Skip to main content

I wasn't sure whether this should go here or the health forum. I'll happily move it if you all feel it belongs elsewhere.

A couple in England, both of who have white mothers and Black fathers, had a set of fraternal twin girls. They were in for a surprise, though, when one of the twins came out looking very much like her mixed-race parents, but her sister was fair skinned, blonde, and blue-eyed. Kinda kill the whole white supremacist notion that racial mixing will completely obliterate them (that, and the fact that more than 95% of pairing are monoracial anyways). What do you guys think? Have any of you ever seen anything similar? I remember a few years ago reading about a Black women (who didn't look mixed) and her red-haired British husband having one mxed looking baby, and one blonde, extremely white looking baby. I sometimes wonder how those children chose to identify.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...n_a_source=&ito=1490
quote:
Skin colour is believed to be determined by up to seven different genes working together.

If a woman is of mixed race, her eggs will usually contain a mixture of genes coding for both black and white skin.

Similarly, a man of mixed race will have a variety of different genes in his sperm. When these eggs and sperm come together, they will create a baby of mixed race.

But, very occasionally, the egg or sperm might contain genes coding for one skin colour. If both the egg and sperm contain all white genes, the baby will be white. And if both contain just the versions necessary for black skin, the baby will be black.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Why is that so surprising? You know how biologically diverse most African-Americans are, and probably British Blacks/Africans too (to a lesser extent).

The concept of "race" is a Eurocentric, 18th century invention. Technically, there is only one race: Humans. Different "races" like Blacks and Whites are Varities, not "Races". Biologically speaking, a Black man is more genetically similar to a White man than he is a Black woman. There is more genetic difference between genders than races.


On a personal note, my family is full of "mulattos". A few of my ancestors were Scotch-Irish, and I also have some Native and Thai in my background. Several relatives on my mother's side of the family have red hair, freckles and green, blue or gray eyes. Several relatives on my father's side of the family have Native American features. Both of my parents are brown-skinned, yet my older sister is brown-skinned while I turned out very light-skinned. Two of my cousins have dark-skinned parents, yet came out looking Biracial, having naturally straight-wavy red hair and gray eyes. Another of my uncles is light-skinned, and so is his wife, and all three of his kids are dark-skinned.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
I can't believe that people in this country still use the term mulatto. Its probably just a matter of time before someone starts talking about half-breeds, quadroons, or octoroons. Roll Eyes


I know, ain't it something?

Well, it's still widely used in South America, but it doesn't carry the same deragatory weight it does here (in Europe, it also carries more of a neutral meaning).
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
I can't believe that people in this country still use the term mulatto. Its probably just a matter of time before someone starts talking about half-breeds, quadroons, or octoroons. Roll Eyes

People still use all of these terms in many places around the country, though never to my face unless they're trying to get reaquainted with the sidewalk. If memory serves me correctly, the original meaning of the word mulatto was mule. One of the many reasons why I don't use it. For myself, I prefer bi-racial or mixed. Or, for the less discriminating, Black will suffice.
quote:
Why is that so surprising? You know how biologically diverse most African-Americans are, and probably British Blacks/Africans too (to a lesser extent).


It's not surprising so much as interesting. Part of the reason I posted this was to show the limitations of our modern concept of "race". Also, I've always wondered how such people chose to define themselves within our current construct of race when they have features that are drastically different from what society dictates their race should display. It reminded me of an earlier thread on passing, and I was curious as to a when mixed race person stops being "Black" and starts being "another race". Also, you say it's all Black, but how does one define Blackness and whiteness? No doubt society will view the darker twin as "Black" or perhaps "mixed race" in the UK, but what about her sister? They are full siblings, so does this mean racial designation is a primary function of appearance, or genes, and on and on.I think this situation is a good talking point for that.

At any rate, I suppose my main reason was because I've always been fascinated by the diversity between and within human populations. As for the term mullato, what would you suggest instead? Black? Negro? I suppose "mixed race" or "multiethnic" could suffice, but it was my understanding that "mulatto" was a term meant to signify specifically an equal admixture of white and Black. Am I missing something?

quote:
The concept of "race" is a Eurocentric, 18th century invention. Technically, there is only one race: Humans. Different "races" like Blacks and Whites are Varities, not "Races".

And yet we still have africanamerica.org, geared towards a Black American population to discus things of relevance to their race. Biologically speaking, there is no true threshold between a "variety", "race" and "subspecies"; however, modern biology and anthropology affords humans the dignity of "race". I agree that much of our ideas about race do stem from a Eurocentric time period, but how can we dismiss these categorization and embrace them at the same time? off My whole college career I've heard the mantra "race is a social construct". While this is true to up to a point, it totally disregards the fact that to a certain extent "race" is biologial fact, in that seperate human populations are genetically distinct.

Part of the reason I posted this was to show how insufficent the categories can sometimes be. If you guys really don't like this post, I can remove it.
WHEN I READ THIS TOPIC, I STARTING THINKING ABOUT A HISTORY CHANNEL SPECIAL ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON DESCENDANTS. EVEN THOUGH MOST OF THEM WERE BLACK BUT LOOKED WHITE, SOME OF THEM WANTED TO BE KNOWN AS WHITE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF BLACK, AND SOME OF THEM THAT LOOKED WHITE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR HERITAGE BY HAVING THEIR RECORDS SHOW THEY WERE BLACK.IT IS ALL HANDED DOWN IN THE GENES. I HAVE A COUSIN THAT LOOKS COMPLETELY WHITE, BUT HE HAS BLACK PARENTS. HE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED HIS HERITAGE, AND HAS HIS RECORDS SHOW HE IS BLACK.
UN,

Great post and great story. I read all 76 comments that people from all over the world made about this story and all of the comments were very positive. Some of the comments reported similar stories like these two:

"I am the proud grandmother of 4 wonderful children 2 boys and twin girls and yes the twins are very different, they look exactly like these girls, so not surprising to hear that my son is mixed race and so is his wife. My son is mixed race West Indian and my daughter in law is mixed race African."
- Sue, London

"I also saw this on ABC's Good Morning America. This family really brighted up my day. The whole family is beautiful and those little girls are such adorable precious angels. I too, am biracial and my sister and I are vastly different, she being blond with green eyes and me looking hispanic. I know that in African American families, the children can look very different. It's beautiful. I wish this family the best."
- Kathy, Atlanta, GA USA

Most of the other comments were like these:

"What a lovely story! The girls are gorgeous and they show the diversity of the human race."
- Rebecca, Brussels, Belgium

"If nature can demonstrate that black and white and mixed race can live in harmony, who are we to argue?"
- Ria Gallagher, Preston, Lancs

"Congratulations on your beautiful twins, know that they will love one another in everything and have a very precious bond and a beautiful life and heritage waiting on them - God bless you and your family."
- Dawn Scheepers, Peterborough, On, Canada

"The twins are beautiful. They appear to be healthy. Their parents love them very much. What else needs to be said?"
- Sandi, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

"Gorgeous girls, these parents are so lucky to have them. Would love to see how they develop and wish them both the very best."
- Dan, USA

"They are both so adorable. What a blessing."
- Jae, CA,USA

"Your children are beautiful and may God bless you all. That is so wonderful. I hope the best for them."
- Sarina, Philadelphia

"WOW is all I can say ~ they are both BEAUTIFUL! GOD bless them!"
- Arlene, New York, USA

"They are soooo cute. I wish I had them. I would just kiss them all day!"
- Shelly, USA

"I just love this picture of one of the most beautiful families I have ever seen in my half century. Just like in cooking, the better you mix the batter, the better the results. BEAUTIFUL!"
- Sandy, Templeton, MA

"Nothing but God can do such a beautiful thing. Your daughters are just beautiful, God Bless you all."
- Pauline Marshall, Philadelphia

"Ebony and Ivory... how beautiful."
- Mari, USA

"This is brilliant news, it's better than all the doom and gloom we read daily! "
- Ray, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:

...that to a certain extent "race" is biologial fact, in that seperate human populations are genetically distinct.


The results of the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003 and the HapMap project seem to contradict this statement. Some excerpts:

By the Numbers:

  • The human genome contains 3164.7 million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G).
  • The average gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
  • The total number of genes is estimated at 30,000 "”much lower than previous estimates of 80,000 to 140,000 that had been based on extrapolations from gene-rich areas as opposed to a composite of gene-rich and gene-poor areas.
  • Almost all (99.9%) nucleotide bases are exactly the same in all people.
  • The functions are unknown for over 50% of discovered genes.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml


"Finally, the results of the [HapMap] Project could be misinterpreted to imply that constructs such as "race" are precise and highly meaningful biological categories. In fact, the information emerging from the Project is helping to demonstrate that common ideas about race emerge largely from social and cultural interactions and are only loosely connected to biological ancestry."

http://www.hapmap.org/ethicalconcerns.html


"We all have a common birthplace somewhere in Africa, and this common origin is the reason why we share most of our genetic information. Our common history also explains why contemporary African populations have more genetic variation than younger human populations that migrated out of Africa 100,000 years ago to populate other parts of the world, carrying with them a subset of the existing genetic information.

Given this shared history, why do we interpret human genetic variation data as though our differences rise to the level of subspecies? Two facts are relevant: as a result of different evolutionary forces, including natural selection, there are geographical patterns of genetic variations that correspond, for the most part, to continental origin; and observed patterns of geographical differences in genetic information do not correspond to our notion of social identities, including 'race' and 'ethnicity'.

In this regard, no matter what categorical framework is applied, we cannot consistently use genetics to define racial groups without classifying some human populations as exceptions. Our evolutionary history is a continuous process of combining the new with the old, and the end result is a mosaic that is modified with each birth and death. This is why the process of using genetics to define 'race' is like slicing soup: "You can cut wherever you want, but the soup stays mixed".

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1439.html


"The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races."

"But if we are all one race, which race are we? One answer is the cute one that we are the "human race". But buckle your seat belts folks, because the genetic answer is that we are all really black. And white people are pale adaptations of black people that evolved during the past 140,000 years. "

A Paler Shade of Black, Linda Beckerman, Ph, D.
http://www.geocities.com/beckermanlin/palerblack.html
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
UN,

Most of the other comments were like these:

"What a lovely story! The girls are gorgeous and they show the diversity of the human race."
- Rebecca, Brussels, Belgium

"If nature can demonstrate that black and white and mixed race can live in harmony, who are we to argue?"
- Ria Gallagher, Preston, Lancs

"Congratulations on your beautiful twins, know that they will love one another in everything and have a very precious bond and a beautiful life and heritage waiting on them - God bless you and your family."
- Dawn Scheepers, Peterborough, On, Canada

"The twins are beautiful. They appear to be healthy. Their parents love them very much. What else needs to be said?"
- Sandi, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

"Gorgeous girls, these parents are so lucky to have them. Would love to see how they develop and wish them both the very best."
- Dan, USA

"They are both so adorable. What a blessing."
- Jae, CA,USA

"Your children are beautiful and may God bless you all. That is so wonderful. I hope the best for them."
- Sarina, Philadelphia

"WOW is all I can say ~ they are both BEAUTIFUL! GOD bless them!"
- Arlene, New York, USA

"They are soooo cute. I wish I had them. I would just kiss them all day!"
- Shelly, USA

"I just love this picture of one of the most beautiful families I have ever seen in my half century. Just like in cooking, the better you mix the batter, the better the results. BEAUTIFUL!"
- Sandy, Templeton, MA

"Nothing but God can do such a beautiful thing. Your daughters are just beautiful, God Bless you all."
- Pauline Marshall, Philadelphia

"Ebony and Ivory... how beautiful."
- Mari, USA

"This is brilliant news, it's better than all the doom and gloom we read daily! "
- Ray, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear


Roll Eyes

I feel what you're saying, Pace Tua.
quote:
Originally posted by Pace Tua:
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:

...that to a certain extent "race" is biologial fact, in that seperate human populations are genetically distinct.


The results of the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003 and the HapMap project seem to contradict this statement. Some excerpts:

By the Numbers:

  • The human genome contains 3164.7 million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G).
  • The average gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
  • The total number of genes is estimated at 30,000 "”much lower than previous estimates of 80,000 to 140,000 that had been based on extrapolations from gene-rich areas as opposed to a composite of gene-rich and gene-poor areas.
  • Almost all (99.9%) nucleotide bases are exactly the same in all people.
  • The functions are unknown for over 50% of discovered genes.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml


"Finally, the results of the [HapMap] Project could be misinterpreted to imply that constructs such as "race" are precise and highly meaningful biological categories. In fact, the information emerging from the Project is helping to demonstrate that common ideas about race emerge largely from social and cultural interactions and are only loosely connected to biological ancestry."

http://www.hapmap.org/ethicalconcerns.html


"We all have a common birthplace somewhere in Africa, and this common origin is the reason why we share most of our genetic information. Our common history also explains why contemporary African populations have more genetic variation than younger human populations that migrated out of Africa 100,000 years ago to populate other parts of the world, carrying with them a subset of the existing genetic information.

Given this shared history, why do we interpret human genetic variation data as though our differences rise to the level of subspecies? Two facts are relevant: as a result of different evolutionary forces, including natural selection, there are geographical patterns of genetic variations that correspond, for the most part, to continental origin; and observed patterns of geographical differences in genetic information do not correspond to our notion of social identities, including 'race' and 'ethnicity'.

In this regard, no matter what categorical framework is applied, we cannot consistently use genetics to define racial groups without classifying some human populations as exceptions. Our evolutionary history is a continuous process of combining the new with the old, and the end result is a mosaic that is modified with each birth and death. This is why the process of using genetics to define 'race' is like slicing soup: "You can cut wherever you want, but the soup stays mixed".

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1439.html


"The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races."

"But if we are all one race, which race are we? One answer is the cute one that we are the "human race". But buckle your seat belts folks, because the genetic answer is that we are all really black. And white people are pale adaptations of black people that evolved during the past 140,000 years. "

A Paler Shade of Black, Linda Beckerman, Ph, D.
http://www.geocities.com/beckermanlin/palerblack.html

tfroGreat information!
quote:
Originally posted by donna529:
WHEN I READ THIS TOPIC, I STARTING THINKING ABOUT A HISTORY CHANNEL SPECIAL ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON DESCENDANTS.

I didn't see that show Donna, but I've known that about Thomas Jefferson for a long time. Jefferson had more than 20 children who were his slaves. off It always made me wonder how many of us might be able to trace our ancestry back to Thomas Jefferson.
There black man and woman are the original inhabitants of this planets all others come from them. Black people have a brown and a black gene, which allows them to produces badies 65% whiter than europeans (albinos) and as dark as night.The true test of the difference or variations in these subgroups of people is the amount of melenin they have. There are two types epidermal and cerebrial
quote:
Almost all (99.9%) nucleotide bases are exactly the same in all people.


Of course they are....we're all human! The human nucleotide bases are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). It's not the base pairs responsible for distinct populations, however, but the sequence of the base pairs. I'm not sure how versed you are in population genetics, so this is widly simplified: DNA conatians our genes. DNA is composed of, in part, these four base pairs. The genes depend on the sequence of the base pairs, which actually code for proteins. If we were to pick an arbitrary gene, the basic protein would fundamentally be the same, but variations in the protein would difference. So for the gooblyglock gene, which has the basic structure ATGCATGCATGC----ATCGATCG
the blank area can be any combination of base pairs. Different combination of base pairs would then make different versions of the genes, called an allele. Some populations have alleles which are endemic to themselves in a much higher frequency than found in other populations, whichwhen taken into account with the frequency of their other alleles gives them a set of traits elatively distinct within their group, although individually these traits may be found in others. The easiest example I can think of is blue eyes in Northern Europeans. While some other populations may exhibit blue eyes on occassion(such as Australian aborigines and the Nigerian Igbo), the chances of this are very small, and the overwhelming majority of these populations never will. Of course, injury, disease, and congenital deformities may also produce blue eyed individuals, but in these cases blue eyes are an abnormality and not a set heritable characteristic. With the above rarities, blue eyes are almost only found in the "Caucasian" category, and then more than likely in the subgroup known as Northern Europeans whites. In some countries such as Finalnd, fully 90% of the population is naturally blue eyes. The frequency of blue eyes in Europe are highest in Scandinavia and the Baltic area, and decreases the further south you go (Spain, Portugal).

Now all populations who have lived in contact with one another and actively interbred will over time start to exhibt characteristics which have a high (or low) frequency within their group. There of course will be overlap with other groups, but when all traits are taken together, they are genetically distinct from other populations. Of course, the smaller the and more isolated the groups bein compared, the more distinct they will be. Does that make any sense?
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
There black man and woman are the original inhabitants of this planets all others come from them. Black people have a brown and a black gene, which allows them to produces badies 65% whiter than europeans (albinos) and as dark as night.The true test of the difference or variations in these subgroups of people is the amount of melenin they have. There are two types epidermal and cerebrial
bs
quote:
Originally posted by Dizzy_Daniella:
Yea this sort of thing dosent happen alot i read about a black couple having a white baby, and all that was said was that it ever happening was a million two one.


It's a million to one that two fraternal twins will come out this way, but the chance for this situation to happen with just one child is more like 1 in a 100 (1%).
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
There black man and woman are the original inhabitants of this planets all others come from them. Black people have a brown and a black gene, which allows them to produces badies 65% whiter than europeans (albinos) and as dark as night.The true test of the difference or variations in these subgroups of people is the amount of melenin they have. There are two types epidermal and cerebrial


Confused Confused Confused

Zakar, are you a member of the Nation of Islam?
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
quote:
Almost all (99.9%) nucleotide bases are exactly the same in all people.


Of course they are....we're all human! The human nucleotide bases are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). It's not the base pairs responsible for distinct populations, however, but the sequence of the base pairs.


I'm certain that the 99.9% figure comes from base sequences. If it was just a question of the nucleotide bases themselves, the figure would be 100%, since all life on earth use the same 4 nucleotides in their DNA. (Actually, I think that some viruses have DNA with Uracil replacing Thymine, if I recall correctly.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, the way I understand the word is that it insinuates that people are of separate species; for when a horse and donkey mate the result is a mule, a sterile hybrid that can't reproduce. It was believed that when blacks and white procreated, the result--a mulatto child--would not be able to reproduce, and thus this new breed would die off.

So yeah, I don't see why using the word is a good thing either.


btw, there's a "molecular anthropology and genetics" forum over at onedroprule.org and a thread devoted to "Black Parents with White Kids."
This topic should really be on the Health discussion board. White children being born to brown parents, like the parents in this story, happens in Central/South America and they don't report it in their local press.
This goes to show how color struck the British remain in the 21st century. *groan*
Again why is this thread being discussed in the Issues and Politcs discussion board? Please someone give an explanation other than "I didn't know where to put this topic?"
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
I wasn't sure whether this should go here or the health forum. I'll happily move it if you all feel it belongs elsewhere.

A couple in England, both of who have white mothers and Black fathers, had a set of fraternal twin girls. They were in for a surprise, though, when one of the twins came out looking very much like her mixed-race parents, but her sister was fair skinned, blonde, and blue-eyed. Kinda kill the whole white supremacist notion that racial mixing will completely obliterate them (that, and the fact that more than 95% of pairing are monoracial anyways). What do you guys think? Have any of you ever seen anything similar? I remember a few years ago reading about a Black women (who didn't look mixed) and her red-haired British husband having one mxed looking baby, and one blonde, extremely white looking baby. I sometimes wonder how those children chose to identify.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...n_a_source=&ito=1490
quote:
Skin colour is believed to be determined by up to seven different genes working together.

If a woman is of mixed race, her eggs will usually contain a mixture of genes coding for both black and white skin.

Similarly, a man of mixed race will have a variety of different genes in his sperm. When these eggs and sperm come together, they will create a baby of mixed race.

But, very occasionally, the egg or sperm might contain genes coding for one skin colour. If both the egg and sperm contain all white genes, the baby will be white. And if both contain just the versions necessary for black skin, the baby will be black.



Some body adopted...lol

The term mulatto does not bother me at all. I am mixed (Irish, Black and Native American) Half Breed and all those other terms are just disrespectful...shows the jealousy on the part on who is saying it.
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
Half Breed and all those other terms are just disrespectful...shows the jealousy on the part on who is saying it.


I can certainly see how it could be taken as disrespectful..... but how do you derive that a disrespectful sentiment must culminate from a jealous heart?


Salaam....


What do you mean? Are you telling us you didn't know that everyone wants to be light skinned and curley haired...

bang Mad
What do you mean? Are you telling us you didn't know that everyone wants to be light skinned and curley haired...---Oshun Auset

Occasionally, you 'plain speaking' gives me pause.

This one did.

But...I think...I get your point.

It is something 'we' are dealing with all the time.

We have been conditioned to believe our 'blackness' is a negative.

That is...largely...what 'blackness' is all about..in the America.

It is several layers in the foundation-wall of Ameirca's color-construction.

Color, i.e. 'blackness'...is currently the largest obtacle to our exercising our authority to declare an identity that in sync with the ethnological construction of the societies of the world.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by zodo:
Those siblings will remain under analysis for probably the rest of their lives.

Sociologists will examine what impact siblings of different color will face when the reach their adolescent and adult years, employment, career, marriage and anything else that falls under the human kaleidoscope.


Maybe if one looked mixed race and the other looked more of an African decent their life experiences may be remarkable. But I don't see these two children having that much of a different existence.
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_Mahogany:
quote:
Originally posted by zodo:
Those siblings will remain under analysis for probably the rest of their lives.

Sociologists will examine what impact siblings of different color will face when the reach their adolescent and adult years, employment, career, marriage and anything else that falls under the human kaleidoscope.


Maybe if one looked mixed race and the other looked more of an African decent their life experiences may be remarkable. But I don't see these two children having that much of a different existence.



From the picture one child looks Black or Colored and the other white; what happens should the "white" child decide to cross over and deny her parentage?
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
What do you mean? Are you telling us you didn't know that everyone wants to be light skinned and curley haired...---Oshun Auset

Occasionally, you 'plain speaking' gives me pause.

This one did.

But...I think...I get your point.

It is something 'we' are dealing with all the time.

We have been conditioned to believe our 'blackness' is a negative.

That is...largely...what 'blackness' is all about..in the America.

It is several layers in the foundation-wall of Ameirca's color-construction.

Color, i.e. 'blackness'...is currently the largest obtacle to our exercising our authority to declare an identity that in sync with the ethnological construction of the societies of the world.


PEACE

Jim Chester


You 'got it'.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×