Jump to content
Troy

The Myth of Race and the Evolution of Skin Color

Recommended Posts

Have you ever found yourself wondering why humans look different? Why some people may have eyes that appear to be slanted? Why some people may have light skin, blue eyes and blonde hair or why others may have dark skin, coarse or kinky hair and dark colored eyes. Well, the answer is called a mutation, which occurs in every generation when the sperm from a male fertilizes the egg of a female. Now mutations are not a bad thing, actually, they're a good thing because without them all humans would look the same. How boring would that be? 

This ground breaking documentary entitled The Myth of Race and the Evolution of Skin Color answers those questions by combining anthropology, paleontology and human genetics to show how that all humans, no matter what race, nationality or ethnicity you claim to be, share a common ancestor with a small population that lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. This documentary is scheduled to be released in March of 2016.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


To claim that races do not exist because we all come from a similar origin is like saying there is no difference between men and women because both came from the womb of a woman and started out as fetuses.

One's origins may INFLUENCE a similar state of being between progeny but doesn't mean the progeny remains the same.

We may all be of one human SPECIES but the fact is just like most house cats are of the same species but of different breeds...humans are of the same species but of different breeds (races).

Now look at these pictures:

Alek_Wek.jpg

 

th?id=OIP.M4b0b9d3791d6c77d96a1ec372154f

 

 

news-woman-grassy-background_1.JPG?itok=

 


Are any of you willing....BRAVE ENOUGH...to tell me that the differences between these women are just a fabrication or some  "social construct"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1, Absolutely. 

Breeds, by definition come from, artificial selection.  There are no "breeds" of humans, any more than there are "races" of humans.

Sure all three people pictured here have different phenotypes, but generically they are virtually identical.  So much so that there may be more genetic similarities between two people of different "races" than there are of two people of the same race.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

Sure all three people pictured here have different phenotypes, but generically they are virtually identical. So much so that there may be more genetic similarities between two people of different "races" than there are of two people of the same race.


The reason why people of seemingly "different races" may have more features in common than many of those of the same race is probably because they AREN'T of a different race.  They are mostly likely of the SAME race....or almost.  But because they come from different cultures they may have been CLASSIFIED as being of different races.

The definitions of what constitutes a particular RACE or ethnicity is very fluid and tends to change from time to time and from region to region.

Take these two world famous performers Beyonce and the singer Shakira:

Beyonce-performs-on-her-M-010.jpg

 


Shakira-4.jpg

They not only look to be of the same race, they almost look the same...lol....to me.
Yet they are said to be of two separate "races", Black and Caucasian respectively.

However when we understand that Beyonce is not fully Black and like most AfroAmericans surely has a large if not dominant amount of Caucasian ancestry, she may technically be MORE CAUCASIAN than Black.


Then it begins to makes sense.
It's not the fact that races simply don't exist.
It's that most people around the world are CONFUSED about the definition of race and what consitutes a person being of a particular race, and because of that confusion they simply abandon the entire idea.

But scientist KNOW that racial differences do exist.
They know some groups of people are more likely to be lactose intolerant, others are more likely to suffer from alcoholism, and yet others are more likely to get cystic fibrosis...all based on racial genetics.

The key to harmony is not ignoring the differnences and pretending that they don't exist, the key is to not place value on one above the other....which is what White supremacy does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that race is an artificial construct does not mean there are no differences between humans.

Pioneer would you provide a definition of the word "race."  I ask because you are using it as if it you are quite clear what it means. If would help if I knew what definition you are working from and were you pulled it from--Thanks

It is difficult to judge what Beyonce looks like, given the makeup and fake hair.  But now that you juxtapose the two images. It seems like they were shooting for the "Shakira look" for Bey.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

The fact that race is an artificial construct does not mean there are no differences between humans.

Lol.....
And I may also add that the fact that something is an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist.  Right now I'm sitting infront of a bowl of ARTIFICIAL fruit on my coffee table.  And it's just as "real" as the real thing.....if you know what I mean.

 
 

Pioneer would you provide a definition of the word "race." I ask because you are using it as if it you are quite clear what it means. If would help if I knew what definition you are working from and were you pulled it from--Thanks

I'm using the Oxford on-line dictionary's definition of the word: RACE

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/race#nav2


There are several definitions available, but I'm using the word in reference to THIS definition:
"Each of the major divisions of humankind
, having distinct physical characteristics"



 

It is difficult to judge what Beyonce looks like, given the makeup and fake hair. But now that you juxtapose the two images. It seems like they were shooting for the "Shakira look" for Bey.

It's for this reason why I didn't feel too much "spirit" in her Super Bowl performance in recognition of the Black Panthers.
I mean...it's good and brave to make a political statement.  But when you KEEP your hair dyed blonde (it's not just an occassional thing, she stays blonde) you're sending an even deeper message to young Black girls that is stronger than any choreographed leather and lace show you may have performed for a ball game.

To see a some blonde woman dancing and slinging her hair around in the middle of a crowd of leathered up Black Panther-ettes (notice no men were in the group) is just the type of cream in the coffee that weakens it's effect and makes it almost a mockery of the real movement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semantics do figure into this debate. A word is just a word; an uttered sound and an arrangement of letters. To put things in perspective, this is a question that should be asked.  Which came first?  The definition of race or the external physical variations that exist among human tribes?  Human diversity  came first  and the word "race" was used to verify this.  

In time it was decided that the term "race" should be discarded.  But this didn't change the reality that groups could be distinguished from each by the way their members look.  Saying that race doesn't exist proves nothing except that this word has lost its meaning. Scientists can't erase reality, they can just speak or write words, and who is to say that what they express, carries more weight  than what the eyes see?

There are extreme obvious differences in appearance among homo sapiens but, when applying their standards, scientists arbitrarily dismiss such differences as superficial. Other people  "think outside the box".  Laymen look at a diminutive, slant-eyed Japanese man, a husky, blond, blue-eyed Swede, and a tall, slender,  dark-skinned, Afro-wearing NBA hoopster and the words that come to their mind are: fuck science. Seeing is believing.  It is what it is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As race as race is concerned I would have no problem with it if people did not insist on attributing more to it that simple physical characteristics.  Which is already a slippery slope since the "mongrel mixing of the races" created all these hybrids that defy objective racial categorization.

No wonder racists fought so hard to prevent "mixed marriages."  Too bad they could not stop themselves from raping Black women.

Pioneer, man you articulated something about Beyonce's show that I thought from the minute I saw her during the Superbowl that I have not heard anyone else say.  That big Blonde wig leading the black haired sisters kinda bugged me.  The positioning was such that she was the leader because she was the fairest, and had that blond wig.  She was what the other aspired too, she was unique from the rest, even better.

It did not initially occur to me that they represented Black Panthers because all of the imagery of the sisters in the Black Panther That I ever saw, never looked like Beyonce and her crew. I see now the sisters were wearing beret, though it is curious Beyonce did not wear one.

beyimages.jpg.a9e2e4cfba1263a223119a73bb

black-21.jpg.3d2650b4a7a4511d5324901a00a


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say they are all Black, except the Indian woman from The Office.  Using the "one drop rule," which is not universally applied in the U.S. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah race is a very sloppy term and it is true Sara phenotype is insufficient to define who is in which group, despite what I think of what the Oxford dictionary says.

I remember my little sister explaining to my mother that she was white white and that I was Black.  At the time I was about 7 or 8 and I remember thinking I never considered that, but my little sister who was about 4 or 5 years old at the time, had a point, and I awaited my mother's response.  I don't recall what my mom said in response, and I don't recall feeling hurt, but I do remember feeling different from them.

Over 30 years later I heard my youngest daughters was crying in (Kindergarten or 1st grade), because a little white girl in her class asked if she was adopted.  My daughter is my complexion, and my wife who picked her up that day is lighter.

Our course young children don't come by these ideas naturally. We live in a color conscious society and it leads to all kinds of problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

Right,
Seeing the blonde hair whipping around with all the darker girls behind dancing kind of made mockery of the entire movement and sent subtle messages of White leadership even in a Black movement.

And I also take issue with her Formation video because too may clips were flashed by with very little or no context behind them.
Much of her audience had no idea what it means to see a woman on top of a car with flood waters all around and how it related to Katrina, nor do they have any idea of what message some guy in shades and a bowtie holding a paper is trying to convey besides showing MLK's picture. 
How many people outside of the 'hood have seen the brothers selling beanpies and Final Calls to even know what that scene means???

When you take into account that most of her audience is under 25 AND it's a world wide audience with limited access to the 24 hour news cycles that we in America are priviledged to get.......
She's flashing all of these images to an audience who are either too young AND/OR too uneducated about the stories behind these images to firmly grasp whatever message she's trying to send.

But it's not just her.
It's the same with MOST of these entertainers who try to make political statements that either miss the mark or go right over the head of the audience.
I blame it on the fact that most entertainers...being artists...tend to be more RIGHT-brained and because of this may not know how to communicate a serious message as effectively as a politician or political activist might.




Sara

Actually, as much as I use the terms "Black" and "White" for race, I actually PREFER using the terms "African" and "Caucasian" because i see them as more accurate.
Now for the pictures you displayed and the question you asked.......

With one exception, ALL of those pictured above appear to be, and indeed ARE Caucasians by race. It doesn't matter what their "ancestry" is.... THEY/THEMSELVES are for all intents and purposes WHITE.


The only exception is Mindy Kaling, who is an East Indian of Dravidian ancestry.

The only reason her and East Indians are classified as White/Caucasian is because of the Aryans who invaded Northern India centuries ago and now predominate in that area. They infact ARE Caucasians, but most of the people of India....especially those in the South are members of the indigenous population that dwelt in that region before the Aryan invasion and those people were as Black as any African but had different hair and facial features.

I know under the U.S. racial system Indians are considered White.
And so are Arabs...even the Black ones from Sudan.
And some are pushing for certain Asians to be called White.

Who cares?

I could care less about some man-made "classification system" that is ever changing based on the whims and desires of those incharge with the purpose of manipulating the public and keeping them in a constant state of confusion. God blessed me with eyes and a brain to decide for myself how to interpret what I see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Maya is neither a Black woman NOR a White woman but a bi-racial woman with predominantly WHITE features from her White father Richard Rudolph:

903236a92f00450882a40b28fa43b789.jpg


And let's not forget.
Minnie was an AfroAmerican, descendant of slaves which means she probably wasn't 100% African herself and probably had White ancestry too making her slightly mixed.

Which would explain why Maya's White genes predominate and make her look almost White.

 

 

 

my mind wins out - no matter her "phenotype," Maya is NOT white

But racial classification IS BASED on phenotype, not just genes.



Determining the race of another is not always simple, or accurate. Sometimes you have to "ask" the person 'what race are you'? In apartheid South Africa, Minnie would be of the black "race" and Maya would be of the Colored "race." In Brazil, mother and daughter would be of different races, as well. The one drop rule is alive and well in America, so they are both black. The white Powers That Be decide what race ALL of us are, thus it is as Troy said: Race is a man-made construct.


Race is nor more "man made" than a person's sex.

Just as the difference between MALES and FEMALES exist as a matter of fact regardless as to what mistakes have been made in their classification....the differences between RACES have existed as a matter of fact.  They are visually self evident and need very little interpretation.


White people don't decide race a person is.
They have just historically decided upon which system would be used to classify them.


Again, I don't support the "one drop" nonsense.  It has little influence over the decisions I make regarding  a person's race.
I use the eyes and brain God gave me to make those decisions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And therein lies one of the major problems with "Race."  When one person looks at Maya they see a white woman, another sees a Black woman, and Maya can see herself as something else entirely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therein also lies is the problem with phenotypes; they do not clarify things, they only muddle them. Even the definition of this word is convoluted and ambiguous..

At this point it might also be pertinent to remind that for centuries, the "either/or" dilemma was resolved by simplying referring to bi-racial people as MULATTOS!  This is a label that was routinely used on CENSUS forms.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mulattos is a sloppy term too.  In fact the census reflects this sloppiness..  My grandmother was listed on three different censuses, over a 30 year period as Negro, Black, and Mulatto.  All based upon the whim of the enumerator.  What was she? 

grandmajpg.jpg.27d2d3482ea838b4b14e6b50c

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sara

Race IS actually in part based on phenotype

Webster: Race def. 3-c....

a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits


Webster: Phenotype def.....

the observable properties of an organism


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race


Phenotype is basically a person's physical characteristics and that's what race is primarily based on.
Again, it doesn't matter what we've been TAUGHT to believe in America regarding genetics, your race is primarily how you LOOK.



 

 

 


Troy

And therein lies one of the major problems with "Race." When one person looks at Maya they see a white woman, another sees a Black woman, and Maya can see herself as something else entirely.

I personally see her as mixed race but if she decided to call herself Caucasian I wouldn't argue with her about it.
Go downtown or right on over to Jersey and you'll find a thousand Italian women who look JUST LIKE Maya with probably just as much Black ancestry....yet they'll be classified as White.


 

 


Cynique

At this point it might also be pertinent to remind that for centuries, the "either/or" dilemma was resolved by simplying referring to bi-racial people as MULATTOS! This is a label that was routinely used on CENSUS forms.

I personally don't have a problem with the term "Mulatto".
It's accurate.
More accurate than just calling everybody "Black" when they obviously aren't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Troy said:

Mulattos is a sloppy term too.  In fact the census reflects this sloppiness..  My grandmother was listed on three different censuses, over a 30 year period as Negro, Black, and Mulatto.  All based upon the whim of the enumerator.  What was she? 

If she was of mixed racial heritage, she was a mulatto.  Just because the enumeratior was sloppy doesn't change her racial make-up.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sara


Joy Behar has "kinky" hair because despite her last named from being married to a Jewish man, she's actually of ITALIAN background.

And most Italians in the United States are descended from Southern Italians who themselves have a lot of African and Arab ancestry.
This is why so many have darker skin, kinky hair, big noses, and other features that may be considered "non-White".

But still, her Caucasian features predominate.

Joy is a WHITE WOMAN....nappy hair and all, lol.




 

Which is why 85% of African-Americans are bi- and some of us, tri-racial. I would urge you to think about it this way -- mulattoes are always talking about they shouldn't have to "choose" one racial designation over another, that they shouldn't be asked to "deny" their mothers (usually). And yet, and yet, by appropriating the term bi-racial for themselves, they deny 85% of all African-Americans of THEIR "mixed" heritage!

You make a great point.
Especially acknowledging that most AfroAmericans have Native American ancestry.
But I've addressed it several times already.

This is where OPINION comes in,  and my OPINION is if your Black ancestry predominates then you can be considered Black despite your background.  It's the same for if your White ancestry predominates, you can call yourself White.

We have to draw the line somewhere.


I mean, if we are willing to go as far as to call ALL Black people with any White/Native Ancestry as non-Black, then we may as well go just as far the other way and grab ALL Italians, French, Greeks, Spaniards, Macedonians, and many other Europeans and stamp the label "non White" on their foreheads like Ash Wednesday as well for the Black and Arab ancestry most of them have.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I've mentioned before that because most AfroAmericans have White and Native American ancestry, even when we produce children with Whites the offspring still aren't exactly half because we aren't fully Black ourselves.

Which is one of the reason a racially mixed WEB Dubois whom America called "Black" still came out looking more White than Black.

Him and Vladimir Lenin look like they could be brothers...lol

vladimir-lenin_9-t.jpg    DuBois.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...