Mixedmom, Light Skinned Black. And I don't have a clue what a FGM is. I'm working on it though. It's hard to keep up never having been exposed to all this ''new'' type conversation. I do however find it very interesting. You guys are getting me hooked.
Thanks Andrew! Now it seems so obvious! Anyhow, FGM means First Generation Mulatto. We'll get through this together!
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Thu 02 Nov 2006 03:54 Post subject:
...and I was saying, let me see, FGM...hey I know, it's first generation man. Then I collected myself and thought, no way Dummy, it can't be first generation man. Are you serious I said to myself. So I gave up and you being a woman, just had to show a man how to get it right.
I don't get it.What's the difference between biracials and light skinned blacks?Beyonce is a light skinned black,but her hair is straighter than Halle Berry's hair and her features look more mixed than Halle's.I know Beyonce's hair is straighter because I saw photos of her as a child.I am not biracial but black,but I was born real light with straight red hair,but when I grew up my hair texture changed and I became real dark.I'm not even light skinned but brown with dark hair.I have seen biracial babies who were born darker than me and who became darker than me and whose hair is not even as half soft as mine.
I don't get it.What's the difference between biracials and light skinned blacks?
In the context of this forum, there is no such thing as a Black person. This forum is about molecular anthroplogy and genetics, not about socio-political self-identity nor ethnicity.
In general, "biracial" means someone of mixed Euro-African DNA. "Black" on the other hand means an American who self-identifies as a member of the Black or African-American community.
For example, there are many hundreds millions of people on the planet who are biracial (of mixed Euro-African DNA) but who would be insulted to be called Black. This would include most Latin Americans and most of the inhabitants of the Mediterranean basin, especially of the northern and eastern shores.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Fri 03 Nov 2006 03:16 Post subject:
As I stated earlier, I don't believe there is any difference in phenotype between "light skinned blacks" and first generation multiracials who have the same amounts of African and European ancestry.
The difference in perception may a be function of the fact that a biracial person in US culture is typically the child of a black American, who is already of mixed ancestry, and a white American of over 95 % (roughly) European ancestry.
So while this person is defined as biracial, he or she is has a majority of European ancestry. Lets say a typical black American has roughly 80 % African ancestry and 20 % European ancestry. Let's say a typical white American has roughly 97 % European ancestry. So the mix is roughly 60/40. This "biracial" person is mostly white.
On the otherhand, there are situations where almost everyone in the family is stereotypically black, with a few individuals that look mixed. The people who are ''light skinned/mixed looking'' are distiguishable from multiracials because of the way they speak and act. They usually have brothers, sisters or parents who are dark and most of their family members are african american. I think this is more common.
Speak and act? If you are saying that many biracial people are raised outside of the black community or have very little contact with black people (African American), then yes, their speech patterns and "behavior" will be different. But we could say the same thing about blacks/African Americans raised under similar circumstances.
I am not African American and was raised in a predominantly white ethnic neighborhood and I sound black, at least to some people. The few biracial people I knew of in my neighborhood sounded the same. Others, along with some of the black kids, sounded like the white kids in the area.
How multiracials act or speak is really of function of their upbringing and where they were raised.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 168 } Location: Mid-Atlantic States; USA
Posted: Fri 03 Nov 2006 20:35 Post subject:
odocoileus wrote:
As I stated earlier, I don't believe there is any difference in phenotype between "light skinned blacks" and first generation multiracials who have the same amounts of African and European ancestry.
The difference in perception may a be function of the fact that a biracial person in US culture is typically the child of a black American, who is already of mixed ancestry, and a white American of over 95 % (roughly) European ancestry.
So while this person is defined as biracial, he or she is has a majority of European ancestry. Lets say a typical black American has roughly 80 % African ancestry and 20 % European ancestry. Let's say a typical white American has roughly 97 % European ancestry. So the mix is roughly 60/40. This "biracial" person is mostly white.
Now, I could be as wrong as two left shoes, yet I believe you've "hit
the nail on the head". I have a feeling that not only is what you've said
absolutely correct, but that the entire explanation is basically just that simple.
As I stated earlier, I don't believe there is any difference in phenotype between "light skinned blacks" and first generation multiracials who have the same amounts of African and European ancestry.
This was the source of confusion from the beginning of the thread: the assumption that LSB people share similar heritage to that of bi/multi-racial people but just "multi-generational", and so are indistinguishable; this is not the case at all, and the two share similar complexion only.
LSB people (most) have overwhelmingly predominant black ancestry (and look it), and may or may not have traces of euro/native ancestry from the very distant past - not any different from the rest of the "dark" afro-american populace.
Bi/multi-racial people dont, and will look phenotypically distinct from the average LSB person because of this.
If so I think you'd get into trouble because how many LSBs can go back 3 generations with NO White ancestors?
The majority. I cant emphasize enough how the typical afro-american is ethnically uniform, and has no specific knowledge of any non-black ancestors whatsoever. Whatever other "bloodlines" that may exists, and are discernable in these new DNA tests, are from very early american history (antebellum), and is not part of our experience at all.
Like Chris Rabb describes his family:
Quote:
I descend from two black parents, four black grandparents, eight black great grandparents and 16 black great-great grandparents.
The most people usually have, is rumors about things that may or may not have been. Its not common for a black-american, to know of some white people related to them.
Quote:
I'm a Black/Afro-American, not lightskinned, and even all of my g-grandparents are not Black.
I thought you were of haitian parentage though??
Quote:
And how would you account for the entry of foreign biracials into the gene pool, such as Haitian mulattos (especially in the NE)?
I personally woudnt consider people of black immigrant stock to be "afro-american" - which I consider to be a very specific ethnic group.
Quote:
That's why I asked, and I think others have too, how and when does a biracial turn into a LSB?
They dont. Theres no arbitrary line that needs to be drawn; its clear.
Bi/multi-racial people are those with multi-ethnic families/lineages. Black people have black families.
The majority. I cant emphasize enough how the typical afro-american is ethnically uniform, and has no specific knowledge of any non-black ancestors whatsoever. Whatever other "bloodlines" that may exists, and are discernable in these new DNA tests, are from very early american history (antebellum), and is not part of our experience at all.
So if the majority can, does that mean the minority that can't aren't "really" Black and are "passing?" The ODR guarantees that there are plenty of Black people with families that aren't ethnically uniform.
Phil345 wrote:
The most people usually have, is rumors about things that may or may not have been. Its not common for a black-american, to know of some white people related to them.
It depends on the family and whether you are talking about White people who are parents/grandparents and White people who are known ancestors. Most Black people do not even know their African ancestry past a few generations if they are descended from slaves, so how could they know for sure without doing a family tree?
Phil345 wrote:
I thought you were of haitian parentage though??
My father is Haitian. My mother is Black American. Both consider themselves Blacks.
Phil345 wrote:
I personally woudnt consider people of black immigrant stock to be "afro-american" - which I consider to be a very specific ethnic group.
That's strange considering how many immigrants have become Black Americans over the centuries. Especially from Haiti via Louisiana. I've been telling my mom for years that part of her ancestry is probably Haitian too. How do you weed them out?
Phil345 wrote:
They dont. Theres no arbitrary line that needs to be drawn; its clear.
Bi/multi-racial people are those with multi-ethnic families/lineages. Black people have black families.
Black people can and do have both and that's why what you are saying doesn't make sense. Plus, in this forum, we are discussing genetics not ethnic identification. You said earlier that you believe that LSBs have more African ancestry than FGMs, which makes sense, but still doesn't account for different looks. Very few alleles account for a racialized appearance. Plenty of FGMs have kinky hair and broad features. So if you're saying that there are discernable trait differences that have been measured in LSB vs FGM populations, what are they?
They dont. Theres no arbitrary line that needs to be drawn; its clear.
Bi/multi-racial people are those with multi-ethnic families/lineages. Black people have black families.
Light-skinned black people must hail from multi-ethnic lineages http://www.wordreference.com/definition/lineage otherwise the physical traits that get them confused - and this confusion does exist - with first generation (African-European) biracials would not exist.
And then there's Prof. Henry Louis (Skip) Gates Jr., head of Harvard University's African-American Studies department.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138059/
Gates always knew he wasn't 100 percent African-American. According to family legend, Gates's only white ancestor was a slave owner named Samuel Brady, who had sex with Gates's great-great-grandmother Jane on his farm in Maryland in the 1800s. But recent DNA analyses turned Gates's world upside down. There was no trace of Brady on Gates's genome. Further testing revealed that Gates, in fact, carries as much Western European blood as he does African—and that one of his white ancestors was probably an Irish servant who met Gates's sixth or seventh great-grandfather sometime before 1700. "I'm thinking I'm a Brady and maybe I'm from Nigeria, and here I am descended from some white woman," says Gates. "It's incredible."
Light-skinned black (many would consider him medium brown skinned) Henry Louis Gates Jr. hailing from a black American family (meaning regardless of complexion, features and hair texture whether passably full white or unquestionably black everyone identifies as African-American) was found to be 50/50 African/European on a genetic level. The same as numerous directly biracial (as in one parent is white or otherwise non-black) people featured at this site. No way in Hell can he be the only one. Of course some light-skinned blacks will genetically have more African ancestry than European but in some cases it will be vice versa.
sagascend wrote:
Quote:
Black people can and do have both and that's why what you are saying doesn't make sense. Plus, in this forum, we are discussing genetics not ethnic identification. You said earlier that you believe that LSBs have more African ancestry than FGMs, which makes sense, but still doesn't account for different looks. Very few alleles account for a racialized appearance. Plenty of FGMs have kinky hair and broad features. So if you're saying that there are discernable trait differences that have been measured in LSB vs FGM populations, what are they?
Very good points sagascend. I agree whole wholeheartedly and have the same questions.
You said earlier that you believe that LSBs have more African ancestry than FGMs, which makes sense, but still doesn't account for different looks. Very few alleles account for a racialized appearance. Plenty of FGMs have kinky hair and broad features... So if you're saying that there are discernable trait differences that have been measured in LSB vs FGM populations, what are they?
I understand there is a lack of direct correlation between ancestry, and phenotype. But I still think persons of predominant european ancestry, and persons of predominant african ancestry would tend to look phenotypically different on average.
I brought up the admixture, to try to make sense of the physical differences that I observe (i.e LSBs having "blacker" features).
zsana wrote:
Light-skinned black (many would consider him medium brown skinned) Henry Louis Gates Jr. hailing from a black American family (meaning regardless of complexion, features and hair texture whether passably full white or unquestionably black everyone identifies as African-American) was found to be 50/50 African/European on a genetic level. The same as numerous directly biracial (as in one parent is white or otherwise non-black) people featured at this site. No way in Hell can he be the only one. Of course some light-skinned blacks will genetically have more African ancestry than European but in some cases it will be vice versa.
I believe the overwhelming majority do though.
In this graph of black skin color as a function of admixture from the Shriver study, you can see that indeed the majority of "light" black people (those with lower melanin index) have predominant african admixture. Few people are 50% european or more. On contrast i'm sure nearly all bi-racial people(black/white) would have 50% or more european ancestry.....
So theres a definate difference in ancestry between the majority of LSBs and bi-racial people , which I believe supports the contention that the two groups look different on average.
To get an idea of what color the melanin index represents, you can look at this graph here, that shows the average white person having a melanin index of about 30....
Of course some light-skinned blacks will genetically have more African ancestry than European but in some cases it will be vice versa.
Phil345 wrote:
I believe the overwhelming majority do though.
Lay a ruler horizontally across the chart at the M.I. of 45. Count the full circles lying below this line. There are 47. Of these 47, 14 lie to the left of the 50 percent west African ancestry mark and 33 lie to the right of it. So, Out of all the lighter complexioned A-As, one in three has more Euro than Afro DNA and two in three have more Afro than Euro. I would not call this "overwhelming" either way.
Phil345 wrote:
On contrast i'm sure nearly all bi-racial people(black/white) would have 50% or more european ancestry.
This claim is contadicted by Phil345's chart. Virtually all the circles represent bi-racial people (in the sense of having Euro-Afro admixture) and most have much less than 50 percent Euro DNA. Perhaps Phil345 could clarify precisely what he means by "bi-racial." He cannot mean a person of Afro-Euro admixture for the reason just given. He cannot mean self-identity, since no one on either chart self-identified as bi-racial. He cannot mean the first-generation offsping of parents who self-identify on opposite sides of the color line because neither of the scatter diagrams cited has any data about parentage.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Mon 14 Jul 2008 06:41 Post subject:
Crazy how people of mostly West African ancestry have such a great span of skin melanin index. Even at roughly 100% West African, the range is roughly from 45 to 80 or so (35 M.I.). This also makes me wonder what a melanin index of 45 and one of 80 looks like. What is the average skin melanin index for a white american? Examples would be nice.
What is the average skin melanin index for a white american?
Here is the same chart for Americans who self-identify as White. Notice that the vertical scale is greatly enlarged in this graph compared to the other one. The absolute range is comparatively much narrower.
Skin-tone range for White Americans is extraordinarily narrow due to historical selection. For most of the past 300 years, U.S. families with dark skin tone have traditionaly been rejected from the White endogamous group, no matter what their actual ancestry. For a complete explanation, see Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States, especially the last three paragraphs.
Grasshoppa wrote:
Crazy how people of mostly West African ancestry have such a great span of skin melanin index. Even at roughly 100% West African, the range is roughly from 45 to 80 or so (35 M.I.).
Yes. This is true, but it should not surprise. Any physical trait that you pick varies more widely within Africa than around the rest of the world combined. This is because all non-Africans descend from a small band that emigrated about 75 kya. For a complete explanation, see Human Skin Color Diversity is Highest in Sub-Saharan African Populations.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Thu 17 Jul 2008 05:35 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Grasshoppa wrote:
Crazy how people of mostly West African ancestry have such a great span of skin melanin index. Even at roughly 100% West African, the range is roughly from 45 to 80 or so (35 M.I.).
Yes. This is true, but it should not surprise. Any physical trait that you pick varies more widely within Africa than around the rest of the world combined. This is because all non-Africans descend from a small band that emigrated about 75 kya. For a complete explanation, see Human Skin Color Diversity is Highest in Sub-Saharan African Populations.
Yes, but this chart is based on only Western African ancestry. It doesn't even include the most of the folks to the South or East, hence my surprise.
The dissection and digestion of looks in this way is similar to what you see on Stormfront, very interesting.
Many of the people shown in the photos have had plastic surgery (at least 50% have had nose jobs to attain a more European look) and are wearing weaves/wigs or have straightened hair. Many would look much more ethnic with their true hair and less white.
I wonder if being first generation increases the chances of getting a European looking kid when children are had as these genetic 'clumps' are less randomized or shuffled than that of multigens, such as dominicans. Or would the chances be the same?
The chance of producing a child with either extreme of looks in the first generation are nil. To see why, imagine shuffling together (in a perfect riffle shuffle) a blue-backed deck of cards and a green-backed deck, and then cutting them into two piles of 52 cards each. Repeat the process with those two piles, over and over again. The chance that, after many shuffles, you will wind up with most of the green-back cards (more that 26) in one pile is quite likely (although the next shuffle will mix them again). But the probability that you will wind up with most of the green-back cards (more that 26) in one pile after the very first shuffle is dead zero. In short, the first generation is always a blend or mix. It is in the second and subsequent generations that you get randomness.
I agree.
Genes,after a few generations, phase out from the original.
If one keeps a line going in one direction,White, then White is the dominant gene.
If one line keeps a line going Black, then Black is the dominant gene.
You look like your parents. Maybe you can inherit traits from your grandparents, but it depends if the parents inherited those traits.
FGM,First Generation Mullato,I do not understand what you are talking about. I do not understand or agree with the specialness of mulattoism. I am sorry I butted in on ya'll inside joke there.
However,it leads back to genes.
Some of the many cases I know of....Two Creole White looking people had a child who looks White. The family goes as WA.
The child has married WA.
It would have been impossible for these two WC's to have a Black/brown child with coarse hair,BA looking or even Bi-racial looking.
These two W looking Creole people each had three of their parents who looked WA. One of the parents looked Cajun or fair complexion Hispanic.
AW looking Creole married a WZ and had WA kids. It would have been 100% impossible for her to have a Brn/Black,Bi-racial looking kids.
Needless to say,these people go as WA. Her parents, one was WA looking aand the other Hispanic looking.
I also know of cases where W looking B people went on and married Black and their line went Back to Black.
Some Creole people keep reproducing with others like them and that line varies from WA looking to Mullato looking to Bi-racial looking.
I said in the Bliss Broyard case, I wonder what she thought when she met those N.O. Broyards and saw that she was dark comapred to some of them. Some of them looked whiter in skin tone, faical features, blue-green-hazel-grey eyes and had blond straight hair compared to Bliss who is brunette and I think brn.eyed.
Last edited by Creole GAL on Wed 07 Oct 2009 19:15; edited 1 time in total
The dissection and digestion of looks in this way is similar to what you see on Stormfront, very interesting.
Many of the people shown in the photos have had plastic surgery (at least 50% have had nose jobs to attain a more European look) and are wearing weaves/wigs or have straightened hair. Many would look much more ethnic with their true hair and less white.
I agree about the pictures here of entertainers. All of these entertainers look BA to me. Rick Fox looks Hispanic. Ethnic identification can be like beauty,in the eye of the beholder.
If those people look mixed, including Beyonce, then I must look WA like two grandmothers. I don't. I look 100 % Pure BA!
I look NOTHING like them, aunts,uncles, or cousinson either side.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
