health insurance who end up in the ER when an untreated medical condition takes its toll. This is why I applaud Harry Connick Jr. for saying that he spoke for his country when challenging the Jackson Jive skit. Hopefully, he will inspire not only other whites to speak out against racism but also blacks to speak out when they see racism targeted at Asians or Latinos to speak out when they see racism targeted at Middle Easterners and so forth.

Calling out someone for racist behavior can be awkward. You might be considered a buzz kill or someone who can't take a joke. Tensions may arise between you, your coworkers and family members, but, ultimately, it's worth it.

What do you think? Whose duty is it to fight racism?

Mourners at the funeral of Derrion Albert Oct. 3 included the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. How was it that a 16-year-old drew such figures to his memorial service? Albert, an honor roll student, was beaten to death by his peers Sept. 24 as he walked home from Fenger High School on Chicago's South Side. The motive for the killing is unclear, but the murder's raising questions about how to stop teen violence, particularly of the black-on-black persuasion.

"Fathers need to go home and mothers need to be home," recommended Albert's pastor, the Rev. E.G. Ledbetter Jr. of Greater Mount Hebron Missionary Baptist Church.

The pastor also remarked that there "is no simple fix for what is wrong in our nation" and "the healing is not going to take place in one fell swoop," the Chicago Tribune reported.

But if not now, when will the healing begin? In 1989, the National Urban League organized the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to curb black-on-black crime. To raise funds for the coalition, a group of hip-hop luminaries, including Public Enemy, released a rap single about ending violence called "Self Destruction." That was twenty years ago. Today, black men still have the dubious distinction of being the group in America most likely to be murdered, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Reactions to this issue seem well-intentioned but static. In addition to urging parents to stay home, other suggestions to end black youth violence raised in light of Albert's death include making after-school routes safer for students and telling young people headed in the wrong direction that their lives are salvageable. The Rev. Jackson, for example, argues that students such as Albert shouldn't have to take three city buses to get to school. He made this point because Albert was beaten during a brawl between students from two different neighborhoods.

"Why send these children into harm's way every day?" Jackson asked. "These are war zones. This wasn't an incident, it's a pattern."

Yes, it is a pattern, but one I doubt sending students to closer schools will stop. Homicide is the fifth leading cause of death for black men. This is clearly a problem that's beyond the arc of neighborhood schooling. A case in point is that the same day Albert's funeral took place, Tyrone Williams and Percy Day were laid to rest as well. Williams and Day were fatally shot the day after Albert's brutal beating. They were college students from Chicago's West Side.

During Albert's funeral, the Rev. Jackson focused on students rather than black-on-black violence in general, according to newspaper reports. He told funeral attendees that the National Guard escorted black students to an all-white Arkansas school in 1957 to ensure that they could walk to and from school safely. He declared that similar intervention is needed in present day Chicago.

The irony here is that in 1957, the Little Rock Nine needed protection from violent white segregationists. Today, black youth need protection from one another. Whites historically devalued black life with race-related terror, but somewhere down the line blacks have also learned to devalue black life. Given this, I'm not sure that a stronger police presence will end the violence. What's needed is a psychological intervention of sorts. Black youth not only need to know that their lives are salvageable but that their lives and their peers' lives are worth living. In short, killing other black youth really does amount to self-destruction. The question now is how do you address the psychic wounds created by the legacy of racism and the resulting social ills that have taught blacks their lives are worthless?

The Rev. Jackson wants youth to attend the nearest public schools possible. President Obama is sending U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Chicago to address the ongoing violence there. But this isn't a schooling problem or a Chicago problem, it's a race problem.

When Oprah Winfrey recently interviewed rapper Jay-Z, she made a point to play up their similarities. Like Jay-Z, Winfrey grew up poor and in a fractured family, only to achieve success she’d never counted on. In addition, both moguls say very little about their love lives to the public. But their thoughts on the N-word are where the talk-show host and the rapper part ways.

Winfrey is staunchly against the use of the racial epithet. “When I hear the N-word, I still think about every black man who was lynched—and the N-word was the last thing he heard. So we'll just have to disagree about this,” she told Jay-Z.

The rapper, on the other hand, acknowledged that use of the N-word in rap lyrics wasn’t necessary but argued that the slur no longer stings as it once did.

“Nothing is necessary,” he explained to Winfrey. “It’s just become part of the way we communicate. My generation hasn’t had the same experience with that word that generations of people before us had. We weren’t so close to the pain. So in our way, we disarmed the word. We took the fire pin out of the grenade.”

But can the fire ever be removed from a word used to inflict so much emotional trauma? Jay-Z believes that a speaker’s intention gives a word power, and, if people stopped saying the N-word, a word meaning the same thing would take its place. What do you think? Is a word just a word, or does the historical context of language matter?

It seems to me that the N-word will always sting, no matter the intention of the speaker, because we’re all familiar with its ugly roots. Moreover, I’m not sure that I buy Jay-Z’s argument that there’s a generational divide around the N-word. I know people Winfrey’s age who use the N-word freely, and people young enough to be Winfrey’s children who refuse to say it. I myself am several years younger than Jay-Z and would never casually refer to another black person as the N-word. Don’t assume this is because I’m not a hip-hop fan. I am. I just believe too much race-related pain exists in the black community to use words that were systematically used to dehumanize African Americans.

During her interview with Jay-Z, Winfrey brought up another reason why use of the N-word is problematic. If blacks use the word casually, so will whites.

“I was once at a Jay-Z concert, and there was a moment when everybody—including white people—was screaming the N-word,” she recalled. “I gotta tell you, it didn’t make me feel good.”

When Winfrey noted that Jay-Z seemed undisturbed by this phenomenon, he pointed out how much good hip-hop has done for race relations.

“It’s difficult to teach racism in the home when your kid loves Jay-Z,” he said. “It’s hard to say, ‘That guy is beneath you’ when your kid idolizes that guy.”

To this, Winfrey said, “I’ll give you that.”

American Indian activists have protested the use of Native Americans as mascots for decades. Despite their outcry, the United States is still home to teams such as the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks and the Washington Redskins.

But the days Washington’s NFL team is known as the Redskins may be numbered. In 1992, seven activists went to court to challenge whether the NFL team had a right to trademark the Redskins name. They argued that it violates the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits organizations from using disparaging trademark names.

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines “redskin” as offensive slang “used as a disparaging term for a Native American.” But because the football team registered it as a trademark back in 1967, the courts said that the American Indian activists launched their legal challenge after the statute of limitations had passed. Last week, however, the plaintiffs announced that 17 years after their legal challenge was tossed out, they’ll petition the Supreme Court to reexamine their case.

Suzan Harjo, one of the plaintiffs, summed up her exchanges with the opposition.

"The argument has always been the same," Harjo told Washington Post columnist Mike Wise. "'We are honoring you,' they say. 'No, you're not,' we reply. 'Shut up,' they say. That's pretty much the divide for 17 years."

A slew of athletic organizations have dropped Native American references in their names over the years. Wise reports that more than 3,000 sports teams had names associated with American Indians in 1970. Today, that number has dropped to fewer than 1,000. Pro sports teams, though, seem reluctant to part ways with their American Indian monikers.

Sure, millions of dollars in merchandise sport the Redskins name, but the money at stake is no excuse for Washington’s football team to continue using this racial slur. Presumably, some of the hesitation to drop the name is due to the fact that Native Americans make up a scant 1.5% of the U.S. population. How much public outcry can be expected from an issue that affects such a small minority? On the other hand, no team would dare to call themselves, say, the Detroit Darkies or the Brownsville Beaners. The name “redskin” is just as offensive as these names, though.

The NFL says that the Washington football team’s use of “redskin” refers to the red paint used on the skin of Indian warriors, reported Los Angeles Times sports columnist Bill Plaschke. But whether the name is a reference to war paint or the skin coloring of Native Americans is really a moot point. An ethnic slur is an ethnic slur.

Plaschke agrees.

“Of the several high-profile Native American nicknames still alive in sports, nothing is more clearly disparaging than this one,” he wrote.

For those of you who are unconvinced that such names do damage, Mike Wise described interviewing a Minnesota man named Phil St. John. St. John shared a horrible experience attending a high school basketball game with his son. “A white kid in war paint…made ‘woo-woo’ sounds in his child’s face—until his kid turned away in shame, his self-esteem destroyed,” Wise remarked.

I hope that the next generation of Native kids won’t have to endure such taunting at sporting events.

One of the most memorable scenes in President Obama’s memoir Dreams From My Father takes place during his childhood in Indonesia. While visiting the U.S. Embassy there—his late mother’s workplace at the time—Obama encounters a stack of Indonesian periodicals. One in particular catches his eye, for it contains photos of a man who had chemical treatments to lighten his skin.

“He had paid for it with his own money,” Obama recalls the article stating. “He expressed some regret about trying to pass himself off as a white man, was sorry about how badly things turned out. But the results were irreversible. There were thousands of people like him, black men and women back in America who’d undergone the same treatment in response to advertisements that promised happiness as a white person.”


As a boy, Obama couldn’t find the words to voice his horror over skin lightening procedures, but I wonder what he would say today about them, considering that four decades after Obama first learned about such treatments they not only continue to be advertised throughout Asia but also carry the same promises of improving life for the dark-skinned.


CNN recently reported the controversy that’s arisen from the soaring popularity of skin whitening creams in India, which have risen in use more than 100 percent in rural regions of the subcontinent, according to a marketing study. Indian Parliament member Brinda Karat objects to the ads for skin whitening treatments and wants them to be banned for suggesting that dark-skinned people will have better lives if they literally lighten up.

“Basically if you need a job you have to have white skin. If you want a good partner, a companion you need white skin, and you always seem to get it once you’ve used the fairness cream. Basically I think it’s completely racist and highly objectionable,” Karat told CNN.

Karat questions how the self-esteem of those exposed to the ads will be affected, especially since they play on existing social stigmas about dark skin. Readers, what do you think? Should these ads be banned? There would surely be an uproar if skin whitening ads were prominently displayed in American advertisements. Yet, some of the companies which hawk such products in India are well-known in the United States, including Garnier and Nivea. Americans concerned about issues such as colorism can take a stand against the messages being sent to Asian audiences about beauty and skin color by contacting such companies and expressing their concern. Colorism has no place in the 21st century.