I’d like to dispell the myth that white people are total outsiders when it comes to colorism. The notion that white people are completely clueless, innocent, and irrelevant when it comes to colorism is false.

Some people claim that to white people “we’re all just black.” They believe that whites see no difference among blacks and do not treat blacks differently based on skin tone. That’s mostly untrue. To the Ku Klux Klan, yes, black people are just black regardless of skin tone, hair texture, facial features, etc. BUT, most white people are not members of the KKK.

It’s true that many white people may not be familiar with the term “colorism” or that they may not know/understand how minorities discriminate against each other.

It’s also true that many whites don’t care about skin tone (at least not consciously), just as it’s also true that many blacks don’t care about skin tone.

But colorism still exists and is perpetuated by both blacks and whites (and many other races, ethnicities, and nationalities), sometimes consciously and often unconsciously. We must acknowledge this in order to fully remedy the problem.

Here’s how white people in particular are complicit in colorism.

Colorism and White Supremacy

First, just to be clear, when I use the term “white supremacy,” I’m not talking about the Ku Klux Klan or any such hate groups. I’m talking about white supremacy as the myriad ways in which whiteness is the privileged standard and model of all things “good” or “normal” in our society and around the world, while blackness is positioned as the direct and extreme opposite of that. White supremacy reaches far beyond extremist hate groups. White supremacy is American culture.

White people, even the really nice ones, perpetuate white supremacy. (All people who have internalized white supremacy, regardless of their racial designation, perpetuate white supremacy, hence colorism and prejudices against “black culture.”)

As Time Wise writes:

“I admit that AS IS TRUE WITH ANY WHITE PERSON raised in a racist/white supremacist society, I have internalized certain racist and white supremacist thoughts/beliefs/norms, etc.”

It should be noted that this conditioning can be effectively resisted. But you can only resist what you acknowledge exists.

Research Studies on Colorism

In 2015, Lance Hannon published research findings on what he calls “white colorism,” indicating that regardless of education, test scores, and other demographic factors, “African Americans and Latinos deemed to have lighter skin tones are significantly more likely to be seen as intelligent by white interviewers.” He uses the following language, which includes a bit of professional jargon, but is quite significant:

“a one standard deviation increase in skin lightness roughly triples the probability of being perceived as having above average intelligence (an impact that is greater than a one standard deviation increase in education level).”

This suggests that in judging intelligence, whites are more influenced by skin tone than education level.

In 2014, five researchers published results of a study revealing the existence of a “skin tone memory bias.” All races of study participants, including white participants, remembered “educated” black men as being lighter than they actually are.

In 2014, Brittany C. Slatton published a book detailing the results of her research in which white men were invited to respond anonymously to an online survey about their views on dating black women. Slatton explains that the men who said they’re unattracted or rarely attracted to black women “root that lack of attraction in those traits defined as ‘black’: dark skin, hair texture, and facial features.” In contrast, some of the white men who are and are not attracted to black women in general “described blacks with more ‘white’ facial features and hair texture as the only attractive black woman,” thus using whiteness as the standard by which they measure the beauty of black women. Slatton quotes several of the survey respondents who say the following:

“I do find some black women attractive, but they tend to have more white physical features and are polished…. Alicia Keys comes to mind.”

“If I find a black woman attractive, it is because their hair type and facial features are more representative of the Caucasian race.”

“There are some black women who are attractive. And they aren’t full black. The only black women I find attractive are a mix of black and European, black and Latino, or black and Asian. They end up with a tan complexion, and hair that doesn’t look frizzled or like a Brillo pad.”

“The ‘blacker’ the person, the less femininity I tend to see.”

“I think black women’s features are too extreme; they are too dark, and they usually are much too large for my tastes…. The only black women I have found even marginally attractive are smaller, lighter-skinned black women… ala Beyoncé.”

We might never care whether white guys want to marry us, but what Slatton’s research helps to show is how white people are just as capable of colorism as any other group of people.

In 2014, three researchers reported that dark skinned black girls are three times more likely to be suspended from school than light skinned black girls, and for boys and girls alike, darker skin correlates with higher suspension rates. Whites undoubtedly contribute to such a significant color-based disparity given that a majority of school administrators are white, about 83% of teachers are white, and only 7% are black, non-hispanic (as reported by NCTES).

In 2011, three researchers found that in North Carolina between 1995 and 2009, light skinned black women received more lenient prison sentences and served less time in jail. In the judicial system, it’s often white people making such decisions.

In 2010, Kimberly Kahn and Paul Davies published the results of two studies showing that in shooting simulations, blacks and non-blacks were both more likely to shoot blacks with darker skin, broader noses, and fuller lips.

In 2009, two researchers published study results suggesting that for whites making hiring decisions, skin tone had greater influence on their choices than education and work experience.

Colorism and Implicit Bias

It’s not that the people in the above studies (or anyone else for that matter) are actively trying to discriminate against dark skinned people. It’s more likely that they have unconscious associations with skin tone that they’re completely unaware of and can’t even recognize. That’s implicit bias. Scholars at Harvard University’s Project Implicit define implicit bias pretty simply:

“An explicit stereotype is the kind that you deliberately think about and report. An implicit stereotype is one that occurs outside of conscious awareness and control. Even if you say that men and women are equally good at math, it is possible that you associate math with men without knowing it. In this case we would say that you have an implicit math-men stereotype.”

As a result of implicit bias, even people we talk to who say they “don’t see color,” probably (absolutely) do see color. Though as Slatton reminds us in her book, we can’t always rely on what people say in front of us anyway, because most folks (who are not Donald Trump) usually try to avoid appearing racist, even if they really do hold racially biased beliefs and attitudes.

Because American culture is white supremacist, most people have a pro-white/anti-black implicit bias, even if only slightly. (If you want to measure your own implicit bias, you can take the test.)

White Colorism in Popular Media

One of the biggest, most lucrative, and most visible drivers of white supremacy in American culture is the industry combo of beauty, fashion, entertainment, magazine, and broadcast news. White people control the largest share of this industry mashup on several levels. People usually take that to mean that all minorities in America receive equal opportunity discrimination in these fields. But the truth is that lighter skinned minorities or “ethnically ambiguous” minorities have an advantage in these fields because of their skin, hair, and facial features. This advantage persists over time and in broad patterns despite individual exceptions or periodic trends toward darker skin.

In a passage about the Straight Outta Compton casting call, Kristen J. Warner writes in her 2015 book The Cultural Politics of Colorblind TV Casting that Hollywood does in fact typecast minority actors by skin tone, hair, and other features:

“The description of types included in the breakdown do in fact speak to the types of Blackness Hollywood can tolerate. It is an obvious and likely cliché but it bears another mention. Blackness and those who embody it in Hollywood must be in some ways relatable and familiar to white audiences, even in production where white audiences may not be the sole target demographic. Thus ‘exotic’ light-skinned women from a variety of ethnicities are privileged as the models while dark-skinned African-American women are reduced to ill-shaped, poverty-stricken background performers. What’s more, it is not just that an imagined white audience will see familiar types but also that those background performers will match their expectations of what a beautiful model and a poor, out-of-shape woman look like.”

When Viola Davis talks about how having dark skin and Afrocentric features makes it harder to get acting roles, especially substantive roles and leading roles, she’s not just talking about black films or black filmmakers (although they have serious colorism issues made more obvious because they are black). The working conditions Davis describes are created largely by whites who make a majority of casting and hiring decisions in these industries. And though some might be tempted to say that’s because they’re only giving black people what we want, the Oscars make it clear that white people in Hollywood feel no obligation to please minorities. White people’s decisions to cast a light skinned or mixed race woman is always about their prejudice. The earlier quote about Beyoncé, for example, reminds us that the overrepresentation of fair skinned black women on the celebrity A list is by no means soley a function of black people’s colorism, but is in large part a product of white people’s colorism as well.

White People and Colorism During American Slavery

During slavery, the institutional rape of black women resulted in a sizable population of mixed-race people. Because of their obvious European ancestry, whites attributed biracial people, slave or free, with greater beauty, intelligence, and humanity than the general population of black people, slave or free. This is the white supremacist foundation of colorism in the Americas. Light skin, straight hair, light colored eyes, or keen facial features in people of color are privileged because society takes those things as evidence of European ancestry, and it’s that perceived connection to European ancestry that is so valued in American culture.

These attitudes are quite clearly expressed in E. B. Reuter’s 1917 article “The Superiority of the Mulatto.” Reuter reports that:

“The whole matter of attitude on the part of the white people and its consequent result in greater opportunities for lighter work, more association, greater privileges, better training, and more freedom operated to the advantage of the mulattoes prior to the passing of the institution of slavery. …

“The white man’s assumption of the mixed-bloods’ superior capability, entirely aside from any question as to the accuracy of the assumption, created in the Negro race the tradition of mulatto superiority. It laid the basis for a class separation on the basis of skin coloration and for the social prestige of the mixed-blood group.”

Reuter acknowledges that advantage and disadvantage were not unilateral during slavery, but the fact remains that whatever disparities did exist between black and mixed-race people were a direct result of the actions of white people. White people (and eventually mixed-race individuals themselves) perpetuated these attitudes and inequalities for generations after slavery.

Addressing Colorism

At the end of the day, effectively dealing with colorism requires acknowledgement of how whites perpetuate colorism. Because whites created colorism in America and because they continue to perpetuate it and continue to maintain social conditions that entrench it, they are a part of the equation that leads to solutions. Especially since they are most likely to teach children of all races and are very likely to make decisions that could alter the course and quality of people’s lives, decisions pertaining to employment, the legal system, and other areas of life like housing, healthcare, policing, etc.

I will say, however, that we must first eradicate colorism—white supremacy—from our own minds and hearts.

Colorism is a symptom of oppression as well as a system of oppression.

The specific oppression I speak of here is racism or “white supremacy.”

Colorism is both a product and a tool of the umbrella institution of white supremacy.

When I began reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, I did not expect to find so many ideas relevant to colorism and colorism healing. Freire wrote Pedagogy in 1968, and it was translated from Portuguese to English in 1970. The book is based on Freire’s work with poor working people in Brazil. However, that very specific context of oppression has parallels with many others, and lots of people have reapplied Freire’s ideas in different contexts. But as far as I know, no one has applied his ideas to colorism.

I want to share with you some powerful ideas from Freire’s book that I believe reveal a lot about the sources of colorism and possible solutions to colorism. What follows is a small selection, but I hope you are inspired to take up the book and read all that it contains.

Why Colorism Exists

A divided house cannot defend itself

“As the oppressor minority subordinates and dominates the majority, it must divide it and keep it divided in order to remain in power. The minority cannot permit itself the luxury of tolerating the unification of the people, which would undoubtedly signify a serious threat to their own hegemony. Accordingly, the oppressors halt by any method (including violence) any action which in even incipient fashion could awaken the oppressed to the need for unity. Concepts such as unity, organization, and struggle are immediately labeled as dangerous. In fact, of course, these concepts are dangerous—to the oppressors—for their realization is necessary to actions of liberation.” (Freire, p. 122)

“Submerged in reality, the oppressed cannot perceive clearly the ‘order’ which serves the interests of the oppressors whose image they have internalized. Chafing under the restrictions of this order, they often manifest a type of horizontal violence, striking out at their own comrades for the pettiest reasons” (Freire, p. 44).

Freire quotes Fanon to support this. Fanon writes:

“The colonized man will first manifest this aggressiveness which has been deposited in his bones against his own people…. for the last resort of the native is to defend his personality vis-á-vis his brother.” (Fanon as quoted on page 44 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed)

A whole lot of people, especially African Americans, acknowledge that colorism divides the community. Unfortunately, many people mistakenly think that dialogue about colorism is the source of division rather than the colorism itself.

I must say that colorism continues to divide us because we fail to confront it (due to fear, guilt, shame, pain, ignorance, selfishness, etc.). For unity and healing, we need all parties to acknowledge how we are each complicit and responsible. For unity and healing, we need all parties to acknowledge our pain and our privilege.

We’ve internalized white supremacy

“The more they mimic the invaders, the more stable the positon of the latter becomes…. For cultural invasion to succeed, it is essential that those invaded become convinced of their intrinsic inferiority. Since everything has its opposite, if those who are invaded consider themselves inferior, they must necessarily recognize the superiority of the invaders. The value of the latter thereby becomes the pattern for the former. The more invasion is accentuated and those invaded are alienated from the spirit of their own culture and from themselves, the more the latter want to be like the invaders: to walk like them, dress like them, talk like them.” (Freire, p. 134)

“Self-deprecation is another characteristic of the oppressed, which derives from their internalization of the opinion the oppressors hold of them. So often do they hear that they are good for nothing, know nothing, and are incapable of learning anything—that they are sick, lazy, and unproductive—that they become convinced of their own unfitness” (Freire, p. 45).

In colonial societies and in societies where slavery existed, whites used and perpetuated colorism to divide the oppressed people. However, as the two quotes above state, the oppressed people internalized, believed in, and became convinced of their own inferiority and of the superiority of whiteness. Colorism among African Americans and other people of color took hold as we began to hate our blackness, began to strive for whiteness, and began to place a higher value on those people of color who more closely resembled and enacted whiteness.

Even though the era of old colonialism and slavery has long passed, its legacy lives on. Even now, people of color continue to loathe blackness but laud whiteness and those who more closely resemble whiteness.

Today, however, it’s not so black and white. White supremacy is no longer stated in explicitly racial terms. Instead people use rhetoric like, “straight hair just looks more professional.” What’s concealed by such statements is that straight hair looks more professional because straight hair is associated with whiteness, and whiteness has always been associated with professionalism.

So how do these ideas spread?

“All these myths…the internalization of which is essential to the subjugation of the oppressed, are presented to them by well-organized propaganda and slogans, via the mass ‘communications’ media—as if such alienation constituted real communication.” (Freire, p. 121)

Society consciously and most often unconsciously maintains white supremacy on a grand scale through mass communications and propaganda in all of its various forms throughout history. This includes, but is not limited to: books, literature, music, art, newspapers, movies, television, magazines, billboards, advertisements and commercials, video games, websites, social media, flesh-tone products, stock photography, dress codes that regulate hairstyles, jeans that fail to accommodate a curvier body, fairytales like Rapunzel, music videos (including ones starring artists of color), dolls and other toys, and… Well, you get the picture.

Why Some People Deny Colorism and White Supremacy

There is no critical intervention when intervention “would contradict the class interests of the perceiver…. The fact exists; but both the fact and what may result from it may be prejudicial to the person. Thus it becomes necessary, not precisely to deny the fact, but to ‘see it differently.’ This rationalization as a defense mechanism coincides in the end with subjectivism” (Freire, p. 34).

What Freire says here relates to colorism and white supremacy because certain people benefit from these forms of oppression. Those who benefit might not want to lose their benefits, and they often do not even acknowledge that they receive any benefits. They therefore try to dismiss dialogue or action aimed at undoing these forms of oppression.

When we receive information that somehow portrays us or people we identify with in an unflattering or unfavorable light, we might not deny the facts outright, but we try to justify them or rationalize them. We dismiss the information by saying, “Well, I guess I see it differently.” Even when the information doesn’t explicitly describe us, it might contain facts that incriminate us or those with whom we identify.

I’ve said before that colorism healing takes courage. One of the most courageous things we can do is admit that we are complicit—all of us. We need courage to admit that we have certain privileges because of our outward appearances. We need courage to admit that others have an equally valid story to tell, even if the story implicates us or someone who looks like us.

The Myth of “Reverse Discrimination”

Even when a more equitable situation is established, “the former oppressors do not feel liberated. On the contrary, they genuinely consider themselves to be oppressed. Conditioned by their experience of oppressing others, any situation other than their former seems to them like oppression…. Any restriction on [their former way of life], in the name of the rights of the community, appears to the former oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights” (Freire, p. 39).

Though Freire is writing primarily about class inequality, I think a similar thing happens when it comes to race. The notion of Affirmative Action as “reverse discrimination” is perhaps the most infamous case of this type of condition.

In many societies around the world, people’s race, skin color, hair texture, facial features, or body size and shape often lead to un-merited advantages (advantages gained through no effort of your own, like an advantage given because of race or skin color). Basically, the loss of an un-merited advantage often feels like a disadvantage (Why am I being punished for who I am?). The reason this feels like a disadvantage is because many of the benefactors of racism are not aware (or in denial) of how they are privileged in that institution. To see things differently would require not relying solely on one’s personal experiences (individualism) and instead acknowledging the larger societal patterns, probabilities, and historical legacy.

When individuals or whole societies make conscious and direct attempts to rectify/compensate for society-wide disparities, rather than understanding it as a more equitable share of pie for everyone, many of the previously privileged view such efforts as merely a smaller slice of pie for them, one that will no longer be served on a silver platter.

For healing to take place, we have to be brave enough to admit when we’ve had easier access to the pie than our other brothers and sisters. Even when we personally have not had a disproportionately large share of pie, we can at least acknowledge that those who have, tend to look like us rather than the rest of the family.

Taking Action Against Colorism and White Supremacy

Have the courage to be free

“Some, however, confess: Why deny it? I was afraid of freedom. I am no longer afraid!” (Freire, p. 17)

I must confess: For a long time I was afraid to talk about colorism. I was afraid of what people would think, afraid people would think I’m just jealous or hating, afraid people would think I had low self-esteem and didn’t love myself, afraid people would say I was causing division.

I am no longer afraid!

“the oppressor is ‘housed’ within the people, and their resulting ambiguity makes them fearful of freedom.” (Freire, p. 144)

Not everyone wants to be healed. I sometimes observe that people seem completely content with colorism. In some cases this is because they’ve enjoyed the benefits of colorism and don’t care to lose those. In other cases they’ve so fully subscribed to colorism that they believe it’s the natural order of things. It almost becomes an enjoyable pastime, like the memes and hashtags on social media suggest. And in other cases they’ve been so complicit in perpetuating colorism that they don’t want to deal with the guilt they might feel if they awaken their consciousness about colorism.

“Fear of freedom, of which the possessor is not necessarily aware, makes him see ghosts. Such an individual is actually taking refuge in an attempt to achieve security, which he or she prefers to the risk of liberty…. Men and women rarely admit their fear of freedom openly, however, tending rather to camouflage it—sometimes unconsciously—by presenting themselves as defenders of freedom. They give their doubts and misgivings an air of profound sobriety as befitting custodians of freedom. But they confuse freedom with the maintenance of the status quo; so that if [consciousness] threatens to place that status quo in question, it thereby seems to constitute a threat to freedom itself.” (Freire, p. 18)

You probably know this story just as well as I do. The guy who proudly proclaims: “I only date light skinned chicks,” then shrugs and says, “That’s just my preference.” Others who support this way of thinking will also shrug and say, “Everyone has a right to their own preference.”

Of course everyone has the right to prefer who and what they want, but…

We might also see this defense of personal preference (like a defense of personal freedom), as really just a cowardly defense of the status quo, a fear of freedom (for reasons stated above).

Rather than questioning the possible reasons for or sources of our preferences, rather than considering the social and historical construction and conditioning of our preferences, it’s easier for some people to believe that preferences are simply a personal, individual, biological, natural, and harmless matter. It’s easier to believe so because true belief in the opposite requires action, which requires courage.

Believe that society can change

“the oppressors attempt to destroy in the oppressed their quality as ‘considerers’ of the world. Since the oppressors cannot totally achieve this destruction, they must mythicize the world. In order to present for the consideration of the oppressed and subjugated a world of deceit designed to increase their alienation and passivity, the oppressors develop a series of methods precluding any presentation of the world as a problem and showing it rather as a fixed entity, as something given—something to which people, as mere spectators, must adapt…. [The oppressors] deposit myths indispensable to the preservation of the status quo.” (Freire, p. 120)

This quote builds on the idea that people hide behind notions of personal freedom because they are too afraid or unwilling to even question, much less resist, the status quo. Even when they express sadness about colorism, too many people respond with resignation and passivity, as if nothing can be done about it.

Well, we have to realize that societies are always changing and that we can and should be active participants in shaping that change. We must believe that we can help change our society for the better. Yes, it’s a huge and overwhelming task. Yes, it takes a ton of effort and risk and courage. But we can do it.

Bear Witness

The first action step for colorism healing is to speak our truths—to bear witness. Here’s what Freire says about bearing witness:

“The essential elements of witness include: consistency between words and actions; boldness which urges the witness to confront existence as a permanent risk; radicalization (not sectarianism) leading both the witnesses and the ones receiving that witness to increasing action; courage to love (which, far from being accommodation to an unjust world, is rather the transformation of that world in behalf of the increasing liberation of humankind); and faith in the people, since it is to them that witness is made.… in dialogical action, daring and loving witness serve the ends of organization.” (157-158)

Let’s bear witness—daring and loving witness.

Understand the Causes of colorism

A second action step for colorism healing is to make sure we understand root causes:

“As long as the oppressed remain unaware of the causes of their condition, they fatalistically ‘accept’ their exploitation. Further, they are apt to react in a passive and alienated manner when confronted with the necessity to struggle for their freedom and self-affirmation.” (Freire, p. 46)

When we remain unaware of the causes of colorism, the problem seems impossible to solve. Understanding colorism’s causes helps us to see possible solutions. The device no longer dumbfounds us when we take it apart and see how it works. Let’s find the power source and unplug it to stop the system of colorism. In most society’s that struggle with colorism, the source is white supremacy.

Have Dialogue about colorism and white supremacy

According to Freire, dialogue requires love, humility, faith, hope, and critical thinking. I add that it requires courage. Once we’ve gathered our courage, come to believe that change is possible, born daring and loving witness, and examined the causes of colorism, we need to continue to have courageous yet humble conversations amongst ourselves.

“Human existence cannot be silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but only by true words, with which men and women transform the world. To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it…. Human beings are not built in silence, but in word, in work, in action-reflection…. No one can say a true word alone—nor can she say it for another, in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words.” (Freire, p. 69)

I am writing this post, using my words, but I can’t be the only one. We need your words too. Whether you’re a writer, singer, tweeter, small-talker, big-talker, lecturer, poet, or any other form of human being, we need your words!

Reflect. Act. Repeat.

“The insistence that the oppressed engage in reflection on their concrete situation is not a call to armchair revolution. On the contrary, reflection—true reflection—leads to action.” (Freire, p. 48)

“‘Cultural Revolution’ takes the total society to be reconstructed, including all human activities, as the object of its remolding action.” (Freire, p. 139)

By reading this, you’re already engaged in the cycle of reflection and action. How will you continue that cycle from here?

Will you talk to someone about your experiences with colorism? Will you listen to someone else share their experiences? Will you give a child a book, movie, or toy that affirms who they are? Will you make a conscious effort to support magazines, movies, and TV programs that promote diversity? Will you give attention to the person everyone else ignores?

Reflect on the actions that feel right to you, then take those actions. Repeat.