Why do you infer that I believe that? On the contrary: I'm sure that in certain places in the world at that time - maybe in northern Europe - there were plenty of Whites.
Again, my point is that, e.g., a six-footer will be called "Shorty" in a society of 7-footers. In northern Norway, someone with a modicum of melanin might be regarded as "swarthy." In records from the Middle Ages, I'm sure that some people were described as "big" or even as "giants" who wouldn't be at all conspicuous in modern-day America. Biblical passages describing various individuals as "ruddy" or "milky white" (hyperbole!) thus tell us nothing about the actual appearance of those individuals - only their complexion in relation to the average at that time, at that place.
Regards,
“Again, my point is that, e.g., a six-footer will be called “Shorty” in a society of 7-footers.”
I know I should not say anything, but your method of reasoning is completely absurd.
The writers of the Bible, believing in the criticality of their subject matter, were not given to such slack nonsense as you assign to them.
When the Biblical writer mentioned that Esau was hairy, does that not seem to suggest that most of his compatriots were not hairy?
Or, doesn’t history place blacks as inhabiting Africa? And the Egyptian paintings definitely have the Egyptians as white when you decode their method of representation. The paintings do represent blacks with black pigmented painting, and they were represented as slaves.
“Milky white” is certainly hyperbole, but to think that it was referring to a non-white is absurd.