Talk:Shadism

Recommendation

I suggest that this topic be introduced in the High yellow article and that this one redirect there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - if it gets some references pablo_hablo. 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I quite disagree about the redirect. Shadism stands alone as its own concept, with its own presence in the academic literature. I would also warn against assuming that this concept only applies to (as noted in the high yellow article) "persons classified as black who also have a high proportion of white ancestry". As noted in the shadism article, this term applies to a much broader population of individuals. I do agree that a reference to shadism would be appropriate in the high yellow article. Best, Jaobar (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Racism

This article redirects to racism, but a simple search the Racism article (or the High Yellow article) does not reveal the word Shadism in the entire article. Also, shadism is a spicific type of racism, namely, that some shades of Black are better than others. Racism is the general discrimination of one colored skin against another. Shadism applies to people of the same color skin, but different shades.

Recommendation

I suggest that this article be merged into colorism as it is a form of colorism and this article is to short as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No. They are different terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.80.46 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Leave it please. Shadism and colourism are two different concepts. It is the specific term one should use in reference to internalized racism- and in refute to the made up "reverse racism."

Please see my comment about the redirect request to high yellow. User: Shaina390, who has greatly expanded the article, and I have discussed the distinctions between shadism and colorism, and it is clear that in the academic literature, these concepts are considered different. I'd recommend leaving it as is. --Jaobar (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps bother colorism and Shadism could benefit from links to each other? They are different enough subjects to warrant separate articles. SII&CT Alex (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of "fairness creams" It may be a great idea to add some examples of fairness creams such as http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/beauty/Do-fairness-creams-work-magic/articleshow/9064048.cms this article from The Times of India provides a good discussion of fairness creams which help.SII&CT Alex (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bringing up the terms "Snow White" is great, but you may want to include a bit on "Snow White Syndrome" as per http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8546183.stm SII&CT Alex (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The article should also look at perceived cultural which equate of skin whiteness and wealth, which is partially the reason, other than beauty, why people pursue it. This is directly related to the colonial histories of many of the countries where fairness creams are sold because colonizers were most often European and had fairer skin than the people they conquered. http://www.sociodep.hku.hk/bbf/BBF%20Readings%20W2/W2%20Who%27s%20the%20fairest%20of%20them%20all.pdf SII&CT Alex (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Pop Culture" Section may benefit from a small introduction of Shadism in pop culture such as: Shadism appears in pop culture all around the world. For example...(list a few examples from the sections discussed because it'll give readers an idea of what to expect in the coming sections) SII&CT Alex (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its worth bringing up that many people are discussing how now many North American people are getting tanned as a way of projecting their wealth. I don't know if this reversal is worth mentioning or if this article is the place to mention such a topic, but it may be worth considering. See this article if you are interested: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Perma-Tan-Is-a-Symbol-of-Wealth-and-Health-118008.shtml SII&CT Alex (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You can also mention the diss which Vybz Kartel received from Mr. Vegas regarding his skin bleaching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTNuwV7NFHM SII&CT Alex (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi SII&CT Alex, thanks for all of your awesome suggestions. I managed to add in most of them, and I think they're great additions and aspects that should be discussed in this topic. I really appreciate your feedback and additional sources!--Shaina390 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Great article! In the section about the Hispanic Community it may be more accurate to define the community by indigenous, non-indegenous or Euro-Mexican. See Perceived discrimination among indigenous and non-indigenous Mexican-Americans living in the United States. Also, there's some interesting readings on the fallacy of discriminating by skin colour based on the experience of apartheid in South Africa. See Sorting Things Out. Overall you have covered the material in great depth and provided insight in the issue from many cultural angles. --Rauckstar (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I think this is a good idea. I'll try to look into adding them!--Shaina390 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi Shaina, Your article is very comprehensive. I like the way you explain the concept from different cultural perspectives. I think that is very ambitious and interesting.

One suggestion is that on the section "Studies on Shadism", you may want to include a more general summary of the past studies, or visualized data that explain the studies.

Since you have mentioned whitening products, masks, and etc. it would be interesting to have some pictures that illustrates people's action to become more "white".

Another suggestion is that if you want to write more about the Asian community, you may consider referring to the Asian standard of beauty. For example, in Asian, such as China, people not only use masks, but also umbrellas (in the summer even without rain) to avoid the exposure in the sun. (There is a famous Chinese saying says that : 1 "white" can cover 100 "ugly", which means that if one's skin is relatively white, it could help cover 100 ugly features of her body.)

Cheers, --Zhengya3 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your input! I added some more about the Chinese standard of beauty, and expanded on the prevalence of avoiding sun exposure, as well as the skin-lightening product market in Hong Kong. The problem with including visuals of the data, as much as I'd LOVE to, is that they will likely soon be taken down due to lack of licensing. For example, I previously included photos on my Wikipedia page of ads for skin-lightening products, and they were removed a few hours later because I could not prove that I had permission to use them.--Shaina390 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am still a Wikipedia newbie, but I believe you could use this flickr image. I am still reviewing the image guidelines, but it does allow for commercial reuse. i'll try and do a little more digging later Monalisa j (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Colorism

Both Shadism and Colorism use the same definition for their subject: discrimination due to skin tone. Further, most of the sources being used for the Shadism article are referring to Colorism. Since the Colorism article isn't so well-referenced, I think it would be a good idea to merge the information in Shadism to Colorism. Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect, the colorism page defines colorism as to do with skin color, or race, but not shade, how light or how dark a person’s skin is within their race. I want the pages to remain separate because the terms have different meanings. While the two are similar, I emphasize that shadism is due to skin tone within one’s race (or colour), rather than their colour/race alone, as colourism or racism would be. For example, if a black male singer only wanted black women with light skin dancing in his music video, that would not be colourism, as he and the women are both black in colour, or race. Rather, it would be shadism, because he is discriminating against women who are also black, but a dark shade of that race. Shadism is often intraracial, while colourism or racism, as I understand them, are interracial. It is undeniable that shadism and colouism are similar in definition. However, I maintain that the two do refer to different forms of discrimination, and a very important piece to shadism is that the discrimination often comes from members of the same race as the victim. There could be two people who are both Indian in a room, one with darker skin and one with lighter skin. Due to the prevalence of European beauty standards and stereotypes to do with intelligence or class, some Indian people may prefer the Indian person with lighter skin to the Indian person with darker skin. However, to a person who is not Indian, they could both be discriminated against not because of how light or how dark they are as Indian people, but because they are Indian in general. That is the difference between shadism and colourism/racism. Complexion (light skin vs. dark skin) parties are not racist or colourist, because everyone involved is of the same race or colour. The differentiation is the shades of the people, and the constructed stereotypes entrenched within those shades. I have altered the introduction of the Shadism page as well as the White Standard of Beauty section to mention this difference, along with sources defining Shadism as something not quite what colourism is. While the page does not ‘belong’ to me and is part of a public website that is editable by anyone, I really do not want the two pages merged. If they are merged, people who are discriminated against or stereotyped by people in their own racial group due to how light or how dark their skin is will not understand that there is a name for the discrimination that is not happening because of their colour or race, but rather because of their shade within their race.--Shaina390 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be added that the colorism article redirects to Discrimination based on skin color. Shadism is a topic that is used extensively within communities of color, and to hide it within a general article on color (as opposed to focusing on shade) would be a shame. Shadism appears to be of an issue within communities of color, whereas colorism or racism also addresses discrimination that occurs across these communities. To ignore this distinction is to ignore what makes shadism distinct as a concept, and relevant to students of discrimination studies. It is true that more sources referring to shadism need to be added, but this is something that is being worked on. Jaobar (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

After looking through the sources again, I have added an original research tag to the page. As discussed in the DYK nomination for this article, this article is drawing its own conclusions from the sources, rather than quoting sources that explicitly verify each point. In fact, the sourcing is padded with blog pages or chat columns in magazines that really aren't saying the point you're trying to make. You may very well want to argue that shadism (which, by the way, should probably be spelled Shadeism, as one of your sources has it) is different from colorism, but on Wikipedia, your sources have to prove it, not you.

Additionally, a number of articles that you're using as a basis for the argument of Shadism are available only to University of Toronto students. Is there any way to provide a URL that everyone can view? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Coming in way late, but I've also much more frequently heard "colorism" to describe prejudice or discrimination based on skin tone (contrary to Shaina390's arguments). They are synonyms and "colorism" is far more widely used. I would support a merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge 2015

I propose merging this article into Discrimination based on skin color under the title Colorism, which currently redirects to the latter. The two are synonyms (I hadn't actually heard "shadism" used for this concept before today; "colorism" was the term I was aware of) and "colorism" gets many more hits in Google, Google Books, JSTOR, and Wiley. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This was part of the educational project from last year and, frankly, probably shouldn't be here at all. It was on my list of things to address once the class was over, and you've rightfully beaten me to it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. As for moving the Discrimination based on skin color article title to Colorism, that was discussed before: Talk:Discrimination based on skin color/Archive 1#Requested move. A new WP:Requested move discussion will need to be started on that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Merge. Having read the definition of this article above, they are the same. I would support keeping 'colorism' at the existing title Discrimination based on skin color, though, for reasons of clarity - people could mistakenly think 'colorism' refers to racism, when they're not the same thing, while the longer title is unambiguous. Robofish (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Merge. Yes, they are the same exact meanings which give the same sets of information. Having two of these pages is confusing, since both are the same exact concept. Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Akhila3151996 (talk · contribs), this edit you made is a redirect and I see no merging that took place afterward. But since the vast majority of what was in the Shadism article is redundant to what is in the Discrimination based on skin color article, a merge would have made that article too redundant and would have caused WP:SIZE issues. I appreciate that you went ahead with the redirect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)