From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: TANNING
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 00:54:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.100146.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> ohall@milori.ccit.arizona.edu writes:
>What I don't understand is why was it at one time considered bad or
>undesirable to be tanned(i.e. slave days) and now it is in style?  In
>other words at one time in the U.S. tan or dark skin was associated
>with the poor and low class and now it is supposedly associated with
>the rich.  Isn't this a drastic change?

Probably not just in the US, but in most places, tanned/dark skin was
associated with having to work outside (as opposed to inside an
office), at some kind of hard labor.  Hard laborers generally made
less than office workers, and thus had a lower standard of living.
Most likely, those with lighter or less tanned skin were associated
with a finer standard of living.

Now, lots more people work in offices, so you can't distinguish one's
social status by their skin color or tan.  On the other hand, it's
become "en vogue" to vacation in warm sunny places where one can get a
tan, or go to a tanning salon and get the ultraviolet treatment.  Poor
folks are less likely to be able to do these things than non-poor
folks.  So now it's desirable to be tanned because people will think
you vacation at expensive warm sunny resorts, or spend some time under
the ultraviolet rays.

>Why do you like to be darker?  Can't you just be happy the way you
>are?  I feel sorry for people who don't like the color of thier skin.
>How can one love anyone else if they don't love themselves? 

Wanting to change an aspect of your appearance does not necessarily
mean you don't love yourself.

>If I was blacker than coal or whiter than snow, I would still learn
>to love myself despite of the social norms.  Currently I have a
>growing afro and listen to old motown, which at this time is
>considered out of style.

It's good that you have that attitude, but not everyone thinks that
way.  Look at Michael Jackson (speaking of old Motown); he changed the
shape of his nose and color of his skin because he felt his fans were
no longer happy with his appearance.

(By the way, I still like old Motown.)

Janis Cortese wrote:
>>I don't know if there's enough sun to account for any tanning up north,
>>especially in the Midwest, so I'm not sure if AfAm people could get
>>darker even if they wanted to. 

If you spend all your time out in the sun, like I did when I was
growing up back east, you can get several shades darker.  I was a
lifeguard during the summer.  It depends on how much melanin you have
in your skin. I've known some white folks from back east who were able
to tan to the point where their skin was a deep brown.  I've also
known black folks from back east who get sunburned and whose skin
peels.
 
>>I hate to say this, but could there be AfAm people who don't think
>>that they can GET darker from the sun?

I don't know.  As far as I can tell, all the black folks I know who
spend a considerable time out of doors realize they are going to get
darker.  Some folks (of all races) I know who do a lot of roller
skating around Venice Beach take off appropriate clothing to pick up a
tan in the meantime.  But some black folks don't get painfully burned.
I never felt like I had to get out of the sun because my skin was
burning, but sometimes my skin would peel.  I never worried about it
that much.  I suppose some blacks don't think they can get skin
cancer.  Now that I don't spend that much time at the beach I don't
worry about buying sunscreen or anything like that.

--gregbo
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:07:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA