Wrote a whole paragraph on this, love how Tumblr went ahead and crashed so I learnt how to save drafts.
As someone who's relatively (I say relatively because everything is, after all, in nature relative) educated in this area - specifically regarding post colonialism - I'll try to address this issue even though it's highly possible that my take is somewhat inadequate.
In my reblog I'll try to address the example that the anon has brought up in order to tell you exactly what they've gotten wrong, because your usage of the African continent as an example completely shows your ignorance of how deeply rooted oppression by colour is. As for @stellariver's reply, you're completely correct in most of what you've said. However, since oppression by colorism is by nature an extremely vague and wide spreading topic, it would be poor taste to take it as it is because it'll be generalisation.
First of all, the definition of 'oppression' again, cannot be taken as a whole because oppression is such a large topic by itself. Even if you narrow it down into a specific subcategory of oppression (e.g. oppression by wealth) you still don't have a definitive definition of oppression 'where', despite tackling the 'how'. Which is why if you really want to talk oppression, you need to narrow it down before you can start speaking.
Second, the African example is completely wrong. If you've flipped through even the most basic of history books, history would've told you that Africa's place in white man's version of history (I say white man, because basic level world history is sadly largely written by white man, and if you do European history all the more so) involves being raided, conquered, invaded and plundered. After entering the continent - which by extension of course includes the countries in it - Europeans essentially set up a hierarchal system that favours the white minority. Of course they have power and money as well, but these factors only characterised them, and does not form the basis of the ruling class. In fact, it was colour that formed the basis - look at all the African nations. And even in modern society, there has been an ongoing saying in the black community (which I'm not part of - but I've seen this said by prominent members of that community) that the lighter your skin is, the more opportunities you have. This even applies to other POC. Which means that the darker your skin is, the less opportunities you have. Does this not sound like oppression to you?
What about modern day Africa then? Most of the ruling white elite has gone, and now it's mostly the Africans there. I honestly cannot claim to be an expert on African society or politics as I haven't read much around the topic, but from what I know the idea of light skin being more desirable is still prevalent in modern society, which means that sadly colour is still a heavy symbol of oppression. And extending the topic a little, I know that some Middle Eastern countries only have power because of the support of certain countries (coughs, the USA) and the ruling class are in fact are largely unpopular. I don't know if this extends to modern day Africa. But in this case colour also plays a big part, because with colour brings privilege and privilege brings power. How does this connection stand, you ask? Well, during the Colonial Era Europeans raided other countries and power became associated with colour. Thus the privilege and power that comes with colour continues to stand today. Therefore if you're trying to argue oppression it's inevitable that colour plays a massive part.
To make it simpler because I think my narrative is forming knots, it's like this - systematic and widespread oppression started since historical times. In the case of oppression of entire races of people, it is always colour that formed the basis. Oppression by power and wealth is never the reason, it's usually a characteristic. Yes, the white man who is the oppressor may have power and wealth over the black/POC man, but is power and wealth really the answer? A really easy example is the Capitol riots in the USA. The Trump supporters who raided the Capitol aren't exactly powerful or rich, but they certainly had the white privilege. And even if the white man and the black man has the same societal status, same material wealth, everything, society will still favour the white man - because it's oppression by colour.
Further answering the anon's statement that oppression by colour is a US-centric idea, you couldn't be further off the truth. Even if you argue that European countries come into the mix, East Asian countries also has this bias against people of darker skin, which is exemplified by beauty standards. It's certainly true that oppression by colour may be more prevalent in the West (i.e Europe and the US) but if you think about it, having a different skin colour makes people of the [oppressor] community feel like you're an 'other' - someone not of their own. Which means that inevitably, oppression by colour is sadly one of the basis of oppression.
snowghoul
germansingergirl
2087
stormborns
amandla
vaporwave
