Euro-Americans Favoring People of Color: Covert Racism and Economies of White Colorism

Introduction: Overt Versus Covert Racism

Race studies represents a sizable portion of social science research, but within this larger area of inquiry, certain aspects of racism have been overlooked, including colorism. In the past few decades, much scholarly and popular attention has been afforded to racism in the United States, specifically as it relates to discrimination in areas influencing socioeconomic status. Less consideration has been given to colorism or skin color bias among members of the same racial group—and much of the existing scholarship concentrates primarily on the intraracial manifestations of colorism. Scholarly focus on colorism as an issue occurring within a racial group is akin to colorism functioning as a caste system in that inequalities are viewed as a result of intraracial relations. However, the root of skin color evaluations within a race is based on interracial dynamics, referred to here as White colorism, but has received even less attention than racism and intraracial colorism.

The internal factions among African Americans resulting from colorist thought in the United States have been considered by numerous intellectuals, including Toni Morrison, W. E. B. Dubois, and Marita Golden, among others. The valorization of light skin and the accompanying advantages are discussed and problematized—often by minority scholars themselves—from an intraracial standpoint. Yet the problem of colorism never began as a problem within African American communities. Rather, like racism, it began as an organizing principle founded by European Americans working toward the project of dominating non-Whites.

What is often lacking in the dialogue on colorism is the interracial component of intraracial hierarchies. Specifically, the ways in which colorist ideology was established and is now sustained by European Americans in various capacities, including social, political, cultural, and economic areas. In sociological discourse, colorism is often problematically conceptualized as a subset of racism, thus reducing its signification as less harmful than racism. Racism often holds a more prominent position in considering epistemologies of inequality. As a more overt form of prejudice and discrimination, interracial racism is less difficult to recognize than intraracial racism. While overt racism is declining, covert racism or colorism is increasing (Monk, 2014).

White colorism operates in a more covert manner that can make it challenging to identify and counter. Colorism is covert due to the fact that it resides in a hierarchy within a hierarchy—the more palpable hierarchy being racism, with colorism mapped atop clandestinely. For example, European Americans adversely influence not only status achievement of African Americans as a whole in the form of racism, but they also impart further divisions within the category of African Americans in the form of colorism. Thus, colorism proves to have a compounding discriminatory effect on African Americans—particularly for those who are darker. Consequently, colorism is not a derivative of racism but rather a more evil twin equally worthy of examination and critique (which is not to say that they are identical). Due to the fact that colorism is part and parcel with the formative stages of racism, there is a pressing need to expand the definition of racism. Scholars who are interested in White supremacy and racial injustice need to know how colorism functions as one cannot talk about racism without talking about colorism. As race scholars Ronald Hall and Adrienne Johnson (2014) posit, “when circumstances prove actionable, the defining criteria for discrimination have historically limited adjudication by race as black and white rather than by skin color or skin tone” (p. 182).

The achievement statuses of African Americans are influenced by White colorism in ways that operate both in conjunction with and distinctively from racism. Accordingly, I consider the effects of the White gaze in exploring the phenomenon of colorism that shapes racism in the United States. I begin by considering the historical underpinnings of colorism in terms of colonial legacies and slavery—particularly the ways in which practices and ideologies originating through these racial projects continue to inform modern-day pigmentocracy in the United States. I demonstrate how colorism and racism are inextricably related, though colorism differs in that it provides a channel for White supremacy that seemingly circumvents racism. Colorism also serves to persecute darker African Americans using a double-edged sword (racism on one side, colorism on the other) that further cuts opportunities for advancement. This discourse on colorism is imperative as it illustrates the differences and commonalities between racism and colorism—an important but often confounded area of inquiry that allows for further understanding of racial stratifications based on degrees of skin tone.

Within a discussion of colorism, I also examine the White gaze toward racial categorizations and offer a critique of long-standing dichotomies, such as White/Black, intraracial/interracial, and advantaged/disadvantaged. By deconstructing dualistic notions of race, I argue that the borders of Whiteness are not equally remote or inaccessible to all African Americans. In other words, the feasibility to secure sought-after resources—which are often regulated by White gatekeepers—varies intraracially depending on the contextual evaluation of skin color. To demonstrate the intersection of historical racism and current racial rhetoric (including dualistic thought, borders of Whiteness, and Black consciousness), I conclude by looking at key components of achievement status affected by White colorism, including education and employment through analysis of secondary sources.

Construction and Maintenance of Colorism: How Did We Get Here?

In terms of racial projects in the United States, the interplay between phenotype and genotype has a long-standing history dating back to slavery and continuing today. Anthropologist Nina Jablonski (2012), for example, maintains that “both before and after the U.S. Civil War, dark skin was increasingly associated with animal physicality and lighter skin with refinement and educability” (p. 150). This notion stems from various origins, including colonial production and dissemination of race differences in which associations between appearances and genetics were grossly misconstrued. These essentialized views of skin color and linked characteristics were also reinforced through the slave trade.

The prevalent raping of African American female slaves by European American owners is well-known and documented in numerous diaries and biographies by both victims and rapists alike. As Toni Morrison (2017) writes, it was the “droit de seigneur, right of the lord” (p. 9) to have sexual relations with slaves at will. As a result, castes of color emerged in the United States in which racial designations, such as mulatto and quadroon, were used to categorize the children of these forced unions. Furthermore, color labels were also used, such as purple, copper, deepest black, and yellow (Jablonski, 2012). These classifications were used to differentiate perceived physical and mental abilities as darker skinned slaves were believed to be better suited for hard manual labor, whereas lighter skinned slaves were deemed weaker (Jablonski, 2012).

Though often seen as physically weaker, individuals with lighter skin were simultaneously viewed as having a higher propensity for more civilized work due to their greater capacity for learning and cultivation. Consequently, lighter skinned slaves were often relegated to more desirable positions, such as house servants and craftsmen. “Pure” (i.e., unmixed with White blood) Black slaves were often dehumanized to a greater extent and treated in much the same way as animals used for agricultural labor in that they were bought, sold, bred, traded, and whipped.

Because of the admixing of White blood with Black blood, lighter skinned slaves were frequently dehumanized to a lesser degree, which exemplifies both racist and colorist values. On occasion, this favoring according to skin color was also further deepened by slaveholders’ recognition, affinity, and/or obligation toward their offspring. In addition, the historic classist prejudice toward those working outside as darker also contributed to plantation owners’ discrepant colorist treatment.

The preferential and unfavorable treatment according to color stemmed from an interracial prejudice and was then subsequently internalized by African Americans slaves due to the recognition of disparities in lived experiences. Yet the inequalities apportioned by European Americans toward African Americans based on colorism were manifested in a matter more substantial than work assignments. According to legal scholar Paul Finkelman (2014), “[p]eople of mixed ancestry were far more likely to make freedom claims, and they were far more likely to win them” (p. 37). Though the manumission of slaves was not a common occurrence, those who were freed were more often than not lighter skinned. Beyond the ideal of freedom, mixed-race individuals often received benefits extended by affluent White fathers:

. . . the children of slave women and white fathers often had educational and economic advantages that most other slaves or free blacks did not. These advantages—tied to money, skills, education, status, and color—led to greater success and prosperity for such people and to the perception that people of mixed race were “elite.” These advantages, and the connection between them and “elite” status would continue well past the end of slavery. (Finkelman, 2014, p. 41)

In short, slaves who appeared to have White ancestry as determined by lighter skin color, smoother hair texture, sharper noses, and/or other phenotypical characteristics became associated with freedom, while darker skin became a marker of slavery.

Colorism and Manichaeism

Contrary to popular and scholarly views, the relationship between intraracial and interracial dynamics is not dichotomous. Colorism deepens the complexities of interracial racism and tensions by further segregating groups intraracially. For example, there are interracial biases towards African Americans by European Americans based on skin tone in areas of social and economic significance. According to Lance Hannon (2015), Whites—particularly those serving in the capacity as gatekeepers—notice variances in skin tone, though not at the same rate as people of color. Hannon demonstrates that European Americans prefer lightness over darkness among African Americans in the context of White interviewers and perception of Black intelligence.

It should also be noted that within colorism, dichotomies between light and dark also emerge and are often applied in an overly simplistic manner that does not correspond to the large variations in skin color. Though I utilize similar language, it is with the acknowledgement of the fact that a wide spectrum of skin color differences exist, and these stratifications in turn affect rates of social inequality. Much of the existing data in terms of national interviews and surveys on colorism often distinguish skin color along the lines of very light, light brown, medium brown, dark brown, and very dark, and this scale will be used accordingly.

Work on interracial prejudice and discrimination often discount and/or disregard the implications of intraracial matters related to racism. In race studies, broad racial taxonomies—such as European American and African American—are primarily used to investigate racism. These metacategories do not allow for the nuances of colorism and skin color distinctions to be acknowledged as effecting interracial relations. As Hannon (2019) writes, “[l]ack of attention to white colorism may enable overly simplistic understandings of white racism” (p. 19). Racism extends beyond interracial interactions in the same way that colorism goes beyond intraracial exchanges and cannot be adequately addressed through dualistic platforms that seek to simplify the relationships as mutually exclusive. Much of the origins of colorism in the United States lie in European Americans’ discrepant treatment of slaves according to skin color—which often corresponded to ancestry. Nevertheless, scholarly recognition of colorism existing between races is scarcer than discourse on intraracial colorism.

Similarly, a multitude of binaries introduced by European Americans in opposition to African Americans persist that promote the oversimplification of modes of racialization. For example, the paradigms of White/Black, in-group/out-group, individual/collective, and us/them, contribute to the obfuscation of interracial colorism. In other words, the delineation of European Americans and African Americans as distinct categories existing on opposing extremes of the racial spectrum is a false dichotomy. For example, lighter African Americans are viewed differently than darker African Americans, thus residing somewhere in the middle of both the Black and the White binary. Additionally, the White gaze perceives lighter African Americans as approximating hegemonic Whites (in-group) while being distanced from Blackness (out-group), therefore constituting neither group. Hence, common binaries used in an effort to elucidate racism are actually contributing to misunderstandings through the continued dismissal of colorism.

In a similar vein, the myth of the out-group homogeneity effect further increases the distance between European Americans and African Americans. The supposition that members of the out-group “all look the same” is a pretense that masks the inner workings of White colorism—specifically the ways in which it works to privilege and discriminate African Americans based on skin color variances. Monolithic conceptualizations of race do not take into account how skin color is discerned interracially. The notion of in-groups viewing members as individuals and out-groups being viewed as a collective is also an oversimplification that disregards the heterogeneity recognized by European Americans among seemingly homogenous groups. This furthers the case that the rigidity of racial classification as Black and White is limiting and needs to be expanded to include colorism.

Patrolling Moving Borders

Though colorism complicates interracial and intraracial biases, lightness among African Americans is not a sufficient quality for gaining equality in comparison with European Americans. While lighter skin among African Americans is recognized—both internally (to a greater degree) and externally (to a lesser degree)—as a means for accessing resources relating to education, employment, and socioeconomic status, systemic racism toward African Americans still prevents fair treatment in these spheres. Lighter African Americans are still “Othered” but not to the same extent as darker African Americans. The presence of “White blood” among African Americans relatively reduces the ideological distance between Whites and Blacks. As a result, both the phenotypic and the genotypic characteristics are altered in the context of colorism to allow for some concessions in prejudicial beliefs and discriminatory practices. In short, lighter skin is seen as less Black in terms of stereotypes and essentializations but still not quite White.

Within the race and color caste system, non-Whites with lighter skin can approach the borders of Whiteness but never gain full membership and therefore do not present a threat of disruption to Whites. As a result, Whites remain secure in their position of superiority as beneficiaries of sought-after resources, though gatekeepers are still positioned to patrol and regulate borders in order to protect power and wealth. White supremacy does not function as an unvarying symbol of dominance, rather it enacts degrees of power that complicate notions of racism, thus making it more difficult to identify and contest. Recognizing that racism operates in degrees of intraracial prejudice and discrimination is essential for understanding the covertness of colorism. Shifting racial borders are constructed by those in power to safeguard desirable resources and include the “contested, patrolled, and often hostile spaces near the color line” (Dalmage, 2004, p. 84). The relationship between colorism and race borders is important as it elucidates the continual development of racism, in which it seems less prevalent, but actually affects African Americans at a deeper and wider level.

For lighter African Americans, diluted attributes of Whiteness are assigned to favorably characterize certain individuals, while contributing to intragroup differences that foster tensions and competiveness. For example, they are viewed as more civilized than darker African Americans but not as civilized as European Americans. However, light skin is not always a sufficient quality for gaining socioeconomic advantages, as one must not only look the part but act the part too in order to be viewed by Whites as successfully assimilating to European American standards. Because lighter skin has a physical and incorporeal proximity to Whiteness (and therefore symbolizes assimilation), lighter African Americans are therefore accorded some of the benefits doled out by European Americans at their discretion. Subsequently, the vying for these seemingly limited resources afforded by lighter skin color produces conflict among African Americans.

As a result of White colorism, disparate experiences within African American communities have similar implications in present-day race relations (both intraracially and interracially). The actual and imagined privileges associated with light skin deepens the fracturing of African American solidarity. This is an effective means for preventing an incursion of what the codes of the racial contract protect—the accessing of socioeconomic resources that are largely delegated to the privileged race (Mills, 1997).

Intraracial divisions, such as those produced by colorism, are not incidental to racism, rather they are part and parcel to racist ideology in that they serve to purposefully inhibit coalescing in order to exercise dominance. Hegemonic systems—particularly those rooted in racism—rely on the strategy of divide and rule to maintain control over dominated groups. For example, European colonial practices sanctioned policies of divide and conquer by aligning with certain groups (e.g., the upper class) while oppressing others. Operating under the pretext of mutually beneficial alliances, colonialists were able to gain support from selected elites, thus allowing for more effective management of the masses. Yet the contrived end result was the ruling of Others, but with the illusion that certain groups could escape oppression and reside on the other side of exploitation. In actuality, full membership into Whiteness is not a real possibility for non-Whites (barring passing), but some groups are able to access limited advantages safeguarded by European Americans favoring people of color based on intraracial preferences.

White colorism in the United States acts in a manner that closely resembles colonizer/colonized relations in that a select few lighter African Americans are permitted to advance toward Whiteness membership but are still not fully accepted as equals. In this way, European Americans can exercise aggregated bias toward African Americans by favoring lighter members and extending certain rewards (as well as denying them) based on skin color. Yet due to several factors, including the self-serving interest of White gatekeepers as well as the misconception that colorism is largely an intraracial issue, this form of discrimination often goes unacknowledged by those in power. Tokenistic endeavors to increase diversity in areas such as education, employment, and housing are satisfied by granting limited access to lighter African Americans. In this way, claims of promoting multicultural diversity can be made, thus allowing decision makers to avoid accusations of implementing racist practices, while making White colorism an ideal vehicle for obscuring the practice of racism without being viewed as racist.

Colorism and Black Consciousness

Colorism as a covert form of racism does not go unacknowledged; nor is it always viewed as a less severe enactment of racism. The limited opportunities for advancement in socioeconomic spheres for African Americans as a whole is a well-known matter, both interracially and intraracially. The heightened sense of awareness of racial differences among African Americans in relation to European Americans prompts an investigation into systemic racism in the United States—one that calls for recognition and revision of bigoted practices. To varying degrees, interracial racism has received attention (resulting in minor reparations), whereas colorism is still largely overlooked as an underpinning of racial inequality. Yet for African Americans who are not considered light in skin color by Whites, the intersectional realities of both racism and colorism are apparent. Coupled together, these prejudices adversely affect opportunities for status achievement for darker African Americans at a disproportionate rate when compared with both Whites and lighter Blacks.

“Beyond the lived experiences resulting from old-fashioned, symbolic, and aversive racism, darker skin color is also a factor that can have negative consequences for life chances. While intraracial challenges stemming from colorism occur among African Americans (e.g., aesthetical standards in which light skin color is viewed as more attractive), significant implications of colorism persist interracially. As gatekeepers, Whites have the advantage of selecting candidates deemed suitable and deserving of rewards, and abundant studies indicate that race already plays a major role in the decision-making process. These occurrences of interracial discriminatory practices serve to fragment African Americans through the fostering of intragroup competition that is not based on merit, character, qualifications, or other effectible circumstances but grounded in the arbitrariness of skin pigmentation. “Hughes and Hertel found that light-skinned African Americans reported less Black pride, more openness toward racial integration, and less concern with racial discrimination than dark-skinned Blacks” (as cited by Hunter, 2004, p. 36). Margaret Hunter (2004) continues expanding on this concept in positing that light-skinned members of a race are often intraracially regarded as less authentic and may face challenges in being accepted as part of the in-group.

Colorist practices in the United States perpetuate aforementioned European colonial ideologies that call for governance of Others through divide-and-rule tactics and serve as hindrances to the struggle for equality. Resembling colonial tactics, colorism is a conduit used to forward the pretense that lighter African Americans can be more closely affiliated with European Americans than darker African Americans. This is largely accomplished through the extending of certain advantages that are often denied to those with darker skin. Consequently, those in power can operate under the guise of endeavoring for racial equality through their sponsorship of lighter African Americans while simultaneously maintaining racism through the denial of similar benefits to darker individuals.

For darker African Americans, colorism is an additional factor beyond racism that has a bearing on socioeconomic status. To expand on this notion of racial multidimensionality, I refer to W.E.B DuBois’s (2017) articulation of double consciousness, in which he explores African Americans’ perceptions of living in an oppressive state as well as how they are reified by European Americans. Colorism broadens the concept of double consciousness by considering a third dialectic entailed in race relations. Not only are many African Americans aware of how they are viewed by European Americans, but they are also cognizant of the internal schisms affected by colorism. In Souls of Black Folk, DuBois writes, “one ever feels his two-ness—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body” (p. 161). Yet “Negro” is not a singular category that is representative of the racial experiences of all African Americans. Depending on skin color, disparate experiences lie within the label of “Negro” that cannot be accounted for using a uniform paradigm. As such, there is a threeness or triple consciousness that affects the African American worldview—particularly for those who are darker. It is not only darker Blacks who are aware of this third dimension but also lighter individuals as well as Whites. As indicated previously, those with lighter skin are cognizant of the fact that European Americans give preferentiality to them. For that reason, triple consciousness embodies perceptions of inequality both interracially and intraracially.

Another concept that can be useful in contextualizing the unique ways in which colorism operates in the lives of African Americans is Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1991) theory of intersectionality, in which she discusses the multifaceted forms of oppression that Black women face. Like double consciousness, this conceptualization has not been formerly applied to colorism but can be further developed to include the ways in which skin color bias disproportionately affects African American women. Women of color are not only contending with racism and sexism but with colorism as well. Since women’s appearances are weighed more heavily in sociocultural settings, darker skin color can have a more profound effect on life chances. Intersectionality allows for these compound factors to be considered and thus prevents the oversimplified grouping of all African American women as homogenous. In a discussion of intersectionality, Patricia Hill Collins (2000) also presents the notion of the “outsider within” as a paradigm for framing and discussing Black women’s marginality in the context of sociopolitical and socioeconomic relations. The “outsider within” is especially useful in dismantling the homogeneity of the label of African American women, as it allows for the identification of the predicament of interracial and intraracial colorism in which darker women have distinct experiences.

Economies of Contemporary Colorism

The consequences of White colorism are evident in the same social and economic spheres in which racism manifests in the lives of African Americans. The disallowing of colorism as a racist practice thereby absolves European Americans from culpability in furthering social inequality. As Jemima Pierre (2013) attests, many studies have demonstrated the correlation between educational and occupation attainment whereby “lighter skin Blacks complete more years of schooling, have more prestigious jobs, and earn more than dark skin Blacks” (p. 119). Maxine Thompson and Verna Keith (2001) also echo Pierre’s findings regarding the socioeconomic gap between light and dark African Americans. These studies most often incorporate data obtained in two national surveys: National Survey of Black Americans (NSBA), 1979-1980 (Jackson & Gurin, 2005) and the National Survey of American Life (NSAL), 2001-2003 (Jackson, 2013). Though the two surveys are separated by more than two decades, scholars such as Ellis Monk (2014) posit that similar patterns continue in the form of gaps in educational attainment and income as informed by skin color biases. Furthermore, several studies have found that the effects of African American skin color on socioeconomic status is as impactful as race itself (Herring, 2004). The following sections illustrate how White colorism functions in actuality in the contexts of education and education.

On Education

Findings from both aforementioned national surveys reveal that a gap in education levels exists between the lightest African Americans and the darkest African Americans, ranging from 2 years according to analysis of the NSBA survey (Keith & Herring, 1991) and 6 months, according to NSAL analysis (Monk, 2014). In short, education attainment increases with skin lightness. Though the difference in the amount of education seems to have decreased in the 21st century, both data sets reflect a continuing trend of discrimination among darker skinned Blacks.

What the surveys do not reveal are the causes informing education discrepancies. Some more prominent theories consider the psychological effects of colorism and stereotypes held by teachers.

Adjacent studies on colorism find that darker skin is often interrelated with lower self-esteem (Keith, 2009). The significance of self-confidence can have wide and deep ramifications for student performance, and a lack thereof can affect achievements. In this way, colorism is internalized by darker African Americans and thus may be viewed as a problem relegated to intraracial interests. In spite of this, the psychological state of darker students is in fact an issue of interracial relations as the lower levels of self-worth in the area of intellectual aptitude is a product of White prejudice and stereotypes.

Making a more direct argument, Hunter theorizes that teachers make attributions regarding who is and who is not smart based on attractiveness and that, given the association between skin tone and perceived attractiveness, teachers may lower their expectations of darker students, challenge them less, and may indeed rate them lower on assignments. (as cited in Keith, 2009, p. 29)

Given that the disparate treatment on the part of teachers (as well as other persons in positions of authority) toward darker individuals does not go unnoticed, it is not surprising that scholars have established a correlation between dark skin color and self-valuation. Indeed, further analysis of the NSBA survey shows that darker interviewees were twice as likely to report incidents of discrimination within the past month than their lighter counterparts (Keith & Herring, 1991).

Racial stereotypes generated through White supremacy have a compounding effect for darker skinned African Americans students. In other words, they are further demarcated as excessively embodying of characteristics assigned to Blacks. For example, Monk (2014) surmises that African American boys are often seen as “troublemakers” and “adults.” He further contends that this stems from the view that those with darker skin are often judged as inherently aggressive and threatening (Monk, 2014). Accordingly, teachers may pass judgment on behavior and intelligence based on skin color gradation. For example, people with lighter skin are viewed as more intelligent by White interviewers (Hannon, 2015). These legacies of colonialism and slavery are still intact and affecting African Americans at multiple levels.

Prejudices such as these can influence school teachers and administrators to disproportionately target darker students for reprimanding and may also lead to harsher punishments. In a 2013 study, Hannon, DeFina, and Bruch found that Black female students “were about three times more likely to be suspended than their light-skinned counterparts” (Hannon, 2015, p. 15). The gendered component of colorism in education can further be seen in Hunter’s (2002) research, in which she concludes that skin color is a statistically significant predictor of education attainment for Black women. Furthermore, teachers’ subjectivity in the classroom can also has a bearing on performance assessments if darker African Americans are graded more stringently and/or receive less instruction and attention than White and lighter students. Last, context matters as the disparate treatment of students based on skin color is not as pronounced in intraracial education environments (Keith, 2009), thus once more making the case for colorism as a largely interracial problem.

On Employment

The parallels between colorism during slavery and modern colorism are evident in the types of employment positions held by African Americans according to degree of lightness. As discussed in the section, “How Did We Get Here,” during and after slavery, light skin is equated with being cultured and learned, whereas dark skin is associated with brutish strength (Jablonski, 2012). This split can be seen in slave owner’s preference for light slaves working in White spaces (e.g., the household) where there was a closer proximity to Whites. Hall and Johnson (2014) further attest that European Americans gatekeepers continue to favor White or lighter African American employees.

These White colorist biases played a role in the forms of labor designated to slaves, the jobs available to African Americans after the abolishment of slavery and continue to shape contemporary class division. For example, racist ideological legacies are evident in the 21st-century U.S. job sector as illustrated in a 2004 study examining the relationship between poverty, affluence, and skin color. According to the study, 37% of those considered dark were categorized as impoverished, whereas only 25% were affluent. Figures for African Americans with light skin were nearly inversed, with 40% categorized as affluent and 23% as living below the poverty line (Jablonski, 2012).

As in the context of schooling, it is not surprising that light skin is also rewarded in the labor market (Pierre, 2013). For example, a study by Johnson, Bienenstock, and Stoloff (1995) examined unemployment rates in U.S cities and found that darker African American males were 52% less likely to be employed than those with lighter skin (as cited in Herring, 2004). Goldsmith, Hamilton, and Darity (2006) found that light-skinned African American men benefit from a significant (about 7%) wage advantage. Though this study focuses on males, similar—if not higher—figures for female African Americans can also be expected given the greater emphasis on appearances. Other studies on colorism and employment rates conclude that there is not a significant difference attributable to skin color gradations, rather, the contrast lies in the types of employment secured by African Americans. According to Keith and Herring (1991),

It is evident that there are substantial differences in the kinds of jobs held by respondents with various skin tones. For example, very light respondents are substantially more likely to be employed as professional and technical workers than are those with darker complexions. In contrast, those with very dark complexions are more likely than all others to be laborers (p. 768).

Regardless of which studies are deemed more reliable, they reach similar conclusions pertaining to variations in wages and earnings. Of course, levels of attained education also play a large role in whether an individual works in white- or blue-collared positions. However, in addition to the prejudice faced in school, darker Blacks also experience discrimination during the hiring process itself as White interviewers and other gatekeepers are more inclined to stereotype them as intellectually deficient, criminal, and lazy (Monk, 2014). Consequently, the effects of colorism for darker individuals is manifold when taken into consideration with racism.

Studies have also found that darker African Americans are more likely to report job discrimination as well as 11 times more likely to report racial discrimination overall (Harris, 2009). The ramifications for discrimination on the job can include bias in employee assessments, thus affecting opportunities for raises and promotions. This fact, coupled with discrimination faced when entering the job market, lead to lower income levels for darker Blacks. In comparing studies evaluating NSBA and NSAL data, there is an alarming consistency over a 20-year time period in the unequal distribution of (un)employment rates, income, and occupational status as a result of White colorism.

Conclusion

The genealogy of colorism and its contemporary intersections at the sites of employment and education illustrate the pervasiveness and magnitude of skin color bias in the United States. Skin lightness among African Americans signals a critical relationship between color, race, and economic resources that requires further investigation in social sciences. As Pierre (2013) writes, “[in colorism], we see a particular articulation of racial ideology—the ways in which Blackness can be continuously debased and devalued” (p. 122). Colorism, as the more surreptitious partner of racism, is largely unchecked in socioeconomic contexts due to the overshadowing of racism as the more pressing concern. Yet racism and colorism are codependent in forwarding White dominance and hence must be considered as a mutually constitutive pair, rather than as distinct interracial or intraracial manifestations. Additionally, unexamined colorism allows for the protection and preservation of categorical notions of race that advance White hegemony.

The stakes of White colorism also extend beyond African Americans to other non-White groups, including Latin Americans and Asian Americans. Monk (2014) reasons that the increase of Latin Americans in the United States may make skin color matters even more pronounced. This also stresses the need to expand race studies to encompass the intricacies of colorism.