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 -
( ... )
Yeah, they are little darlings. I'd love to see their DNA chart though. I don't know how to interpret them very well anymore (not that I really ever could) but it'd be cool.
my niece & nephew are fraternal twins & makaela is much more fair than kaleb... i'll post pictures as soon as i have any digital ones; you will like ;-)
Comments 45
Reply
Reply
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
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment