3 ms·
On the blacklist etc. issue, when you think about it it's actually the other way around. "black" was historically "bad" (not related to race), but it was super
by xixixao 6y ago
On the blacklist etc. issue, when you think about it it's actually the other way around. "black" was historically "bad" (not related to race), but it was super convenient that slaves had a darker skin that you could call "black", and things got blurred. No "white" people are actually white and no "black" people are actually black. "white" people are pinkish to light brownish and "black" people are light to dark brown.
Of course it doesn't help that "dark" and "light" also have a value associated historically. This is a super unfortunate geo-graphical and historical coincidence that's gonna be hard to untangle (as in we probably can't disassociate the words from their pre-slavery historical meanings that are pretty universal, as in people are afraid when they can't see things -> night -> darkness -> black).
- xixixao 6y agoAnd on the original issue it's good to point out that there were millions of slaves throughout human history who were not black... That doesn't make the concept any better, but it hasn't been historically a racial issue (people were enslaved because of a difference in religion, place they lived in regardless of ethnicity or solely social status).