Photo: Screengrab
Show Hide image

No, having an Asian woman in the Dove ad does not make it less racist

The inclusion of an Asian woman does not erase centuries of white supremacy. 

Context is important, and it is something that has been a little missing from the debate around Dove’s latest advert.

Since screenshots surfaced showing a black woman stripping off her skin-coloured t-shirt to reveal a white woman, a backlash against the company has ensued. But now, another part of the advert is circulating. It shows the white woman stripping off to reveal an Asian woman. Defenders of Dove argue that it cannot be racist because the full context of the advert means that white women aren’t positioned above women of colour. If anything, these commentators claim, the advert is trying to be inclusive.

It is true that if this version of the advert had been shared from the very beginning, the response may not have been as swift and sharp as it was. There was also apparently a second, longer advert – a 30 second TV commercial which showed seven women. The black woman in it, Lola Ogunyemi, has said that she had a positive experience with the Dove team and that she believes that the objective of the ad was to highlight that all skin is deserving of gentleness. But that doesn’t mean the original concerns aren't valid.

Intent isn't always important when it comes to racism. The advert is not “active” racism – i.e the black woman in it isn’t being literally harmed because of her skin colour, and the explicit goal of the advert is not to maintain the system of racism. But it is definitely “passive” racism, an action which contributes to the maintenance of racism, “without openly advocating violence or oppression”. Even including an Asian women in the video does not counter the fact that the deep-rooted, beauty industry-led systems which negatively position black women are at play.

For years and years, black women have been told our skin colour is unclean, dirty, something to be fixed. A solvable problem. It could be predicted that black women watching the advert would pick up an insinuation that by using Dove’s shower gel product you can “rectify” your skintone. The Asian woman is, of course, much fairer than the black model at the start of the advert. That message of going from dark to light, from unclean to clean still feels like the subconscious message. As recently as 2011, a Dove advert for a cream to treat dry skin positioned a black women as the “before” picture to a white woman’s “after”.

When she was a child, a black friend of mine was maliciously bullied at her boarding school in the UK by her teacher, and told she needed go and take another shower because she still looked dirty. Intent from Dove doesn’t matter all that much, considering their actions were still harmful and backed up a bunch of messaging and racism that has actively worked against black women for centuries.

Indeed, the idea of soap “cleaning” away black women’s skin to reveal lighter-skinned women beneath her hits very close to home when you look at both historic, and more recent adverts for skin lightening products.

Dove itself has a “whitening” deodorant aimed at women of colour, and Unilever, the company that owns Dove, owns a skin lightening brand. One day, I would love to sit down with an executive there and ask them to explain how they can continue to say that they’re “committed to helping all women realise their personal beauty potential by creating products that deliver real care” when they’re in cahoots with a company that markets skin lightening cream to dark-skinned women the world over.

Fair & Lovely was established by Unilever in 1975, in India, and before you say that skin lightening is similar to tanning lotion – it’s not. Skin lightening is deeply mired in some of the worst racist ideologies in the world. Its success is rooted in the creation of low self-esteem and lack of worth felt by darker-skinned people.

In Nigeria, where the sun beats heavy and pretty much all of the population is naturally dark-skinned, 2013 figures from the World Health Organisation showed 77 per cent of the female population uses skin lightening creams. And it happens in the UK too. Illegal lighteners which can permanently damage the skin, lead to kidney failure (as one Public Health England official I spoke to told me about a case in north England a few years back), or mercury poisoning, are sometimes used alongside brands like Fair & Lovely for maximum effect.

Skin lightening is pernicious because it’s true that in Western society and beyond, it’s easier to be lighter skinned. You’ll benefit from being viewed as more beautiful, having better job prospects and, in the US, facing shorter prison sentences. To keep their business, beauty brands who make them help to further embed these realities, shitting on millions of people and making them feel as though their natural skin colour is not good enough, not light enough, not bright enough.

So the next time a (probably white) person brings up the fact that this fuss over the Dove advert has been a mountain out of a molehill, just remind them that while the advert didn't stop at a black woman stripping off to reveal a white woman, nor did it come out of a vacuum. It traces back to years of discomfort black women have with their skin tones, thanks to whiteness being the dominant beauty standard. We’re not being sensitive. Dove made a mistake, and they most definitely should pay in profits.

In the meantime, we should be looking into more ways to halt the sale of skin lightening creams, illegal or not.

Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff is a freelance journalist and Opinions Editor of gal-dem magazine.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Technology can change the world – provided we have a measure of democracy, too

You could say we need a technological revolution for the many, not the few. 

Over the last five decades, the American Consumer Technology Association’s annual jamboree has grown to become the world’s largest tech show: attracting over 190,000 visitors and 4000 companies, with 7,460 reporters filing 59,969 reports over the course of four days in Las Vegas. In the process, it has achieved an almost mythical status – from unveiling the first-ever home VCR (Philips 1970) to Bill Gates’ resignation from Microsoft in 2006, and has included cameo appearances by the likes of Jay-Z and Barack Obama.

As a fully qualified geek (Electrical Engineering degree, 20 years in tech – before it was cool) and the shadow minister for Industrial Strategy Science and Innovation, I couldn’t resist seizing the opportunity to venture to Las Vegas while on a family holiday to the US’ west coast; hoping, against all hope, to see the progressive future of a technology-enabled, more equal world.

If only.

But I did emerge with a renewed conviction that technology can solve our problems – if we use it to do so.

In some ways, the most remarkable thing about the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) was the way it demonstrated how technology has taken over our entire world. CES was a car show in the middle of a health show, which happened to be around the corner from a home show, which was adjacent to a sports show that was next to an entertainment show. Just about every sector was represented.

Nissan had a huge stand for their new autonomous vehicle showcasing the ‘Brain-Vehicle Interface’, as did Philips for their new sleep enhancing devices, and Huawei for their connected home. In 2018, technology can be used as an enabling platform to aid just about everything. And in a world where near enough everything is politicised, technology is very political.

But this was not evident from CES: not from the stands, neither the keynotes, nor the participants. There were few speakers from civic society nor governments, and those politicians who attended – such as Donald Trump’s Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao – talked only of their ‘excitement’ at the sunlit uplands technology could guide us to. The show existed in its own, largely self-sufficient world. While Ford created an entire street to show off its autonomous cars, there was no reference to who would pay for the road, pavements, lamp-posts and guttering if only robots worked.

And as a politician rather than an engineer, it is the societal impact that matters most to me. One realisation brought about by my visit is that I have greatly under-estimated the consequences of driverless vehicles: communications, parking, urban layout, and public transport are all likely to be deeply impacted. The automobile industry is working to position cars as your personal moving office-cum-front room-cum-hotel-cum-lecture theatre; where you can work, maintain personal and social relationships, unwind and learn – all while going from A to B. How will crowded, under-funded public transport compete?

At the show, Nissan launched its Brain-to-Vehicle technology, which reads the driver’s brainwaves to determine when the car’s intelligence should intervene. Although I'm personally unsure about the inclusion of brain surveillance in the driving experience, it may well be the next logical step as we increasingly give up our data in return for ‘free’ services. Certainly the anthropologists at Nissan argued that this was the very definition of assisted artificial intelligence.

Fortunately, autonomous vehicles are not the only way to get around. Improvements in battery technology mean that – between electric scooters capable of folding away into airplane carry on, and electric bikes with the power of motorcycles – personal mobility has become a market in its own right.

Personal health and sport were also big themes at the event. Philips has brought back the night cap, which not only looks far more fetching than the Victorian original, but is now also capable of lulling you gently into a slumber before monitoring the quality of your sleep. Orcam’s discrete camera-glasses for the visually impaired can read text and recognise people, whilst L’Oréal’s UV Sense is a sensor small enough to be worn comfortably on your fingernail that detects ultraviolet exposure.

One aspect of the show that has remained largely unchanged is its demographics. Whilst the glossy adverts on the walls depict women and BME people using technology, those actually designing it were, with a few exceptions, male and largely white. As always, there were no queues for the women’s loos and while there were not any ‘F1 girls’, the gender balance was improved largely by attractive women, who were not engineers, being employed to ‘explain’ technological advances.

Weeks later, the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos was also dominated by technology, which the Prime Minister used as a fig leaf to cover the absence of vision for Brexit. Lacking in both the CES and Davos, was any sense that the interests of the many had any significant stake in what was going on. We need a Labour government to help change that.

Chi Onwurah is the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and the shadow minister for industrial strategy.