Even though the 21st century is seeing an exponential increase in reports of multiracial ancestry worldwide, exactly what makes a person multiracial remains a puzzling concept. According to the Association of Multiethnic Americans and Project RACE, the definition of a multiracial/interracial person is either someone whose parents were of more than one race or racial background, or someone who had parents that were of different racial groups. But what about those who identify with more than one racial background, irrespective of their parents' identities? Or, those who identify with a racial background completely different from those of their parents?
Case in point: Nmachi Ihegboro, a blond haired and blue-eyed white baby born earlier this month to proud black Nigerian parents Ben and Angela Ihegboro in London UK. Nmachi's parents are somewhat mystified about how they could create a white child and they are not the only ones. According to the New York Post, genetics experts are also baffled. So far they have offered three theories: (1) Nmachi "is the result of a gene mutation unique to her. If that is the case, Nmachi would pass the gene to her children -- and they, too, would likely be white. (2) She's the product of long-dormant white genes... that might have been carried by" her ancestors "for generations without surfacing until now." Genetics professor Sykes of Oxford University thinks that some form of mixed race ancestry would seem to be necessary, and notes that sometimes multiracial women can carry some genetic material for white children and some genetic material for black children. It is also conceivable that the same holds true for multiracial men. (3) "While doctors have said Nmachi is not an outright albino, or lacking in all pigment, they added that the child may have some kind of mutated version of the genetic condition -- and that her skin could darken over time."
The take home point seems to be that something is, in fact, unusual about the circumstances of Nmachi's birth. History reveals that this is not necessarily the case, especially during the slavery and segregation eras in the United States. Many white parents gave birth to black children, so many that the U. S. ultimately had to enforce the "one drop rule," that classified everyone with any black features or any amount of black blood as black. It is telling that the same type of genetic scrutiny that Nmachi experienced was not enforced on most of these births.
What will be even more interesting than Nmachi's birth is how her racial self-concept develops. We can only speculate how she will answer questions regarding her ethnic and/or racial origin. It is clear that when she needs to "tick the box that... most adequately describes" her ethnic origin for the British Census, she will have many options. Will she tick the White box, the Black or Black British - African box, the Black Other box, the Mixed White and Black African box, the Other mixed background box or Other ethnic background box? No matter how Nmachi chooses to identify at various points in her life, her experiences will continue to challenge conventional thinking about racial and multiracial identity all over the world. Hopefully, along with Nmachi, we will all come to understand race as a way of thinking that is as much a symbolic social construct as it may also be a biological matter of fact.
Follow Marcia Dawkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drdawkins09
If you want to see genetic diversity that has families of the type mentioned by the author, with black-skinned parents but blonde and blue-eyed children, or white-skinned parents with black children, and every possible permutation of races that can possibly be imagined, visit Rio de Janeiro. It's absolutely the most genetically mixed population of any place on earth and quite startling to see for the first time.
*The general formula use to derive the total possible number of direct ancestors going back N generations is 2^N, or 2 raised to the N'th power. So, you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, etc. Going back ten generations, or about 250 years, give you 2^10 = 1024 ancestors from that generation. Going back 500 years gives over one million, etc. The actual number will be smaller, on account of cousin marriages and other linkages across branches of the tree at various places.
The point? Most people don't have the foggiest idea about what their full family tree looks like, or where their genes come from. Superficial attributes like skin, hair, or eye color may give a general clue about where one of the branches traces back to, but it can be very misleading.
What's most important for us is how we're teaching our kids to prepare for and respond to people who may have a less flexible sense of family and ethnic identity. When you don't fit into someone's carefully constructed boxes there can be a range of responses, and many aren't nice. My oldest daughter has all kinds of answers when someone asks overly personal questions, the best by far being, "Why do you ask?" It generally rocks the questioner back for a moment, allows them to examine their prejudices and then decide whether they really want to display their shortcomings in this way.
Race is a social construct, a concept developed to determine who could have privilege and who couldn't. Irish, Italians, Germans and members of other groups have all sued in court in the US to be considered as "white" in order to access privilege. (Read "White By Law" by Ian Haney Lopez.)
We usually check all the boxes. Or write in something new. The false sense of dichotomy that humans find convenient never tells the whole story - we're not either/or but both+and. That's the future.
This article seems to equate whiteness with blue eyes, and so apparently do others.
I read a post here claiming "8% of the world's population is white".
I thought "huh? where did that stat come from?"
Then I remembered: there are 500 million blue-eyed people, and that's about 8% of 6 billion.
According to Science News (can't find link) blue eyes originated from a single female, living near Assyria, about 6-10,000 years ago. Blue eyes have a 1% genetic advantage (researchers don't know why), and from that single woman there are now 500 million with blue eyes.
Blue eyes are not originally a Northern European trait.
Speaking from experience, I see no advantage to them, more like being a genetic freak.
I have light blond hair and very blue eyes, entertaining to the natives when I was in Peru.
It doesn't make me feel better than others, just different.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm :
New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
I didn't like anything else he said, but as a scientist I had to agree: it's not the "human race".
11 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Race exists.
It is a social construct with measures of flexibility to suit those controlling any given situation or narrative.
_____________________________________________________________________________
You didn't respond to my logic. It should be clear that I acknowledge that it is a social construct. Social reality and biological reality are two different things. If you acknowledge that the social construct is colonialism which still lives, my question to you is how long do we delay in using genetic science to change the narrative, instead of still settling for colonial discourse? A corollary question, then, is, are we trapped for all time in colonial ideology? I, for one, as a speaker of an indigenous language, strive for freedom from colonialism every day, and that is what I wish and work for as a gift to the future generations.
For many years, some people of mixed African and European origins have "passed" as being white. What was their race? Their perceived colour was what the "white society" saw and accepted unknowingly. At least 1 Jefferson-Hemmings was in that category, if I remember correctly. That "white society" did not perceive shortcomings with those "passing" shows that when they found others they knew to be mixed as being inferior, they were lying to perpetuate the myth of their inferior superiority. They were propping themselves up. Weak people do the same in every age.
As to ticking the boxes, I sometimes leave a blank just to see what happens, or write in "Human" if and where I can, or tick off several boxes since there is no pure this or that anyway if we are to believe that we all come from the same pool.
After all with race being merely a social construct, why be governed by it?
When Bosnia was in the news it was a big shock to see blonde Muslims...no surprise to those who know the area and mass conversions.
Race is yesterday's issue, heart and compassion is the message of today, and finding a way to make peace so that tomorrows generation doesn't have silly issues like this.