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.