I need a nudie shot of a Shani body mould – doesn’t have to be black, can be deathly white if need be… so onto Google I go! And I stumbled upon this article…
The Commodification of Blackness by Sosophrank’s Media Fascinations – 090604
Now, as an essay by itself it’s totally fine, the arguments suit the topic and make sense and it serves the purpose of the assignment (from my very quick skimming). BUT reading it with an eye of a doll collector AND an involved participant in the anti-racism blogosphere I just couldn’t help but be critical of it.
My response to this was -
Hi, I’d just like to point out that in your Figure 2, the dolls that are being shown are actually Uhura (Star Trek character) and Christie (working name for the African American doll of that series showcasing 1960’s fashion styles) and that is why they have been listed under “Pop Culture”, not all dolls of African American appearance are listed as such and to claim so is misleading.
Shani dolls and the others in this series are wildly popular with collectors contrary to what you’ve mentioned in regards to them being unpopular – perhaps they were unpopular with their intended market. The Asha face mould (light skin doll) has been used in regular play line dolls and the Nichelle face mould (dark skin doll) has been used in many collector line dolls since their introduction.
There are plenty of examples of racism, colonialist thinking and white privilege in the world of Barbie dolls, unfortunately the examples that you have chosen are not what shows the racial issues. There are many blogs out there that deal with race, racism, sociological imagery as well as racial depictions of dolls which you could refer to in future research.
Asha face on Cali Girl Christie
Nichelle face as Af-Am Barbie
It is true that there is under-representation of non-white dolls in Barbie’s world and that there is a disproportionate number of dolls of color found in the more exotic categories of Pop Culture and Dolls of the World (code for “not one of us”). That’s why I actually have both the Uhura AND POP Christie dolls because there’s so much more fewer Af-Am dolls released compared to the more socially normalised Caucasian doll.
As for that mysterious bigger booty on the Shani dolls and friends… it’s a myth… the regular Twist-n-Turn butt has the measurement of 130mm and Shani’s arse is only 120mm. That my dear folks, makes it SMALLER. And no, I didn’t spend time measuring tiny doll body parts myself… some other collector did 
Anyway… I still need that image of nudie Shani body sculpt…. because funnily enough, the only Shani doll I actually have uses the regular Twist-n-Turn body XD
Tags: african american, black dolls, brown skin, internet stuff, mattel, shani and friends, sociological studies
Therese,
Interesting article. I’ll read it when I have some free time. For now though, here’s a link and permission to use two photos I took of Shani’s friend, Nichelle. I bought Nichelle years ago when the Shani line was new. I bought her NRFB in a store.
Nichelle on Webshots
Non-collectors tend to have selective hearing and to do superficial research when using dolls and action figures. Good luck providing the facts of the matter.
[Reply]
Therese Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Hey Dana, would you be able to check what’s stamped on her back? thanks… my Shani uses the 1966 body, strange huh?
[Reply]
Chdenni Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 9:44 am
The first set of Shani, Nichelle and Asha did have the 1966 body. All of the others had the body stamped 1991, which is basically the same as the silkstone barbie body. I dont have pictures but what made the first Shani body so exciting were her smaller perkier boobs, the thicker more muscular legs, longer neck and the waist twisted at a slight angel. The early Byron Lars dolls and Tangerine Twist have the original body. When it first came to the regular barbie line with the cuduroy cool dolls they had shortened the neck and cut about 1/8 off of the waist so that it doesnt twist at an angel anymore. They later added more length to the neck but waist is still modified.
[Reply]
Chdenni Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 9:52 am
BTW the over all shape of the 1991 shani body is slimmer but the buttocks do portrude more. The 1966 barbie body has a bigger torso and bust and much wider hips and the buttock are a little flatter shani’s
Therese Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 11:46 am
omg! thanks heaps!!!
Bledri Reply:
June 25th, 2010 at 8:01 am
I bought a played Shani on an auction. Her markings is
© 1991 Mattel. Inc
Malaysia
if it can help. However I am not sure what year and model she is yet. I guess it’s the thrill of finding out that made me buy her. She has green and blue eyes, ring and earholes. I think she is one of the beach line dolls.
[Reply]
On Shani’s lower back, above the waist break, the two lines read:
[Copyright symbol] MATTEL USA.1966
MALAYSIA
I don’t know why lots of dolls have body stamps 1966 when the dolls were produced years after. Shrug. Chdenni has more details – thanks to you both, I am getting a richer doll education.
So your doll might have the original Shani body, Therese! Good news, hmm?
[Reply]
Therese Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 11:49 am
no… I think my doll definitely has the TnT 1966 body – I’ve checked her with my other Superstar dolls… 1966 is the year of the body sculpt patent, the modern dolls don’t twist at the funny mod angles but they have the same shape.
[Reply]
Chdenni Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
1966 is the patent date of the body mold. The will often modify parts of the body but still keep the patent date. A good example is the original 1966 t’nt body. The torsoo was a little slimmer (closer to shani’s) and of course the waist was cut at a harsh angel. In 1977 with the Superstar barbie they dropped the angular waist and made her bust and torso wider. In my opinon it’s a different body.
[Reply]