Via the News Tab, mutineer Dari points us at FT coverage of Shah Rukh Khan’s ad for Fair and Handsome skin cream –
Shah Rukh Khan, Bollywood’s biggest star and corporate India’s most ubiquitous brand ambassador, is coming under pressure to abandon his controversial endorsement of a men’s skin-lightening cream.
Strong enough for a wheatish woman but made for a man…
Television commercials for Fair and Handsome, airing in August, show Mr Khan (or “SRK”) lauding a product that many see as entrenching discrimination based on skin colour by encouraging people to bleach themselves a lighter hue.
…Mr Khan urges a dark-complexioned and depressed-looking young man, struggling to attract female attention, to stop using skin-lightening products designed for women.
“Why are you secretly using a cream for girls?” Mr Khan asks. “Their skin is soft. Yours is rough and tough.” Several shades whiter and visibly more self-confident by the end of the 40-second commercial, the young man duly snares the girl of his dreams.
The commercial, of course, is up for all to see on YouTube –
<
p>
Now is it me or does the pseudo-blackfaced dude in the commercial remind anyone of the lead in that paragon of awful 80s movies, Soul Man?
 |
|
A few weeks of Fair & Handsome away from… Alex P Keaton? |
As with the rapidly-becoming-infamous 1000+ comments “Is Dating White Right?” post a few weeks ago, a topic like this is a veritable lightning rod… So, perhaps I should just step out of the way and let the bullets fly.
I will however, point mutineer’s at Manish’s nearly-as-infamous original post on Fair & Handsome from a few years ago. At 200+ comments, it was one of the most trafficked posts of its time. However, many of us remember it more for its, dare I say, eyebrow-raising concluding note. 
Okay I just used this product and so far I have banged 6 women, I tried paying for gas but the person refused my money and said “it’s on the house”, a fight broke out between cab drivers and who was going to drive me around, I got a pamphlet in the mail explaing how I should handle my new color, and all of the sudden I have a uncontrolable urge to play volleyball and frisbee and a voice in my had keeps telling me to shop at the GAP.
Now if you excuse me I have a sun tanning appointment that I am late to.
I’d like to have a few words with those oh-so-wrong relatives. Especially if they’re making any lovely dark-skinned daughters or nieces feel bad about themselves.
I think Tiger Woods got one of those when he won his first major.
yes. arb = arbitrage. im not trying to build a case for anything. im just trying to get more high quality play.
i think the hwole reason mating works is that people think in different ways.
For the record, I, too, miss Rahul.
Yes and no. It can help you get to your lightest “natural” color (i.e. what you would look like without a tan). That said, it cannot make you lighter than you already are, and that’s usually why people are buying it (to get even lighter than they’re “natural” pigment).
Part of this is also how film is developed on the mainland, I think. Photos of my folks when they were in Hawaii show them as their skin color actually appears (imo), whereas many of their mainland-developed photos are a bit darker. I think the colorizing process is sometimes attuned to make white people look a bit darker in photos, and so people who already have color look even darker still. Just something we noticed where we live — I don’t know if this is widespread.
Puli, you’re crazy. i’m sure you’re fine as you are, although a little removal of the unibrow is generally more attractive, in my opinion. (I hope I didn’t just open a desi can of worms on body hair politics). That said, I think NAIR reeks something awful, but I guess it doesn’t hurt as much as waxing.
Yes, especially when stuck in a confined space with said person (e.g. an elevator).
Satya, I get the impression that “lightening” creams in the U.S., except for those pitched to minority communities, are for dark spots/hyperpigmentation — i.e. things that make your complexion uneven, not your overall complexion itself. Most of these don’t actually lighten, they just speed up exfoliation.
Well the aunties I’m talking about like me because we just get along very well. We have good conversation and we give each other a lot of love.
But I’ve noticed that desi aunties and uncles in general, when they say someone has a lot of personality, they’re really just referring to them being good looking. It took me a long time to figure that one out.
no unibrow here. although that did remind me of something one of my male friends wives (also a friend) told me. she mentioned that her husband was getting waxed before the wedding. I said “isnt that like getting a hot candle poured onto yur body, then having duct tape ripped off your hairy skin? That sound slike it hurts.”
her memorable response? She shrugs and says “love hurts”
Camille:
I definitely believe that it existed before Central Asian Islamic & European colonialism, but to what extent I don’t know. I do see an initial basis in Iranian/Arya diffusion into India, but it was probably softened by intermarriage. Somehow many Indian academics seem to place all the blame on Europeans
thats like when they say a “good family” they mean “rich parents”
when they say “well settled” that means “rich boy”
Would someone who is physically attractive yet quiet and reserved still be considered having a lot of personality?
loucie,
Agreed — I think it’s convenient to say that it derives from the British presence, but — at least in the north — even before the British there was an aesthetic preference for lighter, “Iranian” looking skin. I don’t know if it was like 1800s China where lighter skin == higher class status (i.e. not in the fields) or what, but it’s easy to blame the Brits.
someone who is handsome and an obnoxious d!ck has “great personality”. remember. people use the euphamisms to not sound shallow.
Buddhu:
I had an experience like that a couple weekends ago with a cousin of mine and her parents talking smack about boys not wanting dark girls. There were words.
According to aunties? Yes.
This diffusion myth, sadly prevalent after so many years, we can definitely blame on the British. (can of worms: opened)
According to aunties? Yes.
Why limit it to aunties
Because the uncles don’t really tell me about the guys they think are hot.
Because the uncles don’t really tell me about the guys they think are hot.
hardy har har har. I meant other women.
the uncles dont give a $hit. bothering 20 something year old kids gives the aunties something to do.
Nala, i know what you are talking about Telugu families making comments like “Rangu vachindi” you got color when you become fairer. My mother will make comments about others in a good way, but my sister and I used to berate her for doing that. Maybe we were too harsh on her. Now we just nod her heads and just give her a stare when she make some of those commments. But at least it worked to the extent that I cannot even remember the last time my mom made a color related comment about me or my sister.
I remember going to India and some uncle told me bluntly ” oh how nice. you became so fair.” and then there would be a pause like I am supposed to be so happy that he made such a comment. Then he would go on “you used to be very dark when you lived in India” . (I change colors very easily. I was average brown as a kid in the US, then became nearly Rajnikanth dark after moving to India, and back to my regular average brown after moving back to the US).
Out of curiosity, buddhu, why do you think the “diffusion myth” is a myth? I’ve heard a plethora of arguments from scholars about this, but it’s interesting to me how lots of browns see the Aryan/Dravidian split as a given. For some reason, whenever someone implicitly or explicitly posits the idea of a racial dichotomy, it gives me this weird, queasy feeling.
well. i think auntie is an especially proactive species in terms of determining optimal behavior to get the nice spouse of their dreams for u.
I wouldn’t assume that either. They just don’t talk about it with young single women like myself, is all.
Are we at 400 comments yet?? Wont take long 🙂
i think auntie is an especially proactive species in terms of determining optimal behavior to get the nice spouse of their dreams for u.
yes, but using physical attraction to obfuscate and cover up negative personality traits (reserved and quiet) is not aunty-specific.
All I want to know is whether the scientists have isolated the genes that allows a chameleon to change colors and where’s the research to make it happen in humans. I want pink, red, blue, green, mauve, orange – why stop at white, brown or black? 🙂
]
but this specific euphamistic matrimonial language that is used to make aunties sound less shallow is. so is bugging you about if your too dark to find a nice man.
I agree that the AIT has been disproven, but Arya diffusion (as opposed to “invasion’) is definitely not considered a myth by most academics working with genetics & linguitics. Where the colonial era Europeans were wrong is placing the homeland in Western Europe instead of Iran/Caspian sea region. That being said, people get it all wrong when they analyze all of Indian history through the simplistic Arya/Dravida race dialectic. Anyway, whether or not we agree on the early history of India it is clear from your comments that you celebrate all of the physical diversity in India so it’s all cool.
Sarah: You’re right, we should definitely all keep our mouths shut from now on.
If you don’t have anything good to say…
Camille:MN, don’t get your knickers bunched up. Fascism is a bit extreme, and I don’t think anyone’s calling for a ban
Trust me, you don’t want me to get nasty…
In case folks haven’t noticed: The crux of Vinod’s post is not about fairness obsession or usage of lightness creams per se, but that Shah Rukh Khan is coming under pressure to abandon his controversial endorsement of a men’s skin-lightening cream. That being the case, talk of fascism and banning is perfectly valid in this context, more so than “my auntie/uncle used this Telugu phrase...”. The word “abandon” has its roots in the word “ban”.
So enough with the sermonising on what’s extreme and what’s normal.
M. Nam
I want this pronto. I was in the process of finding ways to unleash my dormant Scythian glory and as luck would have it, comes along this.
note to self. moor nam must be the first one up agaist the wall when my fascist revolution comes. he is not likely to submit to puli rule
I’m working on a fairly in-depth paper on the “Indo-Aryan question” and have been studying the most recent research on the matter, and this is the conclusion I’ve come to. The clincher for me was this 2006 paper (“A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios”, which I believe was discussed on SM before) and one or two others like it. The major flaw I see in nearly every argument I’ve encountered, whether on the side of the standard Aryan migration hypothesis or in the “Out of India” side of things, is the conflation of language diffusion with demic diffusion. Language can spread in various ways and for various reasons; it doesn’t require significant movement of populations from one place to another.
The silly idea of light-skinned nomads entering the subcontinent and imposing caste based on skin color was invented whole cloth by the British. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to support it, and there never was. Though there has certainly always been considerable contact with Iran/Afghanistan (I like D.Chakrabarti’s term “Indus-Oxus orbit”), archaeogenetics suggests a relatively homogeneous genetic picture going back to the original peopling of the subcontinent.
MN, I think the problem is that you’re failing to differentiate between social pressure and legal bans. Nobody but nobody is calling for a ban on the product or the ads. People are calling SRK out on something they think is wrong. The pressure comes from their disapproval/anger, not from any governmental source. It’s social pressure, people speaking out about what they think, and if you were to stop people from doing that, THAT would be a step toward fascism. Loud and vigorous public debate seems to be a characteristic of democracy, IMO.
Here’s an example from my own life:
When Mr. Rogers died a few years ago, half the city of Pittsburgh came out for his funeral, because pretty much everybody knew him in one way or another. A few days before the funeral, Fred Phelps, the founder of the anti-gay hate group God Hates F@gs, announced plans to picket the funeral service with anti-gay slogans, because Mr. Rogers supported equal rights for gay people. Of course, he has a legal right to do that, so nobody tried to get a restraining order, or otherwise shut down his protest using the legal system. Instead, about 200 people showed up in cardigans, encircled the tiny group of haters, and sang Mr. Rogers’ songs loudly enough to drown out the hate and slurs. Is that fascism, or democracy?
Shah Rukh Khan is coming under pressure to abandon his controversial endorsement of a men’s skin-lightening cream
The bolding. The underlining. The saga continues.
When I was a kid, I remember occasionally incidents where some Indian friend or relative in India would roll up their sleeves or unbutton their shirt and say “this is my real color” as if the lighter skin was supposed to improve our perception of them.
Nothing wrong with people who prefer a fairer complexion. But in India, it seems overbearing. I said it before. Look at the complexion of Indians who have made it in entertainment in the US and UK compared to the Indians in Bollywood. The Indians in the US do not try to lighten their skin (nAveen Andrews , Mindy Kaling, Parminder, Jay Chandrasekhar, Sarita Chowdury).
I think fairness creams are like the hair straightening chemicals in the African American world. I do not find it appealing when African American women straighten their hair unless someone can do an excellent job with it. It looks lifeless. I like the older sister in Fresh prince like loose style or even the 70s Afro. I was one of those who actually thought the Afro looked cool. I am still amazed that some have the patience for weaves. I know in some African American families, the grandmas are known to tell their grandkids who have straighter hair that they had “good hair”. Though I guess there is also a practical reason for saying that as it could be less hard to manage. So not an exact analogy to our situation.
It’s beautiful, whatever else it may be.
Here’s an example from my own life:
How is this from your own life?
I read the article…is anyone doing more than taking him to task for this ? Yes he’s coming under pressure of a potentially economic sort, but who exactly is suggesting that they put his wheatish/upwardly mobile balls in a vise ? Perhaps you have been articulating concerns about more obvious signs of impending fascism (e.g. MF Hussain, Orkut in Mumbai) in other venues, but in isolation these comments make you look like a crank
Instead, about 200 people showed up in cardigans, encircled the tiny group of haters, and sang Mr. Rogers’ songs loudly enough to drown out the hate and slurs.
what would be even better:
a bunch of rappers came and sang a remixed hip-hop version of his song.
Its a be-be-be-be autiful day. day day, yeah uh bring it.. in this mothaF8ckin neighbor-hoo ohohohhoh hoooood.
I think so too.
D’oh! Neglected to explain that… Mr. Rogers was connected with my college, and the organizers of the cardigan brigade were good friends of mine. (I wanted badly to be there, but had graduated and was living the penniless-grad-student life in NYC at the time, and couldn’t afford the ticket!)
cmu?
That’s got to exist somewhere already.
And if it doesn’t, it TOTALLY should.
Chatham!
(But I spent a lot of time at CMU and Pitt. Good times.)
Sarah #183,
Ok – now we’re both speaking the same language…
Social pressure is good, as long as it is not applied to individuals. By all means, educate people about this issue. Start with the children in schools – teach them to take pride in who they are. Educate them to be themselves and not try to be someone else.
However, don’t put pressure on one individual in your quest to reform society. Why should SRK shoulder the burden of changing the public’s mores, especially at personal monetary expense? If this is not a step towards fascism, then what is?
M. Nam
There was an uproar when SRK did the LUX ad also. People thought it was too effeminate of him to sit in a tub full of water sprinkled with roses. I say let him make his money while he is still young.
Thank goodness some Indians are in an uproar over SRK and this stupid ad. I’d just hate to know no one in India is protesting over this – I’m all for protesting and putting pressure and I’m anti-fascist to boot .
I mean, god what’s wrong with Bollywood. You know Bollywood honored Danny Glover recently? What does SRK think he is doing supporting something stupid like this — it’ll only reduce Bollywood’s appeal worldwide. Why honor someone like Danny Glover and then say something really wrong with black Americans looks until they use fair and lovely.
Yes, there’s nothing wrong with preferring different looks, but most Indians are brown or else have some brown family members, so it’s more a ethnic characteristic and not preferring someone who is tall or short, and so an ad and products like this are just harmful to the Indian psyche, and harmful to the skin (at least that’s my understanding). It’s like having ads that told you with black hair your just not as beautiful as a blond and so you have to change your hair color. Now if I was a Bollywood actor, I’d demean these fair and lovely creams and then I’m sure the market for them would go down.
people goose stepping around a large bon fire with large numbers of couples fornicating in synchronous with large banners with pictures of puliogre and thiyre sadu decking the public square. the revolution is coming.
Because Shah Rukh is the one who decided to do said commercial. It’s called taking responsibility. He’s a public figure and a grownup, he can handle it. Nobody’s putting him in jail.
Here is a definition of fascism:
(ahem)
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
worshipping me as a god king is just my little twist on fascism.
Your point might be a bit less easily dismissed if you weren’t using a slippery slope argument.