Still...I didn't like the article. Calling one the "white" baby and one the "black" baby....looking white doesn't make you white, looking black doesn't make you black. And the "black" baby doesn't look and "blacker" than her mixed-race parents, so why isn't she called the "mixed" baby? Funny how her parents both have dark hair and dark eyes, but get called mixed because they don't have a pale twin to compare to. And what if the "white" baby's hair turns dark when she grows up? Does that make her less white, is that the "black" showing through?
This all bugs me. Ethnicity is not based on what fucking skin color you are. Danielle is paler than me, but that doesn't mean I'm more black than she is, jesus.
Yeah, the article seemed rather poorly-written to me too. I think if they had substituted 'pale-skinned' for 'white' and 'dark-skinned' for 'black', it would have made a lot more sense. Because they still do have very similar genetic material, so they obviously can't be of different races. ('race' is a ridiculous concept, anyway, biologically speaking -- it's culture, not blood, that makes a race)
I think they were going for the shock factor, as all media does, and thus using the more emotionally-charged words. 'Forget the facts, it's the IMPACT that sells!'
Because they still do have very similar genetic material, so they obviously can't be of different races. ('race' is a ridiculous concept, anyway, biologically speaking -- it's culture, not blood, that makes a race)
I have to disagree with you on that one. I think race is a silly concept to really consider, but I also think that the biological aspect is just as important as the cultural aspect in typing someone as a specific race.
I haven't read the article yet, but I shall. Something about this occurence just seems off kilter to me.
Actually, sociologically speaking, humanity cannot be divided into "races." The differences required to classify a particular race are such that in attempts to divide the "races," sociologists got into the three-hundreds when they realized it's just not really possible.
"Race" is a fancy word people use for "color" or "ethnicity," depending on how they're trying to use it (and both uses are incorrect - just like "gender" doesn't actually mean a person's sex, but rather their masculinity or femininity - which means a physical male's "gender" can be feminine and vice versa). Here, they're using it for both, which is why it doesn't work. They're saying, "Look, the baby's dark, so it's a different ethnicity!" which just isn't true. Skin tone is based on the blending of genes, just like hair color and eye color and a shitload of other features. Ethnicity is in a person's blood, it is based on percentages and ancestry and is in no way connected to how a person looks. That article is a load of crap, and it was used for shock value -
( ... )
Your comment is cut off when I looked at it on the main comment page.
But, anyway, sociologically speaking, yes, you are right.
The way I was taught race in biology was that it was the same as breed--a group of individuals whose physical characteristics are more similar to eachother than individuals of another group even though all are of the same larger group--like Holsteins are Holsteins and Beefalo are Beefalo but Holsteins and Beefalo are all cows.
I wasn't disagreeing with Bel in the fact that the concept of race is foolish; I disagreed with the idea that it is wholly defined by culture.
Ethnicity is in a person's blood, it is based on percentages and ancestry and is in no way connected to how a person looks.I am going to disagree with this statement. The way the person looks is directly related to their ancestry-where else would a woman get the genes that cause her to look the way she does? I think that statement was just contradictory to itself in a way
( ... )
Ethnicity is in a person's blood, it is based on percentages and ancestry and is in no way connected to how a person looks.
Okay, that came off a little wrong...yes, it causes a person's appearance, but it doesn't work backwards - ie, a person's ethnicity determines their appearance, but their appearance doesn't determine their ethnicity.
And I do agree that it's not wholly defined by culture, but there's this gray area that most people are (sadly) fucking stupidly blind to. Like, "black" is not a "race" when the word "race" is used as "ethnicity" - this is where culture comes in, because a Kenyan is of a different ethnicity than a Rwandan. But they're both "black." Or, to put it in ethnicities that people are more willing to admit differences on, a German is not of the same ethnicity as an Italian, though both are "white."
I'm part Sicilian, and my husband is part mainland Italian (both of us of proportionally large percentages). If I had twins, and one came out looking extremely Italian, while the other inherited his/her
( ... )
Ugh, and by the way, SCREAM LOUDER ABOUT THE COMMENT CUT-OFF because it's driving me nuts, and aubkabob noticed it too, but Bel swears it isn't happening in her browser!
*going insane from having to paste every comment into Notepad to be able to read it!*
fixed it. (though the problem didn't show up in MY version of firefox, but I saw it in IE -- maybe you haven't installed the latest firefox updates?) And while I was at it, I changed the bit of code that had IE confused, so now my entry text doesn't look centered in every post. So the less-educated internet users can still see it correctly. ;-D
Still...I didn't like the article. Calling one the "white" baby and one the "black" baby....looking white doesn't make you white, looking black doesn't make you black. And the "black" baby doesn't look and "blacker" than her mixed-race parents, so why isn't she called the "mixed" baby? Funny how her parents both have dark hair and dark eyes, but get called mixed because they don't have a pale twin to compare to. And what if the "white" baby's hair turns dark when she grows up? Does that make her less white, is that the "black" showing through?
This all bugs me. Ethnicity is not based on what fucking skin color you are. Danielle is paler than me, but that doesn't mean I'm more black than she is, jesus.
Reply
I think they were going for the shock factor, as all media does, and thus using the more emotionally-charged words. 'Forget the facts, it's the IMPACT that sells!'
Reply
I have to disagree with you on that one. I think race is a silly concept to really consider, but I also think that the biological aspect is just as important as the cultural aspect in typing someone as a specific race.
I haven't read the article yet, but I shall. Something about this occurence just seems off kilter to me.
Reply
"Race" is a fancy word people use for "color" or "ethnicity," depending on how they're trying to use it (and both uses are incorrect - just like "gender" doesn't actually mean a person's sex, but rather their masculinity or femininity - which means a physical male's "gender" can be feminine and vice versa). Here, they're using it for both, which is why it doesn't work. They're saying, "Look, the baby's dark, so it's a different ethnicity!" which just isn't true. Skin tone is based on the blending of genes, just like hair color and eye color and a shitload of other features. Ethnicity is in a person's blood, it is based on percentages and ancestry and is in no way connected to how a person looks. That article is a load of crap, and it was used for shock value - ( ... )
Reply
But, anyway, sociologically speaking, yes, you are right.
The way I was taught race in biology was that it was the same as breed--a group of individuals whose physical characteristics are more similar to eachother than individuals of another group even though all are of the same larger group--like Holsteins are Holsteins and Beefalo are Beefalo but Holsteins and Beefalo are all cows.
I wasn't disagreeing with Bel in the fact that the concept of race is foolish; I disagreed with the idea that it is wholly defined by culture.
Ethnicity is in a person's blood, it is based on percentages and ancestry and is in no way connected to how a person looks.I am going to disagree with this statement. The way the person looks is directly related to their ancestry-where else would a woman get the genes that cause her to look the way she does? I think that statement was just contradictory to itself in a way ( ... )
Reply
Okay, that came off a little wrong...yes, it causes a person's appearance, but it doesn't work backwards - ie, a person's ethnicity determines their appearance, but their appearance doesn't determine their ethnicity.
And I do agree that it's not wholly defined by culture, but there's this gray area that most people are (sadly) fucking stupidly blind to. Like, "black" is not a "race" when the word "race" is used as "ethnicity" - this is where culture comes in, because a Kenyan is of a different ethnicity than a Rwandan. But they're both "black." Or, to put it in ethnicities that people are more willing to admit differences on, a German is not of the same ethnicity as an Italian, though both are "white."
I'm part Sicilian, and my husband is part mainland Italian (both of us of proportionally large percentages). If I had twins, and one came out looking extremely Italian, while the other inherited his/her ( ... )
Reply
Reply
*going insane from having to paste every comment into Notepad to be able to read it!*
/GIANT HINT :-P
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment