Comments

1. Ben wrote:

   so there’s no more truth to this stereotype than there is to any other… but can we appreciate for a minute how unambiguously positive it is? it’s not like other “positive” racial stereotypes, which usually come at the expense of some other characteristic(s) (cf. hung). we’ve finally come to a point where people accept and appreciate children of interracial relationships! stereotypes are always in some way erroneous - but how nice that this one errs on the positive side.

   the last statement, “most interracial children have a basic open-mindedness,” speaks more to the environment in which the child is raised than to his genetic makeup. it’s not phrased terribly well (one could say that all children have a basic open-mindedness… they’re children!), but i think the underlying sentiment - that children in multiracial households are less likely to subscribe to racial stereotypes - is true.

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 11:31 am ¶

2. Lyonside wrote:

   >it’s not like other “positive” racial stereotypes, which usually come at the expense of some other characteristic(s) (cf. hung).

   BUT. “Good at sports,” especially when directed at those of African and/or American Indian descent, is one of those “positive” backhanded racial stereotypes.

   One of the excuses for Indian slavery during “exploration” of the Americas was that they would be both physically stronger to tolerate it and mentally deficient enough not to mind. In many areas when disease and rebellion took their toll, Africans slaves were imported for about the same reasons.

   During American slavery, blacks were “bred” to be strong and advertised as such, supposedly to produce a better field worker. The big scary Negro image persists in our culture.

   Knowing that, I find anything that portrays an athlete as stronger, quicker, etc. because of their ETHNICITY or RACE to be very very dangerous. Can there be genetic links? Absolutely. Is it ethnically linked? No freakin’ way.

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 12:24 pm ¶

3. Give me a break!!! wrote:

   I am getting so sick and tired of people who are either the product of a multiracial/biracial relationship or people who are in a multiracial relationship commenting on how biracial people are less racists and more “open minded” than non-mixed persons. This is a bunch of bull if you ask me. I have met and read the postings of multiracial people on other forums who obviously have an axe to grind with “monoracials” specifically “black monoracials,” whatever the hell that’s suppose to mean. I myself am of mixed backgroud, and if I am more “openminded” less racists, it has nothing to do with my ethnic background and EVERYTHING to do with my Christian upbringing. Give me a break!! People of mixed heritage can be just as racist as the next person and in general have very negative feelings towards their darker skinned parent. Read some of the postings on other mixed-raced forums and you will understand what I am saying. Sure there are some mixed raced persons who are openminded and more toleraant of ethnic difference, but people of mixed heritage do not have a monopoly on racial tolerance. They are no better and no worse that any other people.

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 1:31 pm ¶

4. Lyonside wrote:

   As proven by at least one semi-regular poster on MMW… ;)

   I agree - now, being EXPOSED to more diverse families (especially when one is your own) can be beneficial…

   But not by dint of just being diverse.

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 3:09 pm ¶

5. Lyonside wrote:

   >People of mixed heritage can be just as racist as the next person and in general have very negative feelings towards their darker skinned parent.

   OK, you used “CAN” in the first phrase (YAY!) and then said that “in general” we have very negative feelings to the minority parent (assuming that both parents are not minority and/or that by “darker” you mean African-descent?) …. um, how about a “CAN” on that too?

   Maybe the whole “Imitation of Life” thing (UGH) applied in the past (i.e. the minority parent is the one seen as “causing” discrimination and hardship for the child, so he/she gets the blame). TODAY with the high divorce and single parent rats in general, I would say that that if the child is in a single-parent home or the parents have a less than healthy relationship, then the ethnicity of the parent seen as the one more “at fault” may be the side getting the negative feelings.

   I.e., if the white parent is seen to have “walked out” on the child, the child may pick up resentment of white people versus the non-white parent. And vice-versa.

   Not to mention the sociology/ethnicity teaching that the culture/ethnicity of the primary caretaker is what is usually picked up by the child, unless the child chooses otherwise at a later age.

   Personally, I went out of my way in adolescence to remove my personal feelings towards my own father (the minority parent, in my case) from any perceptions of his ethnic group. He’s not a bad person, but he is an absentee parent and a pretty lousy spouse. He doesn’t know that he’s emulating his own father’s parental roles (or lack thereof). He’s introverted and doesn’t like to extend himself in any way. He prefers to live on his own and would rather hide away from strong emotion in other people rather than face it.

   None of that is ethnicity or race… it’s just my father’s core (if a bit unhealthy) personality.

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 3:25 pm ¶

6. Louis Farrakhan wrote:

   “Farrakhan explained that his father was very light-skinned and had straight hair, and that his mother had told him his father’s parentage was, in fact, white Portuguese. Then he said, “I’m going to tell you something. You really want to know what I think? I think they were members of the Jewish community.” This sounds like a fantastical joke, but it is highly probable, given what we know about migration to the West Indies. Orlando Patterson, a historical sociologist at Harvard, who has made a study of merchant populations in the islands, confirms that nearly all people of Iberian descent in Jamaica and Barbados, even today, are of Sephardic Jewish ancestry.”

   So folks, I’m of mixed ancestry and acutely-aware of race matters. However, that was likely due more to personal R&D than DNA…

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 3:38 pm ¶

7. Ben wrote:

   >Knowing that, I find anything that portrays an athlete as stronger, quicker, etc. because of their ETHNICITY or RACE to be very very dangerous.

   it seems to me that you’re supporting my point, which means one of us doesn’t understand the other :)

   the example you describe shows that the positive characteristic - athleticism - was ascribed to blacks and indians at the expense of another characteristic - intelligence. “hybrid vigor” stereotypes of mixed people don’t seem to include those complementary downsides.

   (disclaimer: i haven’t listened to ATR 13 yet.)

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 4:09 pm ¶

8. Lyonside wrote:

   Ben: my beef is that you were trying to see the sunny side, for which I really do commend you…

   But even the positives in the article, well, suck. Some white people can jump. Some minorities stink at athletics. “Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.”

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 4:20 pm ¶

9. Kaonashi wrote:

   Thank you so much for pointing that out, Lyonside. I see just as much animosity at White parents, so it goes both ways. Like all families, the most well-adjusted seem to be from familes where both parents are there, or in case of divorce both parents are actively involved in the child’s life.

   I have to give “give me a break” some points too, but from what I’ve seen, some so called “Black monoracials” have gone to biracial sites for the express purpose of stirring shit up, telling biracial people that they are ashamed of their heritage because they don’t want to be seen as “only black” namecalling, etc. I’ve also seen this in the sites where the racial mixture is Euroasian as well, so I’m not going to call out just the Black community on this, but you cannot deny that there are some groups out there that vent a lot of nastiness and hate on the biracial community as a whole. saying that if you are (X) mix you’re supposed to be stuck up, not want to associate yourself with Group (A, B, hell, pick one), ONLY interested in dating or marrying White partners, think they are White (an oldie but goodie that’s constantly bandied about) etc, yet out of the sides of their mouths are quick to tell biracials that they aren’t “Black enough” “Asian enough” “White enough” or “Latino enough” for them. And then they wonder why some biracials want a separate identity. Sheesh. People should be free to self-define themselves however way they want without getting grief from idiots about it.

   Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 4:30 pm ¶

10. Jon Entine wrote:

    “hybrid vigor” stereotypes of mixed people don’t seem to include those complementary downsides.

    I disagree. Hybrid vigor is actually more a “jack of all trades but master of none” syndrome. In other words, a more multipurpose mix of both positive and negative stereotypes of both races - but to lesser degrees.

    I mean, Michael Jordan was a fairly dark Black and is it just coincidence that superstars Vince Carter and T-Mac…are also cousins? Is that West African genetics (for fast-twitch muscles, etc) at play here?

    ‘But based on the data, it is ‘in your genes’ whether or not you are talented, or whether you will become talented. The extent of the environment can always be discussed but it’s less than 20-25%.’

    West African ancestral populations represent about 8% of the world’s population, 12% in the US, and a mere 2% in Britain - but are vastly over-represented, especially when social and cultural factors are taken into account. Twenty-five per cent of England’s Premiership footballers, 84% of American basketball players, 70% of US footballers, and 40% of baseball players are blacks of West African ancestry. The figures in sprinting are even more overwhelming: in the 100m, the purest test of speed, blacks of West African ancestry hold the top 220 times and 494 of the top 500 times. Yet, while runners of West African descent win upwards of 95% of the elite races (not all of course - human variation and individual drive ensure there are no guarantees in sports), there is not a single elite distance runner from West Africa.
    http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0657.htm

    “Blacks who trace their ancestry to West Africa, including African Americans, hold more than 95 percent of the top times in sprinting

    The West Africans, by a ratio of approximately two to one, had more of the larger fast-twitch fibers.

    estimated that 40 percent is due to environmental influences such as exercise, whereas 45 percent is associated with genetic factors (the remaining 15 percent is due to sampling error)”
    http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php

    Perhaps J&C should interview Jon Entine, author of “Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It” next?

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 4:47 pm ¶

11. Ben wrote:

    jon, that doesn’t address the other two “hybrid vigor” stereotypes - that biracial people are smarter and more beautiful, on average, than their monoracial counterparts. what’s the downside there?

    i thank you for your sources, but i’m not convinced that we disagree.

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 5:31 pm ¶

12. Give me a break wrote:

    Oh yes, I understand that divorce can influence a child’s feelings towards their absent parent, but I was speaking in terms of situations where a child dislikes their parent for racial reasons. I have a cousin who is mixed with black(father) and mexican(mother). When we were teenagers attending a family reunion, she refused to speak to a cousin of ours because she (the cousin) was black. She spoke to me, but absolutley ignored our cousin who was visiting Chicago for the first time. It was absoluetly embarassing and disgraceful. My mixed cousin makes very negative statements about black people (whihc is why I no longer associate with her) and only dates white men. She’s not even interested in mexicans. When she was little and she would accompany her father (black) on errands, she would sit low in her seat in the back so that no one could see her. Guess she didn’t want anyone to know she was half blck, even though it was obvious she was mixed. She also has a younger sister who is very fair skinned and refuses to sit in the sun and also refuses to speak to the our black family members.

    Yes I understand that some biracial children go the other way and develop very hostile feelings towards their white parent (if they are mixed with that) but in my experience biracial children who are the product of a black/white, black/asian, black/hispanic background tend to have an affinity for their non-black parent when their dislike for their parent is based on race not divorce/abuse/abandonment etc.

    And yes, I am aware that there are a lot of trolls out there who enter public forums just to stir up trouble, but I have vistited forums where posters have left very derogatory, racists statements about black people, their physical appearance and their intellect. Is that an indication of racial tolerance?

    And yes, I have faced hostility from some black people because of my mixed heritage, but it has never propted me to make deragetory, stereotypical, racists statements about the entire black community which some biracials have the habit of making.

    I have no problem with biracial people identifying themselves as mixed/biracial…but I have to say that I am disappointed when I hear some of the negative comments biracial people make about black people. I just wasn’t raised that way. Until I started visiting biracial sites in recent months, I never realized that there was so much tension between the biracial and black community. I thought my mixed cousins were an aberration. But I guess they’re not. I pity this world.

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 5:50 pm ¶

13. Jon Entine wrote:

    two “hybrid vigor” stereotypes - that biracial people are smarter and more beautiful, on average, than their monoracial counterparts

    Never knew those exactly were stereotypes. Ben, are you seeking to find the self-esteem you lack in your own individuality in your biracial status?

    Cuz something tells me that you actually personally feel dumber and LESS beautiful than many monoracials?

    Anyways, existing data concerning IQ tends to show that biracials tend to fall in between the IQs of their parent races - not higher than both, lol.

    And as far as beauty, the “biracial beauty myth” is probably actually a subset of the “White beauty myth,” as one parent is always typically WHITE in these hybrids, not just any other race. Human Barbie dolls are still probably the most overrepresented group in porn today - which is a leading indicator of men’s actual sexual preferences.

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 6:01 pm ¶

14. Merq wrote:

    Jon Entine Says:

    I’m sorry, but Entine’s publication has been roundly discredited by many of his peers. Let me see if I remember some of the arguments against Entine’s rhetoric.

    *The whole human race shares 94% of its genes
    *Humans & chimps have only a 2% genetic difference
    *“racial” differences (curly hair, brown skin) can be attributed to 4 genes of 30,000
    *Most importantly, many of these characteristics are more relevantly linked to *POPULATIONS* than “races.”

    Plus, when you consider populations, Kenyan runners have longer legs/greater lung capacities/slighter frames, and are better at long-distance running, while West-Africans are better suited to basketball/football/etc because of their more muscular physiques/narrower hips/less body fat.

    Thus, these two African populations are at opposite ends of the athleticism spectrum, with whites in-between. So how, then, do we believe the athleticism is a “racial” trait?

    Plus, African Americans (who supposedly, over the years, have been “diluted” by White genes) are tops in sports, while present-day West Africans are not.

    How is this possible if athletic supremacy is based in “race”?

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 7:05 pm ¶

15. Merq wrote:

    You should read Kenan Malik’s review of Entine’s “Taboo” for a fuller analysis.

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 7:06 pm ¶

16. RL_Model wrote:

    ” My mixed cousin makes very negative statements about black people (whihc is why I no longer associate with her) and only dates white men.”

    Give me a break, give me a break. There is such an absurdly PC double standard here it’s just ludicrous. The disingenuous liberalism hard-wired into that line of thinking is “How dare biracial women date white men!”, which is exactly what a bigot would say. If she only dated black guys, most of you would be praising her to the skies.

    Perhaps your cousin makes “negative” comments about black people because of her negative experiences with them, or perhaps she is commenting on the social dysfunction that plagues black Americans.

    If you choose to not associate with her, I’m sure it’s for the best. She needs to be around supportive people, not those who criticize and condemn others who don’t adhere to a certain agenda. Before you denounce other biracial people for their supposed prejudices, maybe you should take a look at your own.

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 7:14 pm ¶

17. Kaonashi wrote:

    OMG, how sad. I pity this world, too. *shakes head*

    There’s a lot of tension between the two communities; I’ve noticed that some Mexicans seem to be kinda racist against Blacks and color-conscious in general (look at those damn stamps they had, for goodness sakes)…do you think that might be a reason why your cousins act the way they do?

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 7:30 pm ¶

18. Lyonside wrote:

    Merq - *applause*

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 10:05 pm ¶

19. Ben wrote:

    Jon Entine Says:

    Never knew those exactly were stereotypes. Ben, are you seeking to find the self-esteem you lack in your own individuality in your biracial status?

    Cuz something tells me that you actually personally feel dumber and LESS beautiful than many monoracials?

    ha! thanks for the free psychoanalysis, but first you may wish to RTFP. (in case you do not share the enhanced intelligence for which we multiracials are so widely known, one might infer from carmen’s last paragraph that mixed people are considered by some to be “more intelligent or healthy or athletic or beautiful than their non-mixed counterparts.”)

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 11:19 pm ¶

20. Kaonashi wrote:

    I remember someone else who thought that athletic supremacy was based on race, now who was that?

    Oh yeah….I remember now.

    Hitler.

    Posted 23 Jan 2006 at 11:38 pm ¶

21. Damie wrote:

    Give me a break: “I am getting so sick and tired of people who are either the product of a multiracial/biracial relationship or people who are in a multiracial relationship commenting on how biracial people are less racists and more “open minded” than non-mixed persons. This is a bunch of bull if you ask me. I have met and read the postings of multiracial people on other forums who obviously have an axe to grind with “monoracials” specifically “black monoracials,” whatever the hell that’s suppose to mean.”

    You are right about not all mixed people being color-blind (i.e.RL_Model on this forum). It goes both ways though, I’ve seen mixed people who are prejudiced against one or both of their parents groups. It’s all about personal experience.

    But if one dislikes one or both sides of their heritage isn’t that being self-denigrating? I’ve had bad experiences with both sides of my heritage, but I still love the good people in them.

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 5:40 am ¶

22. WTF? wrote:

    “biracial people are smarter and more beautiful, on average, than their monoracial counterparts”

    No offense to Joakim, but I would personally find him LESS attractive than your average monoracial Black OR White man. And his mom was a Swedish beauty pagaent winner, no less!
    http://www.gatorgallery.com/albums/albun39/Image10.jpg
    Have no idea about his IQ, either?

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 8:43 am ¶

23. Give me break wrote:

    Oh please RL, I should have known you would jump on my case. First of all, I happen to be married to a white man so I have nothing against interracial relationships. I am also the product of an interracial marriage, so before you judge consider my history first.

    My cousin was raised by her black father, so her negative generalizations of black people is not warranted. She discriminated against our own cousin, her flesh and blood. We were eleven years old, it was the first time we had ever met our cousin. She didn’t take the time to get to know our cousin but simply rejected her. Why? I’ll tell you why, because of race.

    You shouldn’t blame an entire community because of a few bad apples.

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 10:07 am ¶

24. Jon Entine wrote:

    “African Americans (who supposedly, over the years, have been “diluted” by White genes) are tops in sports, while present-day West Africans are not.”

    There may be a few reasons for this:
    1) While African-Americans might be on average, ~25%-30% White, most of the top sprinters and elite ballers are not. Carl Lewis and Michael Jordan, for instance, are both very dark-complected with likely far fuller African heritage. And just check out the starting lineup for any 100m Olympic finals sprint. When it comes to sheer fast-twitch athleticism, not too many high-yella fellas up there.
    2) Most African-Americans descend from the slave classes of Africa - a racial subset often specifically chosen and bred for their strength and athleticism. Thus it was no random representative sampling to begin with, but similar to taking a bunch of Yao Ming’s from China and breeding them together for a few generations. As you say, individual > population > race.
    3) West African countries today are far too impoverished to send more than a handful of poorly-trained non-contender athletes to the Olympics. No, it’s not all about genetics - just a portion is.

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 10:34 am ¶

25. Ben wrote:

    WTF? Says:
    No offense to Joakim, but I would personally find him LESS attractive than your average monoracial Black OR White man.

    Well, just because it’s a positive stereotype doesn’t mean it’s accurate…

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 1:22 pm ¶

26. Nicky wrote:

    I know a girl whose great grandfather is Jewish and her great grandmother is
    Native American/White and the others are very light skinned with red hair and downright black as charcoal.She doen’t talk to black people.She’s very light but that is mostly because she stays out of the sun and uses bleaching lotions.If you are dark you have to have straight hair if you want this girl to talk to you.White folks tells she isn’t white.

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 2:36 pm ¶

27. Merq wrote:

    “Merq - *applause* ”

    Aww, shucks, Lyonside.

    OK, but seriously… I don’t think I’ve really pitied anyone like I pity RL_Model. This isn’t sympathy. This is pure pity, unadulterated by any feelings of empathy or liking.

    Jon Entine Says:
    HOMIE! I’M WEST AFRICAN!!!
    Where the hell do you get these ideas? All your points– from 1 to 3– are fundamentally flawed.
    1. We are as diverse as they come. You cannot make assumptions on the percentage of “white blood” in a black man based on his complexion. That has to be one of the most antiquated, ignorant statements I’ve had to hear– right behind “Really? You don’t *look* African.”

    In Nigeria alone, there are populations you would consider “mulatto” and even Arab, based on your on-sight race assignment theory.

    2. To dust off a not-so-old gem, where the hell do you get these stories? First of all, the whole “Africans had their own slaves” thing is one of the greatest pieces of blame-shifting revisionism I’ve ever heard. Slavery and servitude are two very different animals. In West African countries, a young servant was taken in by a family, and would be trained much like the children of the house, in exchange for service. They would be taught a craft, given a decent home, and treated as a relative (maybe a distant relative, but a relative nonetheless). I mean, the “masters” would entrust their children into the servant’s care, empowering said servant to discipline an errant child as if he/she were the child’s own older sibling.

    That sounds NOTHING like American slavery, so let’s not get it twisted.

    My point? There was no “slave class,” which was bred for their strength & athleticism. Poorer families simply sent their children to their economically richer (but physically similar) neighbors.

    3. While corruption does weaken West African economies, I think you’re taking the usual Americanized view of “poor, poor Africa” as gospel. I guess I can’t blame you, seeing as the most respected news outlets and Black-geared publications out here insist on showing the same images of mud huts and naked babies over and over again.

    But take it from me. Sports (especially soccer) on the global playing field can definitely be called the great equalizer. If I remember correctly, “a handful of poorly-trained non-contender athletes” from Nigeria won the first Olympic gold medal for soccer.

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 4:09 pm ¶

28. Jon Entine wrote:

    1. There is a statistical correlation between phenotype and genotype. Not 1-to-1, but far more than random.

    2. Let’s not over-Whitewash African indentured servitude now.

    Real slavery did exist too, much of it conducted by African rulers and Muslims.
    In the early 18th century, Kings of Dahomey (known today as Benin) became big players in the slave trade, waging a bitter war on their neighbours, resulting in the capture of 10,000, including another important slave trader, the King of Whydah. King Tegbesu made £250,000 a year selling people into slavery in 1750. King Gezo said in the 1840’s he would do anything the British wanted him to do apart from giving up slave trade:

    “The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…”

    In 1807, Britain declared all slave trading illegal. The king of Bonny (in what is now the Nigerian delta) was dismayed at the conclusion of the practice.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml

    But even if these lower working-class slaves could be considered a representative “random sampling” of African genes - the physically weaker ones still would have been weeded out by the perilous journey from Africa to the US, and then the abuses they endured there - where only the strongest survived.

    3. So, you’re now saying that Nigeria, one of the poorest countries in the world with a GNP per capita of $288.37 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap), overcame such destitute poverty to win the gold Olympic soccer? How were they able to beat out ~141 wealthier, larger countries? Why not Bangladesh or Luxembourg? Or are you now supporting the West African genetic fast-twitch muscle theory?

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 4:36 pm ¶

29. RL_Model wrote:

    Ok, let’s see: more black male posturing from Merq. If nothing else, he’s predictable.

    Give me a break, why are you so concerned with whom your cousin chooses to associate? I find it a bit ironic that you refuse to speak to her because she refuses to speak to black people.

    Btw- doesn’t Sports Illustrated have editors? What exactly are “interracial children”? I’m skeptical of people describing all or most biracial people as being one thing or another.

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 5:02 pm ¶

30. Merq wrote:

    Guess what… while the exchange rate is complete shite, the standard of living is pretty good, and the cost of living is much lower.

    Gee, I didn’t know the wealth and size of a country were bulletproof predictors of Olympic success. So much for training, right?

    Your problem is that you are so in love with the “poor Africa” idea– you know, the one your government feeds you, while *greatly* exaggerating relief donation numbers– that any account of their victory must either be one of those “overcoming adversity” fairytales or proof of some idiotic (and yes, racist) essentialist theory.

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 6:01 pm ¶

31. Merq wrote:

    Oh, and regarding your Phenotype-Genotype argument:

    Of course there is a correlation between phenotype & genotype. However, there is no proof that certain phenotypical traits can only be explained by the amount of white blood in a subject. Get it now?

    Posted 24 Jan 2006 at 6:04 pm ¶

32. Kaonashi wrote:

    RL_Model, her cousin refuses to have anything to do with her cousin- who never did anything to warrant such treatment btw- purely because the cousin is Black. She also did not like her Dad…who RAISED her- because he is Black. What universe do people live in that they actually think this is okay? Where does this self-loathing come from? She’s shitting on the one parent who is actually THERE for her…and you’re cool with that?

    Give me a break, I’m beginning to see what you mean. -_-

    Maybe my family is abnormal, because we don’t have these issues!

    People can date and marry whoever the hell they want. People have preferences. Some people like big asses, some like big tits. Gals might like Tall men, or Bald men. Some might prefer a race other than their own (Note: I’m not talking about nasty fetishy people here) But when you start hating on family members and racial groups that you yourself are a part of, that’s just crazy.

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 12:12 am ¶

33. John Entine wrote:

    “However, there is no proof that certain phenotypical traits can only be explained by the amount of white blood in a subject. Get it now?”

    I’m sure there’s one mutant freak in Africa with straight blonde hair and blue eyes - but for most African-Americans (who average ~30% White) - such phenotypes are faaar more likely simply attributed to White ancestry.

    But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Feel free to show me some pix of some unmixed, non-albino tribes in Africa with naturally straight, light-colored hair & eyes and lots of body hair?

    If so, THEN I might “get it.”

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 8:41 am ¶

34. Mags wrote:

    I agreed with most of what Merq said until this particular point.

    quote from Merq
    “To dust off a not-so-old gem, where the hell do you get these stories? First of all, the whole “Africans had their own slaves” thing is one of the greatest pieces of blame-shifting revisionism I’ve ever heard. Slavery and servitude are two very different animals. In West African countries, a young servant was taken in by a family, and would be trained much like the children of the house, in exchange for service. They would be taught a craft, given a decent home, and treated as a relative (maybe a distant relative, but a relative nonetheless). I mean, the “masters” would entrust their children into the servant’s care, empowering said servant to discipline an errant child as if he/she were the child’s own older sibling.

    That sounds NOTHING like American slavery, so let’s not get it twisted.”

    hum…NO. My family has a history of slave ownership. My great grand mother (not that long ago…late 1890’s) had slaves. Not necessarily the most proud event in my family history but true nevertheless. To situate you a bit more. She was tanzanian Fipa (or from the tanganika region in eastern Africa).

    In no way were they considered family (part of tribe) or relatives. Sure they might have trades…as the master saw fit. It was a bit similar to the serf system in europe. The master has the last word. If one needed a blacksmith you trained one, but most worked in the fields. (similarly as the American slavery system). You could be sold or given away as needed.

    I really believe that saying that african slavery was better than American slavery is just dismissive. I mean really was being a serf better that being a slave?

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 11:18 am ¶

35. Lyonside wrote:

    >I’m sure there’s one mutant freak in Africa with straight blonde hair and blue eyes

    Know what, JE? the comment was about athleticism being directly tied to skin and hair and facial features… NOT whether an extreme phenotype can or does exists.

    Population genetics tells us that genes are be essentially lost to a population’s gene pool (Barring mutation such as albinism etc.). So your “mutant freak” example (derogatory much? Taking lessons from Da Troll?) doesn’t apply.

    And as for the “which slavery is worse” thing - guys, can’t we all agree it’s bad and move on?

    What makes the US version of slavery so big a deal is not the fact that it existed, but that it was so institutionalized. A very large young powerful nation that was in itself a socio-political experiment was from the get-go economically dependent (in 1/2 of its land mass on average) on systematic institutionalized slavery. At the same time, there were very deep conflicts with both the idea and implementation. The development of the scientific method and different technological achievements at times made things very difficult for both “sides” of the slavery fence.

    Entire racial mythologies and pseudosciences grew up around slavery in an effort to justify and encode distinctions, essentially categorically dehumanizing a portion of the population to an extraordinary (but by no means unique) degree.

    Economic needs, social mores, and political powers converged to entrench the system (until the 1850s, a slave-holding state got “extra” Electoral College votes because of the “3/5s” clause… despite posibly having less of an actual voting population than other states).

    That is part of what made US slavery unique: the scale, the level of entrenchment, and the layers of justification applied to keeping the institution around.

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 1:13 pm ¶

36. Folger's wrote:

    Merq is an Americancentric Afro-apologist - who like most such African-American “activists,” has likely never even set foot in Africa. And why should he? For he is far more concerned with what White America thinks about him…than Africa. He defines himself mostly in juxtaposition and relation to White America - not on his own terms or stand-alone cultural heritage. Hence, he must deny and defend African slavery here in some twisted sense of Black pride - even though most AFRICANS in AFRICA would simply condemn it as their own internal problem!

    Your problem is that you are so in love with the “poor Africa” idea– you know, the one your government feeds you

    YOUR problem is that you’re too busy denying everything “negative” about Blacks as if it were all some White conspiracy. Even the facts. Yes, I agree Western media pimps African poverty - and it really isn’t filled with bony babies swarmed with flies. HOWEVER, a simple look at the stats* WILL tell you that Africa IS in fact the poorest region in the world. Is that really so hard to believe? I can’t even remember the last time I heard of something sold here that was “MADE IN AFRICA???”

    * http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap

    BTW, Africans still practice female genital circumcision and many South Africans hope to cure their AIDs by raping virgins… But is this also actually treating the women like “distant relatives?” Lol…

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 1:14 pm ¶

37. Lyonside wrote:

    >BTW, Africans still practice female genital circumcision and many South Africans hope to cure their AIDs by raping virgins

    Um, It’s a big freaking CONTINENT. You’re revealing your own bias while reveling in someone else’s.

    NOT all Africans practice FGM (M for mutilation, which in many cases it is)

    And there are many myths and bad practices surrounding AIDS and other diseases. There are actually NATIONS that are sincerely trying to boost both HIV/AIDS education and treatment programs.

    Africa is a diverse place w/ diverse populations and diverse needs. Making any huge statement is going to do nothing but start arguments.

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 1:54 pm ¶

38. Ben wrote:

    Jon Entine said:
    Anyways, existing data concerning IQ tends to show that biracials tend to fall in between the IQs of their parent races - not higher than both, lol.
    And as far as beauty, the “biracial beauty myth” is probably actually a subset of the “White beauty myth,” as one parent is always typically WHITE in these hybrids, not just any other race. Human Barbie dolls are still probably the most overrepresented group in porn today - which is a leading indicator of men’s actual sexual preferences.

    Wow. So much here.

    First of all, as I said in the first post, I am talking about existing stereotypes. Like most stereotypes, they are false. Unlike most stereotypes, they are positive.

    Second, the data you use to “refute” these (admittedly false) stereotypes is highly questionable.

    “The existing data concerning IQ” - you mean the data you made up on the spot or would you care to cite a source?

    “The IQ of their parent races” - I assume you mean their “parents” rather than their “parent races”… and then, isn’t it possible that people who marry interracially just have higher IQs on average than those who don’t?

    “…a subset of the ‘white beauty myth’” - this could be plausible if biracials were only considered to be generally more beautiful than their non-white monoracial counterparts. But, as the stereotype goes, they’re, on average, more beautiful than monoracial whites too.

    “the leading indicator of men’s sexual preferences…” what makes a porn star appealing and what make a woman beautiful are often very different, um, attributes. Besides, we’re talking about natural beauty, not the kind that involves surgery. And speaking of women, what about their preferences? The stereotype addresses biracial people, not just women.

    I suppose you don’t have to have particularly sound reasoning to disprove non-facts.

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 1:57 pm ¶

39. Ben Tover wrote:

    “Um, It’s a big freaking CONTINENT. You’re revealing your own bias while reveling in someone else’s.

    Africa is a diverse place w/ diverse populations and diverse needs. Making any huge statement is going to do nothing but start arguments.”

    Right, so if this were Whites doing this to Blacks, you’d rightfully be screaming bloody murder.

    But, if it’s Blacks-on-Blacks, then hey…Africa’s a big place…with diversity…and diverse needs…and anyone who dares criticize anything there is biased and starting arguments. Shhhhh!!!!! Keep it down!

    Lyonside - take a look in the mirror and tell me who is biased here?

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 2:30 pm ¶

40. Give me a break wrote:

    Thanks Kaonashi! RL_Model is a plain idiot.

    I’m glad to hear your family is so openminded and loving. Its refreshing to hear. I plan to raise my children (when I have them) to respect the humanity in all people. There are bad apples in all groups, but you have to treat people as individuals and look beyond their exterior. Corny, but true :)

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 3:08 pm ¶

41. Merq wrote:

    FOLGERS:
    “Merq is an Americancentric Afro-apologist - who like most such African-American “activists,” has likely never even set foot in Africa. And why should he? For he is far more concerned with what White America thinks about him…than Africa. ”

    Gee. You got me there. What do I know about Africa? I mean, all I did was be born and raised in Lagos, Nigeria… for the first 19 years of my life… returning every few years.

    Now, say it with me:
    “I, Folgers, am a complete idiot.”

    You’re simply revealing your own ignorance and propensity for stereotyping here. You’d seen enough media depictions of the ignorant “Afrocentric” types to automatically assume that, if I were an African American, I couldn’t possibly have traveled past my home city… and we all know “Africans” are too poor to afford to live overseas, and too primitive to use the internet in our home countries.

    Sheesh.

    “I can’t even remember the last time I heard of something sold here that was “MADE IN AFRICA???” ”

    Hmm… Maybe because Africa isn’t– I don’t know– A COUNTRY?

    But actually, it does go deeper than that. Speaking only for Nigeria now, we do have a problem with our own industries. There was a pervasive import culture for the last 3-4 decades that eroded most industries. Despite its corruption, one thing the present Nigerian government is doing right is to restrict international imports in favor of strengthening a near-dead domestic commodity system.

    Now, other countries (South Africa being an example, as was Cote D’Ivoire, before the unrest began a few years ago) have strong domestic industries. Just because they aren’t exporting toothpaste to you out in Kentucky doesn’t mean their can’t afford to care for themselves.

    As far as the whole slavery debate goes, you will notice I was careful to speak definitively only about West African countries, as I studied those pretty extensively in my youth. As far as stories of the rest of Africa go, I can’t speak with much confidence. But, seeing as the main harvest ground for US slavery was West Africa, I feel I’ve satisfied all necessary criteria to call that whole “they had slaves too” excuse absolute bullshit.

    JOHN ENTINE:
    “But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Feel free to show me some pix of some unmixed, non-albino tribes in Africa with naturally straight, light-colored hair & eyes and lots of body hair?”

    Sorry, man. I believe the argument began with you explaining that darker-skinned athletes like Lewis & Jordan were obviously “more African,” offering their complexions as proof.

    While I don’t have to show you a Mariah Carey lookalike to defeat that idiotic logic, I can show you scores of Sanaa Lathans, Hill Harpers, and a couple DeBarge-looking “full-blooded” Nigerians I know personally– complete with the light eyes and skin that apparently turn you on so. Not exactly “Coal Black an’ de Sebben Dwarves,” now are they?

    But of course, you asked me for pictures of TRIBES. Well, seeing as I live in a bustling city, much like a scaled-down Manhattan, I don’t walk past many tribes in my daily life. Sorry to disappoint you yet again.

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 5:29 pm ¶

42. Merq wrote:

    Sorry. To clear up any confusion, I actually *do* live in Manhattan. The scaled-down city I said I lived in was Lagos (which is where I live when I’m in Nigeria).

    …not that anyone asked.

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 6:08 pm ¶

43. Lyonside wrote:

    >Lyonside - take a look in the mirror and tell me who is biased here?

    My god. You’re just not fully literate, are you? Not what I said, not what I meant, and you know it.

    Posted 25 Jan 2006 at 8:36 pm ¶

44. Folger’s wrote:

    born and raised in Lagos, Nigeria… for the first 19 years of my life… returning every few years

    Well, sometimes I do love surprises. This is one of them. I certainly respect firsthand knowledge of anything…so touche on current affairs in Africa, then. I do know my limits.

    Although, you must admit that you did Whitewash historical African slavery…

    However, I look forward to more realistic firsthand reports on Africa that bypass our Western media filter/framing.

    What is your opinion on Africans vs African-Americans, btw? As in, compare and contrast the 2 groups? I’ve heard before that many native Africans tend to take a Cosbyesque stance on African-Americans - while African-Americans tend to take a colorstruck elitist stance on Africans - viewing them as throwback savages.

    Posted 26 Jan 2006 at 9:40 am ¶

45. Mags wrote:

    Didn’t really grow up with cosby. Could someone just give a brief overview of what is meant by “cosbyesque”. (simple curiosity)

    thanks

    Posted 26 Jan 2006 at 10:56 am ¶

46. Merq wrote:

    FOLGERS:
    “so touche on current affairs in Africa, then. I do know my limits.”

    No problem. Things can easily get a little heated when discussing race. Hell, at least there’s some discussion going on, which is more than I can say for society at large.

    “Although, you must admit that you did Whitewash historical African slavery…”
    No, I wouldn’t say so. I spoke only on West African servitude, which I am very familiar with. Even I had my share of “Aunties” and “Uncles” when I was growing up, and from my studies, that system had been in place for centuries.

    But whatever. Let’s let that one die.

    “What is your opinion on Africans vs African-Americans, btw? As in, compare and contrast the 2 groups? ”

    Unfortunately, I can’t. Contrary to what is often bandied about, there is no monolithic “black community” — African or African-American. And if there is, I haven’t been invited to any of the meetings where they decide the “black community’s stance” on certain issues.

    But I’m aware of the trend you speak of. I think it’s a bit of an oversimplification to reduce it to an “African vs. African-American” phenomenon (for example, where do Caribbeans come in?). I think there are simply some black groups (which include Africans, Caribs, and Americans) who loathe the lifestyle choices made by others (including Africans, Caribs, and Americans).

    Do I like the way the mainstream media perpetuates “blackness?” No. Do I like the way certain black celebrities perpetuate “blackness?” No. Do I like the ever-shrinking box that defines acceptable/expected behavior from black people (especially black males)? Hell no.

    But I don’t believe that if I was raised in America by American parents, I would freely say the word “nigga.” Nor would I restrict my cultural landscape to hip-hop culture and SoulPlane-type movies.

    But then again, what do I know? I constantly hear about the strife among African Americans, Caribbeans, and Africans, I see instances of this on the internet and in the media, but I still can’t say I’ve had any firsthand experience in that area.

    Still, I think there’s something to be said for shared cultural experiences. Most of my black friends happen to be Island-folk, and we get along just as well as we do with Americans, but things move more smoothly because you find there’s seldom any need to explain certain facets of culture.

    Point of that rant? I often hear abou the “African vs. African American vs. Caribbean” war, but it seems almost a myth to me.

    Posted 26 Jan 2006 at 2:17 pm ¶

47. Give me a break wrote:

    Yes I often times hear about the African vs. African American vs. Caribbean war too. I also used to think it was a myth and still do to a certain extent, but I have had experiences where people of African or Caribbean descent have made obnoxious and negative statements about African-Americans. As a child, my family and I lived in an apartment building. There was an Ethopian family that lived a few floors above us. The family had a teenage son and he refused to associate with the African-Americans in the neighborhood. He used to frown at them and he had the tendency to make very hostile remarks about African-Americans physical appearance. My maternal aunt (whose African-American) was married to an Ethiopian so not all Ethopians are like this. However some are very nationalistic and like many other immigrants who move to the United States, adopt the same racist notions and attitudes the are perpecuated in American society against black Americans.

    I used to share a dorm room with a girl whose family was from St. Croix (sp?) Her family immigrated to the U.S. when she was five and resided in Iowa. She also had some very negative stereotypes about black Americans and Puerto Ricans. Funny thing is that all she dated, or at least tried to date were Hispanics and she primarily socialized with the African-American students on campus. She even told me once that her family was “originally Dutch.” She had some serious identity issues and most disliked her. We had a very heated argument a couple of years ago because of something she said about blacks and puerto ricans (I descend from both) and I haven’t spoken to her since. But not all Africans and Caribbeans are like this. You have to get to know people as individuals.

    Posted 26 Jan 2006 at 6:06 pm ¶

48. Lyonside wrote:

    GMAB: It goes the other way too. I agree, “war” is the wrong term.

    I’ve told this story before, but in Philly (and other areas, I assume) there are conflicts between the African-Americans and new immigrants of African descent, who are the new immigrants in the neighborhood. The complaints are those usually raised by a group fearing competition from a new ethnic group - taking jobs, taking social services, etc.

    http://kyw.com/local/local_story_022154151.html

    Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 10:40 am ¶

49. Quadroon wrote:

    The interesting thing is that Joakim is actually only 1/4 Black, coming from a long line of Black men, White women.

    His dad being mulatto - his dad Cameroon, mom French.

    So, who wants to bet Joakim got Britney Fever too?

    Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 9:27 am ¶

50. Wake Up Call wrote:

    Try to remember what is really important… We are spiritual beings having a human experience. When you return to your sprirtual Home the color of your skin will have no meaning for we will all be colorless. Live your life, live your dreams and consider… A creative enlightened mind is a mind that is open to everything and attached to nothing.

    Posted 12 Apr 2006 at 12:15 pm ¶

51. Enough is enough wrote:

    Maybe Mixedmediawatch should change it’s title to
    EurasianandBlackMediaWatch.

    Once again the disussion is centered around blacks. I’m soooooooo tired of those professional afro-apologists who get paid for defending/making excuses for blacks on the internet. Further proof that Black Americans have become far too powerful - at the expense of others: especially mulattoes.

    Posted 14 Apr 2006 at 2:21 pm ¶

52. brad wrote:

    Holy moly, there are some incredibly bigoted comments here. Africa is a whole continent. People in Africa are almost as different looking as people in Europe. Does a red-haired Irish man look like dark-haired Sicilian? You do realize that eastern Europe was invaded by the Mongols; thus, it’s common to see those Europeans with almond-shaped eyes. Also, isn’t there a distinct German look, too?
    Africans differ in height, build, shape of nose, and skin color just as Europeans do. It’s called evolutionary adaptation. The same, of course, holds true in Asia. Does a Han Chinese person resemble an Indonesian or Mongolian or Tibetan?

    Moreover, skin color is not a true reflection of genotype. Michael Jordon has dark brown skin but unless you’ve performed a DNA analysis on him, how can you make any assessments on his genetic heritage?

    Moreover, the line of argument around Africans and African-Americans in sports is really creepy. The whole thing about Africans being bred for slavery? Come on, what proof does anyone have of an active breeding program in Africa?

    Uh, and less we forget, Europe had slavery, too. Right? Why does everyone want to overlook the fact that Europeans enslaved their own people throughout their history? Why does no one comment on European “breeding” programs? And, there was slavery in Asia, too. Why not discuss Asian breeding programs? Don’t the Japanese consider Koreans, their former colonial slaves, as inferior? Have you ever read about how ethnic Koreans living in Japan are treated?

    As for the example of the biracial girl who didn’t like black people. She was a bigot. Bigotry is learned. If she was being raised by her dad, what was the reasn mom wasn’t in the picture? Did she believe that her mom left them because she was black? The reason she didn’t date black men was about her bigotry. There’s a difference between someone who just has a preference for a certain look vs. someone who has a history of prejudice against people of a certain “race.” Robert DeNiro dates African-American exclusively. That’s a preference vs hating “black” people. It’s not a question of biracial women, in general, not wanting to date a person with part of their racial heritage. Who cares.

    Also, making generalizations about all biracials hating or disliking one part of their ancestry is rubbish. When did mixed-race people become uni-thinking and acting people? Gee, I don’t think Colin Powell or Jesse Jackson have the same philosophical ideas, though they both believe in affirmative action.

    As for Africa being an impoverished continent, what does that say about anything? Latin America is very poor. Eastern Europe has terrible poverty, too. People talk about African-Americans and welfare (blah, blah, blah) but what about the poverty and welfare rates in the form East Germany? What about the ramapant poverty and drug abuse in Northern Ireland?

    And, then to drag out female genital mutilation? Uh, the history of misogyny is not limited to parts Africa. Up until the 1980s, it was perfectly legal for an American man to rape his wife. Of course, we could also talk about burning “witches” at the stake; Henry VIII killing his wives because his syphillis killed his boy children; or the current sex slave of children and women from Eastern Europe; or the binding of women’s feet for the sexual gratification of men in China; or an American culture that makes women get breast implants to satisfy male desire or starve themselves to fit an unrealistic idea of feminine beauty; and we could look at the statistics that show the leading cause of death of pregnant American women is homicide by their partners (Scott Petersen).

    There is a cultural bias that says America treats its women better than X or Y. The advances in women’s status in America results from a long, hard battle. How different was America in 1950 vs. 2006 for women’s rights? How long have women been able to vote or own land in their names? How is it that we live in a culture that still at times blames women for being raped?

    I’m really disappointed that people actually by into junk science that tries to insinuate characteristics based on skin color.

    Posted 14 Apr 2006 at 2:45 pm ¶

53. Thomas B. wrote:

    To Enough is enough:

    Co-sign.

    The intital topic wasn’t about blacks or Africa, nor was it about people of predominantly West-African descent dominating certain types of sport, while people of predominantly European descent dominating others (such as swimming for example). It was not even about mulattoes rather than blacks being particularly successful in decathlon (Dan O’Brian, Dailey Thomson)

    It was about hybrid vigour or heterosis which is sometimes attributed to Mulattoes, to Mestizos, to Eurasians and to Blasians, not to Blacks. Hybrid vigour is mainly believed to lead to increased resistance, vitality and health because positive (meaning biologically useful) genes tend be dominant while negative genes tend to be recessive. The more genetically apart the parents the bigger the chance for the child to inherit more positive genes.

    In how far this can be applied to humans is not clear. Therfore those who completely reject hybrid-vigour have as much an agenda as those who advocate for it.

    Hybrid vigour or not, in the case of Joakim Noah who is a quadroon it would more apply to his dad anyway. Joakim is still a bit young but he is good looking and said to be quite bright. All the best to him. His sister Yelena looks just like him, she is very beautiful and currently a top-model.
    http://www.gatorzone.com/basketball/men/images/bioimg2004/Noah_Joakim.jpg

    Posted 14 Apr 2006 at 3:34 pm ¶