Tanning: The New Racial Slurr

OMG...it IS racial.

Okay for the record I must state I have never had a spray tan or even tried a tanning salon. I embrace my paleness so that I can worry less about melanoma. Having tried painfully to acquire a tan when I was younger it became clear that I was not ever going to be golden.

So...does anyone else think that taxing the fair-skinned Americans is a good thing tax? One must wonder if a tax
was levied on only minority establishments just how much outcry would occur...and I would say it would be deafening.

A tan.....seriously...if you aren't born with it then you shouldn't have it right? Gosh. Pale Americans all over our nation are annoyed. Who says we can't be more colorful? How dare you desire to be something as trivial as being golden?

That is exactly how I see this tax. It sends this message yet I do not hear the ACLU screaming "UNFAIR" do you? It just isn't in their best interest. This tax will affect only the pale....not who they defend typically...if ever.

When do we stand up and say enough? To be honest my disgust has nothing to do with this tax BUT the reason most of us sit quietly by and shrug. It would be politically incorrect to point out that taxing whites (or anyone who happens to be pale and would perhaps like some color) is inappropriate....but it is exactly what we should be doing.

Those who have spoken up have been shamed into silence by the accusing darker crowd as if racial bias is always on the paler side of anything. Anyone with a natural tan will be quick to object as if they are the only ones who can conveniently toss the term "racial bias" around. Oh crap...how much trouble am I going to get over that sentence? Is that sentence racial? Not if we truly have equality here in America.

A tax on those who happen to be born with a lacking skin pigmentation is profiling.

Is lack of skin pigmentation perhaps a disability? To allow something so vile to be shrugged at should be criminal. That is exactly what the ACLU would be saying if we were taxing something like...um...hair straightening. BUT a tax on that would be perceived as a racial profile issue even though clearly more than one race may straighten their hair. These pale people are disadvantaged but the ACLU could care less.

Why aren't more people angry? They are but they just aren't being listened to. They don't have the power that the ACLU or other special interest groups has to make noise. The paleness of our resolve is wearing thin.

The skinny on the skin tax is this....it IS racial. If you don't think it is then prove it. Yeah...let's go tax ONLY the pale small businesses and somehow say it is not racial.

See the meek pale business woman shrug as if she can do nothing about this this tax:


Have we all become so politically-correct and bashed into future aimless shrugs... as if it is okay to single out those who for years have been wearing the weight of a past we are not connected to...to pay for the wrong doing of over a century ago? Are we all doomed to be labeled racist merely because we were born pale?

Dare I say that Caucasians everywhere often bow out of a conversation where there could be any vague attack upon us based on only being born pale? Are we to remain speechless out of fear of that terrible possibility... that we would be accused of being racist merely by having a difference of opinion? It happens everyday.

So....if we quietly let this pass what will be next? Is a tan really that important? I say that the moral obligation to say "UNFAIR" should be there regardless. If it had been a tax on only hair straightening salons the objections would be astounding because it would be clearly seen as a racial profiling of minority small businesses.. .even if the spirit of that tax had nothing at all to do with race.

You see...Tanning is the new racial slurr. That is reality.

cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 47 weeks
It simply is what it is---and if that makes you uncomfortable then you should think about it.
stephley stephley 5 years 48 weeks
You obviously want it to be racial, so enjoy the indignation.
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 48 weeks
This is stupid tax. There ARE better options. They did not create this tax to save people from skin cancer. There is an incredibly minuscule amount of money rationalized for taxes which actually end up being spent on a cause. Taxes have historically been simply to raise money...and rationalization is what moves it thru legislation. If tax money was spent in a prudent manner we would not need more taxes....much less ridiculous taxes such as this one. Why is it OK to single out people who tan when CLEARLY it is a minority of the population who partake in the golden/orange delight? Taxes are to raise money. There were better options out there which would be more productive financially. This tax was simply a stupid choice....and ironically it can be viewed as racial BECAUSE it singles out a small part of the population. If it singled out ANY other race it would be considered racial without hesitation. I ask...why is there hesitation? Because it singles out predominantly PALE people....whites. Allowing legislatures to focus a tax on a small part of society because of skin color is racist. It does not matter who voted for it or what color they happen to be ---it is racist.
stephley stephley 5 years 48 weeks
It is not a tax against a minority, it a tax on users of tanning salons, whatever their shade. "Is it so unthinkable that racism could not extend into the minds of minorities?" No one said it was, that's not a relevant issue here. Minorities did not impose the tax. White Senate Democrats did. And no one's yelling racism over the tax break yacht buyers get, though the majority of them are white.
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 48 weeks
Gosh...looking around today I realized something really interesting. I am a minority. Living in California...untanned and more than just a little pale...I am absolutely a minority. Am I offended by a tax on tanning? Nope. I am offended that people cannot see that this specific tax is very narrow-minded...and by being so...is racial. My point being...is if this had been a tax perpetuated on another minority (meaning other than the very few pale people in California) there would be a lot of noise. Whites...we have become meek. We aren't allowed to breathe the term "racial" without automatically being attacked and accused of actually being racist. Seriously...does someone/some race have the rules on this? WHO decides WHO gets to use that term?
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 48 weeks
No...this is simply an uncomfortable truth...racism IS ironically color blind. Many however, will refuse to see it going both ways. This is racism in it's purist form. Racism is cloaked within a righteous feeling. Not allowing say a white individual from using that term when appropriate, it merely confirms something many know yet refuse to acknowledge. Racism occurs against whites, however it is largely ignored. While probably admittedly rare, one cannot exclude that possibility completely. Since we are conditioned to see the term "racism" exclusively used with minorities, perhaps it is actually more politically correct to now view it as a "mindset" rather than a racial blurr focused on whites perpetuating hate. Is it so unthinkable that racism could not extend into the minds of minorities? While I do not believe this is what is happening with the "tan tax" I do feel that it is somewhat hypocritical to assume that whites cannot be discriminated against. A tax on tanning is simply racist. My point is this...it isn't really about tanning at all. It is about narrowing a tax to focus on a single part of our nation's citizens...only the pale ones.
stephley stephley 5 years 48 weeks
"It is usually only ONE detail that most people use to toss the racial card into the fray....so I ask...why can't a pale person use the racial card too?" So the real point here isn't about a valid problem, it's about finding an opportunity to yell 'racism?' Nail salons might raise some hefty tax revenue, but without the added health benefits of preventing skin cancer - and by the way, skin cancer appears to be racist too: "Skin cancer can happen to anyone, however the risk is greatest for people who: -have fair skin. -have blonde, red, or light brown hair. -have blue, green, or gray eyes. -always burn before tanning. -burn easily. -don't tan easily, but spend a lot of time outdoors." http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/azhealthtopics/a/tanboothworthit.htm
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 48 weeks
The tax is discriminatory. Blame must have a face? Must we find specific people to blame? Any dunderhead who voted for this was whacked...I don't care what color they are. Racism is not color blind. It has faces of all shades. It is the act NOT the individual in particular incident. In this case...racism against the pale...the golden tanned...or the tacky spray orange. It is still racism.
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 48 weeks
OMG... "It's not taxing a skin color it's taxing a behavior which is causing a financial burden big enough to be a problem." I can't wait to hear how tanning has become every one's BIG FINANCIAL BURDEN! Hypno...I have missed you! LOL Hmmm...a "behavior?" That also cracks me up. Why stop at tanning? What about hair extensions? Who really needs them? I would say a more fair tax all across any color boundary would have been nail salons. Why not nail salons instead? It just seems a smarter (and more fair) choice. Keep in mind...I have never tanned and couldn't even if I tried. Wouldn't waste my $ spraying one on either. I DO get my nails done. I can't see how anyone can say this is not a reverse racial thing. I would say that tanning establishments are most likely a pale small business....so....this is racist based on simply that one detail. It is usually only ONE detail that most people use to toss the racial card into the fray....so I ask...why can't a pale person use the racial card too? If this was a predominately black small business I am sure the ALCU would have freaked out. I am sure our eardrums would be numb from all the screaming.
stephley stephley 5 years 48 weeks
Who would be the discriminator in this case anyway? Senate Democrats? They’re all white. They proposed the idea after lobbying by cosmetic surgeons turned them off a tax on cosmetic surgery. In addition to the nearly 3-billion dollars expected to be raised from the tax, it’s hoped the added cost would discourage teens from using indoor tanning salons.
Nyrina-Windu Nyrina-Windu 5 years 48 weeks
African Americans do NOT tan themselves at the salon...give me a break. And some white people just look ridiculous all tanned up. Some of them go TOO far with it, while others look quite nice.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 5 years 48 weeks
I'll agree that most effected by this tax are Anglo Americans however saying it's pale Americans is misguided. Truly pale skinned people know that any tan or tan product on them is going to look ridiculous. If you get a spray tan it looks orange. As for the tax being racist I'll respectfully disagree. It's not taxing a skin color it's taxing a behavior which is causing a financial burden big enough to be a problem. Should the behavior get a pass because the majority of it's participants are a certain race? I don't think so. A behavior with a negative financial implication is a behavior with a negative financial implication regardless of race...period.
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 48 weeks
So sexist AND racist...it is still wrong. Why should only pale women be the focus of a tax?
Eleuthera Eleuthera 5 years 48 weeks
Taxes will always come from areas in which we see the least encroachment in our personal lives. These days I remember Pastor Niemoller's words in my heart as I anticipate further extortions to follow quickly.
Grandpa Grandpa 5 years 49 weeks
Well I know four off the top of my head, and yes indeed, they are all women.
stephley stephley 5 years 49 weeks
I'm white and so is most of my family, and a quick survey of them found no one who is personally acquainted with anyone who uses tanning salons. Perhaps the basic premise here is more faulty than I thought. http://www.tantalk.com/skin-care/2336241-can-should-african-americans-tan.html The tanning bed industry estimates that 70% of its customers are women - maybe the tax is sexist.
Grandpa Grandpa 5 years 49 weeks
My future son-in-law will be over for dinner on Tuesday, I am going to ask him if he knows anyone or heard of anyone using a tanning salon (other then my daughter). His parents are black, and on his mothers side his grandparents are black, I have not met his dad’s parents, but I seriously doubt either of them are or were white.
stephley stephley 5 years 49 weeks
A minority of whites use tanning salons. People who aren't caucasian use tanning products to deepen their color, to even skintone, to hide scars or stretch marks - all kinds of reasons. You might want to check with more than two people.
Grandpa Grandpa 5 years 49 weeks
Sort of like Eskimos buying a freezer, and keeping a generator going, to operate it.
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 49 weeks
I just asked my sister-in-law and my BFF....both Black Americans...and they laughed and said WTH! Neither have gone to a tanning salon nor do they know anyone of the mocha perspective that has....mocha....the term they both prefer...and pay for a tan? They are still laughing.
Grandpa Grandpa 5 years 49 weeks
Why on God's green earth would an African American use or need spray tans or tanning salons?
cheekyredhead cheekyredhead 5 years 49 weeks
Gee...pretty sure that is a minority.
stephley stephley 5 years 49 weeks
Other races, including African Americans, do use spray tans & tanning salons.