Humans have natural prejudices. Dark is associated with dirty, light is associated with clean. Would you rather use a white soap bar or black? That's not to say colonization hasn't affected anything. Furthermore, in most countries around the world not including developed nations, lighter skin means you don't have to work outside. Is status.
shareIt sounds like your master was successful at brainwashing you. I pity you.
shareActually black soap (also called Black African soap or African soap) is very good for the skin. Brands like Dudu Osun clean the skin wonderfully without the harsh chemicals of most of the white ones which contain lye and other chemicals. There are not as many white things in nature as manufacturers would leave consumers to believe. White coffee filters, papers, sugar, flour, table salt, parchment paper, napkins, linen, cotton, many fabrics, tea bags, toilet paper, tampons, etc. are all bleached white to suit people who believe that white equates to cleanliness.
But regardless of the bleaching of things to please some people's beliefs about aesthetics, this should not be associated with prejudices of skin color. Someone's brown or black skin to be associated with dirtiness is just as appalling as someone's light or fair skin being associated with cleanliness or pureness.
Some people think that "dark equals dirty, light equals clean" because this is what they see in the world and what their society tells them. For people to justify their learned prejudices of people's skin color shows a very sad state of affairs in the world.
That "working outside" point proves that it is only culture, society, media, etc. which dictates to people these prejudices and nothing is natural about it. If a certain culture, society, etc. believes that hard work is to be looked down upon, then many people from that culture will look down upon those who work outdoors, but it is not natural to do so. It is entirely learned based on the society, culture, media, etc to separate people and make some groups (classes) for above or below other groups.
It's the at the same level of fat people supposedly looking better than thin people in eras of general destitution and vice versa in eras of general plenty. There are beautiful and ugly people of all sizes, and have always been; however because of the era's times, people accepted this general belief.
Associating cleanliness vs. dirtiness to the color of people's skin is not valid a point. This way of thinking is not a natural prejudice at all. It's plain crazy and dehumanizing to do this.
I'm glad to see that you mentioned colonization because that had such a big role in how way too many non-white people see themselves today. We are taught these prejudices, and taught them in such a way that some of us don't even know that we were taught this, and others refuse to believe that they would fall for such a thing.
And yet we've been seeing that white is just as negative in conotation such as the health hazards of white sugar, white potatoes, white flour, white rice. Even white wine is considered less healthy than red wines. In their ignorance and self-righteousness, whites have unknowingly bleached out the nutrients and vitamins in an attempt to show the virtues of whiteness. It's very symbolic and a great analogy of colonization and gentrification.
share