Page 172 - Purchasing Power Black Kids and American Consumer Culture

Ethnically Correct Dolls . 157

Carlos understands so well, is not established visually, but rather accom-
plished socially. Further, racial boundaries are fuzzy. They are not, as the
division between the red and pink boxes would suggest, visibly obvious
and absolute (Barbie never comes in one of the red Shani boxes). Al-
though Shani is Mattel's brand-name figurehead for its ethnically correct
African American dolls, Carlos describes Nichelle as "African Ameri-
can," and distinguishes her from Shani, who in his view "must be part
Indian." Here Carlos seems to know and recognize more about African
American heritage than Mattel is willing to admit.
What Carlos has revealed through his observations is this: in depict-
ing kinds of blackness, Mattel has inadvertently roused the specter of
miscegenation. There is (of course) no interracial Barbie, no mulatto or
quadroon Barbie, no Eurasian Barbie, nor a Barbie that like golf sensa-
tion Tiger Woods might be described as "Cablinasian"—Caucasian,
black, Indian, and Asian—a mixture not of two races, but several. Tiger
Woods's insistence on creating a name for what he is, like Carlos's de-
scription of the racial backgrounds of Shani, Asha, and Nichelle, speaks
to the inability of our racial categories to capture the finely tuned percep-
tions of kids, who may not easily accept the notion that blackness in all
its diversity is ultimately one real, bounded category. While Mattel has
produced a threefold array of representations of blackness, Carlos views
these representations as also signifying much more than blackness alone.
Ann DuCille has extensively discussed much of the complex and con-
tradictory nature of Shani dolls (1996). She highlights two central is-
sues: derriere and hair. Both of these features are riddled with multiple
racial resonances. According to DuCille's interviews with Shani design-
ers, the dolls are designed to give the illusion of a higher, rounder butt
than Barbie's. This has been accomplished, they told her, by pitching
Shani's back at a different angle than Barbie's, and changing some of the
proportions of her hips. I had heard these and other rumors from stu-
dents at the college where I teach: "Shani's butt is bigger than the other
Barbies' butts," "Shani dolls have bigger breasts than Barbie," "Shani
5
dolls have bigger thighs than Barbie." DuCille rightly wonders why a
bigger butt is necessarily an attribute of blackness, tying this obsession to
turn-of-the century attempts to scientifically justify racial categories.
What does it mean that Mattel would attempt to use the illusion of an
enlarged backside to indicate an ethnically correct doll, while maintain-
ing the doll's ability to wear the same clothes as Barbie? And if the larger
backside was just an illusion, what was the point, and how could it be a
sign of race?