Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

temporarysecretary17 t1_jebizjb wrote

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 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.

6

TrumpterOFyvie t1_jeble7v wrote

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.

6

temporarysecretary17 t1_jeblu49 wrote

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).

−9

TrumpterOFyvie t1_jebnh77 wrote

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.

12

SteveBored t1_jedaad0 wrote

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.

5

SeiCalros t1_jebltvi wrote

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

−6

Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jec3wdt wrote

It's not intrinsically associated at all, colorism has always existed even inside ethnically homogenous societies.

4

SeiCalros t1_jec9u8d wrote

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

−3

Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jecan9v wrote

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"

2

SeiCalros t1_jecsoqg wrote

>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 🤡

0