Submitted by Pfeffer_Prinz t3_126sj3j in todayilearned
Reply to comment by TrumpterOFyvie in TIL in the 1920s, Coco Chanel accidentally got a tan, and helped inspire the trend of sunbathing. Soon "sunlight therapy" was prescribed for almost every ailment from fatigue to tuberculosis. Before this, tanned skin was associated with the lower classes who work outside, and fair skin was revered. by Pfeffer_Prinz
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