Sagascend (I believe) and I are under the impression that you cannot generally tell with accuracy - by looks alone - who is first generation biracial and who is generationally mixed or "light-skinned black". On the other hand, others say they can often tell (some with great accuracy) the difference.
My question is this. If this detection is based soley on looks alone and nothing else - leaving out all nonverbal cues - I would like to know how it's done. Just out of honest curiosity. Is it a gut instinct, a feeling, or something more?
I find this ability fascinating.
Below are some examples of first generation biracial and multigenerationally mixed well known people of black/white and black/white/native-american heritage. Some if not most are African-American identified while others are not. Of course this list could go on indefinently as we all know...
I also limited the photos to people who in my opinion are mostly intermediate in appearance with variations in skintone and hair-texture. We're all aware there are plenty of well known American celebrities, politicans, historical figures, etc... both directly biracial (meaning the parent of color identifies as - and is considered to be by society - black/African-American inspite of possibly being mixed themselves) and multigenerationally mixed (the african/european genetics are coming from both sides) who are physically indistinguishable from white people.
I'll be honest, I'd be hard pressed to distinguish between these two populations. If there really is a phenotypical difference that I fail to see, why/how would that be the case genetically speaking since they all visibly (at least to my eyes) have various degrees of Afro/European and Afro/European/Native ancestry?
Last edited by zsana on Thu 27 Jul 2006 18:12; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 274 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Wed 26 Jul 2006 22:26 Post subject:
No one can tell by looks alone. To the extent that anyone can tell, it's a function of cultural cues - speech, accent, behavior.
If a person's genes for phenotype are fifty per cent African and fifty per cent European, it doesn't matter if that particular genotype developed in one generation or several, it's still the same genotype.
"Bicultural" would probably be a better descriptor of the ethnic identification of people who identify as biracial.
As Frank has pointed out, as soon as a "white" person acknowledges their African ancestry, American observers are prone to believe that they could see it all along. What they see is imaginary. The same with people who claim to see a difference between "light skinned" blacks and biracials.
Good topic zsana. Yes, I am skeptical of the ability to discern how recent admixture is in a given multiracial person on sight alone. Everyone I know who prides themselves on being able to "pick out a biracial person" did not know that Boris Kodjoe (maginificent specimen of a man between Nicole Ari Parker and Vanessa Williams in zsana's post), was a FGM. I literally won money in bets, it was funny.
Echoing odocoileus, where is the evidence that "acute" mixture in an FGM and "settled" mixture in an MGM yields differences in appearance if they are equally mixed (not as in 50/50 but both have identical proportions of admixture)?
Here's a thought: Have the people who say that their radar is spot on taken parental features and their degree of difference into account? I think it matters how different the parental phenotypes are and whether they, like many people, seek mates who look like them.
Another thought: Can you also tell a Eurasian from a Slav or Mexican? A Blasian from a Filipino or Fijian?
Random side note: If you put MGM Janet Jackson's picture next to Halle Berry and Dorothy Dandridge they would look like sisters!
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 26 Jul 2006 22:56 Post subject:
odocoileus wrote:
..it doesn't matter if that particular genotype developed in one generation or several, it's still the same genotype.
In the phenotype I guess there is not differences between bi-racials and multi-generational mixed people. However, in genetics terms, the more generations that past there are more recombinations in the genotype. At first generation, most of the sharing is at the level of cromosomes only, but in the following generations the recombinations will accumulate below the cromosomes' level. The mixing will have an "higher resolution" so to speak, because there will be more recombinations present in the DNA. In other terms, the fusion will be at a more microscopic scale and more complete.
In older multi-generational mixed population you see that people start to look similar. Never identical, but with a more even aspect.
..it doesn't matter if that particular genotype developed in one generation or several, it's still the same genotype.
In the phenotype I guess there is not differences between bi-racials and multi-generational mixed people. However, in genetics terms, the more generations that past there are more recombinations in the genotype. At first generation, most of the sharing is at the level of cromosomes only, but in the following generations the recombinations will accumulate below the cromosomes' level. The mixing will have an "higher resolution" so to speak, because there will be more recombinations present in the DNA. In other terms, the fusion will be at a more microscopic scale and more complete.
In older multi-generational mixed population you see that people start to look similar. Never identical, but with a more even aspect.
Omar
I get what you are saying, but aren't there assumptions implicit in contrasting FGMs and MGMs, that in the former mixing is fresh and in the latter it is old?
That strikes me as problematic considering people have been mixing for ages. For example, if an MGM (visibly "Black") of Italian, French and West African ancestry mixes with an Italian (visibily "White") who is also of Italian, French and West African ancestry, people are going to call their children FGMs. The children are not a fresh mix if the parental gene pools are that closely related right?
How often are the parents of FGMs really from genetically isolated populations? And if so, are these the FGMs that people can pick out?
However, in genetics terms, the more generations that past there are more recombinations in the genotype. At first generation, most of the sharing is at the level of cromosomes only, but in the following generations the recombinations will accumulate below the cromosomes' level.
odocoileus wrote:
The fact that the genes for European phenotype, from the "black" parent have been passed down for generations through a chain of "black" ancestors doesn't make the child look any less phenotypically European. To borrow a line, genetics is digital, not analog.
You are both correct. Omar is right that in the first generation, one entire chromosome of each pair came from the father, and the other came from the mother. But when the first-generation person produces gametes (sperm or egg), the two chromosomes of each pair are shuffled like two decks of cards. It is a coarse shuffle, with huge chunks of DNA swapped between the pair of chromosomes. With each passing generation, the "cards" get more and more thoroughly shuffled. The coarseness or the granularity of the shuffling is called "linkage disequilibrium" and, since it decreases steadily with each generation, it does let you determine how many generations ago the Euro-African mixing took place. There is an explanation of this in The Rate of Black-to-White Passing.
Odocoileus is also correct that the admixture mapping used to measure linkage disequilibrium measures the degree of shuffling of millions of DNA nucelotides, the vast majority of which have no impact on phenotype--they are junk DNA. The handful of genes (under a dozen) that govern "racialized" traits are so widely scattered among the chromosomes that they are already as shuffled as they will ever be in the first generation. Hence, there is no eyeball test for linkage disequilibrium.
P.S. I somehow wiped out Odocoileus's post accidentally when writing this reply. Sorry about that.
My question is this. If this detection is based soley on looks alone and nothing else - leaving out all nonverbal cues - I would like to know how it's done. Just out of honest curiosity. Is it a gut instinct, a feeling, or something more?
I find this ability fascinating.
....on looks alone I can distinguish normal mono-ethnic african americans (of lighter hue), from bi-racial/multi-ethnic people probably 80% of the time, and if factoring speech tone, and mannerisms 95% +.....
It should be noted however, that I am speaking from an American context, and about physical distinctions between persons who have two african-american parents, and those who have an african-american parent and a white parent.
1) Hair texture.
African Americans (even the fairest skinned people) usually still have kinky (nappy) hair, which is extremely distinct. Bi-racial people more often have an intermediate wavy type of hair, which is less common among african americans. Usually when people see a person with a wavy/strait hair texture, that looks natural (not a weave/wig), it makes them enquire if that person is "mixed", and if they had nappy hair, they would assume that person to be "just black".
You will often hear convos like "Do you think he/she is mixed?". "No, you can tell thats a weave." (meaning that person has kinky hair, and is therefore probably not bi-racial.)
2) Facial features
Most african-americans, (once again, even the fairest skinned), have very promonent "black" ( read: west-african influenced) features, and will literally just look like a black person with lighter skin. Nkruma Stewart, notes in an article (included in this thread started by znana) that "Some black people have a complexion of French Vanilla and a face like Mike Tyson...that I can handle". Its less common for bi-racial persons, to have these kind of looks, instead of a phenotypically ambiguos appearance, which is not obviously west-african influenced.
Examples of people, who most would consider to be "lightskinned" (its subjective), or at least not dark, who have common looks associated with african-american, and would seldom be confused with bi-racial people because of facial features and/or hair texture:
People with naturally wavy, strait, and/or spiraling curly hair (which is very distinctive and sterotypically "mixed"), and/or ambiguous facial features are usually bi-racial. There are of course, all kinds of exceptions..
Last edited by Phil345 on Thu 27 Jul 2006 04:41; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 01:38 Post subject: Believe me or not
Believe me or not, I bet all the people above is mixed. At least 20% European and/or Amerindian. Proportions of the face, I guess.
White Americans (gringo variety ) have loooo...ong and narrow faces, that I can see in some of the people in those pictures as well.
Does anyone has pictures that show side by side Black Americans and West African people? There one notice the constrast very quickly.
All three men are more or less "pure" first generation European/African mixes. If I saw them on the street, I'd just think, light skinned black person.
Heres a comparison of two women with appoximately the same complexion; one who looks more like the average light african-american woman, and the other who looks more obviously bi-racial.
The difference is usually like night and day, not to say there isnt overlap, and exceptions.
As always in America, economics rule and one of the reasons for more mixed-race couples is that the three hottest stars in musical theater are black -- Brian Stokes Mitchell, who won the Tony for "Kiss Me, Kate"; Heathter Headley, who won for "Aida"; and Audra McDonald, who lost to Headley but was up for her fourth Tony for "Marie Christine." Beyond that, however, consider some of the messages in these and other musicals:
odocoileus wrote:
Quote:
No one can tell by looks alone. To the extent that anyone can tell, it's a function of cultural cues - speech, accent, behavior.
My point exactly.
Phil 345 wrote:
Quote:
not to say there isnt overlap, and exceptions.
I completely agree. I'm just of the opinion that this overlap is not an exception but the rule. For every example of a directly biracial person with curly/straight hair, another example of a multigenerationally mixed person with the same hair type and features can be shown. Just like there are numerous examples of frizzy/nappy headed first generation biracial people that are indistinguishable from the photos you recently posted.
If your point is many/most people (Americans anyway) mentally categorize people into either biracial or "light-skinned black" based on hair-texture (unless they're hispanic) I would agree.
We also mustn't forget that siblings coming from the same parents often look different in complexion, hair-texture, and features.
I think Frank summed it up best...
fwsweet wrote:
Quote:
The handful of genes (under a dozen) that govern "racialized" traits are so widely scattered among the chromosomes that they are already as shuffled as they will ever be in the first generation. Hence, there is no eyeball test for linkage disequilibrium.
oevega wrote:
Quote:
Believe me or not, I bet all the people above is mixed. At least 20% European and/or Amerindian.
In reference to the photos Phil345 posted I bet the same thing.
More photos of famous & notable Biracial and Multigenerationally mixed folks...
For every example of a directly biracial person with curly/straight hair, another example of a multigenerationally mixed person with the same hair type and features can be shown. Just like there are numerous examples of frizzy/nappy headed first generation biracial people that are indistinguishable from the photos you recently posted.
Its important to take into account this caveat I made before :
Quote:
It should be noted however, that I am speaking from an American context, and about physical distinctions between persons who have two african-american parents, and those who have an african-american parent and a white parent.
...the African-American group has kind of "evened out" over the generations since it became uniform, and have devoped similar looks, which are distinctive. People with an african-american parent and a white parent usually look very different from the norm and are easy to point out.
Quote:
If your point is many/most people (Americans anyway) mentally categorize people into either biracial or "light-skinned black" based on hair-texture (unless they're hispanic) I would agree.
The reason many/most people mentally categorize it this way, is because its more often true in the context of the united states. The average african american, who may have the same complexion (or lighter), than a bi-racial person, will have "blacker" features ( hair, and facial features), and is usually easily distinguished this way.
The light black people, that favor the bi-racial type, are less common. The average lighter skinned African American doesnt look like Brian Stokes.
...the African-American group has kind of "evened out" over the generations since it became uniform, and have devoped similar looks, which are distinctive. People with an african-american parent and a white parent usually look very different from the norm and are easy to point out.
I see no physical uniformity or "evening out" what so ever in the African-American identified group. On the contrary, I notice phenotypes ranging from one "racial" extreme to the other, and everything in between. Just like in first generation biracial populations. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree which is cool.
Everyone has their own unique perception based on personal experiences, family makeup, and a host of other factors. One isn't "right", the other "wrong". They're just honestly different.
What's interesting is that some of the same people who consider Sanaa Lathan "light-skinned black" would be quick to make a racial distinction between her and Dominican Zoe Saldana when it's very likely they come from a similar genetic make-up. Then just think of biracial singer Cindy Herron from En Vogue. Many to most people would be hard pressed indeed to point out who's African-American, Hispanic, and Biracial identified based on looks alone. Simply because they're all of mixed background. For all I know Sanaa Lathan (like Henry Louise Gates Jr. if you recall) could be genetically 50/50 Afro-European.
Last edited by zsana on Thu 27 Jul 2006 20:46; edited 3 times in total
I see no physical uniformity or "evening out" what so ever in the African-American identified group. On the contrary, I notice phenotypes ranging from one "racial" extreme to the other, and everything in between.
...the range is very wide, but there is definately an average, and a normal distribution of looks; most people would be the "in betweeen" type. Bi-racial people (african-american/white) deviate from that average.
Brian Stokes Mitchell (or "Stokes," as he likes to be called) is usually spoken of by critics and aficionados as a kind of Matinee Messiah, a full-throated masculine star in the manner of an earlier generation's Richard Kiley or, even earlier, Alfred Drake. These comparisons are aided and abetted by Stokes' appearance in revivals of "Man of La Mancha" and "Kiss Me, Kate," playing roles those two stars made legendary.
Mitchell is not just a leading man, he's a leading man for his times.
Upon his arrival on Broadway, he began a gradual but determined climb up the leading-man ladder, first in a musical called "Mail," then in David Merrick's all-black version of Gershwins' "Oh, Kay!" -- both flops. He went on to replace Gregory Hines in "Jelly's Last Jam," then took over as the radical political prisoner in "Kiss of the Spider Woman." His big break came in 1998 when he played Coalhouse Walker, a turn-of-the-century black man who is provoked into becoming an urban terrorist, in the musical version of E. L. Doctorow's "Ragtime" in 1997. Mitchell's considerable charm, and the thrilling duets he performed with Audra McDonald, transformed Coalhouse from a smoldering cipher (as he had been in the 1981 film) into the evening's hero and earned Mitchell a Tony nomination. For years, producers had been trying to revive "Kiss Me, Kate," but in 1999, they had the real thing in Mitchell, and he finally won his Tony. In 2002, he stared in a Broadway revival of "Man of La Mancha," for which he received his fourth Tony nomination. He had become that increasing rarity: a real Broadway leading man with a real Broadway sound.
But Mitchell is not just a leading man, he's a leading man for his times. Coming from a culturally diverse background -- African American, German, Scots, and Native American -- he lends himself naturally to a greater world of diversity on stage. Within eight seasons, he played a Latin American prisoner, an African-American piano player, the all-American Fred Graham, and the 17th-century Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes. To a 21st-century audience, that all sounds pretty good -- just like Mitchell's booming baritone.
Source: Excerpted from BROADWAY: THE AMERICAN MUSICAL by Michael Kantor and Laurence Maslon. Published by Bulfinch Press.
From the second the majestic overture of Rodgers and Hammerstein's 1949 show starts, you know you're in for a treat: In this age of diminished Broadway pits, hearing the 45-piece Orchestra of St. Luke's firing on all cylinders is just thrilling. And that's only the beginning of the fun in this most traditional, most delightful musical, recorded live at Carnegie Hall in June 2005. As Nellie Forbush, Reba McEntire deploys a homespun Southern charm that works marvels against the urbane Emile de Becque, i.e., Brian Stokes Mitchell and his impossibly buttery baritone (check out his rendition of "Some Enchanted Evening"). Of course we shouldn't be surprised, since country star Reba had turned out to be musical-theater star Reba when she replaced Bernadette Peters in Annie Get Your Gun on Broadway. Here, she brightly delivers classics (yes, the show is packed with them) like "I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outa My Hair" and "A Wonderful Guy." And let's not forget Lillias White, chewing the scenery in spectacular fashion as Bloody Mary ("Bali Ha'i," "Happy Talk"--what was that about the show being packed with memorable tunes again?). When the classic American musical is done with such gusto, it's hard not to be won over.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 23:44 Post subject: Phenotypes
My oppinion:
These fellows would be consider White Americans in Latin America
Average nordic:
(Lady on the left)
And the following lady, although she has dark skinned, has the facial features that gives a "latino" look. So she may be considered "part of the family" in Latin America, and perhaps a local girl in Cuba, DR or Brazil.
I see no physical uniformity or "evening out" what so ever in the African-American identified group. On the contrary, I notice phenotypes ranging from one "racial" extreme to the other, and everything in between.
...the range is very wide, but there is definately an average, and a normal distribution of looks; most people would be the "in betweeen" type. Bi-racial people (african-american/white) deviate from that average.
I would agree with Phil345. There's a "median look" to African Americans that may deviate slightly from one part of the country to another. The outliers on the light side of the African American color spectrum do in fact appear to be similar in appearance to many biracial black/non-black people, so eye-balling is not as accurate as people think.
Verbal ques may be better or a combination of eye-balling and verbal ques, but still less than 50% accurate. I know of biracial people and African Americans on this board who sound "black" and "white" respectively. And I still believe being able to discern between the two most of the time has alot to do with where in the U.S. you live.
However, in genetics terms, the more generations that past there are more recombinations in the genotype. At first generation, most of the sharing is at the level of cromosomes only, but in the following generations the recombinations will accumulate below the cromosomes' level.
odocoileus wrote:
The fact that the genes for European phenotype, from the "black" parent have been passed down for generations through a chain of "black" ancestors doesn't make the child look any less phenotypically European. To borrow a line, genetics is digital, not analog.
You are both correct. Omar is right that in the first generation, one entire chromosome of each pair came from the father, and the other came from the mother. But when the first-generation person produces gametes (sperm or egg), the two chromosomes of each pair are shuffled like two decks of cards. It is a coarse shuffle, with huge chunks of DNA swapped between the pair of chromosomes. With each passing generation, the "cards" get more and more thoroughly shuffled. The coarseness or the granularity of the shuffling is called "linkage disequilibrium" and, since it decreases steadily with each generation, it does let you determine how many generations ago the Euro-African mixing took place. There is an explanation of this in The Rate of Black-to-White Passing.
Odocoileus is also correct that the admixture mapping used to measure linkage disequilibrium measures the degree of shuffling of millions of DNA nucelotides, the vast majority of which have no impact on phenotype--they are junk DNA. The handful of genes (under a dozen) that govern "racialized" traits are so widely scattered among the chromosomes that they are already as shuffled as they will ever be in the first generation. Hence, there is no eyeball test for linkage disequilibrium.
P.S. I somehow wiped out Odocoileus's post accidentally when writing this reply. Sorry about that.
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?
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.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
) have loooo...ong and narrow faces, that I can see in some of the people in those pictures as well.
