No necessarily. But, racism is in the eye of the beholder; hence its wishy-washy definition(s).
Deliberately, nothing. I quoted the pertinent bit. If you think the rest gives such radically different “context”, feel free to quote those bits yourself.
You never said - but the implication is there - what about that logic chain was erroneous?
I’m pointing out the underlying assumptions you don’t even recognize in your own arguments, you don’t like the result, and you continue to accuse me of strawmanning - at no point have you shown that the chain of logic itself is broken. And you accuse me of not using logic?
I addressed the point sufficiently in the preceding sentence. The one you didn’t quote.
That they have developed (in fairly recent times) the inverse of the Chinese beliefs. It used to be that whiter was associated with upper class in the west too, until likely the late 1800s or early 1900s (Coco chanel and Josephine Baker are often cited as causative). The tan veneration is much more recent, and I’d hesitate to say it’s engrained enough to come out in racial attitudes the way a 2000-year-old skin lightening tradition would. So my answer is that it’s ridiculous to think the historical Western preference for lighter skin has been gone long enough for racial attitudes to have caught up to a love of Mocha. Hence the roll-eyes with the “Jungle Fever”. You’re asking a question comparing apples and oranges.
But you already lost me with your othering and marginalising of people who don’t automatically agree with you. Presumably you’re smart enough to know that your insults are counter-productive. What’s not clear is your motivation: are you to be pitied or condemned?