#sorry i got pulled on a bit of a tangent there- longtime followers probably half-expected it

[kariachi]

Sometimes one remembers that the most common ancestral race of hobbits is described by Tolkien as "browner of skin" then the less common two (who might have been mostly outbred over the many years? on the topic of the "fairer of skin and also of hair" set Concerning Hobbits describes that "the strong Fallohidish strain could still be noted among the greater families, such as the Took and the Masters of Buckland", which to me implies that while there's still clear ancestry there they probably still have heavy Harfoot or even Stoor influence going on- otherwise why describe it as a 'strong strain' rather than just say they're still primarily Fallohidish families? especially when you consider that the section in question is discussing that they were particularly bold and adventurous for hobbits and so given what the Tooks and Brandybucks are like it may be more often a matter of inclination rather than visuals- not to doubt that the visuals show up, but probably not as often as inclination, especially if you allow for the secrecy-focused courting habits mentioned in the first draft of the first chapter of LotR (as published in The Return of the Shadow: The History of Lord of the Rings Part 1, by Christopher Tolkien, pg 17, yes I did go hunting), which would make marriages between differing groups so much more accessible (and may actually be why that's a thing)), that their curly hair is consistently pointed out, and that our initial description of hobbits given in The Hobbit specifically mentions "nimble brown fingers".

And then one gets aggravated all over again at how long it took for non-white hobbits to show up in adaptations and the sheer number of people over the years who have tried to make out like non-white hobbits would be such a horrible canon-breaking thing.