A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a friend on types in dating. I initially assumed the conversation would revolve around surface-level preferences such as hair color, clothing style or even Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality types. Instead, I received a remark detailing how my friend prefers to primarily date “lighter-skinned women.” 

While joking about types is oddly a recurrent conversation topic in several friend circles, we must acknowledge the underlying implications behind racial and color-based preferences. 

A casual remark about skin color may seem like an inoffensive individual preference, but this statement reflects a widespread phenomenon that few openly acknowledge. These preferences — while not intended to seem harmful — reinforce systematic colorism, which has detrimental psychological consequences. Yet, another fact that remains unobserved is that these biases stem from underlying patterns embedded in the English language that demonstrate that having lighter skin is inherently more desirable.

The English language upholds a colorist vocabulary. When we delve into the roots of racism, we often focus on discrimination solely based on skin color, yet the etymological patterns ingrained in the English language reinforces the notion of bigotry. 

For instance, the term “fair” skin derives from the Old English “fæger” which literally translates to possessing “beautiful” skin, carrying with it an underlying assumption that lighter skin is more beautiful. 

In contrast, the term “dark” holds more negative connotations, often even being associated with evilness and wickedness. 

In the classic example of Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), Snow White is designated as the “fairest of them all,” accentuating her beauty as a result of her skin. While the film never explicitly states that “dark” skin is inferior, describing a princess’s fair skin as her prominent symbol of beauty comes with psychological consequences for darker-skinned viewers. 

The language patterns in these common descriptors reveal why so many individuals possess underlying colorist views. These patterns only remain within us internally and many may not comprehend why coloristic ideologies are harmful when the English language itself inherently supports these biases. Thus, we have a subconscious tendency to view darker skin with a negative implication. 

While the English language’s framework sustains colorist patterns, these trends are also applicable on the global scale. Some assume colorism is a measure of discrimination against people of color in contrast to white individuals, but in reality, colorism exists within racial and ethnic communities, directly persisting against darker-skinned individuals. 

South Asian households, for example, have utilized products such as “Fair & Lovely,” which is a skin-lightening cosmetic product that thereby reiterates distaste towards darker-skinned individuals, even within their own communities. In the product’s name, the conjunction “and” suggests that the words “fair” and “lovely” are complementary, thus perpetuating notions that having lighter skin is more attractive. “Fair & Lovely” ultimately rebranded their product to “Glow & Lovely,” recognizing the need to shift away from utilizing such colorist language.

While word-choice patterns may seem miniscule compared to direct racial discrimination, there are psychological impacts for people of color. Internalized negative messages from an early age fosters long-term racial biases and self-perception deterioration. 

Josephine Almanzar, an Afro-Latina licensed psychologist, explains in an interview that there is a significant correlation between having subtle messages accumulate over time through microaggressions and innuendos and how people of color “conceptualize our core belief or our understanding of ourselves in a certain way.”

Furthermore, CNN reported that, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, individuals who experience life-long, indirect colorism are more at risk to “depression, loneliness, increased alcohol and drug use, and anxiety.” The build-up of seemingly minor semantic patterns is thus detrimental to the psychological well-being of nonwhite communities. 

Looking at the patterns in our common language is only the first step to undoing built-up colorism. When a language reinforces undertones that revere lighter-skinned individuals, society as a whole inherently supports these biases, which translates into, for example, dating patterns. 

From our youths, we are acclimatized to hold racial preferences that reflect in our relationships and day-to-day interactions. To address this, we must start taking steps to redefine connotations. When developing dating preferences, it is imperative to prioritize connection and compatibility without blatantly considering skin tone. The trends reflected in mere dating preferences hold large-scale influence as well, such as indirect hiring discrimination or even scholastic racism. Being aware of colorist biases can allow us to promote global impartiality and acceptance.

While rewriting the entire English lexicon is not feasible, we can begin redefining our perception of specific terms such as “fair” or “dark.” We must not let deep-rooted English language patterns continue to promote internalized colorism.