Back in the day, in America and various European countries, being light-skinned was valued aesthetically (as opposed to being tan and sun-burnt) because it signified being aristocratic, or at least upper-middle-class. It meant you could afford to be indoors as a true blue-blood/WASP (so white you were almost blue) and did not have to do manual labor outdoors (hence, the derogatory term "redneck.")
The invention of the airplane reversed this. Because in the early days of flight, only the very wealthiest people could afford to fly … which they did frequently as tax exiles seeking tax havens in warmer climates such as the south of France, etc. After many months abroad, these wealthy, once-pale Americans/Europeans returned home and were noticeably tan.
It wasn’t long before being tan signified something else entirely. This was bolstered by the fact that so much of what the wealthy do and experience — play tennis and golf outdoors, sit by the pool drinking margaritas, etc. — causes tanning. By the second half of the 20th century, being tan was an indicator of higher social status and this continues today with tanning salons, etc.
This is how the beauty standard developped in the West. For some reason or other, however, it did not develop this way in many Asian countries, so that in certain Asian countries (South Korea comes to mind), it is still viewed as preferable to be as light-skinned as possible. Asians wanting to be pale has no more to do with wanting to be “white” than White people wanting to be tanned to look “Black.”
It’s a socio-economic perception, not a race thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment