*Imitation of Life* and The Science Behind Beauty*
Greetings, it’s good to be with you again. Evolutionary Genetics teaches that Y-Chromosomal Adam’s genetic haplogroups A/BT, Mutations M91/M168 and Mitochondrial Eve (mtDNA) haplogroup L, of 200,000 years ago are responsible for the physical birth of every human being (Homo sapiens sapiens) on this planet. I’m not (at this point) talking about the (much discussed) Biblical Adam & Eve of ~ 6,000 years ago. We briefly covered this Adam’s controversial history in my article “The First Anthropological Enlightenment.” While the historical “Recorded Time Periods” may vary, the results are ultimately the same. You can find this article on my website at: “Tartt’s Scientific Approach” www.henriwtartt.com. Our subject today concerns our current human concept of “Female Physical Beauty” its scientific, historic, and political “Roots.” So “fasten your seat belts.” The science applications in this article may “pinch everyone” just a bit. (Note: Coffee needed, this article is rather long but should be well worth the read).
The Given fact to remember: Genetically, we are all 99.9% identical. (No exceptions, racial or otherwise). Hopefully, this article will explain the development of beauty equally to readers of all ethnicities. Fortunately, the educational background of this readership is one of the highest and enlightened in the world, so I will not have to “mince” words. But I do ask for your forbearance as we undertake some components of this (in part) rather “sensitive” issue. As most of you know, normally, I do not use the colloquialisms Black, White, and Race” for the identification of people, but because of the article content and historical correlations, it has become necessary. My observations are those of a chemist.
*Note: The taxonomic use of the terms “Haplogroups, Clades”, etc. are used only to identify the science behind variation (race) and classification criteria. This may also assist some in further research. Some people historically referred to herein, did not use these terms quite so proficiently at the time. Descriptive terminology usually follows closely.
Back in the year1934 long before most of us were born (including me) Claudia Colbert and Louise Beavers starred in a wonderful movie provocatively named “Imitation of Life.” (At times it is offered by archived movie suppliers). It was a very touching movie about a young mixed race girl who eventually made the decision to “pass for white.” Why choose a movie this old? Because I think it’s one of the best of this type ever made, its title is very informative, and multitudes loved it. There will be more about this soon.
Beauty can be a very “tough and touchy’ subject, but it’s time for this kind of exposure is long overdue. If you don’t mind, I have a rather personal question to ask: Do you think you’re “cute, pretty, beautiful, average, handsome, ugly, or plain? Be truthful. Why? But exactly what is beauty? And what rules are used to determine whether or not one is? But what if it wasn’t “Mother Nature” that made this decision? At first glance, the answer to this question appears to be both obvious or simply subjective….or is it? One thing is certain, it makes those that help us make this (no less than) momentous decision fabulously rich, influential and politically powerful. This power conceals itself in many elemental ways that affect the lives of millions of people at the most fundamental and sensitive levels of their existence. As usual, I look forward to the comments of those Psychologist’s and Psychiatrist’s among us and their “take” on what I call “Forgetful Reinstruction.”
The uninvited fingers of the “opinion” manipulators are at the very root of our being and often influence the outcomes (in unforeseen ways) of our daily lives. Feature symmetry is most often given as the main measurement of beauty. But the ultimate reasoning behind this beauty decision has turned out to be far more devious, and can give an unfair advantage to a very small select group of individuals. Man can be selfishly discriminatory, but natural evolution is not. However, while certain members of both sexes may be considered to be beautiful, this article is not about the male members of our species. Our subject today is the civilized world’s #1 female image of beauty and how it was selected for this “symbolic,” and somewhat psychological honor. Men, please pay attention, because these same rules and principles also apply to you.
When it comes to people’s looks most of us think we know who is beautiful from those we believe to be ugly. But in reality, do we? In many ways beauty is more often about who isn’t, than who is. Whether intentional or not, we have all been brainwashed and programmed to view certain looks as more appealing (or desirable) and all other looks are “instantly” psychologically “scanned” and subconsciously graded (by us) on a curve according to how closely they resemble or conform to *this look*. In reality, this acceptable image could be ugly, but the majority does not believe it is. And this type of majority rule or judgment stands as the yardstick of critical measurement (in most cases) in this country, Europe, and much of the world at large to this day.
There appears to be a bit of psychological compliance or conspiracy operating today. Many ethnic groups or countries annually enter “International Beauty Contests” and presents (whomever it perceives to be) it’s most beautiful women to a panel of “American or International Beauty Experts” and they judge and pronounce one of these women to be “Miss This or That.” The “Miss America Pageant” first started in September of 1921 and it wasn’t until 49 years later in 1970 that the first African American woman (Cheryl Brown, Atlantic City) entered the contest. She did not win. But if one was to look at the whole group of beauty finalists analytically, down through the years one could not help but notice that no matter their home state, country, or individual skin complexion, anthropologically, most contestants looked like “various shades of Caucasian women.” That is, nearly all the women that made it to the finals (regardless of race) typically had what one would call “white features.” No bulbous eyes, large lips, wide noses, or very dark skin. Why? I’m not speaking about sexuality here. Sexually attractive women are not necessarily always beautiful. That is an altogether different issue.
But I’m simply asking “what constitutes and supports the standard of beauty?” Should not beauty be able to “stand on its own?” Well, the answer to that question is obviously a resounding no! The (financial) stakes are far too high for the “Standard of Beauty” to be garnered by a very common image. So how is the image of Optimum Beauty compiled? Here is what my research found: We are speaking about adults here because human babies (all variations or races) are born with blue eyes. However, about 92% of them soon change. First of all this chosen image must not be easily found everywhere. Everyone in the neighborhood must not be naturally able to represent this image. So taking this into consideration what does the accepted, unwritten but #1 standardized image of beauty look like? We’ll see in just a minute. At times it is diluted, adjusted, and otherwise compromised, but ultimately, even with the passage of considerable amounts of time, this image has not changed.
In the movie “Imitation of Life” the young mulatto girl didn’t look mixed, she appeared to be 100% Caucasian. And the story revolves around her “passing for white” adventures of trying to keep her African American mother from “visiting her” at work and exposing her (by her presence) as a black female to her white employer and white suitor. But how did all of this misadventure come to be? Read on, this will all make sense shortly.
One afternoon after finishing one of my lectures, an attractive young brunette woman (who had come in late) asked me for some input about this subject: “Historically, speaking, (she said) at one time, didn’t we all look alike? What happened? Is there any real in depth scientific information from which to draw a proper conclusion? I’m writing a column about this subject. Why is she (pointing to a blond lady) comparatively so beautiful? And why am I not as fortunate? Aren’t we both human, and both white females?” Well yes, (I said) and as you must know, I am not an anthropologist, but please allow me to give you a more detailed in-depth explanation (in the future) rather than the simple answer I’ve given for this question today. Please forgive me (I said) if I only aroused your interest. I took her email address and she has received a copy of this article.
*Mitochondrial Eve* (Group L)The Evolutionary Mother of us All*
*Y-Chromosomal Adam Mutations (M91/M168) The Evolutionary Father of us All*
As I alluded to earlier, according to the latest scientific information our progenitors (above) could have physically existed simultaneously ~ 200,000 years ago. However, I will not make this article an exclusively anthropological or genetic argument. There is far too much controversy and disagreement involved in the genetics, chemistry, and microbiology of evolution for me to try and coordinate all the theories and theorems in one article. But to satisfy our “strict historical evolutionists” these two people were not the biblical Adam & Eve that were created by God in one 24 hour day. This Adam & Eve is evolutions best attempt to balance our current existence equation without the God factor. Why they also gave these two the names Adam & Eve escapes me, because it only confuses this issue, but they did. I do not necessarily agree with all of the published data (classifications) listed on this subject, and I need not bore you with opaque examples of my differences with some of the data. Remember, our subject is beauty, and its standardizations.
What is a haplogroup? A haplogroup is a related people whose “family tree” after thousands of years has developed the same “Single Nucleotide Polymorphism” (SNP) or simply, a type of mutation or selective similarity. (E.g. Light skin). Sub haplogroups, clades, and sub clades, are further extrapolations of these group determinations. There are more than 153 of the Y-(male) chromosomal groups and 38mitochondrial (female) ones. These groups keep growing and expanding as (In my view) we attempt to further separate ourselves genetically from each other and specifically from the African mtDNA (L), and Y-Chromosomal M168 in particular. (The mother and father of the human race) This is strange, because academia knows this evolutionary story. But somehow the separatists of the world missed it and the general public is too busy to listen. Unfortunately, the daily drumbeat exclaiming that “we’re scientifically different from each other” continues and is gleefully looked upon favorably and encouraged by today’s ever present racial propagandists. Some of whom are “entrenched” in surprisingly influential scientific and sensitive political advisory positions.
Historically, we know that early man was probably carnivorous, promiscuous, war-like and tribal. But racially prejudiced? Not hardly. There wasn’t much in the order of “difference” to select from back in antiquity. But project this animal (us) from right after “The First Anthropological Enlightenment,” (~4004 B.C. see my article) to America in the 16th - 19th centuries. Here we find whole groups of people who due to the advent of slavery, and the ever-increasing immigration of different nationalities (Italian, Slovakian, Jewish, Asian, Spanish, etc.) from around the world, many Americans (English, Irish, German) were now being exposed to different nationalities of people. Note: While the Italian, Slovakian, and Jewish people may have been considered Caucasian and could assimilate into the mainstream, in the 1800’s they were not yet considered to be white. This new arrival exposure caused some in the majority to start thinking (whether true or false) that not only were they (white Caucasian Americans) a “much better looking people, but they were probably more intelligent as well.” Unfortunately, this mind set (by some) is still with us.
One might think that since our ancestors (both Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve) were both African people, who looked more like African slaves than George Washington and Betsy Ross it only stands to normal reasoning that our standard of beauty would reflect some traces of the people from whence we all came, right? Wrong! Why? What happened? Well, it seems that once the real evolutionary information began to be disseminated by the liberal universities and educators of the day, (~1775) because of the financial profits of slavery, more and more educational institutions incorporated archaeologists, anthropologists, etc. and all manner of M.D.’s that had the inclination to slant, “cloud” and otherwise put the “Technical Kibosh and muffle” on this genetic “African Patrilineally/Matrilineally Issue.” This genetic “African embarrassment” needed to be somehow “tamped down” and even camouflaged a bit. But how was this factual information academically and scientifically “attenuated” for mass consumption? Well, we’ve waited long enough. So let’s see her, and learn how her prominence came into a form of scientific fruition.
*The Original American (Culturally Accepted) Standard of Female Beauty*
*Pale Skin. Light Blond Hair, Blue Eyes, and Small Congruent Nordic Features*"
*Note: The male image is included, but is not limited to this description*
In the late 1700’s, enter Dr. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, (1752-1840) a highly respected and acclaimed German Physician, Naturalist, Physiologist, Historian, Bibliographer, mathematician, and Anthropologist! (Extraordinaire) In some circles he is known as the ‘Father of Anthropology.” To say he was one of the most influential men in scientific history would be a “gross understatement.” Dr. Blumenbach belonged to more than 70 professional scientific societies of his day. He profoundly influenced many (if not all) of the most respected professionals of his day. His classification of the races (men and women) as “Black, White, Brown, Red and Yellow” exists (in some form) to this day. I could spend this entire article describing his laudatory accomplishments and ground breaking scientific achievements, but his anthropological work “Collectionis suae Craniorum Diversarum Gentium” which was a collection of some 60 human skulls was stunning. His study, analyses, and placement of these crania in the anthropological-ethnographic line of evolution stands as one of the most famous and influential anthropological accomplishments of his time. For reference, Dr. Blumenbach’s famous M.D. thesis was titled: “De generis humani varietate native liber.” (On the Natural Variety of Mankind, U. Gotten 1775). His concepts of race still remains among the most recognized in history.
When Blumenbach “slipped” and revealed his personal preference for a Caucasian females cranium by suggesting that it was the most *Beautiful* of all sixty crania that he had studied and examined, this “slip” became “etched in stone.” And so it was *Dr. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach*, one of the world’s most respected and knowledgeable anthropologists, had “set the stage” and inadvertently gave the world his (and its) professional, academic, #1 choice for “Beauty” as the Caucasian race! And most of his colleagues perhaps being in “awe” or less advanced, educated or renowned in anthropology than Blumenbach, also adopted this preference. The Caucasian Variation was now their “Official Standard Bearer” of beauty. How much of this (racial) mass agreement was due to innate predisposition is only speculation. But this “standard” exists to this day, so much so that it has become “second nature” to many. Now after more than 200 years of observance there seems to be almost a psychological recognition of this image as optimum in the mindset of much of today’s populations.
This “obsessive like” recognition has evolved so far today that If anyone (Black, Brown or white) simply “lightens’ their hair or eyes (in most cases) they instantly look more attractive to themselves as well as others. Conversely, even the word Darkness (or Blackness) in voluminous amounts of literature is still associated with evil and “ignorance.” (E.g. he or she is totally “In the dark” about this…) We also witness this psychological phenomenon when a person of color speaks to an unfamiliar mostly (non- academic) Caucasian audience. A fair amount of the audience is noticeably “surprised” if he or she begins communicating “briskly and knowledgeably” without any of the familiar stereotypical slow or “drawling word mispronunciations” so prevalent on daily black sitcoms. Those speakers with British accents further exacerbate this reaction. Due to intentional misinformation, and selective news reporting, many Caucasians mindlessly still associate dark skin with a lack of intelligence. This is rather unbelievable at this late date you say? Unfortunately, it’s still true. We have two Americas, two India’s, two Australia’s, (and others) still struggling with “color issues.” One does not have to put people in chains to control them, “mind control” works much better, and is also self-replicating.
In the movie “Planet of The Apes” the ‘blond” apes were “smarter” and in charge of the dark haired ones. That was an international “gunshot” at minorities. Dark skinned African American women do not get leading roles in movies either. (Unless the movie calls for slaves) Most women of color selected for leading roles in movies have little (if any) actual color. They usually look either Latina or Italian. The African American male “superstar” almost never has a dark-skinned female love interest. And these “love interests” are increasingly white. It is said that the “box office” will not support the inclusion of darker females in these roles. This “blond & blue” triumph has lasted for so long (>200 years) that it also seems to have become a “psychological given” on the world stage too. All female variations (races) have won beauty contests while competing with this “blond/blue image”, but these are temporary “inclusions.” The blond image still remains the most *imitated* in the world. And we usually see her every day, authoritatively speaking to the world, either on the morning, noon, or nightly news programs in your area. This is science, not racism.
*And Who's Not so Beautiful?* (Explained)
So it was The “Blumenbach Slip” of the tongue that led to this rather “convenient” analytical Choice of Beauty? Yes it was, but he had lots of help from many of his colleagues of the day. And what naturally followed this “slip” was the application and (racist?) scrutiny using “comparative anatomy and antonymic division.” I.e.: Without black, white is meaningless. Without evil, what is good? And without ugly, what is beautiful? These three examples are the antithesis of each other. So if the white (Caucasian female) is somehow seen as the most beautiful variation, (race) anthropologically, then what woman’s image do you think has suffered most as a result? It was (and still is) “the traditional African (American) female image.”
Subsequently, from (at least) the late 18th century, dark skin, bulging eyes, thick lips, wide noses, and kinky hair were features viewed (by the majority) as signs of anthropological (or genetic) inferiority. This attenuated edict also included the African/African American male population. All other female variations found themselves somewhere between these two “primary standards” (Black & White) on our American female scale of beauty. The other female variations found themselves more satisfactorily equipped, but with “progressively descending undesirable attributes” depending on similarities. This choice originally fell onto the scientific shoulders of Blumenbach’s simple anthropological/mathematical choice of human skulls. But racists loved and approved of it. And they still do. It has been successfully challenged in beauty contests world-wide, and is at times defeated. But the loss has always been temporary. This world’s majority still prefers the “Blond & Blue Image” over any other.
Of course sexually, this choice is not always true. Sexuality is what supports and allows this world to continue on whatever path it is on. Sexuality is often confused with both love and beauty. Sexual attraction requires neither beauty nor love for continuity. It is driven by the innate inexhaustible desire to reproduce the healthiest, most beautiful representatives of one’s self (babies) as possible. At times the “color wound” in some minority groups is so deep that a child’s complexion and hair type is a real factor in personal, and community determinations of just how beautiful the baby is. This is also a factor in some “mixed marriages” where black males (and females) choose white brides or grooms in an effort to produce children with less blackness to deal with in life. Often, the “lightest skinned” blacks become the target for many. This tendency is far more common than one might think. Some financially “well off” athletes are known for the “interracial” choice.
Human beings are (by far) the most “sexually active” warm-blooded animals in the world. I sometimes have to “laugh” at the suggestion of somehow *stopping* promiscuity or prostitution. There is no book, moral, judicial, or religious entity that could even come close to accomplishing such an effort. They are talking about stopping the very “Life force itself.” This has not been accomplished even after hundreds of years of well meaning “fiats” by political and religious proponents of pristine morality. Of course, the fact that many of these proposers themselves were found to be “egregiously more guilty” of immorality than those they were criticizing did not help their cause. Hormones are real substances, while some books contain both ideas and instruction, in the area of temptation hormones have won almost every time, hands down. But the sexual success of the masses has allowed this “beauty scale” to operate with impunity because sexual activity has been “camouflaged” in the form of both love and beauty. The average person is not knowingly affected at all.
This importance is usually only recognizable by psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists after individuals come to them with antisocial behavioral patterns. But as one who currently gets more than 200 emails a day (on scientific and other subjects), I have recognized that self-esteem is devastatingly important for the healthy mental development of all female children. Many young minority girls don’t feel attractive if their features or skin color doesn’t “measure up” to this common stereotypical ‘Barbie Doll” image of beauty. They are often “chided” for being “too dark or having bad or nappy hair.” This has caused some psychological problems to manifest themselves in many untoward ways in later years. The advent of the “Black Barbie Doll” still cannot compete with the white one. (Even to Minorities) Skin color differences and hair texture resentments still find their way daily into the African American community. Today, many Asian and Hispanic women have joined the “fray” and also lighten their hair and use nontraditional makeup techniques.
This state of affairs is no one’s fault, and it was not intentional. Dr. Blumenbach did not think that Africans (or any group) were inferior to another. He just “slipped” and racist influences did the rest. These are just the facts of racist opportunistic human nature, human selection and gradient deductive reasoning. In addition to the above, the fact is that like African Americans not all being equally black, all Caucasians are not equally Caucasian (or white) looking, so this beauty selection needed to come from members of a haplogroup with an evolutionary appearance as distant from the African (Ethiopian) M168 or Mitochondrial group “L” as possible. So they picked (e.g.) I-M253 and mtDNAH1f. These groups include people from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Germany. Many people from these countries appear to be the “farthest removed” people genetically from Africa. Many of these women have the naturally pale skin, naturally blond hair, naturally blue eyes and naturally small congruent Nordic features that Dr. Blumenbach had through his cranial analyses indicated was the “Handsomest” of all human construction. Whether he was right or wrong is not our subject, but as we have all seen, it stuck. If “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” this more than stands as proof of the argument. Just “look around.”
This I-M253 representative of humanity (not chosen by number or haplogroup, but by their pale, Blond & Blue image) was also chosen by Hitler (as the Aryan Race), the Ku Klux Clan, and white racists everywhere saw (and still see) this example as the *The Best, Final, Most Polished* (and least Black) example of humanity that man could heritably produce. This was evolutions finest product. All traces of African ancestry *appear* to be finally “All Gone.” This soon caught on throughout Europe and before long, the Americas, who at the time were only a struggling memory of “xanthochroic” European culture.
These blond and blue featured people are still sought after all over the world. In the white slave-trade market these women bring the most money of any on the sale block. Historically, they are first hired and the last fired. They are preferred (or have less against them) in proposed marriages by the parents of both male and female betrothed. They don’t often go to jail, but when they do it’s usually for less time than other dark haired prisoners, even for the same crimes. And they have the highest pay-scale of any people on earth.
Throughout America’s history many “swarthy” (darker white skinned) Caucasian immigrants have “jumped through hoops” to gain the “white classification.” Some have either changed their names by shortening them, choosing new ones, or by taking certain letters off their surnames. Some immigrants even abused and outwardly showed excessive hated for African Americans more so than other “more certified Caucasians” in order to “show off” and prove to them that “they too” were “white!” Early in the 20th century (here in America) whenever possible many immigrants married “outside” their ethnic groups, usually to English, German or Irish women in order to have “white looking children” and rid their families of the ethnic discrimination that dark hair and skin often brought. I’m not being unkind, this is history.
Admittance of “not yet white” ethnicity invited all manner of personal limitations. It was very advantageous to be able to “blend in,” which of course, the African could not. Interestingly, there are also some Asians that are dropping letters from their names in order to appear more “American.” Conservatively speaking, as educated as we are today why is it so surprising to learn that 100% of everyone world-wide has African ancestry? Everyone on this planet still carries Mitochondrial Eve DNA, or the male Y-chromosomal M91, M168 Y-Biallelic (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) marker. The *African* genetic marker M168 is often called “Eurasian Adam” and we see “depictions and reproductions” of him appearing to be of “mixed race,” but M168 was an African, his father was (like the rest of us) Y-chromosomal Adam. And he lived in Ethiopia before migrating to Europe. I believe this is but another glaring attempt at genetic slanting, clouding, and camouflage. “But why?” This is everyone’s history! No one should be ashamed of our shared historical origin. It seems that multitudes of people (all races) “long” to be “All Gone” or tend to “lean” in that direction, (lighten hair, wear wigs etc.).
*As I See It* (From an analytical perspective)
I believe the current data and nomenclature that we use to classify the human species (homo sapiens sapiens) into multitudes of haplogroups, sub haplogroups, clades, sub clades, etc. is not only confusing parlance to most, it can also be misleading. Generally, phenotypic diversification by cladogenesis (an evolutionary mechanism) comes on gradually due to reproductive isolation over long periods of time. Within the African human being (past and present) resides the genetic ability to exhibit all the physical and mental characteristics prevalent in world variations today. This phenotypic ability can be easily observed in any community of African Americans today. But the same can also be seen first in historical Africa.
Some Africans have dark skin, light (white) skin (albinism) thick lips, thin lips, wide noses, narrow noses, kinky hair, straight hair, tall people, and short people. Some also have facial feature configurations that resemble all variations (races) in the world. Historically, when the African M168 and H1f originally left their native Y-chromosomal Adam and mtDNA Eve groups and then “concentrated” themselves upon each other in a “new environment” long enough to form “unique event polymorphisms” (UEP’s ~ 5-7,000 years) they did not create a “new race!”, (all 153 + 38) These “new” mutation bearers became a “sub species” of the original pedigree from whence they genetically all came. Again, this is science, not racism.
In fairness to the parts of the noble science that I’m calling “misleading”: The raw genetic data can be psychologically misinterpreted and manipulated into confirming non- existent human biological difference. I brought to task some fairly sophisticated types of math to try and make sense out of our genetically identifiable, racial designations. I employed Statistical Logic, Calculus3, Quantitative and Qualitative Genetics, Genotype Frequency, Additive Genetic Variation and Algebraic Geometry. But no luck, I kept having trouble with genetic heritability vs. environmental issues. In some documented test analyses, during carcinogenic organism trial poisonings, the contractile cellular elements never exhibited motive properties and did not allow oxygen molecules in or out of the cell structure, leading to the predictable death of the cell, in all cases. This continually occurred at approximately the same clock speed. Pathological disease susceptibilities exhibited similar results. I could find no heritable differences or deviations, from one group to another in any test parameter. (Documented groups) As I’ve always said: Without exception, scientifically, “We’re all the same.”
Of course, there are those scientists who will say “His hypothesis was flawed, there were too many probability issues that he must have ignored.” As a chemist and microbiologist, I was not necessarily looking for an “exact” atmosphere, but the designation “race” as used today is more of a political term than a scientific one. (Of course, I know that) But the truth is that I did keep running into mathematical “brick walls.” The “Black, White, and Race” terminology did not help, but (most importantly) genetic thinking and confirmation is not clearly delineated. In some cases I could not easily tell where one type of analytical thinking stopped and another began. But this is a wonderful credit to the difficulty of this science. After many successes and failures, I finally got enough data to make an informed judgment. And I enjoyed the analytical experience.
As a result, (more than ever) I do not believe the Caucasian, Asian, African American, Hispanic, (and everyone else) are actual independent separate “races.” The “pseudo skin color descriptions” are just modern popular “terminologies” that support the “status quo.” In my view, all of these haplogroups are a sub species of the original African M168. No matter how many confusing additions they add, Y- M168 (Y-chromosomal Adam) and mtDNA (L) (Mitochondrial Eve) are the Patrilineally and Matrilineally Progenitors of “The Entire Human Race,” which is the only actual “Race” in existence today! Science should not be a part of today’s political games.
In my honest opinion, other than this designation, (Human race) “Race is a non-existent determinative instrument that can be vaguely used for identification purposes such as the Census, Drivers Licenses, etc. But it is most often used today for discriminative purposes. Identifiable medical use (in my view) is “sketchy” because the Caucasian, Asian, African, African American and Hispanic classifications are flawed. E.g., if a person is 95% Caucasian and 5% African, (from DNA results) why are so many thousands still classified as black? And there are at least as many people being wrongly classified as Caucasian! Don’t false numbers like these influence some medical research trends and statistics for racial disease ratios? Asian and Hispanic classifications are also not genetically pedigreed.
This is a scientific mathematical absurdity! What kind of mathematics and medicine is World Science allowing these analytical “Hacks” to use? They keep making these broad, “shot gun” judgments and sweeping invalid racial determinations! You can’t send a space shuttle to Mars or find a cure for cancer using “political mathematics.” And they’re doing this and making these uninformed political decisions right in front of the finest medical universities in the world! Sometimes I think we’re all a bit “meshugas.” I’m a scientist, and I question this methodology all the time. Personally, I am of multi-ethnicities. My DNA results reveal that I am an amalgamation of African, Swedish, English, Irish, German, American Indian, Arabic and Jewish descent. This type of ethnicity is not uncommon. Most of us (Black, Brown and White) have multiple ethnicities. We are simply combinations of each other! We’re all mixed! I have told you all over the years to “Get your DNA tested.” I am a human being. And I’m taking no sides on this issue. Let the chips fall where they may. According to recent studies conducted by Johns Hopkins, Brandeis, and Harvard universities, racism costs America close to 2 trillion dollars a year! Listen, I’m tired of writing about racism, but its roots are everywhere! It either involves health care, a lack of equal wages, equal housing, the criminal justice system, education, etc. With that amount of financial involvement it can’t be totally stopped. Even Walmart only takes in 476 billion annually. Is “racism” really a two trillion dollar a year anomaly? Yes, I’m afraid so.
In the movie “Imitation of Life” the title itself reveals the basic problem. Many of us enjoy some of the “finest’ foods in the world daily. Foods like Mushroom and Walnut Pate, Pork with lemon, ginger and Citronelle, not to mention Beef Churrasco de Lomo finished with Tiramisu. And of course don’t forget the private country clubs, fabulous homes/heated pools, sports cars, and all the amenities that only those with “The Privilege” can expect. But what if you “woke up” one morning and realized that you had been “dreaming?” Dreaming because you actually had no hope of ever even hearing of such foods or seeing such luxury except in the movies. And on top of that, when you “woke up” you found that you were believed to have been born comparatively too dark skinned, mentally deficient, and unattractive by your country’s preconceptions? What if (as a child) you looked in the mirror and saw an ugly reflection? Would you accept for your life, the hopeless boundaries of an evil “fallible predestination?” What a “nightmare!” Wouldn’t you also make some kind of noise or protest? Of course you would.
Here in America, human beings judgmental fairness is not commensurate with its scientific achievements and blessings. Statistics show that when blond white people commit crimes, they are far more often (in some ways) forgiven than are the psychologically perceived ugly (minorities?) even for lesser offenses. This “Beauty Scale” rules our lives in hundreds of almost “invisible subtle” ways. From seating arrangements at plush restaurants to who gets murdered on the streets. And the white police officer who unexpectedly finds a black person in his gun sight is not immune to this dangerous psychology. In my view, specific training with this problematic tendency in mind is sorely needed.
The African Ubangi people used to put “plates” into their lips to enlarge them because in that society big lips were a form of beauty. So Dr. Blumenbach’s mathematical feature “symmetry” conclusions do not necessarily constitute all human beauty concepts. The attitude of much of today’s racists seems to be: “If one wants to be equal, either “win the war, or stay home.” However, it’s a bit late for that answer don’t you think?
No foreign people can be voluntarily admitted, or involuntarily kidnapped, taken to a strange country and then be forever controlled and cleverly denied whatever the country traditionally offers its native constituents. It is not that (e.g.) certain “Black People” are violent, ignorant and lazy. Under different circumstances the opposite might be true. But they realize that they are still receiving the “short end of the stick.” legitimate equal opportunity is not always available in some areas. And so many feel hopeless and some no longer care. Because of this, anger and dangerous types of rebellious, anti-social behavior is all but inevitable. Also, if people (world-wide) are allowed to remain deficient in medical facilities, information and understanding, it’s important to realize their humanity has the potential to kill all of us. This is because all the “haplogroup” separation that has been compiled and developed will not protect us from the reality of disease and that we are really not different races or special anomalies at all.
Peola, the mulatto girl passing for white in the movie, “Imitation of Life” had “tasted” what life was like on the “other side” and she liked it. She did not want to return to her previous life of abject poverty and self-denial. But as fate would have it, she was soon found out, and discovered to be a *expletive.* Of course she was immediately rejected (even by her suitor) and “ushered” back into the black community where she (supposedly) belonged. But her mother who loved her dearly had taken ill and died before Peola could return home and make final peace with her. Back In 1934 the lesson was that of “Crime & Punishment.” The crime she committed was in not accepting her preordained last class citizenship. The punishment was the sadness and grief caused by her “bad choice” had eventually cost her mother her life. The problem was that Peola wanted to “be somebody,” and have a decent life that was comparable to that of white people. After all, she looked as white as any of them. Peola was not rejected on sight. Peola looked white. She was accepted on sight. But what does this have to do with the subject of beauty? (Everything) Please continue.
*Psychologically, Beauty initiates acceptance on sight, Ugliness initiates rejection!*
It’s that simple. We are conditioned (by authority figures) to view certain people (in life) as acceptable (in certain important areas) and to view some others as unacceptable. The easiest way to accomplish this is to create a system of putting as much distance as one can between the accepted and the rejected. (Apartheid) In other words: Beauty = acceptance, Ugly = Rejection. At first glance, this is may seem “heartless” but our entire scholastic athletic “modus operandi” revolves around the “Us against Them” mentality. And “Beauty vs. Ugly” should be transcribed on humanities flag of war. (The enemy is always ugly).
A news story came over my computer one night exclaiming that a marvelous African American woman had died. She was a wonderful writer, and poet. I later heard a rebroadcast of her eulogy given by one of her dear friends. The friend said something to the effect of “she had rather thick African features, so she wasn’t pretty”…….. Her friend, also a female African American with “heart felt love” honestly said that! Well, (I thought) her broad nose was for breathing much warmer air than we have here in America. Due to the heat, the air in Africa contains less oxygen per cubic centimeter, so she would evolve larger nostrils in order to breathe more efficiently! One might say “Then why was she here?” Well, she didn’t exactly ask to come here! I thought (to myself) “Who are we to say that this type of nose is ugly?” I also thought about what the woman at my lecture had said that day. I experienced a genuine, heartfelt concern.
- Question: What can actually change this Black vs. White vs. Brown controversy?
- Answer: Obviously nothing. Over the last 5,000 years we have had at least 14,500 wars and over 3.5 billion have lost their lives. And we still don’t trust each other. All war stems from mistrust. Nothing has been settled. And more things are found to be wrong daily.
- Example: Fill a one gallon bucket with water. Look at the water. Stick your hand into the water and then take it out. Again look at the water. The water remains unchanged.
- Answer: The water in the bucket represents the world. Skin Color prejudice is probably not going to change. Just look at the inordinate amounts of money consumed by racism yearly. It appears that this world is on a “collision course” with its inhabitants.
Since “The First Anthropological Enlightenment” we have wasted an inordinate amount of our most precious resource (time) trying to explain away or compromise (of all things) the existence of God and now our genetic origins. Please listen closely, as a scientist, the only genetic difference I found in my study of *Man* turned out to be in the noncoding regions around genes and not in the genes themselves. I found only continuity with all specimens no matter the variation. But some may counter “what about all of these studies to the contrary?” As a chemist with a supervisory background, I know that an analyst can slant virtually any research project, study, or hypothesis in just about any direction they choose. We all have preconceived prejudices and preferences we need to overcome. In my view, this may have happened in at least part of our voluminous subject data. (Especially early on).
Now I’m not suggesting that you come out of the house in the morning looking like you just came out of the jungles of Africa, the frozen caves of Europe, the rice paddies of Asia, or the oil fields of Mexico! This is scientific information that we can use for instruction and better understanding of the issue. So by all means, ladies “break out” the platinum blond wigs, the hair dyes, and the light colored contact lenses. (But first take a break and enjoy this 5 min. video) http://tinyurl.com/kg4y64n) Why? Because these methods do work! And you black guys out there! Grow some hair on those “bald heads” and then “straighten it!” Remember back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s it was popular to wear “processes and Gerry Curls!” This helped guys to instantly “advance” a couple of notches on the “Beauty Scale” thus enabling them to “score” with ladies they couldn’t even approach before.
After all, “sexuality” is still the “name of the game” right? Remember, we’ve all been “brainwashed” by more than 200 years of racial propaganda. And you can make this propaganda work for you! It seems that many women (Caucasian, Asian, African American, Hispanic, etc.) are not quite “white or light enough” (in some manner) to suit their imaginations. So go on! Bleach, streak, weave, and try a little plastic surgery on that big nose, or those lips. It’s fun! And “hey you over there!” “Get into makeup!” you’re anchoring the 6:00 news in 30 minutes and your “dark roots” are showing! I am (of course) being facetious. But whether God or The Aliens left us here “staring” at each other, we’ve got to do a better (more thorough) job of transmitting the whole truth to our future generations. Or else. Because of this standard, few women (world-wide) seem to be totally satisfied with their unassisted looks.
As far as humanity is concerned, ultimately and scientifically, we are all really still African. Again, because of our heritable relationship, (to everyone) we can still make each other physically sick. So we must all be equally educated, especially about illness and how to contain it. We are still African Asian, African Caucasian, African American, African Hispanic, et al. No matter what haplogroup, sub haplogroup, clade or sub clade you may be told that you now belong, take a look now into the closest mirror. If the racists among us could somehow remove the African Y- M91/M168 and mtDNA (L) from OUR ancestry, (and they foolishly would) If you could look again, (into that same mirror), there would be *no one there.* Please remember, all genetic roads lead back to these two people. All of these haplogroups, and implied racial separations also represent a “state of mind” that (if taken seriously) could prove to be a fatal Achilles Heel for mankind.
*America's (Unwritten) Psychological Scale of Beauty**1 (All Gone*Caucasian) __2__3__4__5 Asian__6__7__8__9 Black African*
Note: In the case of the Caucasian category. The #1 position calls for the “light blond haired, blue-eyed, pale skinned, Nordic featured Caucasian.” aka “The All Gone” (*All Gone = all traces of African lineage “appears” to have been completely bred out).
All Caucasians (whites) are not “All Gone.” While dark hair, dark eyes and darker (than very pale) skin may also be beautiful, these attributes are frequently shared with all the other categories, thus eliminating them because of the rarity specifications of the #1 position.
Note: How the psychological scale works: E.g. Blacks with small noses, hazel eyes, straight hair, etc. are said to be “better looking” than those with more traditional “heavy” African features and hair. This would give them a higher position on the scale than a “9”. This scale may or may not actually be true. But it simply depicts the Beauty Rating choices of most people, indicating “the way it is” in the world today.
While some that naturally carry the “blond & blue” attributes may be striking in appearance, their hereditary contributions are but another communal representation of our humanity. Genetically, they are not actually “All Gone” (i.e.) “Humanity cannot breed itself out of Humanity”….and survive. (There would be familial reproductive sterility). So let’s stop this “insane genetic controversy.” They deserve no more (or less) attention than do others. So finally, after all of this study material, what then specifically is human beauty?
"Tartt's Law of Human Beauty"
"In a given society, Human Beauty is a psychologically induced preferential selection dominated by those in charge of that society. Any juxtaposition is on a descending scale from close resemblance to this selection, to its direct opposition." - Henri W. Tartt, Chemist
In this life, no matter how rich or poor, attractive or plain we may be, we all want to appear to be getting more out of life than we actually are. That’s just human nature. Cosmetic makeups and change helps the ladies (and men) capture a fleeting measure of this attempt. There is nothing wrong with this practice. Primarily because it works! And hopefully now you may be more aware of the science behind the “how and why” it works. We are living in a Shakespearean type drama where Peola’s “Imitation of Life” represents everyone. And we are all “playing a significant part.” But as long as Man entertains uncivilized urges, the urges will keep winning.
The African M168/M91 (male) genetic biallelic marker located on the Y-chromosome, and mtDNA, (female) the smallest chromosome coding for 37 genes (16,600 base pairs) still lives in us all, yet many still claim exclusivity. Just know that when you look into the mirror, whether you like or dislike what you see may not be totally up to you. Our human family relationships one to another is basically congenital. Because of our common genetic construction, the malicious, discriminatory, (and false) “One Drop Rule” is destroyed! Please listen, as I’ve said before, we’re on an unfamiliar voyage, all in the same boat, a boat that keeps going in circles on the surface of a little planet called “Earth.” This little planet is hurtling through space ducking meteors and asteroids at 66,700 miles per hour! And “we can’t get off!” So we must learn to live like the “Beautiful” relatives that we all are, or continue to suffer the unspeakable, egregious consequences of a needless, but evidently terminal dose of ignorance. This is science, not racism. Stay well.
*Educators: Please feel free to share this article with your students, colleagues and friends*
"We are all but recent leaves on the same old tree. And if this life has adopted any new functions it uses the same basic principles over and over again. There is no real difference between the grass and the man who mows it." – Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"As long as Man entertains uncivilized urges, the urges will keep winning." – Henri W. Tartt, Chemist
"Men are probably nearer the central truth in their superstitions than in their science." – Henry David Thoreau