I'm sick and tired of hearing about skin color. "Colored People" all over the world complaining about this and that, discrimination, white people, being treated badly, blah, blah. Give me a break. Yes, there is prejudice and yes the stories that are being told are worth hearing, but white people also face prejudice and don't complain nearly as loud. The only color that really counts is green. I'm sure 90 percent of the world would agree with that--no matter what color.

Well, you must not have to worry about "skin color", it crosses the "green" line also.

The issues of racial, class, religious and cultural discrimination are inextricable. The fabric of the modern world is made of the warp and woof of the ensuing conflicts and accomodations. As Martin Luther King said, we must be able to judge others by the content of their characters. In order to know their characters, we must have insight into who “other” is.

Mr. Martin, in his fascinating reporting on these issues, helps us to walk in other people’s shoes. There is no downside to this. In fact, our endangered world insists on it.

'Race' is not even a genetic factor. 'Color' is an accident of relative pigmentation. It should not be a basis for prejudice or bias. Fortunately, I was raised Quaker, and my parents had many divergent friends and colleagues, who often visited - in what supposedly was a 'liberal' white neighborhood in Upstate New Jersey. ... needless to say, neighbors would utterly lose it when they did visit, and we children would go without friends for many days.... THAT was my introduction to 'United States Equality.'

The people of the United States often speak with one voice, act with another. I sincerely hope that has truly changed over the years.

I'm not surprised that the comment dated 7/15 is Anonymous. Who would want to claim such a point of view. What is obvious, however, is that Mr. Martin's reports on racism throughout the world are needed to open the hearts and minds of such Anonymous people. I sincerely hope that Mr. Martin's work continues and that it continues to provoke reaction and dialogue that causes each of us to review our own biases.

Phillip Martin's stories always get me thinking. Thank you. I appreciate hearing the many viewpoints.

I agree 100% with the 7/18 comment. I am, as a Puertorrican, who I am, by virtue of my principles, my character and personal achievements. It is a shameful reality that Puertorricans identify themselves (As all Americans do) with stereotypical ethnicity formulas in the mass media. Somewhere in those TV images, constantly bombarded in such an impoverished economy, there's a hopeful choice; and that is that becoming "white", is easier to attain than becoming politically, cultural and financially independent nation. This 'Color initiative' has many layers of social identity to peel in the years ahead. In the meantime, until MLK's ideas fill with pride this society; until perhaps a new series of public media articles start reflecting "other virtues" of this constantly politically and culturally battered and tarnished nation, being "trigueño pero orgullo" will have to do.

The report about racism in Puerto Rico is inaccurate. To say there is generalized racism in Puerto Rico is completely incorrect. I live in Puerto Rico, myself being of mixed racial ancestry - black, white, taino indian. And we all here live harmoniously amongst ourselves. There is no racial discrimination when looking for a job, house, etc. Most of the statistical reports some of the interviewees are quoting are inaccurate as they were designed for the US and not for Puerto Rico, including the US Census - for example, when your race is asked, they may ask for white, african-american or black, hispanic, etc the typical US categories. These do not apply to Puerto Rico, in fact they create confusion - most here view ourselves as "Puerto Ricans", view ourselves as from the USA as we are a US territory and not as hispanics, do not view ourselves as african-american even if our skin is black, so end up selecting either white or "none of the above" if this is llisted. When skin colors are asked, again we see white, black, etc but never see an alternative which are the "in-between" colors we have, many shades of tan, even our "white" people typically have a skin color darker than those who consider themselves white in the USA.
In Puerto Rico we have top doctors, cabinet members, mayors, poets, painters, actors, researchers, university professors, bank presidents who are black or dark colored. Some of our most important historical heroes are dark skinned, like Ramón Emeterio Betances or Pedro Albizu Campos. Late 19th centurty and early 20th century still had racial differences, but the intermixing has been so widespread since the very early collonial times that you cannot find a single Puerto Rican who can say their family tree is either white or black all the way up. As most of those who traveled to colonize Puerto Rico (~1600-1800) were male, they ended up procreating with taino indian or african women. This is a small, 3,500 sq mile island with 4 million inhabitants - the physical limitations of size, and primarily male collonial conquering population, has been an important interbreeding factor. Here you do not see social demonstrations, strikes, protests, unrest because of any form of racial discrimination - and the reason is simple, this is not a problem here.
When the report talks about the closed community Palmas del Mar, what they do not mention about this closed community is that the housing is very expensive there, this is a community for high middle class to rich people. There is no racial discrimination when purchasing houses in Palmas, in fact anywhere in Puerto Rico, we are ruled by the same US federal laws about equal employment and housing as the USA mainland, as well as local. Buying houses in closed communities here is a buying power "discrimination", not a racial one - I do know dark skinned people who live in Palmas.
In summary, to say there is racism in Puerto Rico is totally inaccurate. Those who write theoretical thesis' about the supposed "racial issue" base their statistics on surveys and studies that were not designed for Puerto Rico, and thus give innacurate results. Marriage across different skin colors here is common, we simply see ourselves as Puerto Ricans.

Having emigrated from Puerto Rico as an adolescent I experienced an interesting truth.
I remember being shocked at the way African Americans in my school ‘self-segregated’ in the playground. I quickly learned to eat at the cafeteria table with Cubans and Mexican Americans who shared a common language with me. Still, studying was most fun with my best friend from Uganda, I thought she was Worldly. She was so black that she too was excluded from the African American circle. Truth be told—I was not accustomed to the tension I felt between my black classmates. I had never experienced this among black Puerto Ricans.

This is my story… my early beginnings after emigrating to the US. Over the years, I learned other truths about the dynamics between ethnic groups in the states—that everyone is subdivided by “race” and “ethnicity” and that the US Census accounts for all. Still, I could never accurately complete my census form— each time I found myself represented in every category. I am truly of Spanish decent (White) mixed with African (black), thus Mulata, but with a little Native American (Red-Brown), therefore Mestiza?—so I checked “all that apply.” For despite the fact that my skin is a shade-of-brown, I did not have evidence that one genetic code was more represented than another in my being. Nor did I feel more solidarity with my Native American roots than with my African ones.

My personal experience has truly fueled my interest in learning everyone’s truth. I don’t believe there is one truth. But our –history-- speaks for us… and often reading about our Latin American History much can be answered. Everyone has an experience to share… but if we also discussed the laws and socioeconomic forces that ruled us while we acquired our personal experiences, a lot could be uncovered.

It is critical that we remember—there were differences between British slavery systems, adopted by North America/US, and Spanish slavery systems, adopted by Latin America in the 1800s. British systems’ tactics were based on splitting slave-families. This was believed to keep slaves subdued. Spanish slavery systems tactics attained “better slave compliance” by keeping family units together, fed, housed. Spanish slave-owners treated slaves “like humans and not like property, because Spanish slave-owners were under Catholic-mandates” which also considered marriage a holy sacrament, thus family units of slaves could not be split for the sake of slavery or sale. In contrast, British Law defined slaves as commercial property rather than as humans providing labor. British Law also prohibited slaves from growing food, testifying in court, becoming educated—all “freedoms” afforded to slaves by Spanish rulers. This inherent difference is believed to have influenced later relations between ethnic groups in Latin America, in comparison to those in the U.S.

Could this explain much about the differences between blacks in Latin American and in the U.S.? Still—despite “more harmonious” relations between black, white, indigenous and brown people in Latin America, we cannot mitigate another reality. There was an overt “albocracia”—ruling by shades of white… and a “pardocracia”—ruling by shades of brown in Latin American in the 1800’s—a “sliding scale” of shades was used to determine what trades/jobs a person was permitted for hire. It also imposed limitations on who could receive the same education as the ruling white majority. This is what Simon Bolivar devoted his life to in South America—dreaming of one united front and equality among all. If this struggle existed, it necessitates that there had been discrimination among ethnic groups in our early beginnings in Latin America.

I think the intent of the original story on NPR’s podcast was to open the dialogue among Puerto Ricans and non-Puerto Ricans. I applaud NPR for taking a stab at this issue. I remember growing up on the island casually and innocently hearing uttered statements like: “…vamos a hacer las cosas como los blancos;”(“let’s do things like white people”) and the famous “¿y tu abuela donde esta?” ("...and where's your grandma?")—which jocularly reminded us that our greatgreatgrandmothers were ‘in the golden days’ –hidden-- in the kitchen because they were black.

Racism is usually not overt. In Puerto Rico and in the US it usually presents itself in the form of limitations/inaccessibility to education, jobs, leadership positions—including elected/appointed positions. I don’t recall ever reading about black governors in PR, nor black presidents in any Latin American country. An indigenous head of state in Ecuador, Evo Morales, comes to mind…Simon Bolivar in Colombia and Bolivia… Fujimori in Peru… and many other mestizos and mulatos who became heads of states in Latin America have succeeded. No blacks have ever reached this status in Latin America. Other truths also beg the question— the great majority of those who fled pre-Castro Cuba were not black-Cubans. The great majority were affluent “whites.” All of this truly necessitates further consideration and deep thought.

Let us not forget our roots and the struggles that our people have overcome… Let us be proud of where we are and how we’ve come to be. Let’s keep the dialogue going… and thanks to all who have taken the time to share their truth!

Puertorriqueño—blanco, negro, verde, amarillo— siempre Puertorriqueño.
(Puerto Rican—white, black, green, yellow—always Puerto Rican).

Very interesting on point material that's not as well known and understood by the general public as it should be. Fanatastic to hear it on such a widely disseminated media outlet. I'd like to know more about the University of Puerto Rico report/initiative on color prejudice in Puerto Rico. What is it exactly and who can I contact to find out more? Thanks. . .

Santoto, this is Phillip Martin, the Color series producer and corespondent. The name of the project is "Afropuertorican Testimonies", described as a collaboration between Professors Jocelyn A. Géliga Vargas and José Irizarry as well as community leaders from Aguadilla and Hormigueros and students from the English and Social Sciences departments of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaquez. The on-going project will present its findings this Fall in Boston, New York and other US cities. There are few articles about the project but this is one of them. http://www...08037.html

I think Mr. Martin has done an excellent job of dealing with really intricate issues of race and skin color.
I am only wondering when we will see episodes for September and October!

Thanks so much!

What I think is interesting is that in China and in other countries in East Asia, lightness historically was not an issue of "whiteness"--it was an issue of wealth. That is, you were not in the markets or in the fields because you were wealthy enough to have servants.

This does not negate the issue of color and skin. Indeed, it is interesting that in this debate, it is assumed prediscursive that East Asians are "aping" Euro-Americans in their desire for white skin. Which actually reveals much more about our own mindsets and assumptions and less about these people in other countries engaging in what was again, historically, acquiring an attribute that signified wealth and comfort and could not have cared less about what people in Western (European) countries were doing.

There is a reason why China called itself, often mistranslated, the "Central Kingdom"--not the "Middle Kingdom"--because it conceived of itself as the Center of the World and didn't care what other people did. When Western Europeans first came to China, they were often kept waiting weeks and weeks before they could see any official in the court, and often not even then. Because they were considered insignificant and unworthy and certainly not because they were fascinated by Western culture.

Again, while today we have this additional perception of "whiteness" it reveals much about our own perceptions regarding that and less about what other people think.

I know that I, as a Chinese person born in the U.S., have and always will struggle with the color of my skin, not the least of which is because I was mercilessly picked on since I was in Kindergarten for being "too dark." On the other hand, I am also a Ph.D. scholar who studies this sort of thing and studies China as well, and I don't think our own perceptions about what and why something is desirable is "universal."

First of all, this is not about colour. This is about a misconception that certain people have been have been brainwashed with that White, light, and bright is beautiful, and black is not. Coming from India, I grew up around skin lightners, I in fact also used some when I was a teenager. I was told by my own family members that if I bleach my face, I would look prettier, and lighter. After living in American for almost 10 years, I have learned to embrace my color and love it for what it is and who I am. This is a sad misconception-and I truly wish that the skin care companies would stop marketing this false misconception.

Philip Martin's piece on whitening in Asia has many things wrong, that essentially show his own racial insecurities and unfamiliarity with Asia. As a long-time resident of Japan I found several errors in his piece. There was just a few years ago, a big move for skin darkening, with deep tanning, and various forms of plastic surgery, hair bleaching etc. Many people find the current trend toward whitening as a return toward a more traditional Asian view of beauty and a more natural look, a more acceptive version of Asianess than the bleached hair, dark skin, and occasional breast and butt implants of the mid-90s. What is wrong with a more traditional asian aesthetic? I only wish we valued Whiteness as much in our western culture, it might end millions of cases of skin cancer and premature death. Mr. Martin hears the word "white" and has a fit. His piece is not thoughtful and his outrage and framing of the discussion are odd and hearken to his roots as a black liberal academic, surrounded by liberal white people who humor him or are self-hating, and developing his sense of the world in the 90s when there was a massive turn against euro-culture in the US. He is just wrong on this one and missing the 10-20 year perspective on this issue, and framing it from a distinctively reactionary and racist perspective. Sorry Martin, might have wanted to speak with some folks better educated on this issue.

This is Phillip Martin: Thanks to all those who have written in to comment on our two skin whitening in Asia reports.

Let me say first of all that the general issue of skin color seems to always elicit strong reactions, and that’s understandable.

Let me also make four other points reflecting some objective realities:

A) The issue of skin whitening is complex: No where do I posit that modern skin whitening is by itself an emulation of white western culture, though globalization and lingering perceptions of western primacy (particularly after world war two) had an undeniable impact in influencing Asian thinking and self-perceptions. However, skin whitening—as we mentioned in both the host introduction and in the first report—is an ancient tradition that was practiced in Japan, China and other Asian societies as a way of differentiating social classes. Its resurgence and popularization is predicated in large measure on the growing middle-classes’ ability to pay for skin whitening cosmetics AND the development of enhanced ways to whiten the skin.

b) Asian societies and people are not monolithic. Thus, while some may embrace skin whitening others reject it, as we pointed out. People find skin hues of all types to be attractive, which explains the growing popularity of tanning. But sun tanners--as I’ve stated in report two—represent only a tiny fraction of East and South Asian populations. To the person who described him or herself as a “long-time resident of Japan” you must know, therefore, that what you say was a “big move for skin darkening” actually only amounts to a relative sliver of Japanese society. Moreover “Gan-guro”, as the practice is called, has waned in popularity. Ganguro was mainly embraced by young Japanese women who tanned to a degree where they were barely distinguishable from naturally dark-skinned people as part of a self described non-conformist fashion. This trend, by the way, was one of the areas I investigated as a former US-Japan Media Fellow.

c) Skin whitening is not tantamount to a healthy life-style, as the medical doctor in the report made clear. Like tanning, it too can lead to skin cancer.

d) In focusing on skin color, it is inevitable that some might conclude that my reporting is colored by experiences in the United States. But the voices in these reports are voices from China, Taiwan, Malaysia and India, and informed by dozens of other voices that we could not include in this two part journey. The experiences of Lijia Zhang, for example, in dealing with color prejudice in China is not my experience. It is hers. We should be reminded, in this sense, that reporting on color in this series does not mean that our views are framed by the paradigmatic assumptions of the American Experience.

You and your staff do condition your story, and point to the non-monolithic nature of the topic. And it is your job to push buttons and be slightly offensive in order to create an interesting if not truthful story. No one can escape, and maybe no one should be asked to escape, their own background and viewpoint -- how else will they provide a coherent perspective on anything. However, you are putting forward an essential narrative and timeline that is inaccurate and some of your responses are intellectually dishonest. You are conflating a whiteness of race, and a whiteness of race that is uniquely American with a long-standing class issue that is unique to the cultures viewed. You use terms like "resisting Whiteness" which is obviously somewhat pejorative and from a health standpoint counter-productive, that do not do justice to the complexity of the issues raised.

Sure, if someone uses lead paint to make themselves whiter that is a health hazard, but that does not mean that a valueing of relative whiteness or natural skin tone whatever that might be in a general sense would not be healthful, it flatly is, undisputably, when done without excess. It is generally true that being happy with "what you are" turns out to be healthful physically as well as psychologically. If you are focusing on an exception or an extreme you should say so. Carrying around umbrellas and using light makeup is not an extreme, and if Americans of various groups, who for various reasons have recently wanted in general to be darker, did that instead of suntanning, more would be healthier and alive.

Next, you first note that the trend toward whiteness is a " resurgence and popularization " IE a new thing, but then you talk of those who newly and valorously "Resist Whitness" and the growth in popularity in tanning. Which is it? Was there some neutral shade you preferred before the growing popularity of tanning? If the trend toward whitening is a new thing, then there must have been some trend toward tanning or being darker before that? You mention Ganguro, and again are using an extreme to discredit a general trend. Namie Amuro, the tanned pop star, was the biggest female celebrity of the mid-90s in Japan and was herself a product of a trend and popularizer as a much as an originator. While the heavily made-up ganguro were an extreme expression of a trend, they reflected a much wider and even mainstream for a time movement in fashion and everyday life toward darker skin, multiple hair colors, etc. Interestingly this trend, which was mainstream, coincided with a move toward internationalization, a greater recognition of US and world diversity, and an increased valuing of African-american culture, and America in general -- at least as opposed to the Bush Administration US. The trend against, is perhaps a natural alteration in fashion (skin-tone may be more akin to hem length than some vaguely threatening cultural "whiteness") but was also put forward as not a privileging of US whiteness, but in fact a return toward Asianess, natural skin tone and hair, traditional and more natural standards of beauty and away from America (now seen as not consisting of just blond white people, but characterized by African-american and other influences). Your report would have been more accurate 10 or more years ago than now. And the report might have been more accurate if it differentiated between male and female tanning or non-tanning and looked at what that meant or indicated.

Prestigious media-fellowships and Harvard educations are impressive and valuable, but a fellowship is a one or two year at most deal, and coming into a culture like Japan, with its enormous privileging of well privilege and name brand universities, affects greatly how and who with you would have interacted. It is not the same experience as a 5-10 year stint out and amongst the people, and viewing the winds of popular culture sweep back and forth. Your piece would have benefitted in truthfulness, if not in focused intent and interest, from a more experienced perspective.

Thank you to you and your staff for an interesting and though provoking series, but in regard to Japan, at least, your presented timeline and cultural narrative is arguably just wrong.

The steady popularity of whitening in Japan (and elsewhere in Asia) and the marginal resurgence of tanning (once very popular in the early 1960’s) are irrefutable. So too is the increasing influence of Latin and African American culture on Japanese society. These social conditions exist side by side. They exist both as options and contradictions and should not be viewed in a zero sum frame of reference. Whatever one’s experience in Japan might be on a day to day basis, the studied evidence is conclusive? For detailed empirical research on skin whitening and the relationship to identity, race, class and Westernization please refer to: “Cultivating Japanese Whiteness: The ‘Whitening’ Cosmetics Boom and the Japanese” by Mikiko Ashikari – The Journal of material Culture, 2005; 10; 73-91. She preferred not to be interviewed for this story but we did correspond by email.
http://mcu...ct/10/1/73

Another voice informing the two part skin whitening reports was none other than Donald Richie, who has written on Japan for the past 50 years and has lived in that nation since 1947. For the record, it was my hope to present a four part series--which would have given the issue greater elucidation and provided greater nuance and context to a complex subject. Unfortunatley, we were not able to do this, and worked with the time that was available.

All too often, discussions on race mix up the related but different concepts of racism and exclusivity. As a woman of mixed European background, married to a Sri Lankan Tamil, I have observed first hand how racism poisons the lives of those in the powerless position, both here in the U.S. and in Sri Lanka. However, I find the phenomenon of cultural cliquishness is often mistaken for racism, especially when it is exhibited in the power group (most often whites in the U.S.) While I personally prefer to extend my social circle to as many types of people as I can (culturally, socio-economically, whatever), I don't automatically assume that other people's personal prejudices are the same as bigotry, which is the core of racism. I have often been the only white person in a room full of South Asians and found myself merely tolerated, not included in the inside jokes or side conversations. It is often assumed, especially by older people, that I am ignorant of the politics, history and cultural markers (cooking, clothing styles, dance)of the majority group in the room. I try not to take it personally, much as an outsider trying to fit into the PTA clique or the new girl trying out for the cheer squad. Mean girl politics. I have always figured that those who know me, know me, and those who don't . . .don't. If turn about is fair play, I submit that the cultual ignorance of many Americans is just that--ignorance. While ignorance is certainly a sad commentary on our outlook, it does not rise to the level of racism. The complicating factor is that because the dominant culture in the U.S. has traditionally been white culture (the power of which gives rise to white racism), then whites who complain about their own exclusion from other cultural cliques is automatically interpreted as mere whining, with no merit. Where, then, do my children fit in? One daughter appears to be a light-skinned Indian; she treasures her Asian culture and fits into her university's ethnic organizations without a wrinkle. My other daughter is often assumed to be Mexican or Greek, and has little patience with the strictures of local South Asian social groups. Did she lose patience from being overlooked by the other "brown" girls, or did they overlook her for her lack of stereotypical "brownness?" Who knows, but its not racism.