huerca zafada

bihet feminism lite, you credulous troglodytes

The design responsibility post reminded me of how in my predominantly Latin@ community, eye colors other than brown and black were called “colored” (no relation to use of “colored” as a racial identifier, obviously). The implication was that brown and black shades were so unremarkable as to not even be considered colors, just placeholders where true color failed to manifest. It was common to hear people complimented and desired for no other reason than having colored eyes. Therefore, it’s extremely noticeable to me whenever a darkskinned character is given blue or green eyes because “they stand out”, or whatever bullshit reason is given. The real reason is because they provide the character with racial ambiguity, preventing them from looking too much like a particular nonwhite ethnicity. No one ever complains about characters who have pale eyes and pale skin and pale hair all at once - if anything, all they need is darker lashes or lips, changes that in real life are easily made with cosmetics, not genetics. It’s also not coincidental that, whenever someone extols the beauty of mixed-race children, they’re almost always looking at people with light eyes. You skin can be brown if your eyes are not.

Light eyes are not exclusive to people of European descent, but what features are? We have not been conditioned to view facial features out of context; we are taught that beautiful eyes just happen to be shades that are most commonly found in white people, and if that means thinking that you, your friends, and your family are lacking in some way, so be it. Creative people should constantly questions their assumptions about what is beautiful. We have a responsibility to not mindlessly uphold racist concepts because of some vague argument about “contrasts”.

  1. desliz posted this