Obsession over color continues
JC
Everyone is talking about the story of the two twins, Remee and Kian, born to two mixed race people. They are being described as the “black and white twins.” God, how shocking. 
So absurd that they are being talked about in this way, with each being categorized a different race. They are twins! From mixed race parents! Well, if you know how much variation is possible, then this story wouldn’t be surprising to you. I mean, just look at other mixed families out there — siblings can look SO different from one another.
I would love it if people stopped obsessing over the color of their kids. In a case like this, it just seems to get intensified, because the parent is comparing one child to the other and focuses on their stark difference.
“I noticed that both of them had beautiful blue eyes, but whilst Remee was blonde, Kian’s hair was black and she had darker skin. “It seemed strange, but I was feeling so ill that I didn’t really take it in at that stage.”
The next day she mentioned the colour difference to her mother, who told her that Remee’s skin would darken as she grew older. But as the weeks passed, Remee became lighter still while Kian went darker. And while Remee’s eyes stayed blue, Kian’s turned brown….
“I’ll explain it all to them when they get older about why they look so different.”
This whole thing reminded me of the story we posted in Sept 2005 about a similar situation.
Keep your ears open…we’ll be talking more about this in an upcoming episode of Addicted to Race. 
Nina wrote:
Let’s hope that the lighter daughter isn’t favored over her darker sister.
And people are never going to stop obsessing over color — even so called enlightened “color-blind” people. Sometimes, they are the worst ones!
Posted 23 Feb 2006 at 11:09 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
This was talked about on SWIRL, and I won’t repeat everything I posted there, but basically:
The kids do look alike, at least like siblings (which they are, as fraternal twins), in the upper face (cheekbones, eyes, forehead) and even their hair texture seems similar. The darker sister has a more pointed chin (at least in the picture).
I object most heartily to the “white” and “black” genes talked about in the article - this is not only bad science but dangerously misleading. There ARE no white or black genes for anything, just phenotypes based on genotypes. I also doubt that the occurance is as “rare” as the article suggests. The rarity is that this happened w/ fraternal twins, not that this kind of physical difference occurs w/ siblings (because it does).
Posted 23 Feb 2006 at 1:10 pm ¶
Rachel S wrote:
My students were telling me about this today, but they got the story a little wrong. I didn’t realize the parents were both biracial. I’m going to have to send them the picture.
Posted 23 Feb 2006 at 1:23 pm ¶
tony wrote:
So much one drop propaganda. The parents are clearly of mulatto ancestry.
Posted 23 Feb 2006 at 1:28 pm ¶
Francis wrote:
I’m not sure the reporter on the Daily Mail got her genes math right…
First of all, there is a confusion regarding “appearance” and genetic lecacy. I think anybody would be hard-pressed to deny that both these children are a combination of their parent’s DNA and subsequently of that of their grand-parents. Appearance, on the other hand, relies upon these 7 genes the reporter talked about. In this case, whe have two heterozygous twins, of which one has Caucasian features and the other African features. But both have a combinasion of Caucasian and African genetic legacy.
The material on mixed race genes available on the Internet is very scarce, perhaps because -as the existence of a blog like this one shows- people are obsessed with race identification based on skin color and have always shown a total lack of interest in properly understanding the genetic process.
In this case we’ve got parents as presumably first-generation mixed with a 50/50 gene legacy of each race. The gene “lottery” is exponential and works like a funnel.
To over-simplify it:
50% chance of looking like the average of the parents
12,5% chance of looking slightly more like one race only
3,125% chance of looking very much like one race only
0,78125% chance of really looking like one race only
Which is precisely what we got with the first generation - the parents. As fare as the second generation is concerned, looking at the photo, the “darker” girl looks to me like the average between her parent. Actually she is exactly like her parents as far as eye, skin and hair colour is concerned. She isn’t darker.
So the only news is this one heterozygous twin who shows up more of the “white” gene legacy she shares with her sister. No big deal.
In South America and The Carribean, where “racial” genes have been mixed over several generation, it is very common to see pluri-mixed parents have each kid with very different features from the rest of the family. Over there, a story like this one would probably not even be covered in the press…
PS: much compliments for this blog. I’ve stumbled across it a few days ago, and it will now be featured in my favourite bookmarks.
Regards
Posted 23 Feb 2006 at 1:35 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Francis,
I agree mostly w/ what your intent is, but when you say “we’ve got parents as presumably first-generation mixed with a 50/50 gene legacy of each race” you are basically feeding into that…
There are NO GENES for “each race,” there are only genes for the range of phenotypes expressed in the human species.
Some genetic links:
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/lmexer5.htm
Shows a grayscale version of skin phenotypes and the potential genetic combinations that produce them. Note how the different combinations can produce a similar result (and this is assuming that both parents are a full heterozygous cross, which is not obvious by any means in the photo).
http://www.seps.org/cvoracle/faq/eyecolor.html
Wordy, but go to the middle of the page for basics on eye color. I learned the simple Brown/blue cross in school, but IRL eye color is more complex.
http://www.athro.com/evo/gen/eyecols.html
http://www.athro.com/evo/inherit.html
A better eye page with pictures (all of caucasian folks, it seems though)… but the eye color calculator is fun!
Posted 23 Feb 2006 at 2:44 pm ¶
Francis wrote:
Dear Lyonside, you got me on that one! Silly me! I forgot to put that word between brackets. I could’nt agree more with you, there is only one human race, and what we are used to distinguish as “races” are merely hereditary variants of the human genotype..
The human DNA is composed of more than 3,000,000,000 nucleotide pairs. Of these 3 billion, only 0.2 % (6,000,000 pairs) do vary from one individual to another. That means 98% of my DNA is the same as each one of the readers, simply because we share a common root.
If I got it right, taking in account populations who have not relocated or been relocated in the last centuries, within these 0.2%:
* 360,000 pairs or 0.012% account for differences from one continent to the other.
* 540,000 pairs or 0,018% account for differences within the same continent.
* 5,100,000 pairs or 0,17% account for differences within the same sub-continental region.
All proportions taken, that means an Icelandic is more similar to -say- a Papua, than he is to other Icelandics.
Source:
http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?index=6
Gutin, J.C., 1994. End of the rainbow. Discover, November
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 6:39 am ¶
the joy princess wrote:
They are absolutely too cute! I hope they have “aware” parents who will teach them how to handle the daily foolishness they will surely encounter from nosey people over the next 2 decades! Otherwise, they might as well stamp, “YES, for the millionth time that IS my sister” across their foreheads right now.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 10:14 am ¶
angela wrote:
The most important thing to remember is that these are two beautiful children (no matter what their complection). Everyone seems to be so focused on the scientific aspect of this story. Is it possible that God intended that these two girls be born at the same time to these two parents? Who cares what the chances are that this could take place? Because I am a mother, I thank God that this young couple has the honor and privilege to raise two beautiful little girls. And maybe one day people will quit worrying about who is dark and who is light.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 4:31 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Angela, I’m not worrying at all. I’m just trying to debunk the idea that this is special, rare, or some kind of medical miracle.
The science is what proves that this is just a phenotypically extreme version of what happens w/ fraternal twins all the time.
And while I am a believer, I don’t think God “intervened” in something that is a very natural phenomenon. I believe you did not mean this, but saying “God did it” could be used to mean that this is not possible under natural law. When science tells us that it very much is.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 5:43 pm ¶
Rebekah wrote:
Dude…… The article is just interesting……..That’s all. Why do we have to get all scientific about it, like most people who read the article are going that deep! Why do we have to make this a big ISSUE! Yes, we know that people look at color, blah, blah, blah. It happens, get over it! I’m tired of hearing all of this hoopla about it. Enjoy the story, OK? Damn.
Posted 24 Feb 2006 at 8:30 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Rebekah:
The article MAKES it a big issue, but going “oh how rare! oh how strange! oh look at the freaky wonder!”
Science is what makes the concept NO BIG DEAL. More science would mean less ignorance.
And if you’re tired, just dont’ read it, OK?
Posted 25 Feb 2006 at 9:53 am ¶
angela wrote:
I find it unfortunate that you don’t think that God would not “intervene” in life. Who do you think is the creator of all life? If you don’t believe He creates all life then you would not believe that He “intervened” in this situation. I want to believe that the world is changing when it comes race relations. However, the fact that this site exists shows me that the world has not changed that much. The only thing that has changed is the way racism and stereotyping is expressed. I just found this story interesting and amazing. At the end of the day, these two girls are sisters and that is all that will ever matter to them.
Posted 25 Feb 2006 at 2:30 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
> find it unfortunate that you don’t think that God would not “intervene” in life. Who do you think is the creator of all life? If you don’t believe He creates all life then you would not believe that He “intervened” in this situation.
Angela, I don’t want to get into a religious discussion here. Suffice it to say that I am Roman Catholic and a biologist. I believe in God but I believe that God works through the natural world. What I fear is that if people in general (not necessarily yourself) don’t understand the science, then families like this become exceptions and freak shows (or miracles, whatever) rather than just another natural example of humanity.
Posted 25 Feb 2006 at 4:59 pm ¶
Tiffany wrote:
This just goes to prove that skin color means absolutely nothing ! It is genetics and nothing more . I believe in God , but this isn’t a miracle . I knew back in 10th grade biology that this could happen . It’s rare , but if we were not so preoccupied with race we would see it as it is , just two cute little girls .
Posted 01 Mar 2006 at 9:33 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
It’s perfectly possible to believe that God guided events to produce the exact genetic combination that took place with these two girls without believing that any laws of nature were broken. I think you’re talking past each other, because one of you is saying God was behind it while the other is saying no laws need to have been broken for this to happen. But those claims aren’t mutually exclusive. The standard Christian view is that that’s exactly how God works most of the time, through things that are well within the realm of what science can tell us about.
I think the way these articles are worded reveals something very interesting about the way people now view race. The fact that they’re treating one girl as black and the other as white pretty much proves that the one drop rule is dead, at least in the minds of those who are describing them that way.
I think we should be a little more charitable to those referring to white and black genes. You don’t have to think there are absolute categories to talk this way. Clearly the parents aren’t absolutely in either category. You don’t have to think race is biologically determined to talk this way either. You can fully think social practices determine which biological characteristics determine the racial category someone is assigned by society and then go on to speak of the genes that lead to one assignment or another, calling them black genes and white genes. The article clearly wasn’t referring to any genes because the skin color genes, because the girl with darker skin had blue eyes, which means she didn’t get all the genes associated with being black. Yet they refer to her as having all the black genes. What they must mean is that she got all seven of the dark skin color genes, which are associated with being black. They’re probably still wrong in thinking that, given how light she is (though she does seem to me to be much darker than either parent, especially her mother). But I don’t think it’s fair to criticize this use of “black genes” and “white genes”. What they mean by that is clear to me, and it seems like a fairly innocent shorthand given that their scientific understanding just isn’t what they’re being accused of believing.
Posted 01 Mar 2006 at 10:42 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
> think we should be a little more charitable to those referring to white and black genes. You don’t have to think there are absolute categories to talk this way.
You’re giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt. I still say there ARE no white/black genes and I resent the concept. What about someone whose appearance is typical of Pakistan? Korea? Tunisia? Guatamala? Where does it stop?
>Yet they refer to her as having all the black genes. What they must mean is that she got all seven of the dark skin color genes, which are associated with being black. They’re probably still wrong in thinking that, given how light she is
To my eyes, the darker child has the same skin tone as her father. If the child has ALL SEVEN, she’d be very very very dark - the “blue-black” skin tone. It’s still wrong.
>But I don’t think it’s fair to criticize this use of “black genes” and “white genes”.
It reinforces the idea that 1) race is a bioligical reality based on skin color, and 2) that there is a color line based on genetics.
Still bogus, and still very misleading. It’s not even bad science - it’s not science at all.
Posted 02 Mar 2006 at 9:37 am ¶
itsk80 wrote:
But this situation is not at all like of the other story you referenced. Those twins were the result of in-vitro fertilization. The fact that they came out 2 different races isn’t that remarkable, due to the sperm.
The twins born to the mixed race parents really are a genetic anomally. The odds of that happening truly are 1 in a million, due to the genetic factors listed by the posters above. Yes, their appearance makes them newsworthy, but it’s more the genetic factors involved in their appearance that make them remarkable.
Posted 02 Mar 2006 at 5:36 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>But this situation is not at all like of the other story you referenced.
Who referenced?
>The odds of that happening truly are 1 in a million, due to the genetic factors listed by the posters above
HOW are any of the statistics above actually make “1 in a million?” I still say this is just a phrase to exoticise and denormalize these siblings (which is all fraternal twins are, after all, aside from being in utero and sharing the same life path (i.e. same events/situation/family structure at the same developmental period)).
Is is a million because they’re twins? Because they’re both blue eyed? Because one is noticeably lighter? A combination?
Again, not THAT unique or unusual. I’ve yet to see stats (other than the ridulous bad pseudoscience of the original article) to say otherwise.
Posted 02 Mar 2006 at 7:36 pm ¶
Chareika Parrish wrote:
This article took my breath away. How amazing and how precious and wonderful it is to for both parents and the twins to go through this experience. It will certainly goes to show you that nothing is impossible that’s for sure. I am so happy for you both and may god bless
Posted 03 Mar 2006 at 1:10 pm ¶
Sneels wrote:
Both children are not currently blue eyed. The darker skinned child had blue eyes when she was born (as many babies do) but the article clearly states “And while Remee’s eyes stayed blue, Kian’s turned brown….”
Posted 08 Mar 2006 at 11:07 am ¶
Shelly wrote:
Okay, you guys really need to do your research on this story before you start spouting off your so called expertise on twins and genetics. They are referring to the genes that determine hair color, skin color, and eye color. And yes those genes exist. The chances that twins being born with such a drastic difference in coloring is a million to one. Simply because there are so many possible variations in the combinations of each parent’s genes. Look at some stats and research done on genetics before you get all hostile on someone, wow!
Posted 14 Mar 2006 at 12:02 pm ¶
Shelly wrote:
And whoever posted about this being an invitrofertilization case is so wrong. They were 17 and 19 years old and were NOT planning a family!!! Read the article for heaven’s sake! This blog is really beginning to look like it’s full of a bunch of ignorant people. I doubt I will visit it again.
Posted 14 Mar 2006 at 12:08 pm ¶
rj wrote:
I was just wondering I had a nephew born just recently. My Siister is Italian, Irish and German. And my brother is black and Dominican. The kid came out whiter than me with blue eyes which I projected. A lot of people say this is Bruce Springsting kid. But all aside from joking how is this possible.
Posted 18 May 2006 at 10:11 pm ¶
rj wrote:
and what are the odds of him having blue eyes, thats unherd of in any mixed child
Posted 18 May 2006 at 10:13 pm ¶
Heather wrote:
It is not unheard of for a mixed child to have blue eyes. I am mixed and have brown eyes. My mother had blue eyes and my father had brown. My partner has blue eyes. His mother and father both had blue eyes. I am pregnant now and our child has a 50/50 possibility for either brown or blue eyes.
Posted 04 Jul 2006 at 9:30 am ¶