Maybe this is common, part of a larger picture, but the story is presented as a more isolated incident and I will treat it as such. There was no racism in her w

Maybe this is common, part of a larger picture, but the story is presented as a more isolated incident and I will treat it as such. There was no racism in her words to "lighten the skin tone" - only a misunderstanding of who the character is. The editors own response: "I was told she was Latina and white." The author's believes: "Mexican father and African-American mother" Obviously the author would create a darker skin tone if the character is half-black. But why retain that same darker skin tone if the character is half-white? The author then cites 3 examples of "Latina skin tones" and ignores the "and white" part of the editor's statement about the character. He should have clarified with the editor "by Latina do you mean Mexican? Or Dominican? Brazilian? Latina is like saying "Asian". It's too broad." That's a failure on the editor's part for lack of specificity. I question his choice of darkness for Dominicans, they are not that toned unless they have also have African roots. I feel he only did that to try and stress "darker skin tones" to justify his usage of a "darker latina". The editor and author both have different viewpoints on this specific characters ethnicity. The author believes she is hispanic and black, the editor believes she is latina (probably hispanic) and white. Due to the "characters changing over the years". So now the issue of lightening up the skin comes down to who's view on the character is the "right" view. If the editor is wrong and the character is hispanic+african - then don't lighten the character. If the editor is right and the character is hispanic+caucasian then it might make sense to lighten the character. No racism. Simply a misunderstanding of "who" this character is.