Many people assume that prejudice of any kind is a conscious belief about one group or another. You are aware of your dislike for “people from country X” or your fear of “people Y”. And more than that, you endorse these beliefs. But this isn’t always so. Although the above is definitely an example of prejudice, it doesn’t exhaust the ways in which people express bias. Most of the time, prejudice is an unconscious state. You may not be aware of your prejudice against “people from country X” or your fear of “people Y”.
Now, this poses a problem for how they can possible be discovered – our prejudices, that is. If these thoughts are unconscious, hidden even from ourselves, the most prejudiced among us can feign neutrality, confident he or she will not be disproved. Well, fear no longer. There are now tests to uncover our hidden thoughts. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is one. The IAT is actually a series of tests, determining your degree of prejudice towards a number of different groups. There is a “skin-tone”; a religion; a disability; an Arab-Muslim; and a race (black-white) test. These tests depend on rapid associations between various words. There is no time, for example, between the presentation of a traditionally Arab name, like “Akbar”, and the options of “good” and “bad”. The reasoning goes: with no time to tease out the “politically correct” answer, an individual experiencing a bias towards Arabs will characterize “Akbar” as “bad” more than someone that doesn’t have that bias.
I took most of the tests. With great regret, I have to say I revealed a prejudice on a few of them. I won’t tell you which tests, but, in my defense, the prejudice revealed was usually small, sometimes negligible. I’m not that bad! Also, no one, I think, can go through life in a prejudiced world without soaking some of it in. But this doesn’t mean we’re all doomed. This is not the secular version of original sin. We are still capable of being good people. We would just need a more attainable, more human, standard of what it is to be good. Perhaps a good person – one who’s realistic in this kind of world - is not someone that’s perfect, unblemished by prejudice and moral blind-spots. He or she is simply willing to be self-reflective and to constantly examine their flaws. Even to the point of masochism. Their goal is not to be perfect, untarnished. Maybe they just want to consistently improve; to constantly be a little better than they were before. So, I’ll acknowledge my prejudices and try to work them out.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Akbar Ganji
In 2003, the Iranian-Canadian photographer, Zahra Kazemi, was killed during her stay at the infamous Evin prison in Iran. She was in Iran to take photos of a demonstration for students jailed in Evin, with the permission of government officials. But, she was accused of taking pics of the prison and apparently this is a crime. During her prison stay she was beaten to death. The two Iranian intelligence agents charged with her death were cleared and aquitted. But recently a retrial has been called because of "some procedural faults". Perhaps soon Kazemi will finally have justice served on her behalf.
This is one of the more famous violations of human rights in Iran. But it really is just a drop in the bucket.
On November 30th, the Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji, will be giving a talk titled "The Challenges of Journalism in Iran" at Simon Fraser University and he will certainly discuss human rights in Iran.
"Mr. Ganji, a well-known journalist and author and former Revolutionary Guard turned activist, will share his insights about the relationship between human rights & civil liberties, and the challenges against free expression and investigative journalism in Iran."
"Akbar Ganji spent six years in Tehran's infamous Evin prison on charges stemming from a series of investigative articles exposing the complicity of then-President Rafsanjani and other leading members of the conservative clergy in the murders of political dissidents and intellectuals in 1998."
"During his time in prison, Mr. Ganji undertook a hunger strike that lasted from May to August 2005. He also produced a series of influential political manifestos and open letters calling for Iran's secularization and the establishment of democracy through mass civil disobedience. The works were smuggled out of prison and published on the Internet."
I'm really looking forward to this talk.
This is one of the more famous violations of human rights in Iran. But it really is just a drop in the bucket.
On November 30th, the Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji, will be giving a talk titled "The Challenges of Journalism in Iran" at Simon Fraser University and he will certainly discuss human rights in Iran.
"Mr. Ganji, a well-known journalist and author and former Revolutionary Guard turned activist, will share his insights about the relationship between human rights & civil liberties, and the challenges against free expression and investigative journalism in Iran."
"Akbar Ganji spent six years in Tehran's infamous Evin prison on charges stemming from a series of investigative articles exposing the complicity of then-President Rafsanjani and other leading members of the conservative clergy in the murders of political dissidents and intellectuals in 1998."
"During his time in prison, Mr. Ganji undertook a hunger strike that lasted from May to August 2005. He also produced a series of influential political manifestos and open letters calling for Iran's secularization and the establishment of democracy through mass civil disobedience. The works were smuggled out of prison and published on the Internet."
I'm really looking forward to this talk.
human development report
The United Nations published their 2007/2008 Human Development Report. Not much in it is new. The report reiterates the urgency of environmental regulations (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through various methods) and the early signs of the breakdown of our common environment due to global warming (floods, droughts, hurricanes...etc.)
But one point is highlighted in this reported, and it's one that has unfortunately not been emphasized enough, let alone mentioned. In the first paragraph of the summary: "The poorest countries and most vulnerable citizens will suffer the earliest and most damaging setbacks, even though they have contributed least to the problem." This is a major violation of human rights. The poor are being punished for a negligence they didn't practice; and taxed for goods they didn't purchase. How unfair.
Read the report to learn more about how unstable environmental conditions affect countries with inadequete infrastructure. We have to remember that most developing countries don't have their own Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). And we all know how great a job they did with Katrina.
But one point is highlighted in this reported, and it's one that has unfortunately not been emphasized enough, let alone mentioned. In the first paragraph of the summary: "The poorest countries and most vulnerable citizens will suffer the earliest and most damaging setbacks, even though they have contributed least to the problem." This is a major violation of human rights. The poor are being punished for a negligence they didn't practice; and taxed for goods they didn't purchase. How unfair.
Read the report to learn more about how unstable environmental conditions affect countries with inadequete infrastructure. We have to remember that most developing countries don't have their own Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). And we all know how great a job they did with Katrina.
Monday, November 26, 2007
I'm a polar bear. Give me shelter.
In the world of psychiatry, there's an overdependence on pharmaceutical drugs. People who go to their doctors with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and many other "imperfections" are given pills just a little too readily. This is a great tragedy considering that many of these people may just need some personal counselling, or some classes on ways to get a handle on things.
Anyways, here's an article reviewing a few books on the topic of "big pharma".
Anyways, here's an article reviewing a few books on the topic of "big pharma".
justice vs. peace
Civil wars are common. A great number of states have gone through them at some point in their history. My parents, in fact, fought in one. They were members of the Eritrean Liberation Front, seeking independence from Ethiopia. A 30 year war raged as a result.
Yet this pales in comparison to the astonishing facts of Sierra Leone’s war. Although it was over in almost a third the time – 11 years – this war distinguishes itself as an extremely gruesome and macabre case of inhumanity. Fought between pro-government soldiers and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Sierra Leone’s civil war included extensive use of child soldiers by both sides. These gun-wielding children were fed drugs and made into little killing monsters without consciences. This war left limbs severed, felled to the ground, as rebels practiced systematic amputation of civilians: woman, children, the old, whomever. And to make matters worse, the rebels funded their indiscriminate attack in part by the fruits of Sierra Leone’s land: diamonds. This fact is a great tragedy considering the wealth those diamonds could have provided its people.
The rebels’ first attacks hung on lofty principles and ideals. Some of these ideals were definitely justifiable. But, sadly, a principled battle gave way to mayhem and atrocity.
Like many African post-colonial states, Sierra Leone was rife with political corruption. This was most obvious during the tenure of military leader Joseph Momoh beginning in 1985. One group opposed to Momoh’s rule included the future leader of the RUF, Foday Sankoh. Although many members of this opposition group fell by the wayside, Sankoh maintained his revolutionary spirit. Sankoh and others eventually received an education at Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi’s military training facility, and developed contact with future Liberian President and war-crimes suspect, Charles Taylor.
In addition to their justifiable concern that Sierra Leone was succumbing to ever-increasing corruption, Sankoh and his cohorts were intent on gaining greater control over the diamonds populating the country. This second interest soon became consuming: unfortunately at the cost of many innocent lives.
The war lasted between 1991 and 2002. In 1999 the government of Sierra Leone and the RUF signed the Lome Peace Accord in Lome, Togo. The agreement gave amnesty to members of the RUF and control over the diamond mines initially in dispute. It also established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a body that would collect the stories of victims and fighters while foregoing punishment. Forgiveness and reconciliation would be the guiding principles.
However, because of external pressure, the government of Sierra Leone set the Special Court of Sierra Leone up, with the help of the United Nations. It is a judicial body intent on trying “those who bear greatest responsibility” for the crimes against humanity committed during Sierra Leone’s civil war.
Of course, there is a contradiction in having both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court. While one gives amnesty to the perpetrators of grave crimes against humanity, the other seeks to prosecute and punish them. Now, although it turns out the Special Court has jurisdiction over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is still open for discussion whether or not this is a good thing.
The problem of accountability is great in Africa. Many African leaders have wrecked havoc without punishment. They have either been ignored, fortunately for them, by the international community, or they have been given sanctuary by neighboring heads of state. This is of course a grave situation and one that should end. And the Special Court is one body with the intention of doing just that.
The primary perpetrators of the civil war, Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh, were indicted by the cour. Some decidedly controversial charges were made as well. Members of the Civil Defense Forces (CDF), a group that fought alongside the government’s army against the rebels, were indicted as well. The arrest of one of these members, the leader Samuel Hinga Norman, was particularly stinging to the people of Sierra Leone, who saw him as a hero. But for the most part, the charges made by the Special Court were defensible. Those who bore greatest responsibility for the atrocities in Sierra Leone were tried and many have been convicted.
And yet a lot of criticism has been directed towards the Special Court. Before the Special Court gained control, Sierra Leone’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission gave a level of amnesty to many rebel soldiers and generals with the assurance they would become fellow citizens again and not enemy combatants. But by prosecuting their leaders, this very fragile peace is threatened. Some, including Peter Penfold, the former British High Commissioner to Freetown, think this is enough to justify the Special Court’s eradication. In their view the law should be a pragmatic and flexible tool, adjusted to changing circumstances. If following through on some prosecutions leads to destabilization, then perhaps the process should be scrapped.
There is also the fact that some common practices in Sierra Leone are fundamentally opposed to the prosecutorial tradition. Reconciliation, for many in Sierra Leone is more than just an abstract ideal. It includes actually bringing former-rebel soldiers into government. It is a full, and very concrete, reconciliation. And it’s one that cannot exist alongside the Special Court’s prosecutorial methods.
Speaking with Gibril Koroma, editor of the Sierra Leoneon publication The Patriotic Vanguard, and Afri-Can Magazine, he had this to say: “Each country has their way of doing things. When you look at the international justice system, it’s Western. I’m not saying it’s bad, but it might not work in all situations. It doesn’t fit.”
The local practices should at the very least be considered. And if they are overridden by an interest in meting out “justice”, at the cost of peace and stability, this should be done with great regret. But it appears this hasn’t happened in Sierra Leone. It appears one system has been imposed on a people without much regard for their opinion.
Perhaps the future can learn from Sierra Leone. A more case-by-case system of international law may one day prevail. It will be ad hoc, in the best sense possible. Its method will be dependent on the surrounding circumstances. And it will respect the wishes of the people it claims to serve.
Yet this pales in comparison to the astonishing facts of Sierra Leone’s war. Although it was over in almost a third the time – 11 years – this war distinguishes itself as an extremely gruesome and macabre case of inhumanity. Fought between pro-government soldiers and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Sierra Leone’s civil war included extensive use of child soldiers by both sides. These gun-wielding children were fed drugs and made into little killing monsters without consciences. This war left limbs severed, felled to the ground, as rebels practiced systematic amputation of civilians: woman, children, the old, whomever. And to make matters worse, the rebels funded their indiscriminate attack in part by the fruits of Sierra Leone’s land: diamonds. This fact is a great tragedy considering the wealth those diamonds could have provided its people.
The rebels’ first attacks hung on lofty principles and ideals. Some of these ideals were definitely justifiable. But, sadly, a principled battle gave way to mayhem and atrocity.
Like many African post-colonial states, Sierra Leone was rife with political corruption. This was most obvious during the tenure of military leader Joseph Momoh beginning in 1985. One group opposed to Momoh’s rule included the future leader of the RUF, Foday Sankoh. Although many members of this opposition group fell by the wayside, Sankoh maintained his revolutionary spirit. Sankoh and others eventually received an education at Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi’s military training facility, and developed contact with future Liberian President and war-crimes suspect, Charles Taylor.
In addition to their justifiable concern that Sierra Leone was succumbing to ever-increasing corruption, Sankoh and his cohorts were intent on gaining greater control over the diamonds populating the country. This second interest soon became consuming: unfortunately at the cost of many innocent lives.
The war lasted between 1991 and 2002. In 1999 the government of Sierra Leone and the RUF signed the Lome Peace Accord in Lome, Togo. The agreement gave amnesty to members of the RUF and control over the diamond mines initially in dispute. It also established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a body that would collect the stories of victims and fighters while foregoing punishment. Forgiveness and reconciliation would be the guiding principles.
However, because of external pressure, the government of Sierra Leone set the Special Court of Sierra Leone up, with the help of the United Nations. It is a judicial body intent on trying “those who bear greatest responsibility” for the crimes against humanity committed during Sierra Leone’s civil war.
Of course, there is a contradiction in having both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court. While one gives amnesty to the perpetrators of grave crimes against humanity, the other seeks to prosecute and punish them. Now, although it turns out the Special Court has jurisdiction over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is still open for discussion whether or not this is a good thing.
The problem of accountability is great in Africa. Many African leaders have wrecked havoc without punishment. They have either been ignored, fortunately for them, by the international community, or they have been given sanctuary by neighboring heads of state. This is of course a grave situation and one that should end. And the Special Court is one body with the intention of doing just that.
The primary perpetrators of the civil war, Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh, were indicted by the cour. Some decidedly controversial charges were made as well. Members of the Civil Defense Forces (CDF), a group that fought alongside the government’s army against the rebels, were indicted as well. The arrest of one of these members, the leader Samuel Hinga Norman, was particularly stinging to the people of Sierra Leone, who saw him as a hero. But for the most part, the charges made by the Special Court were defensible. Those who bore greatest responsibility for the atrocities in Sierra Leone were tried and many have been convicted.
And yet a lot of criticism has been directed towards the Special Court. Before the Special Court gained control, Sierra Leone’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission gave a level of amnesty to many rebel soldiers and generals with the assurance they would become fellow citizens again and not enemy combatants. But by prosecuting their leaders, this very fragile peace is threatened. Some, including Peter Penfold, the former British High Commissioner to Freetown, think this is enough to justify the Special Court’s eradication. In their view the law should be a pragmatic and flexible tool, adjusted to changing circumstances. If following through on some prosecutions leads to destabilization, then perhaps the process should be scrapped.
There is also the fact that some common practices in Sierra Leone are fundamentally opposed to the prosecutorial tradition. Reconciliation, for many in Sierra Leone is more than just an abstract ideal. It includes actually bringing former-rebel soldiers into government. It is a full, and very concrete, reconciliation. And it’s one that cannot exist alongside the Special Court’s prosecutorial methods.
Speaking with Gibril Koroma, editor of the Sierra Leoneon publication The Patriotic Vanguard, and Afri-Can Magazine, he had this to say: “Each country has their way of doing things. When you look at the international justice system, it’s Western. I’m not saying it’s bad, but it might not work in all situations. It doesn’t fit.”
The local practices should at the very least be considered. And if they are overridden by an interest in meting out “justice”, at the cost of peace and stability, this should be done with great regret. But it appears this hasn’t happened in Sierra Leone. It appears one system has been imposed on a people without much regard for their opinion.
Perhaps the future can learn from Sierra Leone. A more case-by-case system of international law may one day prevail. It will be ad hoc, in the best sense possible. Its method will be dependent on the surrounding circumstances. And it will respect the wishes of the people it claims to serve.
villanelle
Have something nice to say
Tell the truth for once
It won’t put you back a day
If that dude can play
With other goods as well
Have something nice to say
I’m green too, ok
More than most, you know
It won’t put you back a day
Like Maggie May
Wake up, the road is paved
Have something nice to say
Above, the sun’s collective ray
Within, possibility
It won’t put you back a day
Wash that face today
The specs aren’t so small
Have something nice to say
It won’t put you back a day
Tell the truth for once
It won’t put you back a day
If that dude can play
With other goods as well
Have something nice to say
I’m green too, ok
More than most, you know
It won’t put you back a day
Like Maggie May
Wake up, the road is paved
Have something nice to say
Above, the sun’s collective ray
Within, possibility
It won’t put you back a day
Wash that face today
The specs aren’t so small
Have something nice to say
It won’t put you back a day
Sunday, November 25, 2007
global warming and war
Here is further research showing the connection between global climate change and war. I discussed this in a previous entry, and in reference to the Darfur conflict. But it applies just as much to any other place, needless to say.
Perhaps international bodies dedicated to conflict resolution will focus not only on traditional causes of armed conflicts, but this new threat as well. Global warming will lead to scarce resources and battles over what's left.
Perhaps international bodies dedicated to conflict resolution will focus not only on traditional causes of armed conflicts, but this new threat as well. Global warming will lead to scarce resources and battles over what's left.
notes on personal profiles
Philip Bennett notices a trend in journalism. At one time it was common for major publications to present "profiles" of individual victims of natural disasters; wars; and armed attacks. These pieces would relate the experiences of the people that were on-the-ground at the time of the news-worthy story, and would therefore give the reader a sense that the victims were not abstractions, or statistics. They were real people with real lives that were torn by the surrounding events. But, in Bennett’s eyes things have changed. And for the worse. With the current focus on the war on terror and the various conflicts in the middle east (Iraq; Iran; the Lebanon war; Israel and the Palestinians; Turkey) personal profiles have decreased and civilian victims have become, as Bennett puts it in the mouth of terrorists, “ciphers” (which, incidentally, originated as an Arabic word for “zero”). These civilian victim ciphers have become invisible people: a pretty good example of insult to injury.
Bennett suggests some reasons for this drop in personal profiles in middle east coverage. One reason is quite defensible: It’s simply too dangerous in certain places, especially Iraq, for journalists to go in any depth. With regulations on their length of stay in certain hot spots, they barely have enough time to relay the facts of any one conflict, let alone to sit down with civilians to draw out some sort of personal profile. He also includes the “fatigue of readers, the overpowering urge to avert the eyes, the numbness caused by repetitive exposure to violence”. This sounds a lot like what some people call “compassion fatigue”. It’s a genuine, and justifiable, feeling that there is simply way too many people dying, that the numbers of dead and injured are just way too big, for us to do anything, and so it’s best to just ignore it all. “Forget the personal profiles.” Another reason is much less defensible. As Bennett puts it: “The general lack of deep understanding in the United States and the US media of Islam, or Arab cultures, can lead to a shallow level of identification with civilian victims.” This leads editors of publications to believe personal profiles simply won’t sell because most American readers don’t care enough about the stories of these civilian victims. They just can’t put themselves in their shoes.
But this is perhaps where personal profiles are most relevant, paradoxically. If the western public is bombarded by personal stories, if they are told the names, the backgrounds, the daily activities, and the personal relationships of far-away victims, they may eventually develop some affinity with them. People who at first seemed so alien may soon become understandable. The western reader may for once see an analogy between themselves and these civilian victims. And, perhaps, a more gentle foreign policy towards the people of the middle east, and of Africa (let’s not forget them), would be the product.
My assumption is that sympathy for a people need not come before their personal profiles are effective. The reverse may be true. If enough personal profiles are published regularly, perhaps new found sympathy will come about.
Bennett suggests some reasons for this drop in personal profiles in middle east coverage. One reason is quite defensible: It’s simply too dangerous in certain places, especially Iraq, for journalists to go in any depth. With regulations on their length of stay in certain hot spots, they barely have enough time to relay the facts of any one conflict, let alone to sit down with civilians to draw out some sort of personal profile. He also includes the “fatigue of readers, the overpowering urge to avert the eyes, the numbness caused by repetitive exposure to violence”. This sounds a lot like what some people call “compassion fatigue”. It’s a genuine, and justifiable, feeling that there is simply way too many people dying, that the numbers of dead and injured are just way too big, for us to do anything, and so it’s best to just ignore it all. “Forget the personal profiles.” Another reason is much less defensible. As Bennett puts it: “The general lack of deep understanding in the United States and the US media of Islam, or Arab cultures, can lead to a shallow level of identification with civilian victims.” This leads editors of publications to believe personal profiles simply won’t sell because most American readers don’t care enough about the stories of these civilian victims. They just can’t put themselves in their shoes.
But this is perhaps where personal profiles are most relevant, paradoxically. If the western public is bombarded by personal stories, if they are told the names, the backgrounds, the daily activities, and the personal relationships of far-away victims, they may eventually develop some affinity with them. People who at first seemed so alien may soon become understandable. The western reader may for once see an analogy between themselves and these civilian victims. And, perhaps, a more gentle foreign policy towards the people of the middle east, and of Africa (let’s not forget them), would be the product.
My assumption is that sympathy for a people need not come before their personal profiles are effective. The reverse may be true. If enough personal profiles are published regularly, perhaps new found sympathy will come about.
Friday, November 16, 2007
she's got a lucky face
Let us look at your face
Turn about, let that cigarette drop
You got an expensive face, I suppose
But that's enough, I'm tired.
Turn round that head
You got a lucky face, so please let it shiiiine
Turn about, let that cigarette drop
You got an expensive face, I suppose
But that's enough, I'm tired.
Turn round that head
You got a lucky face, so please let it shiiiine
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
corruption news
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Originally Published:
Afri-Can Magazine
November, 2007
and The Patriotic Vanguard
What should we make of skin whitening: the deliberate attempt to make one’s skin fairer? How much of this practice is fueled by racism, and problems of self-image? How much of it is completely innocent – an innocuous preference for lighter skin? For many, these questions have not crossed their minds enough to bring an answer. Same goes for me, to tell the truth. However, new award-winning technology may startle us into considered thought of this problem.
Pratik Lodha and Eman Ahmed-Muhsin, two graduate students at Carleton University, developed a skin-lightening cream called Gloriel. The product was a finalist in the 2007 Student Technology Venture Challenge, and won a $5,000 prize. Previous lightening products essentially wiped away pigment using harmful chemicals that often had very nasty side-effects. Not Gloriel. As written in the CBC, “Gloriel uses a reversible gene-silencing method called RNA interference to reduce the production of skin pigments called melanin.” This is a much safer way. It’s a bit like keeping a persistent house painter a few meters from your home - rather than scraping the paint off afterwards, damaging your walls.
Efficient and safe, definitely. But is it ethical? And right? The creators of Gloriel have insisted it is. They point out that Gloriel is not only capable of lightening skin, but of also darkening it. They also avoid responsibility, in the event that Gloriel is objectionable, by saying that “The market exists and we're not going to increase or decrease that market. We're just offering a safer and more effective method.”
These points are interesting and good. There’s no way to know which option a creator prefers when the product has multiple, and sometimes opposite, purposes. And because there’s no way to know this, we should usually be rest assured neither option is being forced on its customers. So, I guess, Gloriel doesn’t make it’s buyers lighten their skin. And even if the creators preferred their products to be used a skin-lightener, we may have to take the responsibility and blame off their shoulders. They are merely providing a product people seem to want. Nothing more and nothing less.
But sadly it’s not that simple. The reasons behind darkening one’s skin and lightening it are very different. People darken themselves because tanned skin, if even just a little, represents health and vitality. But lightened skin represents something else. The belief that light-skinned people are in many ways superior to their darker counterparts still fills many of us. It may be a remnant of the imperial age, when Europeans colonized Africans, South Americans, and Asians, convincing them of the idea that colonialism was good because only whites can effectively govern darker people. Even with post-colonialism, the belief that the most obvious characteristic of our previous governors, light skin, is preferable, still lingers like a bad smell. So even though Gloriel can be used to both lighten and darken skin, human history suggests one will be preferred. Wrongly, in my opinion.
Of course, I don’t mean to suggest Gloriel and other similar products should be banned. We should rather take it as a source of discussion. Perhaps with enough debate we can acknowledge the subtle prejudice that remains, and purge ourselves of it.
Afri-Can Magazine
November, 2007
and The Patriotic Vanguard
What should we make of skin whitening: the deliberate attempt to make one’s skin fairer? How much of this practice is fueled by racism, and problems of self-image? How much of it is completely innocent – an innocuous preference for lighter skin? For many, these questions have not crossed their minds enough to bring an answer. Same goes for me, to tell the truth. However, new award-winning technology may startle us into considered thought of this problem.
Pratik Lodha and Eman Ahmed-Muhsin, two graduate students at Carleton University, developed a skin-lightening cream called Gloriel. The product was a finalist in the 2007 Student Technology Venture Challenge, and won a $5,000 prize. Previous lightening products essentially wiped away pigment using harmful chemicals that often had very nasty side-effects. Not Gloriel. As written in the CBC, “Gloriel uses a reversible gene-silencing method called RNA interference to reduce the production of skin pigments called melanin.” This is a much safer way. It’s a bit like keeping a persistent house painter a few meters from your home - rather than scraping the paint off afterwards, damaging your walls.
Efficient and safe, definitely. But is it ethical? And right? The creators of Gloriel have insisted it is. They point out that Gloriel is not only capable of lightening skin, but of also darkening it. They also avoid responsibility, in the event that Gloriel is objectionable, by saying that “The market exists and we're not going to increase or decrease that market. We're just offering a safer and more effective method.”
These points are interesting and good. There’s no way to know which option a creator prefers when the product has multiple, and sometimes opposite, purposes. And because there’s no way to know this, we should usually be rest assured neither option is being forced on its customers. So, I guess, Gloriel doesn’t make it’s buyers lighten their skin. And even if the creators preferred their products to be used a skin-lightener, we may have to take the responsibility and blame off their shoulders. They are merely providing a product people seem to want. Nothing more and nothing less.
But sadly it’s not that simple. The reasons behind darkening one’s skin and lightening it are very different. People darken themselves because tanned skin, if even just a little, represents health and vitality. But lightened skin represents something else. The belief that light-skinned people are in many ways superior to their darker counterparts still fills many of us. It may be a remnant of the imperial age, when Europeans colonized Africans, South Americans, and Asians, convincing them of the idea that colonialism was good because only whites can effectively govern darker people. Even with post-colonialism, the belief that the most obvious characteristic of our previous governors, light skin, is preferable, still lingers like a bad smell. So even though Gloriel can be used to both lighten and darken skin, human history suggests one will be preferred. Wrongly, in my opinion.
Of course, I don’t mean to suggest Gloriel and other similar products should be banned. We should rather take it as a source of discussion. Perhaps with enough debate we can acknowledge the subtle prejudice that remains, and purge ourselves of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)