Submitted by Pfeffer_Prinz t3_126sj3j in todayilearned
Yeah the reverence for lily white skin back in those days had nothing to do with white supremacy and everything to do with the status symbol of not having to work outside. You'll hear "lily white skin" referenced a lot in old English folk songs to describe the beauty of a woman, and while that's problematic to today's audiences for obvious reasons, it had no racist connotations back in the day.
>the reverence for lily white skin back in those days had nothing to do with white supremacy
i dont think white supremacists of the era would have agreed with that tbh
Which white supremacists of the era? We're talking about ordinary European people who had never even seen a black person let alone mixed with them. Pale white skin then was seen as an indicator of having been wealthy enough to stay indoors instead of working in the sun, and that's all there is to it. Race wasn't even an issue among common people in the UK until the immigration of West Indians, Africans, Indians and Pakistanis in the 20th century.
You really think black people didn’t exist in Europe in the 1800s or before? You think a European in the 1920s wouldn’t have seen a black person?
You can’t actually be that dense.
Yes they existed. But not in great number and usually limited to large metropolises. English people outside of London had not mixed with black people, no. And we're not talking about the 1920's here. We're talking pre 1800's. Stop calling people dense when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Just because they hadn’t seen them doesn’t mean they didn’t know about it. Skin color was used as justification for colonialism (white mans burden).
But this isn't the reason for the preference of lily white Caucasian skin over tanned Caucasian skin, which is what we're talking about here. You'll note that white supremacists don't give a shit whether or not a white person has a tan or not. Just that they're Caucasian.
White man's burden was an 1800s thing. He's right, many European people prior to the 1700s probably never saw a black person in their life. People rarely traveled beyond their local villages.
The empire already existed in the 1700s…
"prior to the 1700s"
i think theres a limit to the practical utility of reasoning with a person who refuses to recognize that the literal concept of 'white=better' is intrinsically associated with white supremacy
but i guess theres merit in the entertainment value of it
It's not intrinsically associated at all, colorism has always existed even inside ethnically homogenous societies.
i dont know if i can dumb this down for you any more but - if you have two things? and one is a subset of the other? THAT IS AN INTRINSIC ASSOCIATION
if there was no 'colorism' there would be no white supremacy - colorism is THE intrinsic and inextractible quality of white supremacy that distinguishes it from other ethnic discrimination
But that isn't what white supremacy is, you idiot.
White supremacy is a racial belief system, it has nothing to do with variation in pigment WITHIN an ethnic group and honestly not inextricably linked with pigment at all, considering the anglo Saxon white supremacists targeted the Irish (whiter than them) as an inferior race.
If one brother becomes a merchant and works inside all day while another becomes a poor farmer, they're not looking down on the farmer because of his color, they are looking down on him because he is a farmer, and the color just outs him as one. They're the same "white race"
>But that isn't what white supremacy is, you idiot.
ah yes forgive me for being such an idiot to have developed the misconception that white supremacy was somehow related to skin colour 🤡
>considering the anglo Saxon white supremacists targeted the Irish
really? tell me professor history 🤡 how long did that last 🤡🤡
seems in retrospect there may have been some quality the irish had that inhibited the persistency of that categorism
too bad its nothing obvious 🤡
So you are stupid? Because that distinction was made since race was a concept.
obviously 🤡
>We're talking about ordinary European people who had never even seen a black person let alone mixed with them
nah - what you said was
>Yeah the reverence for lily white skin back in those days had nothing to do with white supremacy
but the two concepts are intrinsically linked - reverence for lily white skin back in those days was intrinsically associated with white supremacy in every place where white supremacy existed
not to mention the fact that the reverence for lily white skin furthered white supremacy in places where it didnt have a strong foothold
now if you had said that the concepts existed separately from each other that would have been closer to true - but still debateable
>Race wasn't even an issue among common people in the UK until the immigration of West Indians, Africans, Indians and Pakistanis in the 20th century.
youre right there - its not like anybody in europe ever heard of the dark skinned moors that invaded christendom in the 7th century despite being mentioned in half the novels of the era
>but the two concepts are intrinsically linked - reverence for lily white skin back in those days was intrinsically associated with white supremacy in every place where white supremacy existed
No it wasn't, it was intrinsically linked to pale skin being seen as a status symbol given that rich and privileged people had the palest skin through non exposure to the sun, as I've explained before. White supremacy was not a concept in the minds of ordinary people at that time, as much as you wish it were.
>not to mention the fact that the reverence for lily white skin furthered white supremacy in places where it didnt have a strong foothold
It might well have done, yes. But white supremacy wouldn't gain any kind of foothold among ordinary white people until they started mixing with non white people and developing ignorant (and sometimes superstitious) ideas about them.
>now if you had said that the concepts existed separately from each other that would have been closer to true - but still debateabl
Well they did, because the admiration of pale skin back then was a way for ordinary white people to discriminate against each other, not other races.
>youre right there - its not like anybody in europe ever heard of the dark skinned moors that invaded christendom in the 7th century despite being mentioned in half the novels of the era
This doesn't mean that ordinary people in the UK had mixed with black people to form ideas of racial superiority, no. Again, it was all about class.
>White supremacy was not a concept in the minds of ordinary people at that time, as much as you wish it were.
in the 1920s? half a century after the american civil war? ten years before the aryan supremacist nazis took power in germany? the decade AFTER 'racist' was included in the oxford english dictionary?
i gotta say bruv despite your confidence i am getting the impression that your understanding of history is quite unburdened by the facts of history
You're so wrong, lol. Things can be both classist AND racist.
"Light skin = desirable" might have been "not racist" for folks with naturally light skin, but what about people of color back then? Do you really believe that the elite white folks of the time would've described dark/brown/black skin as beautiful or desirable?
The racism is baked into the statement. It sets light skin as desirable, natural, wealthy, classy. It sets "light skin" as the norm or the default. You honestly don't see any racism in that?
White supremacy is insidious as fuck.
Yes, comparing modern day ethics to older eras where racism wasn't even a conscious factor is stupid.
Wrote this in response to another comment, but it fits here too:
Othello was written in 1603 and is definitely about race. Sure, it's also about class and religion and a lot of other things, but race is definitely a major part of the play. How would Shakespeare have been able to write about race if it wasn't a component in English society at the time?
You think because the civil rights movement hadn’t happened yet racism didn’t exist?
Yes, the concept of racism is a belief, an idea.
You’re really going to argue people in the 1920s weren’t racist? While the KKK was running around?
[deleted]
You think racism ended with slavery?
There can be an overlap without "not wanting to get burned" as a status symbol - yes.
But it's also true that there was very likely a preference for white people. Both can be true - preferring non-burned skin can 100% not be racist. In other words, am I a racist for not liking people that intentionally get super dark tans and look fried? Or, do I happen to prefer healthy-looking skin (and healthy habits)? Now, understand that society was 90% white and it follows that 90% of preferences and word choices are white-leaning. That also doesn't make someone racist.
Let's change words a bit. Songs in India reference Hinduism and not Christianity. Do you then conclude that Indians hate all Christians and their songs/poems are rooted in bigotry? Or do you concede that lack of access and awareness does not equal hate?
I understand and applaud your efforts for a better world, but your claims and approach do more damage than good - especially as it pertains to DEI and CRT. This last part is especially true since England under Elizabeth was probably one of the more liberal thinking cultures at the time and it's well documented that it was not uncommon at all for interracial marriages. Doesn't mean it was great, but you are showing your (American?) bias in thinking 1800s England was the same as 1800s America.
Oh stop it. You're talking about a time when the vast majority of people in the UK hadn't even seen a black person. There was no racial element whatsover, it was 100% class.
Othello was written in 1603 and is definitely about race. Sure, it's also about class and religion and a lot of other things, but race is definitely a major part of the play. How would Shakespeare have been able to write about race if it wasn't a component in English society at the time?
Back in those days, very few people outside of London had seen a black person. Shakespeare was not of the ordinary British working classes. He was writing about a concept that was not a part of the vast majority of British people's lives. It was an "exotic" subject which didn't reflect the lives of ordinary Brits in any way.
His plays were immensely popular with "ordinary Brits" though, so I do think there was something they could connect with. Even if they didn't interact with black people, they'd interact with people other "races" fairly often -- be they Irish, Greek, Arab, or whatever. And they were certainly willing to be highly prejudiced against those groups -- some of whom are known to be "swarthier" than the inhabitants of the UK.
It's a vastly different interaction with race than the modern day one, of course. Othello is as much about Othello being from a population that tends to be Muslim as it is about his having dark skin or African features. That's not as present a concern with modern day racism (although it does still crop up a bit).
I don't think your point is entirely unfair, but I do think it's overstated and a bit too focused on racism being against Africans specifically -- people of color is a broader term and was the one OP was using. Also, the current trend is to view racism as something that doesn't need to be intentional -- evaluated on it's impact instead of it's intent, I think it's easy to say the phrase "lily white skin" being an ideal of beauty is a definition that inherently leaves some races out. Unfortunately, the current trend also seems to be to view these instances of unintentional racism as as evil as targeted and malicious racism. Which is, frankly, crazy. We should be able to recognize something as harmful and learn to avoid it in the future without needing to assign malice to actions that had none.
You can be racist to a group without being exposed to them
Keep grasping at straws. The preference for pale white skin back in those days as an indicator of class had nothing whatsoever to do with race.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments