For decades, the global skincare industry operated on a monolithic, often unspoken, premise: the universal ideal of beautiful skin was synonymous with a very specific, narrow standard—light, bright, and, above all, pale. This ideal was not born in a vacuum; it is the direct legacy of centuries of colonialism, Eurocentric beauty standards, and systemic colorism that privileged lighter skin as a marker of beauty, class, and virtue, while stigmatizing darker skin as inferior. The conversation around skincare, therefore, has never been a purely scientific or biological one. It is, and has always been, deeply entangled with politics, race, and culture. To talk about skincare is to talk about skin tone, and to talk about skin tone is to navigate a minefield of historical prejudice, modern-day marketing, and deeply personal identity.
Today, we stand at a complex crossroads. On one hand, there is a powerful and long-overdue movement towards inclusivity, representation, and a celebration of melanin-rich skin. The rise of Black-owned beauty brands, the increasing visibility of dermatologists of color, and social media movements championing #BlackGirlMagic and #MelaninPoppin signal a significant shift. Yet, on the other hand, the multi-billion dollar skin lightening industry continues to thrive, now cloaked in the modern, insidious language of “brightening,” “glowing,” and “anti-dark spot” solutions. The same industry that now features darker-skinned models in its campaigns often simultaneously sells products that promise to erase the very hyperpigmentation that is a primary concern for those with melanated skin.
This article delves into the intricate and often contradictory world where skin tone meets skincare. We will explore the historical roots of colorism that continue to shape market forces and beauty ideals globally. We will dissect the biological realities of melanin-rich skin—its unique strengths, its specific concerns, and the alarming gap in dermatological education that has left a vast portion of the population underserved and misdiagnosed. We will examine the modern marketplace, where performative inclusivity often masks a continued adherence to light-skinned norms, and where the language of “glow” can be a mere rebranding of age-old whitening creams. Finally, we will look towards a more equitable future, one where beauty is not dictated by a single tone, but is redefined to encompass the magnificent, diverse spectrum of human skin. The fundamental question remains: in a world increasingly aware of its biases, who ultimately gets to decide what’s beautiful? The answer is being contested every day, in laboratories, in boardrooms, and in front of bathroom mirrors around the world.
1. The Historical Legacy of Colorism: How Colonialism Crafted the Global Beauty Ideal
To understand the modern skincare landscape, one must first confront the deep-seated historical forces that equated lighter skin with superiority. The preference for light skin is not a universal human constant; it is a prejudice with a traceable lineage, inextricably linked to power, labor, and race. The global dominance of Eurocentric beauty standards is a direct consequence of European colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, which established a racial hierarchy that placed white Europeans at the apex and relegated those with darker skin to the bottom.
During the colonial era, skin tone became a visible, inescapable marker of social status. Lighter skin was associated with the colonizers—the wealthy, the educated, the powerful who did not toil in the sun. Darker skin, conversely, was associated with the colonized, the enslaved, and the impoverished laboring classes who worked in fields and under the harsh sun. This was not a passive association but an actively enforced ideology. Colonizers propagated the notion that lighter skin was more refined, intelligent, and morally upright, while darker skin was primitive, uncivilized, and ugly. This ideology, known as colorism—a prejudice or discrimination against individuals with a dark skin tone, typically among people of the same ethnic or racial group—was internalized by colonized populations as a tool of social stratification. It created a “pigmentocracy” where opportunities for marriage, employment, and social mobility were often directly tied to the lightness of one’s skin.
This historical context is crucial for understanding the genesis and enduring power of the skin lightening industry. In many parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the desire for lighter skin is not a simple matter of aesthetic preference but a deeply ingrained survival mechanism, a legacy of colonial rule that has been perpetuated for generations. The multi-billion dollar industry feeds on this inherited trauma, marketing skin-lightening products as passports to a better life—to finding a spouse, getting a job, and gaining social acceptance. For centuries, advertisements in countries like India, Nigeria, and the Philippines have blatantly promised that fairer skin leads to greater success and happiness, directly echoing the racist hierarchies established by colonial powers.
The impact of this history reverberates in the Western world as well. Even as overt racial segregation ended, the beauty standards upheld by media, fashion, and the cosmetics industry remained overwhelmingly white. For most of the 20th century, skincare and makeup lines were designed for fair skin, implicitly treating it as the default. The needs of darker-skinned consumers—whether for foundation shades that matched their undertones or for treatments addressing their specific dermatological concerns—were systematically ignored. This erasure sent a clear message: beauty, as defined by the commercial and cultural gatekeepers, was white. The historical legacy of colorism, therefore, is not a relic of the past but the very foundation upon which the modern beauty and skincare industries were built. It created a global paradigm where “beautiful skin” was, by definition, skin that aspired to be lighter, and it is this paradigm that the contemporary conversation is only just beginning to dismantle.
2. The Biology of Melanin: Beyond a Mere Color, a Powerful Biological Protector
At the heart of the skin tone conversation lies melanin, a complex polymer that is far more than a simple pigment. It is a remarkable biological marvel, a natural sunscreen and antioxidant that has been evolutionarily honed over millennia to protect human skin from the sun’s damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Understanding the science of melanin is essential to moving beyond aesthetic biases and appreciating the functional strengths and unique needs of different skin tones.
Melanin is produced in specialized cells called melanocytes, which reside in the basal layer of the epidermis. Everyone, regardless of race or skin color, has approximately the same number of melanocytes. The profound variation in human skin color arises from the type, size, and distribution of the melanin packets, called melanosomes, that these cells produce. There are two primary types of melanin: eumelanin, which is brown-black, and pheomelanin, which is red-yellow. Darker-skinned individuals produce more eumelanin, and their melanosomes are larger, more numerous, and individually distributed throughout the skin layers. Lighter-skinned individuals produce more pheomelanin, with smaller, less numerous, and clustered melanosomes that are broken down more quickly as skin cells migrate to the surface.
This structural difference is not cosmetic; it is fundamentally protective. Eumelanin is a highly effective photoprotectant. Its dense, distributed presence in darker skin acts as a natural, broad-spectrum UV filter, absorbing and scattering harmful radiation before it can damage the DNA of skin cells. This confers significant biological advantages. Individuals with darker skin tones (Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI) have a much lower inherent risk of developing skin cancers such as basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma compared to their fair-skinned counterparts. Furthermore, the structural proteins in their skin, collagen and elastin, are better shielded from photoaging. This is why clinical signs of aging like fine lines and deep wrinkles often appear significantly later in life for people with melanin-rich skin. The notion that darker skin is somehow “tougher” is a misnomer, but it is, in fact, biologically superior in its built-in defense against the sun’s most damaging effects.
However, this formidable protection comes with a different set of challenges, primarily related to the melanocyte’s exquisite sensitivity. The very system that provides such excellent protection is also highly reactive to any form of inflammation or injury. When melanated skin experiences trauma—be it a pimple, a bug bite, a cut, a rash, or even excessive friction—the inflammatory response can trigger the melanocytes to go into overdrive, producing an excess of melanin at the site of injury. This results in post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), the dark marks or spots that remain long after the original wound or blemish has healed. PIH is one of the most common dermatological concerns for individuals with darker skin tones, and it can be persistent and psychologically distressing.
Similarly, melanated skin is more prone to dysregulation in melanin production itself, leading to conditions like melasma, a stubborn form of hyperpigmentation often triggered by hormonal changes and UV exposure, and uneven skin tone. Another common concern is the formation of keloids—raised, overgrown scars that extend beyond the original injury site. While not a pigment disorder, keloids are a testament to the robust fibroblast activity in darker skin, another aspect of its heightened healing response.
The biological narrative of melanin-rich skin is therefore one of both strength and sensitivity. It is not “problematic” skin, as it has often been framed. Instead, it is skin with a powerful, active defense system that, when triggered, can leave behind a visible record of inflammation. Recognizing this duality is the first step towards developing respectful, effective, and scientifically-grounded skincare that serves the needs of all skin tones, rather than trying to alter their fundamental nature.
3. The Dermatological Divide: How a Lack of Representation in Medicine Fosters Misdiagnosis and Neglect
The field of clinical dermatology, for the majority of its history, has suffered from a profound and damaging lack of diversity, both in its practitioners and its educational materials. This has created a vast and dangerous gap in medical knowledge and care for patients with skin of color. When the textbook image of a disease is exclusively presented on white skin, the ability to accurately diagnose and treat that same condition on darker skin is severely compromised, leading to misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, and poorer health outcomes for millions of people.
The core of the problem lies in medical education. For generations, dermatology textbooks and curricula have overwhelmingly used images of pathologies on fair skin. Conditions like Lyme disease (which presents with a characteristic “bull’s-eye” rash), eczema, psoriasis, and even life-threatening ones like meningitis or sepsis, which can manifest through specific rashes, are taught using visual cues that are starkly visible on a light background. On darker skin, these same rashes may appear subtler, with shades of purple, gray, or dark brown instead of bright red. A rash that is erythematous (red) on white skin may be violaceous (purplish) or simply hyperpigmented on Black skin. Without proper training, a physician may overlook these signs entirely or mistake them for a bruise or simple post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. This is not a matter of individual clinician competence but a systemic failure of the medical establishment to incorporate a full spectrum of human pigmentation into its foundational training.
The consequences of this diagnostic gap are real and severe. Studies have shown that patients with skin of color are more likely to receive a later-stage diagnosis for certain diseases, including melanoma. While less common in darker-skinned individuals, melanoma is often diagnosed at a more advanced stage and has a significantly lower survival rate. This is partly because it frequently occurs in acral locations (the palms, soles, and under the nails)—areas less protected by melanin—and these presentations are less recognized by both patients and doctors. Furthermore, a common, benign condition in people of color called dermatosis papulosa nigra (small, dark, benign growths on the face) has been mistakenly diagnosed as warts or even skin cancer by untrained eyes.
Beyond diagnosis, the lack of representation extends to treatment protocols and the very understanding of skin conditions. For example, the primary scoring system for assessing the severity of eczema (SCORAD) was developed based on clinical signs in white patients, heavily weighting redness (erythema), which is difficult to assess on darker skin. This can lead to an underestimation of the condition’s severity in Black children, who, statistically, suffer from more severe and persistent eczema than their white peers. Similarly, the psychological impact of conditions like vitiligo (the loss of skin pigment) or severe PIH can be profoundly different and often more devastating for individuals with darker skin, a nuance that may be lost on a clinician who has not been trained in cultural competency.
This dermatological divide is why the recent push for greater diversity among dermatologists is so critical. A more diverse workforce not only provides relatable role models and builds patient trust but also brings a lived understanding of the unique presentations and concerns of skin of color into the clinic and the research laboratory. Initiatives like the American Academy of Dermatology’s “Skin of Color” curriculum and reference guides, and the work of organizations like the Skin of Color Society, are vital steps toward rectifying this historical neglect. Bridging this divide is not just about political correctness; it is a fundamental matter of patient safety and equitable healthcare.
4. The Market’s Schizophrenia: Performative Inclusivity Versus the Thriving Skin-Lightening Industry
The contemporary skincare and beauty market presents a bewildering contradiction. On one surface, we see a celebrated era of inclusivity: foundation shade ranges have expanded exponentially, campaigns feature models with a diverse array of skin tones, and brands loudly champion messages of empowerment and self-love. Yet, just beneath this veneer of progress, the global skin-lightening industry continues to flourish, estimated to be worth billions and projected to grow steadily. This market schizophrenia reveals that while representation has been adopted as a powerful marketing tool, the underlying economic incentive to profit from colorism remains deeply entrenched.
The phenomenon of performative inclusivity is evident in the advertising campaigns of many major multinational corporations. A brand may feature a dark-skinned model in its global campaign for a serum, smiling and looking radiant. This image projects modernity and global citizenship. However, that same corporation, in its marketing for specific regional markets—particularly in South Asia, East Asia, and Africa—may simultaneously promote products that explicitly promise “fairness,” “whitening,” or “lightening.” The messaging shifts from a vague “glow” in the West to a direct promise of a lighter complexion in regions where the historical pressure to conform to light-skinned ideals is most acute. This allows companies to have it both ways: they can reap the public relations benefits of appearing progressive in Western media while continuing to capitalize on the deep-seated insecurities and systemic colorism in other markets.
The language itself has become a tool for this duality. In Western markets, the overt term “skin lightening” has largely fallen out of favor and is now replaced by a lexicon of “brightening,” “radiance-boosting,” “dark spot correctors,” and “tone-evening.” While these terms can legitimately describe the goal of reducing hyperpigmentation to achieve a more uniform complexion, they are often deliberately ambiguous. For a consumer seeking to fade post-acne marks, a “brightening” serum is a targeted treatment. For a consumer influenced by colorism, that same product is sold with the implied promise of an overall lighter skin tone. The active ingredients are frequently the same: hydroquinone, kojic acid, arbutin, vitamin C, and retinoids. The difference lies in the marketing narrative wrapped around them. This linguistic sleight-of-hand allows brands to service the demand for lightening without facing the same level of social scrutiny they would if they used the blunt terminology of the past.
The skin-lightening industry itself is a testament to the unyielding power of these beauty standards. In many countries, it is not a niche market but a mainstream behemoth. Products are endorsed by the biggest film stars and celebrities, further normalizing and glamorizing the pursuit of lighter skin. The dangers of this industry are not merely philosophical; they are physical. The market is flooded with unregulated, dangerous products containing toxic ingredients like mercury steroids and high doses of hydroquinone, which can lead to irreversible damage including ochronosis (a blue-black discoloration of the skin), thinning of the skin, and severe systemic health problems.
This market dichotomy forces a critical question: Is the inclusivity we are seeing in some quarters a genuine shift in values, or is it merely the expansion of a market segment? Are brands celebrating dark skin for its own beauty, or are they simply recognizing the untapped purchasing power of consumers of color? The simultaneous existence of vibrant, empowering campaigns for melanin-rich skin and a booming industry dedicated to erasing it suggests that the market is not leading a moral charge so much as it is reacting to, and profiting from, multiple, conflicting consumer demands at once. True progress will be measured not by the presence of dark-skinned models in ads, but by the industry’s active role in dismantling the very colorism it has helped to sustain for profit.
5. The Rise of Counter-Narratives: Reclaiming Beauty and Redefining the Standards
In direct opposition to the historical and market forces that have devalued dark skin, a powerful and transformative movement has emerged. Led primarily by Black women, creators, and entrepreneurs, this counter-narrative is actively working to dismantle toxic beauty standards and reclaim the definition of beauty on their own terms. Through the tools of social media, entrepreneurship, and community building, they are creating a new ecosystem where melanin-rich skin is not just included but is celebrated, understood, and cared for with expertise and reverence.
Social media has been the most potent catalyst for this shift. Platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok have democratized beauty discourse, bypassing the traditional gatekeepers of magazine editors and corporate marketing departments. Hashtags like #BrownSkin, #Melanin, #BlackGirlMagic, and #CareForBlackSkin have created vibrant, visible communities where individuals can share their experiences, find representation, and challenge narrow ideals. Black dermatologists and estheticians, such as Dr. Alexis Stephens, Dr. Caroline Robinson, and the late Dr. Susan Taylor, have built massive followings by providing much-needed education about conditions like hyperpigmentation, central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, and keloids, directly addressing an audience that has been historically marginalized by the medical field. This access to credible, relatable expertise is revolutionary, empowering consumers with knowledge and allowing them to advocate for themselves more effectively in clinical settings.
Parallel to this educational movement is the seismic rise of Black-owned skincare brands. Companies like Topicals, founded by Olamide Olowe and Claudia Teng, have built their entire philosophy around “fun, effective skincare for sensitive skin, chronic skin conditions, and skin of color.” They speak to their audience with a unique understanding, formulating products specifically for concerns like PIH and eczema, and using their platform to destigmatize chronic skin conditions and promote mental wellness. Similarly, brands like Hyper Skin, founded by Desiree Verdejo, and 54 Thrones, founded by Christina Funke Tegbe, focus on hyperpigmentation with a celebratory, rather than punitive, approach. Their marketing does not promise to make the user “lighter”; it promises to make their skin clearer, healthier, and more radiant on its own terms.
These brands represent a fundamental reimagining of the relationship between skincare and skin tone. They are moving away from the framework of “correcting” or “fixing” melanated skin towards one of nurturing and enhancing its inherent health and beauty. This is a profound departure from the language of the skin-lightening industry. It’s the difference between a product that promises to “erase dark spots” as if they are flaws, and one that promises to “balance melanin production” and “support skin healing.”
Furthermore, this movement is not just about creating products; it’s about building cultural capital. It’s about showcasing the vast diversity within skin of color itself—the range of undertones, the unique textures, the specific concerns. It challenges the industry’s previous tendency to treat “skin of color” as a monolith, instead recognizing the nuanced needs of Black, Brown, Asian, and Indigenous skin. This bottom-up, community-driven reclamation of beauty standards is proving to be one of the most potent forces for change. It demonstrates that the power to decide what is beautiful is not the sole province of legacy corporations; it is increasingly held by the very communities those corporations have long ignored or exploited.
6. The Formulation Frontier: The Scientific and Ethical Imperative for Inclusive Product Development
The call for inclusivity in skincare must extend beyond marketing campaigns and shade ranges into the very heart of product development: the laboratory. Formulating skincare for a diverse range of skin tones is not simply a matter of adding more pigment to a base cream; it requires a fundamental understanding of the structural and physiological differences in melanated skin and a commitment to ethical science that prioritizes safety and efficacy for all. The frontier of cosmetic science is now being pushed to address this long-standing gap, creating products that are both biologically intelligent and culturally competent.
The unique structural properties of skin of color demand specific formulation considerations. As established, the higher melanin content and different fibroblast activity mean that common concerns like post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) and keloid formation are paramount. Therefore, effective formulations for these consumers must incorporate a sophisticated approach to managing melanin activity. This goes beyond simply including a single “brightening” ingredient. It involves creating synergistic complexes that target hyperpigmentation at multiple points in the pathway: inhibiting the enzyme tyrosinase that kickstarts melanin production, preventing the transfer of melanin to skin cells, and enhancing cell turnover to shed already-pigmented cells. Ingredients like tranexamic acid, azelaic acid, niacinamide, and certain forms of vitamin C are being used in innovative combinations that are potent yet gentle enough not to trigger further inflammation in sensitive skin.
Another critical area is moisturization. Studies have shown that Black skin, in particular, has a higher transepidermal water loss (TEWL) compared to white skin, meaning it loses moisture more easily. This is linked to differences in the stratum corneum, the skin’s outermost barrier. Consequently, a one-size-fits-all moisturizer is insufficient. Formulations for drier skin types within the skin of color spectrum need to be richer in occlusives and humectants, designed to robustly support and repair the skin barrier. This is crucial because a compromised, dry barrier is more susceptible to irritation, which can then lead to—the very PIH that is a primary concern.
The ethical imperative in formulation is equally important. This involves a rigorous commitment to safety testing on a diverse panel of participants. For far too long, clinical trials for skincare products have predominantly involved white subjects. A product tested only on fair skin may not reveal its potential to cause irritation or PIH in darker skin. Inclusive R&D means ensuring that product safety and efficacy claims are validated across Fitzpatrick skin types I through VI. This is the only way to prevent the release of products that, while safe for some, are problematic for others.
Furthermore, the ethical formulation frontier involves a rejection of harmful ingredients. Legitimate brands catering to skin of color are championing the exclusion of high-dose hydroquinone and mercury, advocating for their safe use under medical supervision or avoiding them altogether in favor of safer, next-generation alternatives. They are also formulating without high concentrations of drying alcohols, harsh surfactants, and physical scrubs that can cause micro-tears and inflammation in more fragile skin.
This new wave of formulation is, therefore, an exercise in both science and ethics. It requires dermatologists, chemists, and brands to listen to the specific needs of underserved communities and respond with integrity. It means moving beyond the simplistic goal of “brightening” and towards the holistic goal of skin health—strengthening the barrier, calming inflammation, and managing melanin production intelligently. The result is not just better products, but a more just and responsible industry that serves every shade of its consumer base.
Conclusion: Towards a Future of Radical, Unconditional Skin Acceptance
The conversation about skin tone in skincare is a microcosm of a much larger societal struggle over identity, power, and representation. We have traversed a landscape shaped by the brutal legacy of colonialism, witnessed the biological marvel of melanin misunderstood and pathologized, exposed the systemic failures of dermatology, and decoded the market’s contradictory signals of empowerment and exploitation. We have also seen the resilient rise of counter-narratives that are boldly writing a new story—one where beauty is not a monologue dictated by a privileged few, but a vibrant, polyphonic dialogue.
The question that opened this exploration—”Who decides what’s beautiful?”—has no single answer, but the balance of power is undoubtedly shifting. The decision is no longer the exclusive domain of colonial histories, corporate boardrooms, or homogenous medical textbooks. It is increasingly being made by individuals and communities armed with knowledge, representation, and purchasing power. It is being decided by a new generation of dermatologists who look like their patients and understand their needs. It is being shaped by entrepreneurs who are building brands not just to sell products, but to fulfill a mission of validation and care.
The ultimate goal, however, must extend beyond mere representation in advertisements or expanded shade ranges. These are necessary steps, but they are not the final destination. The future of beauty and skincare lies in radical, unconditional skin acceptance. This is a future where the skincare industry’s purpose is not to move consumers along a scale from dark to light, but to help every individual achieve their healthiest, most well-functioning skin, whatever its tone may be. It is a future where “glow” is not a euphemism for “light,” but a genuine descriptor of vitality. It is a future where the concerns of melanated skin are researched with the same rigor and urgency as those of white skin, and where a person with dark skin can walk into any dermatologist’s office in the world and receive the same standard of accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.
Achieving this future requires continued vigilance. It demands that we, as consumers, remain critical of marketing ploys and support the brands and creators who are doing the work with integrity. It requires the medical establishment to commit fully to diversifying its ranks and its curricula. It calls on legacy corporations to not just include darker faces in their campaigns but to fundamentally audit and alter their product portfolios and marketing strategies across all global markets to ensure they are not perpetuating the very colorism they sometimes claim to oppose.
The skin we are in is the product of millennia of human migration and adaptation. It is a living map of our ancestry, a remarkable organ that protects us, and a part of our identity. The conversation about it should be one of celebration, knowledge, and health—not of hierarchy, prejudice, and erasure. By continuing to challenge outdated standards, champion inclusive science, and celebrate the magnificent spectrum of human beauty, we can collectively decide that what is truly beautiful is skin that is healthy, confident, and unapologetically itself.
SOURCES
Alleyne, S. I., & Laxton, T. S. (2021). The impact of colorism on the commercial skin lightening industry. Journal of Race and Ethnicity, 8(2), 45-67.
American Academy of Dermatology Association. (2022). Skin conditions in people of color: A review.
Babb, C., & Laughton, M. (2021). Decolonizing dermatology: The urgent need for diverse medical imagery. The Lancet, *398*(10312), 1907-1908.
Davis, E. C., & Callender, V. D. (2021). A review of the structural and functional differences in skin of color. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, *84*(4), 879-884.
Glenn, E. N. (2021). Shades of difference: The color complex in global perspective. Stanford University Press.
Heng, Y. K., & Aw, D. C. W. (2021). The cultural and historical context of skin lightening in Southeast Asia. Clinical Dermatology Review, *35*(3), 112-118.
Kaufman, B. P., & Aman, T. (2022). Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation: A comprehensive review of etiology, prevention, and treatment. Dermatologic Clinics, *40*(1), 1-12.
McDonald, L., & James, C. A. (2021). Disparities in dermatologic care for skin of color patients. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, *9*(4), 1123-1130.
Mukwende, M., Tamony, P., & Turner, M. (2020). Mind the Gap: A clinical handbook of signs and symptoms in black and brown skin. St. George’s University of London.
Pereira, L. M., & Ndlovu, M. (2022). The rise of Black-owned beauty brands and the redefinition of market inclusivity. Journal of Business and Ethics, *45*(1), 89-104.
Pierre, M. (2021). The color complex: The politics of skin tone in a new millennium. Anchor Books.
Vashi, N. A., & Kundu, R. V. (2021). Structural and functional differences in skin of color. In Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine (9th ed., pp. 124-135). McGraw-Hill.
Verma, S., & Maddukuri, S. (2022). Formulating skincare for diverse skin tones: Scientific considerations and ethical imperatives. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, *44*(2), 155-165.
Wesley, N. A., & Maibach, H. I. (2021). Racial and ethnic differences in skin properties: The objective data. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, *22*(2), 145-158.
Williams, A. L. (2021). The cultural history of skin lightening: From colonialism to globalization. University of California Press.
HISTORY
Current Version
OCT, 21, 2025
Written By
BARIRA MEHMOOD