DARK/LIGHT...SKIN COLOR.........Is this still an issue? Let's be honest Sorors & SF'

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I have studied genetic mutation and DNA as well but I still say that Albinism is a separate topic since it is a rare condition like DSTCHAOS said.

Now I'm not saying that Albinism isn't caused by a genetic mutation, all rare conditions and birth defects are, but Albinism is still a different topic from the one that we are discussing here. Albinism while it's about the skin, is seen as a handicap or defect.

Light skin vs. Dark skin among Blacks (not including those who have Albinism)

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

Light skin vs. Dark skin among Blacks (not including those who have Albinism)

Right but isn't AKAMonet also trying to say that lighter skin comes from a genetic mutation? Her point is misplaced but I thought that was also her point.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Right but isn't AKAMonet also trying to say that lighter skin comes from a genetic mutation? Her point is misplaced but I thought that was also her point.

That may be her point (I'm not sure what her point is) but my research hasn't led me to believe that light skinned Blacks are the result of genetic mutation in the same way that genetic mutation is responsible for the evolution of one race/color from another. In the case of African Americans, we have light skinned Blacks because of European, Native American, etc. ancestry (and this doesn't mean that dark skinned Blacks don't have such ancestry because many do, including myself).

My interpretation of genetic mutation (in this way) doesn't begat light skinned Blacks.

[IOTA-4A'88F]

This is a very interesting topic, I just skimmed through, but will come back to read what everyone has said. Being a brown complected man with an Albino mother and a dark complected grandmother; we were taught color is something that is used to express yourself through arts, but as far as skin tone, you are who you are. As my mother says, "You are who we made you, period."

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

So without genetic mutations, all humans would be (insert complexion)? Eh....genetic mutation/evolution explanations have not been accepted across the board so you can debate that with yourself.

More importantly, this thread is about intragroup prejudice, regardless of the different theories behind where light/dark genetically came from. Albinism is an extreme and relatively rare condition that isn't about being "lightskinned." So to attempt to discuss albinos in a light/dark discussion is like discussing vitiligo or burn victims whose skin have been darkened. It is difficult to know whether these people will have certain advantages of disadvantages based on "colorism" versus being treated a certain way because they have a CONDITION. Conditions can generate intrigue and celebration or they can generate fear and disgust.

My stomach turned when I saw those albino photos but my stomach doesn't turn when I see photos of lightskinned or pale skinned blacks--unless the person is UGLY. While a lot of people are quick to call lighter blacks "pretty" just because they exist--I have never seen an albino black person even called "attractive."

Firstly, without genetics or epigenetics we cannot discuss ANYTHING about the human form...

Full Albinism are hotspot point mutations in the Tyrosinase gene for both alleles. There are also co-dominant effects, so that when one allele is normal for tyrosinase production toward melanin, the other mutant allele will "outrank" the absence of the allele.

The epigenetic effects of Albinism has not been extensive studied. But they exist. There are at least 3-4 forms of melanin along with the production from the TYR gene too. All varies with location, thought to be controlled by the epigenetic phenomena.

Just because there is an "absence" of melanin does not mean there is NO melanin production in ALL albinos. Melanin also aggregates in focal points in the skin. Especially in dark hued individuals and the high Sun exposure. In fact, there is thought that Sun exposure did not cause darker hues in humans. That humans were dark first, and then the color changes shifted to lighter complexions due to environmental exposures and changes. I.e. colder climates, lack of Vitamin D, Rickettsia and/or lack of sun exposure.

My references are from the discussions that took place after the Mitochondrial Eve and the Out of Africa hypotheses.

Virtiligo is a different set of genes altogether. And burn victims do not have darkened skin after the burn heals, they have a complete loss of their skin layer and zero organization of any epithelia cells altogether... So, that is outside this discussion.

Back in ancient days, people did not understand "CONDITIONS"... A culture, much like a leper colony was developed when these children were born... Think about how their minds developed, who they bred with, and how the "mutation" or "epigenes" were transmitted? So over time, it would be in the same league as how colorism could develop for various groups of people. These populations of people probably also had to migrate from the home clade because of the fear or disgust...

Over time, features changed--that which takes millenia. Many are unsure why. It is thought that it was due to a Supervolcano explosion ~100,000 years ago. Slowly eye structure, hair texture and nose shape, as well as other attributes, height, body structure changed. Probably because of food source changes--from sea to inland... More hunters than gatherers. Modern humans look like us, today. With an already mutagenized system and inbreeding, it is possible why we see this polymorphism in humanity.

Basically, we see similar activities in numerous other animals, how come we wouldn't expect to see it in humans?

Now, over time, we have diverse, random mating than we ever have seen before. Probably what we will see are taller or fatter humans and changes in ageing if we humans don't decide to change that directly.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I have studied genetic mutation and DNA as well but I still say that Albinism is a separate topic since it is a rare condition like DSTCHAOS said.

Now I'm not saying that Albinism isn't caused by a genetic mutation, all rare conditions and birth defects are, but Albinism is still a different topic from the one that we are discussing here. Albinism while it's about the skin, is seen as a handicap or defect.

Interesting you say that... I just see it as a the genetic response to a harsh environmental condition... All albinos do not pass on their trait to their children unless it is homozygous recessive--co-dominant... Many albinos are NOT that--most are compound heterozygotes. Only mice, rats, flies can be MADE to be full homozygous recessive--co-dominant true albinos at this time. It is RARE to find a human being like that, and then you have to wonder about inbreeding. There is only ONE I have seen with red-eyes...

Rarity of the condition does not mean it does not exist.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Firstly, without genetics or epigenetics we cannot discuss ANYTHING about the human form...

Now if you're talking about albinism in the way that Iota is talking about, that's a different story. But you aren't. There are a few ways to explain how humans evolved to the form that we are and how we began to categorize ourselves without discussing genetics. That's a big part of the study of racial and ethnic inequality, for instance. But beyond the foundation of how we got here, there's an analysis of how we perceive these differences and the categorizations and value-ridden rankings that were humanly derived from them. The resulting categories and ranks (i.e. prejudices) of good vs bad and lightskin vs darkskin is what this thread's about.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

That may be her point (I'm not sure what her point is) but my research hasn't led me to believe that light skinned Blacks are the result of genetic mutation in the same way that genetic mutation is responsible for the evolution of one race/color from another. In the case of African Americans, we have light skinned Blacks because of European, Native American, etc. ancestry (and this doesn't mean that dark skinned Blacks don't have such ancestry because many do, including myself).

My interpretation of genetic mutation (in this way) doesn't begat light skinned Blacks.

Wait... If you do a sequence search from one population vs. another--say Nordic featured Caucasians and Africans from Sub-Sahara, you will find that the African genes are diverse in sequence from Nordic featured Caucasians... And when you compare the African albinos to Nordic featured Caucasians to the main allele, you do find similarities in the actual code...

These are not the same things that make an "African featured" dark-skinned or Asian dark-skinned person... What THE only change is the mutations seen in the albinos are JUST the same or similar as the sequence in Caucasians--NOT ALL--but quite a few populations.

There may be polymorphic markers that different or single nucleotide polymorphisms or translation state arrayed microRNAs--however, the TYR gene spelling is remarkably similar to African type Albinos... Specifically in West African in descent--from Nigeria across to Tanzania give or take a few countries.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Rarity of the condition does not mean it does not exist.

That's true. I don't know if I've ever seen a red eyed albino.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Sure we can and we WERE until you showed up. Those of us who are ignoring your tangents still ARE.

Now if you're talking about albinism in the way that Iota is talking about, that's a different story. But you aren't. There are a few ways to explain how humans evolved to the form that we are and how we began to categorize ourselves without discussing genetics. That's a big part of the study of racial and ethnic inequality, for instance. But beyond the foundation of how we got here, there's an analysis of how we perceive these differences and the categorizations and value-ridden rankings that were humanly derived from them. The resulting categories and ranks (i.e. prejudices) of good vs bad and lightskin vs darkskin is what this thread's about.

We cannot discuss the high-level politics or the ramifications of our history until we are clear of the biological players and how come we developed--from a ecological standpoint at jump...

There was a reason why Africans--dark skinned, Asians--both dark and light skinned, and Caucasians in Europe appear the way they appear in human biological evolution.

Why did humans migrate so far from their food to look so differently? Then develop a how inaccurate ideology based on colorisms? What would be the biological basis for that other than hatred or fear?

Since we are in the AKA Ave on this subject...

[DSTCHAOS]

Your last post about migration is a basic understanding that is also applied when discussing the origins of cultures, ethnicities, etc. but where does that get us in reference to the discussion of intragroup prejudices? Just trying to understand where you're going with this.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I was talking to my hairdresser about a rollerset that Alicia Keyes had on a magazine cover. Her hair looked very nice and I was considering getting my rollerset looser like hers. My hairdresser said "oh yeah...and Alicia got that reeeeeal NICE hair texture." I'm glad she couldn't see my expression. I mean, there is HEALTHY hair. There's SHINY hair. There's a pretty hair color. But I've never associated "good" with finely textured hair. To me what she was saying was the same as the "good hair" thing--someone let me know if they would've interpreted that differently. Did she possibly mean the hair texture is easily managed?

I remember yeeears ago when one of my acquaintances told me "you got pretty lightskin...too bad your hair is all thick and kinky...you don't have good hurr." I was like " And God let me roam the earth still?! "

[Velocity_14]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I remember yeeears ago when one of my acquaintances told me "you got pretty lightskin...too bad your hair is all thick and kinky...you don't have good hurr." I was like " And God let me roam the earth still?! "

How about I used to hear (still a little today) "oooh you got some pretty hair to be darkskinned." Uuuuuuuuuum, so what is that supposed to mean??? Is my hair supposed to be bad because I'm dark; I'm not suppose to take care of my hair? Geeeeeesh!

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Velocity_14

How about I used to hear (still a little today) "oooh you got some pretty hair to be darkskinned." Uuuuuuuuuum, so what is that supposed to mean??? Is my hair supposed to be bad because I'm dark; I'm not suppose to take care of my hair? Geeeeeesh!

Darker blacks "don't have enough white in them" to have anything other than Brillo pad hair.

Kenya Moore is a beautiful woman but I remember when she first came out and was celebrated for being chocolate and "having hair."

[AKA_Monet]

[QUOTE=DSTCHAOS;1628358 Or someone else can enlighten us as to what your point is beyond the fact that these different shades of humanity came from....somewhere...and caused...noticeable differences that were responded to in particular ways. Your last post about migration is a basic understanding that is also applied when discussing the origins of cultures, ethnicities, etc. but where does that get us in reference to the discussion of intragroup prejudices? Just trying to understand where you're going with this.[/QUOTE]



1) Where do you think INTRA-racial prejudice started? What was the basis for its development, maintenance and institutionalized rationalization?

2) Do you think Light-complexion Pale Caucasians made Dark-skinned Africans? And when they did, did they choose to immediately hate darker hued humans to cause so much ignorance, racial hatred and institutionalization based on skin coloration? It just did not "magically" appear on the planet consecutive in all populations without electrical or transmission wiring... And given that the whole of humanity, genetically started in Africa?

3) The reality is, we need to know the biological basis of what humans developed cultural rationalizations. For example, how were Zombies made? It was recently determined how that process occurred and why it developed into the lore it has become. There is also the biological reasons for the effects at the Oracle at Delphi, The Holies of the Holies, the 10th Plague and the Balm of Gilead.

4) All scientific factors play a role in human development, evolution, behavior, agriculture, disease and astrological/meteorological phenomena. We have no discussion if we remain surface values, personal assaults and feelings to really educate people and possibly put an end to this ignorance.

And hey, don't believe what I say, do your own research and prove me wrong... I continually study that literature because it is a hobby of mine...

Who cares if someone is light/dark, polka-dotted or striped? The reality is a whole slew of people PERCEIVE discrepancies, distinctions and discriminations founded by SOMEBODY'S INANE EPISTEMOLOGY!

What I want to know is first, where did it come from, why does it exist and how it evolved to become that way?
I am here to help free people's minds...

[Velocity_14]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Darker blacks "don't have enough white in them" to have anything other than Brillo pad hair.

LMAO!! Dang, why does it have to be a brillo pad though...lol.