Lil Kim

[Geechee Girl]

Her new pics kind of got lost due to Bey dropping Lemonade. Lil Kim is now unrecognizable. I believe her extreme body modification is the tragic result of colorism and the resulting internalized self-hatred. She was so naturally beautiful. It breaks my heart that brown girls learn that beauty comes with light skin and "good" hair.

 

[Eternalbluepearl]

Whoa! That's Lil Kim! You are right, she is unrecognizable. She is still beautiful now but she always was. 

[Geechee Girl]

Oops! I forgot to post a progression of Before pics. 

[Anny Nym]

3 hours ago, Geechee Girl said:

Her new pics kind of got lost due to Bey dropping Lemonade. Lil Kim is now unrecognizable. I believe her extreme body modification is the tragic result of colorism and the resulting internalized self-hatred. She was so naturally beautiful. It breaks my heart that brown girls learn that beauty comes with light skin and "good" hair.

 

 

Extreme body modification indeed, the lip job alone looks terrible botched, I  don´t think she chemically bleached her skin though. Just looks like a lot of camouflage-type make up, you can see her natural skin colour at her hair line and then again at her neck line.  Wiki says she did grow up in a foster group home and on the streets, maybe there are issues that manifest themselves in self-hate?

A Michael Jackson -like case.

[Cleopatra7]

I don't see how anyone can consider this to be an improvement or even attractive in any way. One day in the future, anthropologists and historians will look back on the way plastic surgery is used and abused in our culture and place it in the same category as footbinding.

[Georgiana]

7 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I don't see how anyone can consider this to be an improvement or even attractive in any way. One day in the future, anthropologists and historians will look back on the way plastic surgery is used and abused in our culture and place it in the same category as footbinding.

In most cases, plastic surgery today does not leave the patient permanently disabled: robbed of a basic human function to satisfy a sexual fetish, nor does it require years of continuous tortuous pain to accomplish.  Most important, however, is that modern plastic surgery is almost ALWAYS the choice of an adult patient, not an act of violence imposed on a child.

I agree that many people have gone too far with plastic surgery, but it's their body.  They have the right to make it look how they want.  And in almost all cases, they are able to live a full, healthy, happy life afterwards.  Body modification has been practiced for almost all of known human history, and while acceptable limits vary by society and individual, it's a pretty universal practice.  I don't see THAT much difference between someone having "too much" plastic surgery and someone having "too many" tattoos.  

But elective body modification is very, very different than the practice of foot binding or genital mutilation where children are forced to have their bodies altered so that they permanently lose basic physical abilities.  It's a completely different level.  

For reference, foot binding is categorized as a societal act of violence against women alongside female infanticide and acid throwing.  It was a physical act of violence proscribed by society (in part) to disable women and make them less able to assert themselves and their interests. I don't think plastic surgery even comes close to being in that category.  

[Cleopatra7]

39 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

In most cases, plastic surgery today does not leave the patient permanently disabled: robbed of a basic human function to satisfy a sexual fetish, nor does it require years of continuous tortuous pain to accomplish.  Most important, however, is that modern plastic surgery is almost ALWAYS the choice of an adult patient, not an act of violence imposed on a child.

I agree that many people have gone too far with plastic surgery, but it's their body.  They have the right to make it look how they want.  And in almost all cases, they are able to live a full, healthy, happy life afterwards.  Body modification has been practiced for almost all of known human history, and while acceptable limits vary by society and individual, it's a pretty universal practice.  I don't see THAT much difference between someone having "too much" plastic surgery and someone having "too many" tattoos.  

But elective body modification is very, very different than the practice of foot binding or genital mutilation where children are forced to have their bodies altered so that they permanently lose basic physical abilities.  It's a completely different level.  

For reference, foot binding is categorized as a societal act of violence against women alongside female infanticide and acid throwing.  It was a physical act of violence proscribed by society (in part) to disable women and make them less able to assert themselves and their interests. I don't think plastic surgery even comes close to being in that category.  

I would agree that plastic surgery and foot binding are different in the ways that you describe. But at the same time, I think we need to critique the sorts of norms and messages that tell people, especially women of color, that they need to make such drastic changes to be considered "acceptable" in society. Deconstructing and criticizing beauty standards is something I think second wave feminists did really well, but something that modern feminists don't do enough of. I suppose the dogmatic nature of some of the second wave critiques led to feminist discourse that was more focused around the language of choice, but I think the problem is that there is a lack of discussion about how these choices are made and what they reflect about our society.

An extreme example could be Michelle Duggar. Yes, she made a choice to be quiverfull, but that choice didn't come out of nowhere; when we evaluate her choice we need to examine the role of conservative and fundamentalist Protestantism in the South, the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s, the rise of the religious right, the backlash against the ERA, Gothard's influence on isolationist homeschoolers, the Satanic Panic, etc. The fact that I'm criticizing Michelle Duggar's choices ultimately has no effect on Michelle herself, who is perfectly free to send her children to re-education camps, force her older daughters to raise her younger children, or stump for anti-LGBT politicians. Similarly, Li'l Kim can do what she wants with her body, but the choices she has made thus far are also rooted in a particular racial history. However, the fact that I, some random person on the Internet, disapprove of her choices is not preventing her from making them. I mean, given the way celebrities are, she's probably happy we're talking about her in any context.

Somehow I doubt that we'll ever really know what motivated Micheal Jackson to do what he did with regard to plastic surgery. Yes, the vitiligo was real, but the truthiness he had about various aspects of his life were such that I think he inadvertently made the situation for black people with vitiligo much harder, as opposed to helping spread awareness (I have several family members with vitiligo, although not as severe as Jackson had it). I've heard conflicting reports that he had a peculiar aesthetic sense and had the money to make it a reality (this was from Jane Fonda) and then there are others who say he wasn't really interested in plastic surgery as such but just wanted the drugs that come along with major surgery.

[Geechee Girl]

21 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

But at the same time, I think we need to critique the sorts of norms and messages that tell people, especially women of color, that they need to make such drastic changes to be considered "acceptable" in society.

This is what I'd like to explore in this thread. Where did colorism in the U.S. begin? I'm aware this phenomenon is also the case throughout the Caribbean. Toning, fairness, and brightening creams are sold all over the place.  Is coloring and African-American self-loathing rooted in house slaves v. field slaves?   I wonder why as a community, African Americans continue to buy into the "white is all right" myth. Spike Lee touched upon this issue in School Daze. Netflix has a good documentary on the subject, too. Dark Girls

 

[DaffyDill]

4 hours ago, Geechee Girl said:

This is what I'd like to explore in this thread. Where did colorism in the U.S. begin? I'm aware this phenomenon is also the case throughout the Caribbean. Toning, fairness, and brightening creams are sold all over the place.  Is coloring and African-American self-loathing rooted in house slaves v. field slaves?   I wonder why as a community, African Americans continue to buy into the "white is all right" myth. Spike Lee touched upon this issue in School Daze. Netflix has a good documentary on the subject, too. Dark Girls

 

I believe girls in India too are raised to believe fairness in skin colour, is equal to beauty. There is a massive market there for skin whitening products and, as with their African-American counterparts, it's a generations old problem, and as a white person, I can honestly say I find it incredibly sad.

Given that the skin whitening isn't limited to African-Americans, I wonder if it isn't somehow linked to the rise of the British Empire in the 19th Century, where those in power, were pale complexioned. Back then, even Caucasian women were taught that pale skin was desirable, and they carried parasols etc and went to great lengths themselves to avoid direct sunlight. Having a tan was considered common and low class, and linked to working in the fields. Wealthy women used all sorts of potions and powders to lighten their already pale skin.

Perhaps that mindset has been passed down. In the case of African-Americans, could it be said that historically, the lighter your skin, the greater your opportunities in life, particularly if you could pass for "white"? And the same for Indian girls? Maybe that is where this attitude of "white is beauty" is rooted?

Quote

In 2010 India's whitening cream market was worth $432m and growing at 18% per year, according to ACNielsen

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18268914

Disclaimer: I am not a POC, so I apologise in advance if I have stepped on any toes with my comment. I am just perplexed by the irony of white women (and men) spraying themselves regularly to be tanned and seen as "having a healthy glow", while peoples of colour are doing the opposite.

[Anny Nym]

4 hours ago, DaffyDill said:

....

Given that the skin whitening isn't limited to African-Americans, I wonder if it isn't somehow linked to the rise of the British Empire in the 19th Century, where those in power, were pale complexioned. Back then, even Caucasian women were taught that pale skin was desirable, and they carried parasols etc and went to great lengths themselves to avoid direct sunlight. Having a tan was considered common and low class, and linked to working in the fields. Wealthy women used all sorts of potions and powders to lighten their already pale skin.

Perhaps that mindset has been passed down. In the case of African-Americans, could it be said that historically, the lighter your skin, the greater your opportunities in life, particularly if you could pass for "white"? And the same for Indian girls? Maybe that is where this attitude of "white is beauty" is rooted?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18268914

....

 

The preference for fair complexion in India is way deeper rooted and was already manifested long before the rise of the Empire.

The first caste (or class) system, the Varna, was imposed by the more fair complexed north indian "ruling tribes"  on the south indian "inferior tribes", who had a more dark skin, around 2000 BC. Varna literally means colour. 

So the more fair your complexion, the more noble your ancestors, your family and their status in society. Which is still until today a strictly inherited status in the vast majority of cases.

[CoveredInBees]

14 hours ago, Geechee Girl said:

Oops! I forgot to post a progression of Before pics. 

Wow. She was so pretty in the first pic, it makes me sad that she feels the need to do this to herself.

[Apricot]

It's terrifying what money can do.  Surely ethical surgeons would refuse to do this sort of extreme modification?

[Georgiana]

14 hours ago, DaffyDill said:

I believe girls in India too are raised to believe fairness in skin colour, is equal to beauty. There is a massive market there for skin whitening products and, as with their African-American counterparts, it's a generations old problem, and as a white person, I can honestly say I find it incredibly sad.

Given that the skin whitening isn't limited to African-Americans, I wonder if it isn't somehow linked to the rise of the British Empire in the 19th Century, where those in power, were pale complexioned. Back then, even Caucasian women were taught that pale skin was desirable, and they carried parasols etc and went to great lengths themselves to avoid direct sunlight. Having a tan was considered common and low class, and linked to working in the fields. Wealthy women used all sorts of potions and powders to lighten their already pale skin.

Perhaps that mindset has been passed down. In the case of African-Americans, could it be said that historically, the lighter your skin, the greater your opportunities in life, particularly if you could pass for "white"? And the same for Indian girls? Maybe that is where this attitude of "white is beauty" is rooted?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18268914

Disclaimer: I am not a POC, so I apologise in advance if I have stepped on any toes with my comment. I am just perplexed by the irony of white women (and men) spraying themselves regularly to be tanned and seen as "having a healthy glow", while peoples of colour are doing the opposite.

East Asia also has a huge market for whitening creams.  Many of them are actually really great because they focus on skin exfoliation and sun protection.  So modern whitening creams are not always akin to bleaching products.  

In the cases of India and East Asia, however, the ideal that pale = beauty predates any contact with the West (and WELL predates colonialism).  Like many other beauty trends, anything that indicates wealth and leisure is often also a beauty ideal.  Pale skin, like you said, means that you are able to avoid manual, outdoor labor.  India has a different dimension as well as the higher castes were generally paler.  So the more pale you were, the more social importance you likely had.  Beauty ideals related to skin tone in Asia generally had less or little to do with race and more to do with economic and social standing.  

The idea that preference for pale skin, big eyes, etc. is solely or largely due to colonialism or a desire to "look white" in Asia is, in my opinion, overly Eurocentric.  We have ample documentation that these values were prevalent in Asia LONG before any Western contact, and many products you see on the market today have been around for centuries in various forms.  Does it intersect?  Certainly.  But assuming that all Asian people are responding to colonialism or trying to look white when they are simply modernizing aspects of their culture that have been around for ages is harmful, imo, and also completely overvalues the influence of the West while simultaneously marginalizing the influence of Asian culture.   

Pale skin was a value as well in the West until about post WWII.  When most people started working indoors, being pale was no longer something that indicated wealth.  So then fashion started to change and being TANNED was seen as sign of leisure since it indicated you had money to go on vacations to sunny places and sit out in the sun.  

 

[ScreamingIzzy]

I wonder if the preference for light skin is linked to social classes across cultures and centuries. Lighter-skinned people were people who didn't have to work outside for a living (and get tan), and those who didn't have to work in the fields were upper class/highly educated/nobility. Over time, being fair-skinned becomes highly desirable.

I think that because this "preference" crosses cultures and centuries, it's tied to something that goes way back in our human history. And it's deep-rootedness across cultures makes it really difficult to address and resolve.

On a slightly different note: I am skim milk white, and have always loved and envied the beauty of my African, Hispanic, and Indian friends, so it makes me sad to know there are some who feel their skin tone is too dark. 

[FloraKitty35]

I am not opposed to cosmetic surgery, but Lil Kim looks freakish. 

[Geechee Girl]

I do wonder at what point in history did African Americans decide to perpetuate colorism. I would like to learn the social forces outside the media contributed to Lil Kim's self-loathing and internalized racism.

In my mother's day, it was all about black power and being Afro-centric. During the civil rights movement, they were "black and proud." I recall seeing magazines and ads featuring dark-skinned women into the late 70's. Grave Jones, Mounia, and Iman were all over my hood on billboards and whatnot.  There seems to have been a shift in the 80's to fair-skinned black women, as evidenced by the love interest in movies and videos which catered to a black audience. 

[Cleopatra7]

8 hours ago, Geechee Girl said:

I do wonder at what point in history did African Americans decide to perpetuate colorism. I would like to learn the social forces outside the media contributed to Lil Kim's self-loathing and internalized racism.

In my mother's day, it was all about black power and being Afro-centric. During the civil rights movement, they were "black and proud." I recall seeing magazines and ads featuring dark-skinned women into the late 70's. Grave Jones, Mounia, and Iman were all over my hood on billboards and whatnot.  There seems to have been a shift in the 80's to fair-skinned black women, as evidenced by the love interest in movies and videos which catered to a black audience. 

I think colorism has been a thing since slavery. Lighter skinned blacks who would have been related in some way to the master in most cases were given "house jobs" while the darker skinned ones stayed in the field. There were even cases where light skinned slaves (assuming they were the offspring of the master) were allowed some limited privileges. I read a book once about one such woman who even became the heiress of her (white) father's estate (I can get the title later if anyone is interested). During and after Reconstruction, light skinned blacks were the ones who mostly filled the ranks of black colleges since they could get the money to pay from white relatives in many cases. This early start in terms of accumulating education and human capital is why lighter skinned blacks traditionally had more money and education, not because a greater degree of European ancestry somehow made them smarter or more motivated. They would also marry amongst themselves out of class and color snobbery.

[nausicaa]

Do you think it's helped at all to have a very fashionable and high profile First Lady who does not have a very light complexion? (At least to my eye.) 

 

Also, is there actually a surgery that makes one's skin permanently lighter? I know there was lots of talk about MJ having undergone that, but he always just claimed he had vitiligo, which I believe his autopsy supported. I had always heard that no such process actually exists, and most of the "lightening" creams sold in India really don't do much. 

 

[Cleopatra7]

10 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Do you think it's helped at all to have a very fashionable and high profile First Lady who does not have a very light complexion? (At least to my eye.) 

 

Also, is there actually a surgery that makes one's skin permanently lighter? I know there was lots of talk about MJ having undergone that, but he always just claimed he had vitiligo, which I believe his autopsy supported. I had always heard that no such process actually exists, and most of the "lightening" creams sold in India really don't do much. 

 

I think for blacks, having a brown-skinned first lady is extremely affirming, although there's been a lot of conservative snark on her appearance. I doubt Michelle Obama cares though. I'm watching "Atlanta Plastic" (don't judge), and there's a white woman complaining about how she can't compete with black women with large behinds and big breasts, and wants to look more Kim Kardashian-ish. With black women wanting to be lighter with skin bleaching creams and white women wanting to be darker with fake bake and tanning machines, maybe the real lesson is that the media teaches women that however you are in any state is wrong.

I don't think it is possible to permanently lighten one's skin through surgery. What Michael Jackson did was use extremely powerful dematological-grade skin bleaching creams that destroyed the remaining pigment in his skin so it would look uniform. If surgical skin color changing was possible, I could see it becoming very popular for a variety of reasons.

[Georgiana]

Since we touched on Asian Whitening creams, I thought I would share this link to a review of a creme that I just purchased (since this review was written, Asian beauty products have become very easily accessible on Amazon, so you no longer have to buy via Korean sites).  

It touches a little bit on how this (and many products) are derived from traditional herbal medicine and have been used for centuries.  It also translates the ingredients and gives an explanation on whitening (exposure pigmentation correction, not bleaching).  

Skincare in Asia has a long history and has been a part of various cultures for sometimes thousands of years.  Whitening cremes where part of court beauty regimen long before colonial contact with the West was made, and products today are sold based on their similarity to these ancient cosmetics and highlight their cultural connection.  

So, again, while there is intersection, looking at the market for whitening cremes in Asia as simply the influence of colonialism is wrong.  It completely ignores that there was a huge market for whitening cremes prior to the Age of Colonialism and ignores the incredible, awesome, and well documented history of beauty in Asia.  

http://www.snowwhiteandtheasianpear.com/2015/04/review-beauty-of-joseon-dynasty-cream.html

PS: Asian skincare is, very literally, THOUSANDS of years ahead of the West.  Ingredients and formulations that have been used in Asia for years (and are therefore cheap) are marked up RIDICULOUSLY here.  Now that Asian skincare and beauty products are available on Amazon, I really encourage everyone to try them out! 

[Geechee Girl]

Thanks for chiming in, @Cleopatra7  I posited the house slave v. field slave theory upthread. It's nice to affirm I was on the right track. I didn't consider the human capital angle. There's much more to be discovered there with the free men of color up north and in the French territories. Now that you've mentioned it, I recall reading of the rise of the light-skinned upper class in the northeast. The title of the book escapes me, but it was penned by a Harlem Renaissance author. I think the book revolved around affluent families on Martha's Vineyard.

 I still can't wrap my brain around Lil Kim's choice to surgically change her facial features to remove traces of her African ancestry and I'm baffled by MJ, too. The latter of which can be attributed to body dysmorphia. What prompted them, plus the rest of the Jacksons, to undergo identical rhinoplasty? I wonder if more Blacks would resort to this if they had the means to do so. I don't deny their pain is real. How do we go about correcting this social programming? It starts so young in the Clark Doll test in the 1940's. The results tear at my heart. I want to change his, but I'm at a loss for how.

http://www.naacpldf.org/brown-at-60-the-doll-test

Not much has changed when the experiment was replicated in 2009.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7213714&page=1

@nausicaa I don't think the First Lady's skin has changed attitudes. I believe her color attributed to his success and acceptance within some segments of the black community. Michelle proves that although he's mixed, he's down (with us). I will say I've heard the sigh of relief and swell of pride that Barack married a "real black sista." Is it right? In this case, yes because FLOTUS is such a high profile position. Time and again in reality and media, the darker women is cast aside for the light, Latina or white woman. These are the sentiments expressed within safety of beauty parlors, kitchens, churches and Black talk radio. 

Excuse the word salad. There's a point to my pondering I've yet to discover.

[elizasc]

@Cleopatra7, is the book you're thinking of "Woman of Color, Daughter of Privilege"? Showtime produced a fictionalised version called "A House Divided" in 2000

[Cleopatra7]

5 hours ago, elizasc said:

@Cleopatra7, is the book you're thinking of "Woman of Color, Daughter of Privilege"? Showtime produced a fictionalised version called "A House Divided" in 2000

Yes, that's the book I had in mind. It's quite interesting. However, it's university press so it wouldn't surprise me if the price is completely jacked up since the time of initial purchase.

[nausicaa]

13 hours ago, Georgiana said:

PS: Asian skincare is, very literally, THOUSANDS of years ahead of the West.  Ingredients and formulations that have been used in Asia for years (and are therefore cheap) are marked up RIDICULOUSLY here.  Now that Asian skincare and beauty products are available on Amazon, I really encourage everyone to try them out! 

Not to trivialize an otherwise serious conversation, but, um, you got some recs? 

[SilverBeach]

On 4/27/2016 at 6:45 PM, Geechee Girl said:

This is what I'd like to explore in this thread. Where did colorism in the U.S. begin? I'm aware this phenomenon is also the case throughout the Caribbean. Toning, fairness, and brightening creams are sold all over the place.  Is coloring and African-American self-loathing rooted in house slaves v. field slaves?   I wonder why as a community, African Americans continue to buy into the "white is all right" myth. Spike Lee touched upon this issue in School Daze. Netflix has a good documentary on the subject, too. Dark Girls

 

You have opened a can of worms here. I was unaware of color issues until I became an adult because my extended family, friends, and neighbors were all shades and we accepted one another. I am fair but have kinky hair. I won't apologize for my skin tone because that was between my mama and daddy. Nobody should assume anything about anybody (she think she something, she stuck up) just because of skin tone. No one should be put on the defensive because of being light skinned, as I have been. Hair is a can of worms also. I cut my hair decades ago and have never worn wigs or weaves. Some men have a problem with it, because long hair is deemed sexually attractive although it is not typical for Black women. So many intra racial issues...

Check out the new series Underground on WGNA. You'll see that house slaves were no better off than the others. All female slaves were subject to rape by any white man, and any resultant offspring got no inheritance.

I could write a dissertation about this subject. I hope one day Black people stop viewing each other with suspicion and truly embrace our differences.