Trackbacks & Pings

1. Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » A Funny Little Story and a Bunch-O-Links on 16 Jun 2006 at 9:38 am

   […] 4. A new book claims that mixed race people are superior? See more over at Mixed Media Watch. […]

2. Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » A Bunch-O-Links And A Story on 18 Jun 2006 at 12:18 pm

   […] 4. A new book claims that mixed race people are superior? See more over at Mixed Media Watch. […]

3. Creative Destruction » My Blacklog on 20 Jun 2006 at 2:32 am

   […] Hybrid Garbage HT. This is the hybrid-vigour theory applied to humans. Problem is, to the best of my knowledge of the relevent science, ‘race’ in humans, unlike breeds of animals, is a social construct rather than a biological reality. Biologically, there is only one human race. […]

Comments

1. Lyonside wrote:

   Is this one of those self-published ones?

   I’m not surprised, but I hope any book reviews counter his bad science with legitimate science.

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 7:39 am ¶

2. julie wrote:

   funny how the cover of this book awfully resembles kip fulbeck’s models in his project.

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 7:45 am ¶

3. gatamala wrote:

   ahem {koff, koff}… How did someone named Along Ziv get accepted to the Josef Mengele School of Medicine??

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 8:36 am ¶

4. gatamala wrote:

   scuse me, Alon

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 8:37 am ¶

5. mtevc wrote:

   what a load of crap…in fact, i can point to new scientific evidence which suggests that the same risks exist for interracial couples to have children with illnesses…if someone with certain types of sickle cell (trait/disease) has a child with someone with cystic fibrosis trait, they could have horrible genetic disease issues…so this hybrid vigor stuff is crap

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 9:40 am ¶

6. Kro wrote:

   Here’s a link to an article about Ziv and his lecture that shares its name with his book.

   http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:vFjS4Sf97scJ:www.cornellsun.com/news/2004/02/19/News/Speaker.Examines.Rules.Of.Attraction-1334282.shtml+%22alon+ziv%22+interracial&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

   He seems to be such a minor figure that I wouldn’t worry about his ideas and his book getting much attention.

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 9:57 am ¶

7. hmmm... wrote:

   If the guy on the cover is “more attractive” then I want to be “less attractive…” What a plain John Doe. Give me Tyson Beckford and Sidney Poiter any day :)

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 12:01 pm ¶

8. Anonymous wrote:

   hey hmmm…:
   Don’t know if you knew this, but Beckford is a quarter Chinese.

   I agree the cover model is quite dull looking, especially when considering the provocative book title.

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 12:47 pm ¶

9. hmmm... wrote:

   yeah I’ve heard that rumor. Most “mixies” would snubb their noses at Beckford and label him black, and to me he is. Nelson Mandela has “small almond shaped eyes” and has a lighter complextion, yet somehow he’s still considered black…hmmm….

   Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 1:56 pm ¶

10. gatamala wrote:

    hmmm.

    “most mixies [?] would snubb their noses at Beckford….”

    what the hell are you talking about?

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 2:15 pm ¶

11. Lyonside wrote:

    hmmmm…

    hum for yourself, you don’t speak for all mixed folk. IMO, if someone claims an ethnicity, it is not my business ot tell them whether it is or isn’t enough to “count.” What I do mind is people claiming special rights based on a very distant ancestor in which no cultural ethnicity remains in the family, sheerly for personal or financial gain (i.e. suddenly discovering a native american tribal ancestor 7 generations back, while every other traceable member of the family are other ethnicities).

    As for “almond shaped eyes,” I’m assuming you think all such eye shapes are Asian? These are actually very common in West Africa - my grandmother passed these on to several of her grandchildren (a recessive trait) - as a child peers often thought I was part Asian, although there is no traceable feamily member. They are less noticeable now as an adult except when I smile :)

    As for the lighter complexion, while I don’t know Mr. Mendela’s background (and wouldn’t be surprised either way if he did have other ethnicities, given the history of the region and the continent), South Africa is a long way from the equator - as you get farther away from the equator, the indigenous populations tend to be lighter in complexion (barring natural population variation).

    >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html (page 2)

    >http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0211/feature2/online_extra.html

    >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/text_pop/l_073_04.html

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 2:24 pm ¶

12. brad wrote:

    Hmm…,

    Tyson Beckford is mixed. If someone is ignorant enough to deny that than that’s her/his problem. Beckford’s biography lists his ethnic heritage. In the context of American society, he may appear black but that is a social condition. Similarly, Naomi Campbell has the same background and her biography notes her mixed heritage, too.

    As for Nelson Mandela, Mandela is of Hottentot and Dutch ancestry. The Hottentot’s were the indigenous tribe of South Africa. Hottentots are known for their almond shaped eyes. Many of them intermarried with some of the Dutch settlers.

    That said, Hybrid Vigor claims would mean that most Mexicans, who are mestizo, and the average African-American, who is mixed, would be healthier than other human beings, for instance.

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 2:52 pm ¶

13. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    While I can tell by the subtitle of the book that its conclusions are likely to be pretty wrong, there is one piece of biological information that it’s probably relying on that is true. Good genes and bad genes occur in every ethnic group, and the chances of getting bad genes from both parents is just as likely as the chances of getting good genes from both parents. Being of mixed race doesn’t help in that way.

    But human DNA is sometimes redundant in the sense that both parents contribute it, and only one is needed. When a harmful mutation occurs in some of these genes, the healthy one from the other parent can take over. When both parents have the harmful mutation, you can’t do that, which is one reason that incestuous unions can produce more of the harmful mutations, and it’s also part of the reason why harmful traits are common in communities that are fairly small and somewhat inbred (e.g. European royalty). On the flip side, someone whose parents are much more distantly related will likely to have different genes that are mutated in a harmful way, and the ones that are transmitted redundantly will then be more likely not to have any effect. Of course, after several generations of lots of mixing this benefit will decrease considerably, because the bad DNA will continue to the next generation even if the good DNA is alongside it and thus not manifesting the bad trait.

    But that’s a far cry from saying that mixed race people are always going to be healthier or better looking. All it says is that mixed race people have one thing going for them that’s a health benefit. But then so do people who aren’t English royalty.

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 3:07 pm ¶

14. hmmm... wrote:

    To Lyonside and the rest:
    you’re not telling me anything new.

    Never said I spoke for all mixed raced folks, nor did I say all mixed raced people would classify Beckford as black.

    Yes I am aware of the diversity in Africa…again you’re not eductaing me on anything. My reference to the shape of Mandela’s eyes was to point out the foolishness in basing ethnicity/race or whatever you want to call it on phenotype which is what many mixed raced persons do. If Beckford’s eyes were more round how many people would still say “Oh yeah, I can see his mixed ethnic background.” Yet many mixed persons (and by the way I am of mixed ethnicity myself) are constantly saying how they can “see” the “white/asian/hispanic/indian” in someone. Before I started lurking the various multiracial cites on the the web, I just considered Beckford a black man. My mother’s family is black. I have two matrenal aunts who have eyes similar in shape to Beckfords. When my mother and her sisters were children people would ask if they had “chinese” in them. Both of my materal parents grandparents were black (they both died two years ago six months apart) so no there was no “chinese” in them, yet people assumed such simply because of the shape of my aunts eyes and the length of my mother’s hair. If Tyson wants to classify himself as mixed then so be it. Every African-Amercian out here is mixed then too. But the reality is that many mixed raced persons (not all but many) are obessed with physical characteristics. They claim they can “tell” when someone’s mixed by the width of the person’s nose, the shape of their eyes, the length and texture of their hair. Its all foolishness and its for this reason that we have people writing books like the one cited above. But I didn’t come here to argue with people. So peace to you all.

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 5:02 pm ¶

15. Ani wrote:

    I looked at that link to the coverage of the article, I have seen the stuff about symytry being more attractive and that stuff before, and it sounded like he was talking about why we choose the mates we do (and not our siblings?) it seems like he was just trying to make the book into a “sexy topic” it should have been titled something else.

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 5:03 pm ¶

16. Anonymous wrote:

    brad:

    I don’t know where you got your information, but Mandela is Xhosa. Xhosa are a Bantu ethnicity who intermarried with Khoi (Hottentot is very out-of-date and offensive in South Africa) people. I’ve never heard of him or the Xhosa having Dutch ancestry. You seem to think Mandela is “Coloured,” the term used to describe part-European, part-Khoisan southern Africans, which he isn’t.

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 6:43 pm ¶

17. margot wrote:

    thank you Anonymous, for clearing up the ignorance regarding Mandelas heritage. He is indeed, Xhosa, and DO NOT use the term ‘Hottentot’! This is the derogatory term Dutch settlers used to describe the KHOI-KHOI, or Khoisan indigenous people who lived in the Cape Province region.

    However, Anonymous, as a South African Coloured, i can tell you that being a Coloured is not only a mix of Khoisan and Euro heritage. Coloureds include mixed people from other African groups/countries, South East Asians, South Asians and Europeans.

    Thank you!

    Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 8:53 am ¶

18. mtevc wrote:

    ok margot…totally off topic here, but as you are from S.A.—i am a crazy Johnny Clegg (savuka/juluka) lover…and love the music of the late brenda fassie

    Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 10:36 am ¶

19. Interesting indeed... wrote:

    Most comments on this topic are polemics which are more motivated by the fact that people DISLIKE the idea of hybrid vigour than by anything else. How can some people be so sure of something many scientists are not even sure of?
    For example there is the black man who can’t stand the idea that a mulatto man might be considered more attractive by some people. So he needs to put the person on the cover down.
    There is another person who gives into his angst that mulattoes and other mixies might have a biological advantage over monoracials.
    There is the mixed person who feels guilty about being considered attractive. Interesting, very interesting …

    BTW, the trouble with hybrid vigour is that it supposes that both parents are pure or at least relatively pure. Especially in America most people, be they black or white, have some kind of mixutre already.
    Also hybrid vigour is said to cease after the 3rd generation of mixed offspring marrying each other.

    Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 7:49 pm ¶

20. anon wrote:

    Brad:

    I have seen your ignorant remarks on Mandela several times before.

    When will you learn?

    Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 10:22 pm ¶

21. jlnli wrote:

    Regarding Mandela - did any of the SAers here see the episode of Carte Blanche where they did the genetic testing (yes, I know, testing is stupid) - in the end they did talk about him being maybe part Khoisan, and he made a joke about someone saying “Oh, that’s why you relate so well to the Coloureds” or something like that.

    I’ll try to find the link, I’m pretty sure Carte Blanche puts up transcripts…

    Posted 16 Jun 2006 at 3:22 pm ¶

22. jlnli wrote:

    Found it! http://www.carteblanche.co.za/Display/Display.asp?Id=2619

    Posted 16 Jun 2006 at 3:28 pm ¶

23. hmmm... wrote:

    To “Interesting Indeed,”

    I’m female and my slam of the guy on the cover has nothing to do with insecurity. (I am of mixed ethnicity by the way). Yes there are “attractive” men of mixed ethnicity, although beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My problem is with people asserting that persons of mixed ethnicity hold a monopoly on beauty. No group of people hold a monopoly on beauty. “Ugliness” can and does exist in all groups. Stop making more out of this “hybrid vigour” s*** than is necessary.

    Posted 17 Jun 2006 at 10:19 am ¶

24. Hey ya... wrote:

    This is a little off topic but related none the less. Did anyone watch the Today show this morning? Lester Holt interviewed a woman who just published her memoir entitled “Secret Daughter.” The woman was born in the late 1950’s to a white actress and a renowed black comedian whose name I don’t recall. The mother gave the daughter to a black Atlanta couple because she feared she and her white husband’s career in hollywood would be ruined if word got out she had a black child. The woman kept contact with the daughter and even took the daughter back when she was a preteen, but the mother and her husband passed the girl off as their adopted child. The girl knew that the woman was her real mother and writes about her life growing up as the “secret daughter.” What I found interesting about Lester Holt’s interview is a question he asked. He asked the daughter (now a fully grown adult) if her white mother ever told her to “pass” for white. The woman laughed out loud in Lester Holt’s face. The reason you might ask? Well the woman looked like Toni Morrison, the Pultizer Prize winner for literature. The woman had brown skin, full lips and a wide nose. Now don’t get me wrong, I have seen too many Asians, Italians, Greeks and Polish people to know that Africans/African-Amercians do not hold a monopoly on the abovementioned physical characterists, but Lester Holt’s question was pretty ludicrious considering the woman’s phenotype. I mean if the girl could have “passed” for white don’t you think the woman’s mother would have kept her to begin with. The woman has a webcite http://www.secretdaughter.com if anyone wants more info. I guess my point is that even though there are person of mixed background who are “ambiguous” looking like Mariah Carey and Derek Jeter and Keanue Reeves, many mixed persons are not. Just because you have a white parent doesn’t mean you can or should “pass”. Lester Holt has lost all credibility with me.

    Posted 17 Jun 2006 at 10:46 am ¶

25. ** wrote:

    If you go to http://www.secretdaughter.com there is a link to June Cross’s blog where she comments on Lester Holt’s question about passing. Apparently he wasn’t listening to what she said during the interview. I’m from Chicago where he worked the local news before going to NBC…never had much confidence in his abilities.

    Posted 17 Jun 2006 at 11:15 am ¶

26. lyonside wrote:

    Interesting Indeed:

    Whatever, man, lets put it this way, by your own admission science can’t tell us anything about “hybrid vigor” existing (which I object to anyway, since in the scientific sense regarding animals hybrid means an individual of 2 different SPECIES, but for the purpose of debate I use the term). Furthermore, the theories supporting hybrid vigor (better health, better beauty, whatever) ARE NOT FACTUAL AND HAVE NOT/CANNOT BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN.

    Therefore, your argument that because science hasn’t said anything then it must be true is BOGUS.

    My objection remains that SOME mixed folk are healthy and SOME are considered beautiful. SOME are not. The fact that noone can say what a mixed-ethnicity/race person looks like, the fact that we are not all like or of the same admixture, the fact that variation within the human population is very high, the fact that things like health and beauty are not only subjective but are often dependent on the level of economic and societal development (ie good health care, dental, hair care, skin care, etc.), the fact that things like health and beauty are only sometimes linked to genetics….

    See, all those provable scientific facts would pretty much disprove the theory - that’s how science (real science, anyway) works.

    This is not coming from guilt, it’s coming from my brutal honesty that I am biracial and don’t fit this beauty mystique thing. I don’t fit a lot of the sterotypes for facial features, hair texture, or whatever. What I do, however, is look like a combination of both my parents (DUH!) and that’s all I owe my genetic inheritance to. I may not be gorgeous, but I am to my husband, so that’s all I care about.

    Posted 17 Jun 2006 at 5:23 pm ¶

27. Jack Frost wrote:

    Hybrid vigor (i.e., the more p.c. heterozygote advantage) is true for other organisms and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that it is not true for humans. I do believe that many of you are in denial; for what reason I don’t know.

    Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 1:12 pm ¶

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.