by
Black Girl With Long Hair
First, let’s establish that I am a fan of Black-ish. Dre and Bow Johnson — a successful ad executive and anesthesiologist living in an all-white LA neighborhood — are the perfect representation of how integration has both benefitted and failed black people. They are the best and brightest of black America, who have assimilated into the upper middle class while grappling with the black community identity they left behind. In its best episodes, Black-ish is insightful and heartfelt.
But colorism has been Black-ish‘s striped elephant in the room, and one of its weak spots.
The Johnson family is what many would consider light-skinned, with the exception of Diane, played by the adorable Marsai Martin. (Three of the actors who star in Black-ish — Tracee Ellis Ross, Yara Shahidi and Miles Brown — are biracial in real life.) I’m not sure if this casting was intended, but it provides a rich opportunity for exploration of color and blackness.
But for a long time, Black-ish only (and very briefly) touched on colorism in an episode where Bow grapples with her disdain for Junior’s white girlfriend, as she remembers being a mixed race youth struggling to fit in with both the black and white crowd.
But it seemed the show might take another swing at it in a recent episode titled ToysRn’tUs, which tackles black representation in media and culture. When Dre casts a fair-skinned black family for an ad campaign (that his assistant jokes looks like the DeBarge’s) his co-workers note that he has an affinity for lighter skin. Dre takes offense at this — as many black people do when accused of colorism — but never reflects deeply. Instead he kneejerk reacts by re-casting the family as West African in traditional garb. Cue the lame jokes about them being Somali pirates (who, incidentally, reside in East Africa) and then the show kind of sputters to an end with Dre sheepishly admitting that sometimes he gets carried away in his pursuit of equality.
I understand that Black-ish is a comedy, but this is an unsatisfying finish for a show that dedicated an entire episode to why it’s okay for black people to use the N-word.
As the episode ran I wondered why, when Dre was considering how to re-cast the black family, it didn’t occur to him to put in people who looked like his own daughter.
The fact that Dre entertained two categories of blackness in his mind — light-skinned and African — speaks to a real-world problem. Although they represent the vast majority of the black population, medium and dark-skinned “just black” Americans are often simply not seen and, inexplicably, find themselves struggling for equal and fair media representation. (See here, here, here and here.)
One of my new faves, Calvin Klein model Ebonee Davis, addressed this in an open letter to the fashion industry;
I was told that brands only booked black girls if they looked like they’d been “plucked from a remote village in Africa” or like a “white model dipped in chocolate,” and from the start of my career in 2011, I lived by those words.
She repeated the point in a February TEDX Talk;
Casting directors would ask me, “Where are you from?” to which I would respond, “Seattle.” And then, “Where are your parents from?” to which I would respond “Seattle.” I was met with looks of confusion. As if it were impossible to conceptualize that black beauty exists right here in America.
Black-ish‘s awkward handling of color makes Martin’s character Diane, who has up to this point absorbed the worst of the family’s female traits, a lot more suspicious. Bow is the idealistic mom, Zoey the stylish daughter. Diane is… the evil genius. The one who was put on a no-fly list, the one who might be demon-possessed, the one who is feared by a grown black man (Deon Cole’s character Charlie).
It doesn’t help that the show hasn’t done a great job of explaining why Bow and Zoey wear their loosely-curled hair naturally while Diane’s kinkier-textured hair is straightened.
I’m just hoping the Black-ish writers are self-aware enough not to fall into the Coming to America trap of attributing the stereotypically negative characteristics to the sister with the darker skin.
Tackling colorism is not easy. It’s evidence that oppressed people can oppress. But it’s an invisible force that shapes alot both within and outside of black American culture. Black-ish‘s season is not over yet, and the show has done an overall great job of tackling complex issues, so I have faith that they will take another stab at the issue of colorism and, this time, get it right.
Do you watch Black-ish? Did you see the ToysRn’tUs episode? What are your thoughts?
44 Responses
No, I don’t watch it, and I don’t want to. I’m tired of tv as of the past few years. Blackness and brownness is purposely being washed out of tv. It is purposeful programming to normalize things that aren’t normal. I see darker skinned people every day, but don’t see these images represented on tv. Now, the industry is wondering why they are losing money and people are watching other platforms. Screw television and the shows that don’t represent me.
I saw the episode…and I think this is a reach. I think the point was to show the extremes and confusion that Dre had in regards to what is sellable in America. It was addressing his personal colorism issues. As for Diane…again a reach. Lets not forget that Diane had natural hair when the show started….and sometimes rocked a fro. Im not sure who’s decision it was to straighten her hair….it could’ve been a real life decision made by Marsai’s real mother, and maybe had nothing to do with the show. Also naturally Tracee & Yara are going to rock their natural curls….because thats their hair….should it be different? It can’t be made kinky because its not kinky….and they don’t seem to want to straighten it. I feel like thats ok because they are mixed…and the whole essence of the show is about a mixed family….so yes I think they were intentionally casted. Sometimes looser curls are a trademark symbol of being mixed with black and something else…..Im not sure if I understand why it may be an issue that most of the family is light skinned……thats natural for a mixed family. Plus they are not all high yellow…..they have some melanin. Who knows though….they may address the topic of colorism again a some point on a deeper level. After all the show is still airing.
I haven’t watched Blackish since the debut of Empire. I causally watched, What turn off for me was the children, they were just not likeable!
This reminds me so much of a post I’d seen on tumblr that read something like “when’s the last time you saw a black family in the media where the mother isn’t lighter than the father and their daughter isn’t mixed-race looking” and honestly, there aren’t many and it’s so upsetting
It’s comedy! Let’s keep it like that….it won’t go into anything color deep….unfortunately.
You forgot Diane’s twin brother Jack who is brown skinned. Jack is not light skinned.
I don’t agree that Diane absorbed the worst of the family’s traits. In fact, I think that Zoey has it the worst. In a comedy, where everyone gets several opportunities to deliver punch lines in every episode, Zoey comes off as the boring, sometimes ditzy, placeholder. As an actress in a comedy, that role takes her character nowhere. When Zoey goes off to college next year, the plot won’t slow down one bit. She’s the Judy Winslow. Bo is the overbearing, neurotic, out of touch mom who blunders her way through motherhood and work (despite being a doctor). Dre’s mother is the crazy mom who makes it a miracle that Dre even walks upright. And Diane is the legit genius who can go toe to toe with adults. Out of the four kids, Diane is the most loveable to me (her brothers are a sci-fi buffoon and a budding idiot). Everyone on that show is made to have gaping flaws. Diane’s flaws actually works great with the storyline. If she were just a genius child, she’d be as boring as Zoey, and if she were a genius with no actual ability, she’d be a one-trick pony like Urkel.
Exactly. Diane is my favorite!
I feel compelled to comment because you have been posting quite a bit recently about “just-blackness” as though it has a look and is easily distinguishable from the “not just black” or “Africa black” against which you are juxtaposing it. I have to be honest, there’s something a bit limited, mildly xenophobic, and stereotype-affirming about what you seem to be implying with these posts, and surprisingly few people have replied expressing contrary viewpoints.
I don’t think you mean to be alienating. With these posts, though, some one less discerning might assume that one could easily pick those looks out of a line up of black people or something. However, because the relationship between phenotype and genotype is obviously not 1:1 there are so many instances where someone “just black” is mistaken for being “Africa black” or someone “Africa black” may in fact look similar to someone who is “just black” as you call it. Not to mention the fact that the “Africa black” itself has soooo many manifestations (there being 54 countries and a myriad of tribes and ethnic groups on the continent).
And to add further complication… we of course know that in the USA, for example, (a country with a long history of racial mixing and where the definition of “black” itself is so expansive and at times, subjective) it is not entirely uncommon to have within a single family, siblings, one of whom has the so-called “just black” look and one of whom has the “not just black” look. I usually enjoy your posts, but I dunno… I’m not a fan of speaking of this “just black” and then “everything else” dichotomy as though it is rooted in anything other than stereotypes about what people are supposed to look like based on their genes and country of ancestry.
When I reference “just” blackness I’m speaking of the pejorative way in which multi-generation American blackness (that is not light-skinned/visually close to whiteness) is perceived. To get a better understanding check the links I included in the article (when I said see here, here, here…)
Yes. However, you are failing to acknowledge the claim that she is bringing up. We understand what you are referring to when you claim “just blackness.” However, there is a fundamental problem that occurs with that, which I’ve seen as a trend with many African-Americans. “Blackness” extends a distinct set of characteristics. All black people (albeit, Africans or Black Americans or Caribbeans or etc.) do not necessarily share the same characteristics or looks. So, when you make claims such as those mentioned, it’s as if you’re taking away individuality out of black people and reducing us to a set of people who fit a certain box. If that makes sense.
I’m not saying “just blackness” in terms of how *I* see black people. I say “just blackness” in reference to how black people are negatively seen. I’m not trying to be dismissive. I’m referencing how black people are dismissed.
LOL I fully get what you’re saying. OTHERS see US as “just black” when it comes to the range of our beauty. when we claim our beauty others are offended or appalled that we have the gall to be confident because, after all, “we’re just black.” others think we have to be a mixture of something in order to be seen as exotic because, if not, they are confused as to how we would deem ourselves beautiful if we’re not mixed with what THEY deem “exotic”
Gotcha. I’m glad you stood your ground and explained your view. People were going for your jugular. Good God Almighty.
I can’t help but think that you both are trying to argue the case for the exclusion to the rule needing to have equal validation to the predominant case. The predominant look for black people across the globe is dark skin. The predominant hair types for us are those that span in the kinky range – roughly 4c, which is the start of the spectrum in terms of rate of occurrence in the population at large, to 3b, and those who have the looser variety, and those with lighter skin, typically are those who exhibit admixture, and thus, are the outliers. There is no shame in acknowledging this, or declaring this to be the case, when it is. Most black people are dark of skin, and easily recognizable as black- which means, obviously, that there are a set of features and looks which can usually or even most of the time be conflated with blackness, across culture and across geography and nationality. Some looks within that spectrum of blackness will be more associated with some black groups as opposed to others, but when someone says “just black” in an attempt to define generally a black look that does not lend itself more overtly to admixture recognition, most black people don’t need that phrase defined. In short, we get it. To say that “Not all black people look the same”, in a nutshell, which is, to paraphrase, what you have said, is, quite frankly, redundant, stating the obvious, and therefore a deflection of the highest order in a discussion centered around colorism. It almost comes across as a silencing maneuver.
Thank you. I think this is a case of someone not having the author’s experience and attacking her. I thought “just black” meant just black as in darker skin and kinky hair. I mean that is my experience, and yes it’s colored through the lens of growing up in the American south.
“exception”
Meaningful representation of black women of all hues, facial features, hair textures, ethnic backgrounds, nations, body types, etc. is deeply important. So I understand what you’re TRYING to do in pointing out they way in which mainstream culture strategically “others” certain types of black people (mostly to create intraracial buffers).
However, when you, for example, appear to validate the notion that someone can indeed “look plucked from an African village” by re-posting the words of Ebonee Davis, without qualification, nuance, and counterexample, I get concerned about your message. Ebonee Davis believes that to succeed in high fashion modeling one must look like an “African villager” (meanwhile you and I know that there is no such look). In her mind, she has prevailed in spite of the preference for the African villager. So when you, in the context of your discussion of the underrepresentation of “just-blackness,” cite (and re-cite) Ebonee’s words with approval, it gives readers the impression that you subscribe to her flawed reasoning.
Did you read her original piece? She was reciting — in both instances — things that were *told to her* by casting agents in the modeling industry, and confirmed by her experience in the modeling industry.
I’m not sure how you’re reading that *I*, in my own voice, am minimizing multi-generational African Americanness. I’m not.
This, pulled from one of your write-ups, sets up a troubling premise, in my opinion: “In an industry where some black models complain, you have to look ‘plucked from an African village’ or ‘like a white girl dipped in chocolate’ to make it, Tibby represents a refreshing celebration of Black American beauty.”
For Zuri Tibby to “reflect a refreshing celebration” (a departure from norm, one would assume) the “complaint” would seem to have validity. Do you agree? But the reality is that Tibby looks like plenty of girls in Africa. This is the disconnect in how you are framing the issue…
It’s a refreshing departure from the CULTURAL norm of NOT celebrating multi-generational black women. It has NOTHING to do with what the women actually look like.
Multi-generational black American women’s beauty is just as valid as anyone else’s. And yes, in many instances, there is still heavy aesthetic similarity between multi-generational black American women and first-generation African American women.
The *problem* is that the cultural baggage assigned to multi-generational black women distorts how they are seen. The fact that people keep ragging on multi-generational black women (saying they have to be mixed or foreign to be desirable) has less to do with facts — because we have plenty evidence that this isn’t true, from Gabrielle Union to Tika Sumpter to Angela Bassett and on and on — it has more to do with sociology.
The sociological view of multi-generational black women (all the negative black woman stereotypes that exist both within and outside of black culture) distorts people’s physical views of them. Or, in some instances, renders them culturally invisible.
This is the point I’m trying to make.
Trust me, I do understood the overall point that you’re trying to make about equal representation and I have said as much above. And I’m not trying to belabor this. I’m only saying any of this because I have been reading the blog for a long time (almost since its inception) and I generally find your opinions to be sensible and introspective. I wouldn’t bother having the conversation if I didn’t think you would be receptive to understanding my perspective. I understand your intent, but in your words you are generalizing in a way that unintentionally reinforces harmful stereotypes.
The problem that I’m having is that in the post I referenced directly above, you don’t reference culture or nationality. You reference a “look,” both in the case of African women and in the case of “the white woman dipped in chocolate”. Meanwhile you contrast both of those looks with a nationality (black American), the implication being that there is mutual exclusivity across the comparison. But the comparison is really apples to oranges, because we both know that nationality and culture don’t have a look. Culture/nationality may frequently coincide with a “look” but they’re not one and the same. Given the prevalence of people with Zuri Tibby’s features in places other than the United States, can we agree that there is nothing uniquely “black American” about her look?
I understand that there are specific stereotypes assigned to black American women, (particularly when they are darker skinned) as is the case with black women from other parts of the world. The proliferation of these stereotypes is why the truthful representation of all black women matters so much. But if you specifically want increased representation of black American women who are not of strongly visible racial mixture, I’m simply encouraging you to say that directly rather than relying on stereotypes that conflate nationality with phenotype to make the point for you.
Hopefully you understand where I am coming from here.
I still don’t because (and I’ve said this before) I DID NOT come up with the whole ‘white girl dipped in chocolate’ or ‘plucked from an African village’ rhetoric. It came from this:
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/news/a16602/calvin-klein-model-ebonee-davis-racism-fashion-industry/
You are accusing me of having a negative view because I literally repeated someone else’s negative view. For reference I will include here the entire paragraph from Harper’s Bazaar, written by multigenerational black American model Ebonee Davis.
I’m going to stop here because this is becoming frustrating.
Trust me: I understand your frustration. I’m happy to end the convo here and agree to disagree. And look, I’ll be really direct this time:
1) I know that you didn’t create the stereotypes… you are just giving them a platform (in multiple blog posts) without even once exposing them as BS? Eventually, yes, I’m going to assume that you agree with it. Can you blame me? The African villager reference is xenophobic, inaccurate, and frankly racist. It references a stereotypical set of facial features, a stereotypical hair texture, and a stereotypical skin color among other things … these are all features that are gorgeous but underappreciated (I, in fact, have most of them). The other problem is… not all African women look the same…. not by a long shot. Not even within the same country… not even within the same tribe. Nevermind the fact of… what the hell does it mean to look like you’re from a village when we’re talking about high fashion models wearing designer clothing. It’s BS. Period.
2) You could just as easily have said there are a lot of African girls booking jobs; it’s good that a black American girl is getting some shine. Why use a disgusting stereotype to make the point? It did nothing for your argument, and it just insulted people. From your original post it really does sound like you want to see more black american women who are not visibly mixed, but yet don’t look “stereotypically African.” I must conclude this because you are saying: A) they say the problem in the industry is that everyone either looks “really African” or “really mixed,” and B) on the other hand, here is a black American. So your arguments are coming off a little disingenuous because you’re stereotyping other women…. for the sake of fighting stereotypes about black American women?
I was really just trying to make you understand the damage you’re doing when you freely spout stereotypes without debunking them. You’ve been reminding me of your intention and directing me to the representation crisis without acknowledging (even once) the problem in the execution of your message. So yes, I’m a little frustrated, too 🙂
You have too much time on your hands. Have a great day 🙂
And you need to learn how to gracefully acknowledge that you made a mistake. They pointed out an issue ,and rather than thank them for pointing it out, you doubled down on your mistake. Don’t let your pride get in the way next time. Wether or not your intentions were good, they were letting you know how it came across to others.
You can go ahead and get rude with me as well, but you should realize when people have your best interest at heart.
I didn’t make a mistake though. We’ve spent hundreds of words talking in circles. I’m out.
She said my mistake was repeating a negative stereotype without countering it. Any true follower of BGLH would know that we spend copious amounts of bandwith doing just that. Explaining — repeatedly — why colorism is problematic, why the exoticization of multiracial black women is problematic, why the denigration of multigenerational black women is problematic.
She pulled up one article where I didn’t spend paragraphs explaining why denigrating multigenerational black women is wrong and tried to say it’s a pattern. It just… isn’t.
I dialogued. Gave thorough explanation for my reasoning. The archives are there. I’m done arguing this.
@bglh
Whenever you center African- American “just regular Blacks”, even if only for a second, there’s usually pushback, deflection to bring it back to another non-African American group’s feelings and intentional obtuseness on the matter.
I’ve noticed. SMH.
Her best interest at heart by referring to another black woman as racist and xenophobic? From the very first post, it was an attack. You can’t expect people to listen when they are being called racist, limited and xenophobic.
You seem to be attacking her. The african village statement didn’t come from her. She was using it to make a point on colorism. I understand where you are coming from, because people in Africa have different features. Maybe your point is to say people from an African village don’t have a particular look, which is true. You then go on to reference her being xenophobic in your response. Yes, many people’s notions of what an African villager looks like is a preconceived notion about people from African villages. They have never been, so they can only go by what they know. Before I travelled to many different villages in Africa, I assumed that people in African villages looked like me and the many of my ancestors who were brought over here. They had a particular look of dark skin and kinky hair. Would that make me ignorant? Yes, but not racist and xenophobic. Ignorant- lacking knowledge; racist- a person who shows discrimination against other races; xenophobic- having or showing dislike of people from other countries. I hate to say it, but the most xenophobic behavior I’ve ever experiences was in west Africa, and I’ve been all over, and I’m black or “just black”. lol. Felicia, bye.
It’s not surprising to me that this discussion is going on about the show Blackish. I never turned in because I never got past the name…without even watching it the name represented everything that you’re speaking of.
To Igbotic – “I feel compelled to comment because you have been posting quite a bit recently about “just-blackness” as though it has a look and is easily distinguishable from the “not just black” or “Africa black” against which you are juxtaposing it.” Here in the US, historically it has. Even though we come in all colors, shapes and sizes, if you deviated from the norm of a dark skin, kinky/curly haired look, then people would say, “Where your people from?” It’s like that in the south. Many of us were slave traded from particular areas in West Africa and we DID HAVE a similar look or phenotype. Although there are a variety of phenotypes in Africa. I’ve been to west Africa, so I know. Anyway, look at pictures of American slaves from the 1700’s. I read the article, and she is touching on colorism in the African American community here in the US, I thought. She referred to Dre entertaining two categories of blackness, light skin and African (referring to Somalian) because his character was unable to reflect on his own colorism . The ‘Just black’ Americans that she is referring to are the many enslaved Africans that came to America for their labor and skills to be exploited, with a majority coming from west Africa. They tended to be dark skinned, with thick kinky curly hair and of various heights and ages. Although some were “yellow” or “red”. In the islands, they sometimes called them Igbos. If you want references I can find you some. If you look back at pictures of enslaved Africans here in the US, many had particular phenotypical features, some would classify as African of “just black” as we call it. We in the US, through the lens of another (European colonizers), have termed this as “just plain ole black.” It sounds limited in scope, but if you are from America, particularly the south, you know what she is referring to. Maybe I’m confused. lol. You used words like limited, mildly xenophobic and stereotype-affirming to refer to her posts. Limited – restricted; xenophobic- having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries. Did you mean to use these words in response to her article about colorism here in the US? I mean of course it’s limited, because she is posting from HER experience. We can’t discount her views and use what I would consider as strong words (xenophobic) because her reference to “just black” americans. Please explain how her posts are xenophobic? And are you Igbo? Your name says Igbotic. I’m curious.
I watch the show. Its great that the show exist. I am not going to get upset about Bow not being able to do Diane’s hair. I have seen many a young black child in the beauty salon cause their mom can’t do their hair. We need to be realistic with are views and how things are. Its not considered cute on a darker child on TV. Especially if her texture is very kinky. There would be complaints of why is her hair not done. Since she is a young girl we don’t need to twitter shame the child cause you know people will do it. Its not the 80s. So no styles like Rudy and Vanessa. They don’t seem to hang with very many black people. But let’s review. There are probably very few black people or people of color for that matter within their community. If you don’t do stereotypical black things black people call you weird or be like why you looking down on me or think you better. If this shows producers did not intend its almost accurate for successful blacks to be limited with their black friends. This is especially true if they were separated to begin with. Like they did not attend an HBCU, in a fraternity, attend a predominantly black church, or organization.
As far as colorism. The character Diane I feel was typed cast cause the entire cast is like wait a minute we got to have our tokens. Charlie and Diane. We do it to ourselves all the time. It will be hard because I believe they bring issues forward and trying to be sensitive at the same time.
There are plenty of natural styles that are cute & look “done” (or whatever one wants to call it)–afro puffs, braids, twists, cornrows, etc. The young black & brown girls at my daughter’s elementary school rock them every day & they look adorable, can’t nobody say anything about it. At the day’s end there are brainwashed black folk out there who are going to have something critical to say about one’s hair, regardless.
Im not sure what you mean by kinky hair is “not cute” on a darker child on tv. If God created your hair very kinky then thats what it is. The point is the hair just needs to be kept neat. That is very do-able with kinky hair. Theres a plethora of styles that could be done……and dark skin has nothing to do with it. If anything it should be easy in 2017 to do natural hair for a child….. braids ,beads, twists, puffs, braid outs, twist outs, straw curls etc… Also I don’t see Charlie and Diane as tokens. Its perfectly normal for a black man to have a black friend with Charlie’s character. Its also perfectly normal for a darker, kinky haired individual to be born into a mixed family……its just genes and traits.
You must have missed the episode where the MiL teased Diane’s hair into an afro and Bow complained that she couldn’t manage it.
I do remember that. Ugh.
Yes!!! I remember this episode… Maybe, it’s just the type 4 girl in me, but I found it quite disappointing 🙁 It can actually be seen as texture discrimination.
Regarding colorism, I feel like Dre understood the accusation of colorism as ‘why don’t you like “real” black people?’ instead of “why don’t you like dark-skinned people?”. So he replied with the West African family… I was very surprised because I thought he would just cast dark-skinned actors (the entire family or not) with Viola Davis or Lupita Nyong’o beautiful complexions. To me, it just goes back to this elusive question ‘what is black?’. There is no universal definition for this.
I saw that episode…and I understand the disappointment, but the truth is thats real. Its real that many mixed mothers have difficulty managing their children’s kinky hair. It sounds bad, but they grew up with a different texture, and have no training on how to manage kinky hair sometimes. I do think that they should make strong efforts instead of dismissing the hair as difficult…..but my point is that is a real life situation.
And can we acknowledge that its not integration if you’re the only one and there’s noone following behind you. That’s just a coincidence… not integration. One of the biggest issues I have with the show. They really dont f****s with black people (other than their family). You can be black-ish and have a mixed crowd of friends and go to mixed experiences without it being a big deal
Actually, the only people the Johnsons ever actually invite *into* their home are black: Dre’s sister, Dre’s best friend (Tyra Banks), Dre’s boys from the old hood, black nanny aka Vivian (Regina Hall). Charlie’s the person who was entrusted with babysitting when Dre and Bo went out of town and driving one of their cars on their way to a family ski trip. Dre’s only friends with the two black dudes at work. All the white people they interact with are kept external to the main setting of the show, which is their home life.
One correction: Junior brought home a white girlfriend, which he screwed up by chasing after Zoey’s black best friend.
But they don’t really interact with anyone other than those in the neighborhood or at work. So I’m not understanding this here.