I’m sorry that it sounds like you still have some pain over your childhood. I’m also sorry because what you’re describing as my argument is in fact not the argument I was making at all. I think I did not explain myself well enough, or people don’t understand racism in the way I do, or both.
There’s a lot of evidence that demonstrates that whoever has the power makes the rules. Whoever has the power, in essence, determines what’s desirable—and they tend to decide it’s them.
So in mostly Black schools, as reports show, it’s not white students who rule. It’s the people who dominate in power and numbers who then also are considered most beautiful, in that context. They then lord their power over people who are different. Primarily Black schools are typically not experienced as utopic by people marked as “other,” because they exist in a context of socially sanctioned racial hierarchy.
Which is why, for example, mixed-race people are often exotified or objectified, made into pretty submissive objects, but rarely made to rule.
My point was never as described by others—that in racist America, beauty will always favor white women.
My point is that in a society that loves power, like America, power and desirability are inextricably linked.
So traits like health, thinness, long hair, blonde hair, height, “positivity,” lack of trauma, wealth, quality of education, are all part of being “pretty” or desirable.
Those traits are taken as absolutes, as objectively “good” or attractive, as political neutral and purely social traits.
They’re treated as the production of personal choice, as alienated from factors like race and class and disability.
But really they are the production of race and class and disability.

So no, obviously I don’t think prettiness is just about Blackness or whiteness.
I’m not really sure how that idea happened. I think one person mis/read that and then someone argued with the comments.