I didn't say you specifically have a fear, I just made a comparison between two sets of White racialist thought.
This wikipedia entry is sufficient.
Racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations.[1] Currently, racialism entails a belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, but not necessarily that any absolute hierarchy between the races, has been demonstrated by a rigorous and comprehensive scientific process. Racialists usually reject some claims of racial superiority (such as "racial supremacy"), but may explicitly or implicitly subscribe to others, such as that races have acted in morally superior or inferior ways, at least in certain instances or periods of history.
Many of those "mutations" took place among people in Africa. Epicanthal folds, Blond hair, white skin can be found in African people. There are many reasons why a certain trait or a given phenotype is present among a group.
While Africa may have it's own mutations they are not the same as the mutations that took place outside of Africa. That's my whole point. Everyone is not the same but that's ok. There is nothing wrong with or differences it doesn't make one better or worse than another. It just make differences to physical appearance of different people. Mutated genes happend and those the mutations appeared in were passed down to their descendants and now we label these people by different races.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1408890
Blond hair
Natural lighter hair colors occur most often in Europe and less frequently in other areas.[22] In northern European populations, the occurrence of blond hair is very frequent. The hair color gene MC1R has at least seven variants in Europe giving the continent a wide range of hair and eye shades. Based on recent genetic information carried out at three Japanese universities, the date of the genetic mutation that resulted in blond hair in Europe has been isolated to about 11,000 years ago during the last ice age.[23]
Africans can have blond hair sure. Albinos who have no melanin, African children who have not yet got their color in their hair (they do by the time they are adults) and those who have ancestors that were out of Africa. The only white Africans that do not have Euro, Arab, Asian, blood are albinos. A very different reason then a mutated gene. It's an error in the gene so to speak where it doesn't read your gene. Their is also a difference from having no melanin and having melanin but at small amts compared to dark skin.
This is racialist statement which presumes definable traits as belonging to this or that race. You have to qualify "white phenotype". People we currently think of as White have various phenotypes. "White people" have curly hair and/or full lips without recent African Ancestry and those with recent African Ancestry can not have those features. 1/16 or more likely 1/32 might not even have SSA present in any DNA test or ancestry mapping.
If there wasn't definable traits then their would be no such thing as being able to know what the race of a person is according to the bones and DNA but yet they can and are normally right and when their not it's typically b/c of racially mixing. Every race has various phenotypes but their still phenotypes that are still identifiable. When people look at me they know I'm a white woman. I have one the various phenotypes of a wp.
That was kinda my whole point. If you have a white pigmentation no one questions you really on whether those traits are from a white ancestor or a black ancestor. They assume white but when you have a brown skin tone they are suddenly considered black traits. My whole point in bring that up was b/c the white parent that is say 1/16 black may have full lips for example that was passed down by a black ancestor opposed to a white but with a white phenotype most people would assume it's was from a white ancestor. However that parent can pass them same lips to brown skinned child and suddenly people we see them as a black gene.
1/16 and 1/32 is still pretty close that you are typically going to have some trace but it show as less than b/c you may not inherit the full 1/16 of DNA but maybe your DNA only shows 1.52%. But yeah it could happen I guess. I it completely not have been passed down to you. But that wasn't my point. My point was it can be passed down to you and your partner could have the same. In the example I used earlier. That would make a child 18.75% black. With that much black it is possible to have either a white phenotype or a mixed phenotype.
There is no such thing as race, Regina,
or to put it this way, the categories that you call race have no biological reality. If you want to deal with a racial reality then you need to properly interrogate and categorize the vast human biodiversity based on a number of genetic and social factors.
The Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid person that was deemed race in the old encyclopedia doesn't cut it anymore, nor does the U.S census (Hispanic is not a race).
I'm perfect aware Hispanic means nothing more than a person that has come from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country and that those countries includes white from Europe (mostly Spaniards) natives from America, and black from Africa and a mixture of all that plus more.
Race as a scientific construct is untenable, you are applying a genetic reality onto socially constructed persons as if those constructs fit within biological definable and determinable traits.
If you want to see the vast categories of sub races discussed then go to
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/ where they discuss race and subrace.
Again, I believe in differences that can be categorized, I however do not apply those scientific theories onto our socially constructed notions of race. (that's for gz/unchosen)
I understand there is no such thing as race BUT at the same time we do have differences that fall into place with our racial classifications. I do not go by our socially constructed notions of race either. Those have been forever changing to suit the wants or ideologies of people. My idea of racial classifications are actually based on genetic differences. And although there is millions of genetic differences within each group the differences are much more minimal that those outside the race. As I said when you can identify different races by bones in DNA there is a big enough difference there IMO to classify people by race but when there is not there isn't. To me is no different that classifying different genders
Race, or the operative function of similar definable social groups will continue to exist no matter genetic makeup or phenotype imo. Our categorical races are not transhistorical, they are largely not even applicable outside of the U.S.
Outside of the US have their ideologies of race. As I said I don't go by that.
I don't care about changing phenotypes or racial preservation.
The "Black race" in the U.S has been relegated as the permanent underclass. Hypodescent, as often discussed here, has been one of the ways to do this. I don't want any group, or whatever group gets classified as black, to be the permanent underclass whereby everyone else can measure their success in this meritocracy in relation to the abject condition of Black people.
That's fine that's your opinion. I agree with everything you said about the black race and those that get classified as so. But I feel that today Hispanics are right there as underclass too.
It is filled with hyperbole and certainly not a good argument for my belief in the relegation of a permanent underclass needed to maintain the false notion of social mobility within this oligarchy. To that point though, Spaniards and Italians (not even bothering with new world Whites in Latin America) have shown a distinctive "response" to the mention of anything African, especially if it is concerning their ancestry.
