Posted: Wed 28 Nov 2007 17:48 Post subject: African American Albino Woman
Quote:
Black Woman, White Skin
Her parents were black, but she looks white. Kenosha Robinson on trying to figure out where she fits in.
By Casey Parks
Taghi Naderzad
Growing up in Jackson, MS, I gravitated toward white people. It felt natural, I suppose, because I looked like them. While my cousins got black baby dolls for Christmas, mine were always peaches and cream. Once, during playtime in elementary school, one of the black girls told me I couldn't join her group. My doll, she said, was the wrong color.
Later, I understood what she meant was that I was the wrong color. Like my doll, I was blonde and green-eyed-the only one in a mass of brown skin. I am African-American, born with a genetic abnormality called albinism, meaning I've got little to no pigment in my skin. Albinism is a recessive trait, so both parents must carry the gene in order to conceive a child with it. It's more common than you'd think-one in 17,000 children is born with albinism.
My mom was only 16 when I was born. She did her best to protect me, but I knew early on that I was different. Everywhere we went-the mall, the grocery store-people stared at me. You could see the question on their faces: "Is she really yours?"
My dad died from pneumonia when I was 7. Mostly what I remember about him is the way he stood up for me. One day I asked him, "Why do people always look at me?" He said, "It's because you're so beautiful."
But some of my extended family were less charitable. Most of my relatives are from the Mississippi Delta, where blacks and whites still live separately. The notion of forming a friendship with a white person is foreign to my relatives, so how were they supposed to treat me? The only way, it seemed, was by singling me out and teasing me. "White girl!" they'd call me. I felt like I was a betrayal to my race.
My mom had more practical fears, like whether I'd get sun damage if she let me go outside. The complete absence of melanin in my skin means I don't tan-I just burn, baby, burn. Any time I went to a family reunion or church picnic, she'd slather me with sunscreen and make me wear a hat. During recess, I had to sit in the shade. When I was in fourth grade, my mom wrote a note to excuse me from field day, but I didn't give it to my teacher. Instead, I played all day under the hot sun. When I got in the car after school, my mother noticed that my face was red. I tried to lie my way through it, but my face kept getting redder, and my body started blistering. I didn't go to school for a week because I was so sick.
I think the article/writer has a misconception about her looking white. IMO, she doesn't pass for white, but Black Albino. She's a very pale skin and blond haired woman, but her all her other features are prominently sub-Saharan. Even the texture of her hair.
Granted, she finds more comfort among whites because of her skin and color, but she doesn't pass for white.
I think the article/writer has a misconception about her looking white. IMO, she doesn't pass for white, but Black Albino. She's a very pale skin and blond haired woman, but her all her other features are prominently sub-Saharan. Even the texture of her hair.
Granted, she finds more comfort among whites because of her skin and color, but she doesn't pass for white.
I completely agree.
She is stunning - what a fascinating combination of her SSA features and hair with her pale skin and hair!
What is interesting too is to think that when she has kids, if they are with a black father, they could be dark as night if they don't have the albinism gene.
I think the article/writer has a misconception about her looking white. IMO, she doesn't pass for white, but Black Albino. She's a very pale skin and blond haired woman, but her all her other features are prominently sub-Saharan. Even the texture of her hair.
Granted, she finds more comfort among whites because of her skin and color, but she doesn't pass for white.
I think she may have ONLY been referring to her skin. In a place where people are still so starkly self-segregated, her white skin is all it took to make her seem white and not black. Even some of her black relatives didn't know how to deal with her or interact with her.
I must say that she is the prettiest albino I have ever seen.
Cosa interesante!
I would venture to guess that this woman and those like her were the first people, separated from the dominat group, raised in isolation (location, valley, forest, etc) without additional genetic input from passing tribes, would be the forerunner of what we call Europeans today!
Cosa interesante!
I would venture to guess that this woman and those like her were the first people, separated from the dominat group, raised in isolation (location, valley, forest, etc) without additional genetic input from passing tribes, would be the forerunner of what we call Europeans today!
And you would be wrong. Completely different genetic factors.
And you would be wrong. Completely different genetic factors.
Actually I would be right because that is exactly how homo sapiens developed! One family leaving Africa in the beginning for whatever reason, going to various locations influenced by diet, environment, degree of psychological development and staking out their claim in various continents.
And you would be wrong. Completely different genetic factors.
Actually I would be right because that is exactly how homo sapiens developed! One family leaving Africa in the beginning for whatever reason, going to various locations influenced by diet, environment, degree of psychological development and staking out their claim in various continents.
You would be wrong because the processes that led to albinism are different, and albinism has certain defects like vision problems associated with it that do not occur just because a person is light skinned. Further more it is recessive. While light skin in Europeans is not.
And you would be wrong. Completely different genetic factors.
Actually I would be right because that is exactly how homo sapiens developed! One family leaving Africa in the beginning for whatever reason, going to various locations influenced by diet, environment, degree of psychological development and staking out their claim in various continents.
You would be wrong because the processes that led to albinism are different, and albinism has certain defects like vision problems associated with it that do not occur just because a person is light skinned. Further more it is recessive. While light skin in Europeans is not.
Right. Plus, most Europeans have plenty of pigmentation - brown hair, olive skin, blue eyes, and so on - all of these things require pigmentation. A colony of African albinos who all lacked pigmentation could not produce such pigmented offspring. Do you see what I'm saying, punjabtrini?
You would be wrong because the processes that led to albinism are different, and albinism has certain defects like vision problems associated with it that do not occur just because a person is light skinned. Further more it is recessive. While light skin in Europeans is not.
In that 'light or pale skin' in Europeans is the result of low eumelanin distribution in the skin, which would otherwise be what it takes to generate considerable dark skin - the ancestral state of modern human, how do you not deem it be a recessive trait?
Yes, albinism is more of a genetic mishap or disorder, while the prevalence of pale skin in Europeans is more of the natural response (natural selection) to the in situ environment, but both are the result of low eumelanin pigmentation - that is to say, both are manifestations of reduced eumelanin concentration in the skin, leaving pheomelanin to be more visible.
In that 'light or pale skin' in Europeans is the result of low eumelanin distribution in the skin, which would otherwise be what it takes to generate considerable dark skin - the ancestral state of modern human, how do you not deem it be a recessive trait?
In this context, I think that "recessive" means an allele whose phenotype manifests only in homozygotes. None of the known alleles that affect normal skin-tone are "recessive" in that sense. Individually they are co-dominant. Collectively they are additive. You will find pdfs of over a dozen articles on the topic at http://backintyme.com/skincolor/. The best text (although getting old now) is Ashley H. Robins, Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University, 1991).
In that 'light or pale skin' in Europeans is the result of low eumelanin distribution in the skin, which would otherwise be what it takes to generate considerable dark skin - the ancestral state of modern human, how do you not deem it be a recessive trait?
Read Frank's response. Furthermore, if you look at the Khoisan you will see that even among Africans without a mutation lighter skin is possible. The mutation that occured in Europeans allowed for even lighterskin, but not through a recessive trait. Which comes first does not determine dominance. What determines dominance is what manifests when two types of genes combine. When dark skin and light skin combine the person usally comes out with medium tones. Co-dominant. When an Albino and a dark skinned person mix, the tones will dependon the albinos family skin tone (non albino) and that of the dark skinned person. It will not be just dark skin as the albino does have genes for skin color, but they are being inhibeted by the albino genetics. But the genes in the dark skinned person are dominant over the albino's so their regular color can combine with that of the dark skinned person. All other problems that albinos have like vision problems are also supressed.
Quote:
Yes, albinism is more of a genetic mishap or disorder, while the prevalence of pale skin in Europeans is more of the natural response (natural selection) to the in situ environment, but both are the result of low eumelanin pigmentation - that is to say, both are manifestations of reduced eumelanin concentration in the skin, leaving pheomelanin to be more visible.
Albinism is the supression of all production, light skin is not. Except for extreme cases. Most europeans can tan given gradual exposure and time. An albino cannot. Not even if they expose themselves to the sun for only two minutes each day.
In that 'light or pale skin' in Europeans is the result of low eumelanin distribution in the skin, which would otherwise be what it takes to generate considerable dark skin - the ancestral state of modern human, how do you not deem it be a recessive trait?
Read Frank's response.
If you want to make a case, then onus is on you to cite the necessary documentation, not for me to go browsing for whatever it is that you wish to bring to my attention.
Salsassin wrote:
Furthermore, if you look at the Khoisan you will see that even among Africans without a mutation lighter skin is possible.
I am sure even you realize that Khoisans are not "pale skin", and if so, then I am not sure what your point is.
Salsassin wrote:
The mutation that occured in Europeans allowed for even lighterskin, but not through a recessive trait.
I am not sure that you're getting it: It is not a matter of "mutation" being responsible, which is in fact the same mechanism behind albinism fyi, but the fact that both have "reduced" eumelanin distribution in the skin. In other words, the genes responsible for producing skin darkness are not functioning to their potential in both cases, as is demonstrated in darker skin folks - this condition is hence, a result of the 'reduction' of a feature, which in this case, is eumelanin synthesis. The biological backdrop for the condition in either case may be different, but for the 2nd time, how do you not deem this condition [low level of eumelanin in skin] to be recessive trait in one case, but not in the other?
Salsassin wrote:
Which comes first does not determine dominance. What determines dominance is what manifests when two types of genes combine.
...but that which results in a negative, as opposed to "addition" of a substance - the central point which you didn't address, is what determines what becomes "recessive". In that situation, the dominant feature coupled with the recessive feature, will give rise to a product wherein the dominant feature will overshadow the 'negative' trait, because quite simply, the dominant feature produces a positive, which is 'additive", while the recessive one doesn't.
Simply put:
EuMelanin production is adding pigmentation.
Reduction of EuMelanin, quite simply means, taking away from EuMelanin synthesis, which is a recessive situation as far as this pigmentation is concerned.
You don't add a dominant positive to a negative, and still get a negative. Any number greater than zero, when added to zero, will certainly not give you a negative answer.
This is no rocket science.
Salsassin wrote:
When dark skin and light skin combine the person usally comes out with medium tones.
An offspring from a union between a considerably dark skin and pale skin person will certainly come out darker than the pale skin parent. Why?...because as diploid organisms, the dominant trait - which is the pigment producing alleles - overshadows the recessive one. The offspring may not necessarily be as dark as the dark skin parent, because quite simply, unlike that dark skin parent, the offspring may not have inherited dominant genes from both parents, so as to produce melanin to the extent seen in the dark skin parent. If given more petrol, you're likely to burn more, than if you were given less.
Salsassin wrote:
Co-dominant. When an Albino and a dark skinned person mix, the tones will dependon the albinos family skin tone (non albino) and that of the dark skinned person.
Can you elaborate on and quantify how a feature that causes relaxation of the production [regression in the production] of something is supposed to be "co-dominant" with a feature that does additively produce that something in question.
Salsassin wrote:
It will not be just dark skin as the albino does have genes for skin color, but they are being inhibeted by the albino genetics
Okay? So does "genetics" inhibit eumelanin production in 'pale skin' individuals, so that they don't show up in the same levels of skin eumelanin pigmentation as seen in the darker skin individuals. What then?
Salsassin wrote:
But the genes in the dark skinned person are dominant over the albino's so their regular color can combine with that of the dark skinned person. All other problems that albinos have like vision problems are also supressed.
You've already been notified that the biological backdrop of albinism is different from that of the largely naturally selected 'pale skin' in Europeans, but for some reason, you confuse that with the relaxation of eumelanin production in one situation to be 'recessive', while not so in the other?!
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
Yes, albinism is more of a genetic mishap or disorder, while the prevalence of pale skin in Europeans is more of the natural response (natural selection) to the in situ environment, but both are the result of low eumelanin pigmentation - that is to say, both are manifestations of reduced eumelanin concentration in the skin, leaving pheomelanin to be more visible.
Albinism is the supression of all production, light skin is not.
Who said otherwise? Focus on what's being said, which is that in either albinism or 'pale skin', eumelanin production has been significantly relaxed in the skin [so no need to go on talking about eyes, hair or what else not, besides skin color], such that eumelanin is no longer adequately visible in the skin, leaving pheomelanin to be the more visible component. And again, you've been informed many times now, though you decided not to pay attention, that albinism is a genetic disorder while relaxed eumelanin skin pigmentation in pale skin folks of Europe is a consequence of natural selection...however, in both cases, eumelanin synthesis in the skin has been significantly relaxed [to differing degrees no doubt [see below for specifics], but significantly relaxed nontheless], which is a RECESSIVE situation.
Salsassin wrote:
Except for extreme cases. Most europeans can tan given gradual exposure and time. An albino cannot. Not even if they expose themselves to the sun for only two minutes each day.
Read the above, and hopefully adjust yourself from having to repeat non-issues. Also, while pale skin Europeans can tan, resulting from temporary and relatively modest surge in skin eumelanin synthesis, this condition never reaches the situation seen in naturally darker skin folks. The most that can happen from that point on, is to get skin sun burns, not more eumelanin synthesis. So, please don't confuse this idea the next time around:
Natural selection is behind the relaxation of melanin synthesis in Europeans, while genetic disorder is behind that of albino individuals...but in each case, melanin is considerably relaxed [in Europeans], if not lack of its production [in albinos], which is a recessive feature in any case. Loss in eumelanin production cannot, quite simply, be an additive trait, as opposed to being a recessive one. But, I await your elaboration on how this condition cannot be deemed recessive, hopefully without you having to repeat those non-sequiturs just outlined.
Reduction of EuMelanin, quite simply means, taking away from EuMelanin synthesis, which is a recessive situation as far as this pigmentation is concerned. You don't add a dominant positive to a negative, and still get a negative.
Explorer is using a non-standard definition of "dominant" and "recessive." As I tried to explain, in biology the former means a trait that appears in heterozygotes and the latter is one that appears only in homozygotes. Explorer is evidently using the terms to mean something related to increading or decreasing production of a protein. It is hard to tell what Explorer means, however, because although the usage is not that found in the textbooks, the poster has has not bothered to define precisely what is meant in the messages.
This is a formal warning. Either stop using the terms "dominant" and "recessive" or provide a clear and rigorous definition of what you mean by those terms. See The Rules, 3.3.
If you want to make a case, then onus is on you to cite the necessary documentation, not for me to go browsing for whatever it is that you wish to bring to my attention.
Sorry, I forget you are a newbie. fwsweet is Frank. Right above my response.
Quote:
I am sure even you realize that Khoisans are not "pale skin", and if so, then I am not sure what your point is.
Variation in human population not needing a mutation, or a recessive gene.
Quote:
I am not sure that you're getting it: It is not a matter of "mutation" being responsible, which is in fact the same mechanism behind albinism fyi, but the fact that both have "reduced" eumelanin distribution in the skin.
Both are results of mutations. But different mutations and different processes.
Quote:
In other words, the genes responsible for producing skin darkness are not functioning to their potential in both cases, as is demonstrated in darker skin folks - this condition is hence, a result of the 'reduction' of a feature, which in this case, is eumelanin synthesis.
It isn't functioning to potential in many African populations as well. Without a mutation. Your point? It still isn't a recessive trait.
Quote:
The biological backdrop for the condition in either case may be different, but for the 2nd time, how do you not deem this condition [low level of eumelanin in skin] to be recessive trait in one case, but not in the other?
Recessive. When two genes come together and one does not manifest in phenotype it is recessive. When two genes get together and both manifest to a degree and the trait is codominant.
Quote:
...but that which results in a negative, as opposed to "addition" of a substance - the central point which you didn't address, is what determines what becomes "recessive". In that situation, the dominant feature coupled with the recessive feature, will give rise to a product wherein the dominant feature will overshadow the 'negative' trait, because quite simply, the dominant feature produces a positive, which is 'additive", while the recessive one doesn't.
A lot of garble that didn't make sense. Do you remember mendelian genetics from highschool at all?
There are more than 6 genes controlling for skin color. In Albinos the factor is one gene
Seriously, do some reading before you comment anymore:
http://www.albinism.org/publications/what_is_albinism.html http://backintyme.com/essays/?p=4
If you can't tell me the difference between recessive and codominant after that, don't know what to say.
Quote:
Simply put:
EuMelanin production is adding pigmentation.
Reduction of EuMelanin, quite simply means, taking away from EuMelanin synthesis, which is a recessive situation as far as this pigmentation is concerned.
You don't add a dominant positive to a negative, and still get a negative. Any number greater than zero, when added to zero, will certainly not give you a negative answer.
This is no rocket science.
LOL. Read the articles above. Seriously. You need help in genetics. It is science. And you are not on the right track.
Quote:
An offspring from a union between a considerably dark skin and pale skin person will certainly come out darker than the pale skin parent.
And lighter than the dark skinned parent. Your point?
Quote:
Why?...because as diploid organisms, the dominant trait - which is the pigment producing alleles - overshadows the recessive one. The offspring may not necessarily be as dark as the dark skin parent, because quite simply, unlike that dark skin parent, the offspring may not have inherited dominant genes from both parents, so as to produce melanin to the extent seen in the dark skin parent. If given more petrol, you're likely to burn more, than if you were given less.
Again, if you need to inherit the "dominant' gene from both parents then it is not dominant but codominant.
Sorry, but your whole post is garble. Again. Until you can address the point of what is codomiance versus recesiveness the rest of your arguments are a waste of my time.
Reduction of EuMelanin, quite simply means, taking away from EuMelanin synthesis, which is a recessive situation as far as this pigmentation is concerned. You don't add a dominant positive to a negative, and still get a negative.
Explorer is using a non-standard definition of "dominant" and "recessive." As I tried to explain, in biology the former means a trait that appears in heterozygotes and the latter is one that appears only in homozygotes. Explorer is evidently using the terms to mean something related to increading or decreasing production of a protein. It is hard to tell what Explorer means, however, because although the usage is not that found in the textbooks, the poster has has not bothered to define precisely what is meant in the messages.
This is a formal warning. Either stop using the terms "dominant" and "recessive" or provide a clear and rigorous definition of what you mean by those terms. See The Rules, 3.3.
No need to get abusive. If you wanted elaboration, all you needed to do, was simply ask for further clarification. That is what civil discussion is about - communicating with one another, not parcelling out unwarranted threats.
At any rate, I'll reiterate what I mean, hopefully in the simplest terms possible:
The alleles responsible for eumelanin pigmentation in 'pale skin' individuals are recessive, vis-a-vis the alleles responsible for such in darker skin folks. Homozygocity is simply the condition of having two copies of the same allele at a certain locus of homologous chromosomes, while heterozygocity apparently is the contrasting definition of that - having two different alleles at a given locus of homologous chromosomes.
In homozygotes, the two copies of the same allele can either both be of the dominant type, or they can both be of the recessive type. But to give you give you a "standard" simple elaboration on what I mean by the former and the latter,...
The "dominant type" here entails the allele which is phenotypically expressed at the said locus, and masks the effect of the other copy, the "recessive" one. And it goes without saying, but nontheless: the "recessive type" is one whose effects on phenotype is masked by that of the "dominant" copy of a given allele in the homozygote state.
Similarly, in the heterozygotic state, the dominant allele of the two different alleles at a given locus on homologous chromosomes, will be phenotypically expressed, and overshadows the effect of the "recessive" counterpart [the distinctive allele at the same locus].
"pale skin" as a measure of skin eumelanin, is a recessive condition. And I have already exemplified this, with that example of a union between a considerably 'dark skin' parent and a 'pale-skin' parent. In "normal" cases, the offspring will most definitely be darker than the 'pale skin' parent, because quite simply, the effect of the responsible homozygous allele from the 'pale skin' parent would be overshadowed by that of the 'dominant' homozygous copy from the 'dark skin' parent. This would also be the case, in a heterozygous situation. The dominant copy will naturally be responsible for more eumelanin production, while the recessive 'copy' or else type, would be responsible for producing less, if at all.
There you have it: These are the standard definitions by which I made my last comments.
Variation in human population not needing a mutation, or a recessive gene.
This makes no sense. If mutations aren't responsible for variations, then what is?
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
I am not sure that you're getting it: It is not a matter of "mutation" being responsible, which is in fact the same mechanism behind albinism fyi, but the fact that both have "reduced" eumelanin distribution in the skin.
Both are results of mutations. But different mutations and different processes.
I know that, because I had already told you so.
Salsassin wrote:
Recessive. When two genes come together and one does not manifest in phenotype it is recessive. When two genes get together and both manifest to a degree and the trait is codominant.
You got your basics wrong. The "recessive" allele in homozygotes or heterozygotes, is the gene whose effect is masked by the 'dominant" one. Keeping this in mind, please demonstrate to me, how the allele that produces "less" eumelanin in the 'pale skin' parent is supposed to be considered "co-dominant" with the allele that produces "considerable" eumelanin in the dark skin parent, wherein the child comes out darker than the 'pale skin' parent?
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
...but that which results in a negative, as opposed to "addition" of a substance - the central point which you didn't address, is what determines what becomes "recessive". In that situation, the dominant feature coupled with the recessive feature, will give rise to a product wherein the dominant feature will overshadow the 'negative' trait, because quite simply, the dominant feature produces a positive, which is 'additive", while the recessive one doesn't.
A lot of garble that didn't make sense.
Then acquaint yourself with genetics 101, and I gaurantee you that a 'lot of this garble' will start to sink in.
Salsassin wrote:
Do you remember mendelian genetics from highschool at all?
Obviously; how about you? If so, then can you show me how Mendalian genetics helps you demonstrate that an allele whose instruction allows for least to no eumelanin production is "co-dominant" with an allele whose instructions allows for substantial eumelanin production.
Salsassin wrote:
There are more than 6 genes controlling for skin color.
Okay?
Salsassin wrote:
Seriously, do some reading before you comment anymore:
Good preachers follow their own advice more than anyone. You should do the same.
Salsassin wrote:
http://www.albinism.org/publications/what_is_albinism.html
http://backintyme.com/essays/?p=4
If you can't tell me the difference between recessive and codominant after that, don't know what to say.
Then I advice you to say no more; I can keep instructing you what recessive and dominant genes are, but if you don't at least have genetics 101 in the bag, then what good is it; is not then safe to say that such instructions will not sink in? Not unreasonable to think that it would be.
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
Simply put:
EuMelanin production is adding pigmentation.
Reduction of EuMelanin, quite simply means, taking away from EuMelanin synthesis, which is a recessive situation as far as this pigmentation is concerned.
You don't add a dominant positive to a negative, and still get a negative. Any number greater than zero, when added to zero, will certainly not give you a negative answer.
This is no rocket science.
LOL. Read the articles above. Seriously. You need help in genetics. It is science. And you are not on the right track.
Please put me on the right track, and explain what you understand about each of the above, and what is 'specifically' not right about each or the other of the above.
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
An offspring from a union between a considerably dark skin and pale skin person will certainly come out darker than the pale skin parent.
And lighter than the dark skinned parent. Your point?
Was this:
Why?...because as diploid organisms, the dominant trait - which is the pigment producing alleles - overshadows the recessive one. The offspring may not necessarily be as dark as the dark skin parent, because quite simply, unlike that dark skin parent, the offspring may not have inherited dominant genes from both parents, so as to produce melanin to the extent seen in the dark skin parent.
Please, don't hesitate to inform me of what you don't understand by the above.
Salsassin wrote:
Sorry, but your whole post is garble. Again. Until you can address the point of what is codomiance versus recesiveness the rest of your arguments are a waste of my time.
I'm afraid you may be right; unless you have some genetics 101 grasped, anything related to you will appear as garble, and rendering you incapacited to respond to requests intelligently. You may in fact be wasting your time discussing issues you don't understand.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
