Not sure why you would cite a study whose
results suggest that "(1) people of color believe that in group members can perpetuate racism and act in a discriminatory fashion towards other people of color, (2) racial discrimination through overt and subtle behaviors leads to more dispositional attributions of behavior for White perpetrators compared to more situational attributions of behavior for in group perpetrators, and (3)
in group racial discrimination can lead to more feelings of hurt and betrayal due to its shocking nature compared to the expected nature of White perpetrated racism. The implications of this study suggest that
white supremacy is insidious and affects people of color in ways (e.g., internalization of racism) that can lead to the perpetration of racism in their own communities." (from Abstract on page 3 of the PDF)
The bold is mine, the first getting more at the "skin folk" line's meaning, the second being a point I make here all the time.
Why would you cite this? How does it support what you're saying? It seems to support what I believe, not you. And if you're posting it to mock it in some way, it seems rather odd because it's academically sound and reasoned. It's like you challenge someone to prove something, then mock them for their intelligence when they do so. 🤷♂️
As for the "skin folk" line, in the place you highlighted it, do note that Zora Neale Hurston is best known as a novelist -- ie, a writer of fiction. Realistic fiction, based-on-reality fiction, but fiction. So if either of us, or any academic, is claiming an exact, limited definition of what it means, it's cause for skepticism, and anyone claiming there is more to it than someone else's limited understanding probably has a case to be made for it.
Don't know about how your algorithms sequence hits on your searches, but based on mine, you skipped
this one before choosing the one you did. I'm guessing I've already read more of Ms Mujica's thesis than you spent time searching, selecting, and posting her thesis.