#internalised racism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

soracities · 9 months

Note

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

#i think in essence what i'm trying to say is that #some things are true in a microcosm but you cannot make a universal application for them bc the microcosm isn't representative of the whole #and it is dangerous to assume that it is or that it can be bc you're erasing the bigger picture when you do that #it would be like a poc saying they never felt the pressure of skin-lightening creams which is amazing but it doesnt change the fact that a #whole industry exists selling skin-lightening products BECAUSE there is a demand for them and that demand exists BECAUSE there is an #expectation that they SHOULD be used and this is because there is a belief that lighter skin = more beautiful. regardless of how messed up #and damaging that logic is that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world #and therefore those industries exist to maintain that belief because that belief is what drives their purpose and their profits #and we are doing no favours to the countless poc who DO feel pressured to subject their skins to these products or who come away with #a deeply damaged sense of self-worth (not to mention the internalised racism that's behind these beliefs) bc of constantly being told they #are less than for being darker than a paper bag which is RIDICULOUS #saying its all down to choice is not far off from saying you can CHOOSE to not be affected by the pressure but like....that's just not true #you can't choose to not be the recipient of colorism any more than you can choose to not be the recipient of sexism. and its putting a huge #amount of pressure and responsibility for an individual to just not be affected by deeply ingrained societal pressures and expectations whe #what we SHOULD be doing is actually tackling those expectations and pressures instead #they are leaving these systems intact to continue the damage that they do by making everything about what you as an individual think and #believe but while we all ARE individuals we dont live in separate bubbles. we are part of and IN this world together. and it acts on us as #much as we act on it. but like.....i think i've gone on enough already #ask #anonymous

103 notes · View notes

pinkacademic · 11 months

Text

“I’m Wicked Through and Through,” Wicked’s Elphaba and Internalised Racism

The musical Wicked has been a Broadway and West End hit for over fifteen years, telling the story of the Witches of Oz from before Dorothy fell out of the sky. It follows their school days, how they became involved in the political landscape of Oz, and most importantly, it tells of their friendship and love.

For Elphaba, who would go on to become the Wicked Witch of the West, it is also a story of how she became a scapegoat for the citizens of Oz despite her good intentions. Though there are many factors for her descent into wickedness, one that she can never get away from is how she feels about the emerald green colour of her skin.

Her skin colour causes other people that she encounters to stare, to laugh, and to fear, and it is an obstacle to acceptance that Elphaba tries desperately to overcome.

This is a story of flying monkeys and broomsticks, of witches and wizards and whirlwinds, but also of race and how it affects how a person is seen by others, and most importantly, by themselves.

She’s a Terror, She’s a Tartar

Wicked serves as a strong metaphor for external racism, as seen by how others interact with and view Elphaba, and it is no wonder that she might feel so negatively about her own colouration when she is faced so frequently with such attitudes. To begin with, her very birth is seen as “atrocious,” “obscene,” and “unnatural,” as stated in No One Mourns the Wicked, with her father crying “take it away, take it away,” and ingraining negative self-perception from the moment Elphaba was broght into the world.

It does not go away as she ages, and, as she arrives at Shiz, her fellow students call her “a terror,” “a tartar,” and the Ozian coinage of “disgusticified.” What is this Feeling continues to announce the entire student body’s “loathing, unadulterated loathing” of Elphaba with the only reason they have chosen to do so being the colour of Elphaba’s skin.

Finally, it is stated by Madam Morrible in an attempt to make a her an enemy of an Oz that “her green skin is but an outward manifestation of her twisted nature,” before at last calling her “the Wicked Witch.”

It is clear that Elphaba has every reason to feel thusly about herself when she faces a barrage of prejudice with the only exceptions being Glinda, Fiyero, and a rather complicated relationship with her sister Nessa-Rose

“Would it be alright by you If I de-greenify you?"

Elphaba spent her whole life internalising these thoughts and wishing to look like her sister and her peers. Upon meeting her Shiz classmates, she’s so used to years of silly questions that she introduces herself with pre-prepared answers that she was born this way and didn’t eat grass as a child. As Suzanne Lipsky describes internalised racism as “turning upon ourselves, upon our families, and upon our own people the distress patterns that result from the racism and oppression of the majority society.” Elphaba is exemplary of this definition, as she notes that she is used to he father ‘not being proud of her’ and her sister ‘acting ashamed’ as described in “The Wizard and I.” Except, even her own family are in her case part of her problem, as Elphaba is the only known green witch.

As The Wizard and I continues, Elphaba’s internalised racism comes truly to the forefront as she imagnes a scenario in which the wizard changes her skin colour to a non-green- or, more acurately, to “de-green-ify” her. She’s hoping that, because she is “so superior” in her magical abilities, that her appearance should match, showing how she feels inferior to her peers due to the colour of her skin, despite her impressive skills in magic. She equates it with ‘goodness’ also, foreshadowing the later association of the colour of her skin with wickedness as the musical.

The Milk Flowers

Elphaba’s internalised racism continues to be a prevalent issue in her life, even as she gains more acceptance through Glinda. Though Glinda resigns herself to being Elphaba’s “pal, sister, advisor” in Popular, it is after Elphaba has confessed that she believes it to be “[her] fault” that her sister Nessa Rose is “they way she is,” referring to her disability. As their father had his concerns that Nessa would “come out green” as Elphaba had, he encouraged the girls’ mother to eat milk flowers, which is believed to have caused Nessa’s premature birth and disabilty, and the demise of their mother.

While surely it should be clear that, if anyone is to blame at all, it is Elphaba’s father and not Elphaba herself, it was Elphaba who shouldered, and internalised the guilt for her whole life. Elphaba’s father, the governor of Munchkinland, expresses these views for all of Elphaba’s life, and, to take a brief pause for speculation: as an important political figure in Oz, the governor could have used his influence to spread or fuel existing prejudices- not to mention ableism against Nessa Rose which aids his discriminatory practises towards Elphaba. It should be noted that there is little basis for the accusation, other than the language used around Nessa’s disability being unfavourable, Elphaba’s treatment from her father, and his position in society according to the musical.

That said, the point remains that Elphabas home life was influential in her self-loathing and internalised racism.

One Short Day

In her lifetime of overwhelming loathing for herself and the colour of her skin, Elphaba has placed all of her hope in the Wizard of Oz, in the hopes that he won’t be “dumb” or “small-minded” like the Munchkins of Munchkinland, or the students of Shiz. By association, Elphaba falls in love with the Emerald City, a place where everything is a bright, glittering green. The musical makes the crucial visual addition of giving green sunglasses to all of the dancers in the Emerald City scenes. They would never even notice that Elphaba is green if they are seeing everything through carnation-tinted glasses. Instead of discrimination, Elphaba is greeted only by the hoi polloi of the Emerald City, where “it’s all grand” and “it’s all green” as she exclaims with joy.

One Short Day is the heartbreaking turning point in Elphaba’s life as it represents both her highest high and the pivitol descent to Elphaba’s supposed Wickedness. Elphaba gets to walk through the Emerald City, surrounded by green buildings, green dresses, and green-tinted sunglasses. The citizens welcome her and guide her to Wiz-o-mania, and she and her best freind Glinda sing together: “I think we've found the place where we belong!”

But it after that song concludes and Elphaba meets the Wizard as she’s been dreaming of “since birth,” that her world comes crashing down around her and she is set off on the journey that exposes the truth of the oft-quoted statement “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

Let all Oz be agreed, I’m WICKED Through and Through!

Elphaba’s internalised racism, blended together with the outward racism of her peers in Act Two, which opens in Act Two when we learn of the propaganda that has been spread since Elphaba’s last defiant stand in Defying Gravity. Citizens of Oz sing that Elphaba is “ev'ry day, more wicked,” and that ev'ry day, the terror grows.” It is made clear that all of Oz has upped their racism ten-fold, claiming that she is “spreading fear where e'er she goes.” And actually, the Wizard recognises the nature and danger of spin in Wonderful, noting “a man’s called a traitor- or a liberator […] it’s all in what label is able to persist.”

Unfortunately for Elphaba, the racism of others has lead the label of Wicked to be the persisting one, and it is only at this point, the point of no return, that she uses it for herself.

In her desperation to save Fiyero from harm in No Good Deed, she transforms him, likely irreperably into the scarecrow as he is known from the Wizard of Oz. This is also after having turned Boq into the Tinman, and allowing Nessa to walk with enchanted silver slippers which will go on to be the last image that exists of her after her untimely demise. She feels at this point that she must be truly Wicked, as even when she tries to do good, she causes bad things to happen, saying:

“Sure, I meant well -well, look at what well-meant did,” and resigning herself to never do good again.

Although just one song previously, Elphaba makes an attempt to claim the word as having a positive connotation when she’s with Fiyero, the chance is gone.

The article 6 Signs of Internalized Racism (and How To Heal) from disorient.co quotes Steve Biko saying “the most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

To me, this perfectly reflects Elphaba’s attitudes towards her own failings. She breaks the flow of her own spell in No Good Deed to shriek about how she feels it is futile, which, by my speculation, could have caused Fiyero to turn to straw, rather than her own inabilities. But because she has had such a negative view of herself her whole life, she does not consider herself able to save him.

Defying Gravity

But is there a happy ending for Elphaba? Can there be a way to overcome internalised racism for someone who has become a terrorist in her home country? Everything admittedly seems bleak when Elphaba makes Glinda promise not to clear her name, and leaves Oz, intending never to return.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I wish to explore the routes through which Elphaba could find happiness again.

The previously mentioned article, 6 Signs of Internalized Racism (and How To Heal), lists six ways to heal from the trauma of one’s internalised racism. Of those, one that may have some applications for Elphaba’s life after the events of Wicked is number three: “Seek counseling and healing on our memories of internalized racism […]

As previously mentioned, Elphaba does have a brief moment of trying to reclaim her Wickedness in a positive light, which fits well with one of the example prompts as written by Suzanne Lipsky, “What has been good about being Black?”

Elphaba’s being called wicked stemmed only from her attempts to help animals who were being harmed by the Wizard’s schemes, and everyone who worked with him, such as Madame Morrible. Elphaba’s “road of good intentions” really was a road of good intentions. She was just a scapegoat because she threatened to undo the balance in society that had been following the Wizard’s lead since he blew in “on the winds of chance.”

If Elphaba could remember that, and learn to appreciate the good that she did, and realise that she did have “wickedness thrust upon her” as suggested by Glinda in the opening moment of the musical, then hopefully, she can heal.

I like to believe also, by pure speculation, that Elphaba and Fiyero, though having to live low as they are both well-known political figures in Oz… and one of them is rather uniquely green, they still managed to live a simple, happy life, away from Oz.

I also like to belive in the hope that Glinda rebuilt a more tolerant Oz, as the only other person who knew the truth that Elphaba was not wicked, but good. Perhaps they will reunite someday as two best friends should, and maybe they’ll even have more days in the Emerald City together as they deserved.

Conclusion

Wicked is as much about Elphaba’s internal struggles with the colour of her own skin and the stigmas that she’s had to face in relation to that trauma as it is about Elphaba as a witch of Oz. Internalised racism creates such a barrier in her own mind to what she’s capable of, and external racism is what sent her onto the path of so-called Wickedness in the first place. Elphaba is a perfect case study for internalised racism, as maybe the true Wickedness stems from racism.

Ultimately, Wicked is a highly political musical, dealing with propaganda and the complicated nature of what is wicked and what is good, and Elphaba’s struggles are a huge part of that.

It is up to everyone to fight their own prejudices, and build a space where wickedness can be reclaimed for good.

#pink academia #pink #academia #pink academic #pink academic essays #wicked #wicked musical #elphaba #elphaba thropp #it looks weird that the titles aren't pink but i couldn't not do green #btw im not an expert #ive never experienced internalised racism #im just trying to learn

18 notes · View notes