- Nov 3, 2009
- 4
- 1
The UK Channel4 show "Is It Better To Be Mixed Raced"
channel4.com/programmes/is-it-better-to-be-mixed-race/4od#3008214
made a number of important errors and omissions. Firstly the comparison of white vs mixed race stress levels in Brazil was unscientific as it did not compare the stress levels of mixed race people to those if black populations in poor areas of Africa. Also factors such as social cohesion among the poor vs the paranoia of the rich can play a big part in stress, as can acceptance of ones situation. So the mapping of stress levels to heterozygousity was too misleading and incomplete to draw conclusions from.
The fact that mixing benefits white people the most as whites come from the narrowest gene pool, while it benefits blacks the least as the worlds black population is highly heterozygous and represents 90% of the world's genetic diversity, was also overlooked.
Also overlooked was the fact that the the benefits of genetic diversity through mixing only lasts one generation and is then diminishes if mixed race people mate with eachother or with whites. Yet the heterozygic benefits increase if they then mate with blacks, due to the diversity in the black gene pool.
So in reality the benefits of heterozygousity are more relevant for whites, Asians and Indians who mix Africans (in that order) than they are for Africans who mate with non African's. From the chart shown at the end of the programme the increase in heterozygosity in mixed race people is very small compared to amount of heterozygousity already present in black people. But the hetetozygousity of a mixed race people compared to their white parents is very large indeed. Basically the further from African one is the better the genetic benefit to your child of you mixing with an African. Yet the genetic benefit to Africans of mixing with other races is either non-existent or negligible, since Africans already possess the benefits of a high degree of genetic diversity.
Obviously surviving as a group for so many tens of thousands of years should result in a greater range of genetic adaptations compared to those who have only done so for much less time.
That the principle of the genetic advantage of diversity was known in ancient times, is demonstrated by the fact that after the the royal families of Egypt mixed with Eurasian royalty at the end of the New Kindgom, the priesthood of Thebes/Luxor made it law that future pharoahs must choose a wife from among the daughters of kings or priests of southern Egypt and Northern Sudan.
At this time the people living along the Nile valley contained most of the, already genetically diverse, African groupings that later spread out to populate the African continent. So the potential longenvity and health of unborn future kings was improved by drawing on the most ancient and therefore diverse gene pool. This approach when implemented by European Royal families only resulted in-breeding, due to lack of genetic diversity among Europeans.
Ultimately what the heterozygic theory demonstrates is that the African gene pool is by far the most significant gene pool in the future survivability of mankind. Also given the lack of diversity in white peoples genes the black gene pool will always be far more diverse that the gene pools of mixed race people also. Some mixed race people may possess heterozygousity equal to or higher than Africans but as a group the diversity of the mixed race gene pool will always be less than that of the African gene pool due to the limited diversity European or Asian genes present.
It seems mixed race couples and people are unwitting agents in the re-allocation of the material and genetic resources that the other race needs. The question is how will the terms, of this trade between the races evolve, now that the information on the genetic advantage of heterozygousity in mixed race individuals and African people both individually and as a group is out there.
Amen Ra Neter
Blackology.com
channel4.com/programmes/is-it-better-to-be-mixed-race/4od#3008214
made a number of important errors and omissions. Firstly the comparison of white vs mixed race stress levels in Brazil was unscientific as it did not compare the stress levels of mixed race people to those if black populations in poor areas of Africa. Also factors such as social cohesion among the poor vs the paranoia of the rich can play a big part in stress, as can acceptance of ones situation. So the mapping of stress levels to heterozygousity was too misleading and incomplete to draw conclusions from.
The fact that mixing benefits white people the most as whites come from the narrowest gene pool, while it benefits blacks the least as the worlds black population is highly heterozygous and represents 90% of the world's genetic diversity, was also overlooked.
Also overlooked was the fact that the the benefits of genetic diversity through mixing only lasts one generation and is then diminishes if mixed race people mate with eachother or with whites. Yet the heterozygic benefits increase if they then mate with blacks, due to the diversity in the black gene pool.
So in reality the benefits of heterozygousity are more relevant for whites, Asians and Indians who mix Africans (in that order) than they are for Africans who mate with non African's. From the chart shown at the end of the programme the increase in heterozygosity in mixed race people is very small compared to amount of heterozygousity already present in black people. But the hetetozygousity of a mixed race people compared to their white parents is very large indeed. Basically the further from African one is the better the genetic benefit to your child of you mixing with an African. Yet the genetic benefit to Africans of mixing with other races is either non-existent or negligible, since Africans already possess the benefits of a high degree of genetic diversity.
Obviously surviving as a group for so many tens of thousands of years should result in a greater range of genetic adaptations compared to those who have only done so for much less time.
That the principle of the genetic advantage of diversity was known in ancient times, is demonstrated by the fact that after the the royal families of Egypt mixed with Eurasian royalty at the end of the New Kindgom, the priesthood of Thebes/Luxor made it law that future pharoahs must choose a wife from among the daughters of kings or priests of southern Egypt and Northern Sudan.
At this time the people living along the Nile valley contained most of the, already genetically diverse, African groupings that later spread out to populate the African continent. So the potential longenvity and health of unborn future kings was improved by drawing on the most ancient and therefore diverse gene pool. This approach when implemented by European Royal families only resulted in-breeding, due to lack of genetic diversity among Europeans.
Ultimately what the heterozygic theory demonstrates is that the African gene pool is by far the most significant gene pool in the future survivability of mankind. Also given the lack of diversity in white peoples genes the black gene pool will always be far more diverse that the gene pools of mixed race people also. Some mixed race people may possess heterozygousity equal to or higher than Africans but as a group the diversity of the mixed race gene pool will always be less than that of the African gene pool due to the limited diversity European or Asian genes present.
It seems mixed race couples and people are unwitting agents in the re-allocation of the material and genetic resources that the other race needs. The question is how will the terms, of this trade between the races evolve, now that the information on the genetic advantage of heterozygousity in mixed race individuals and African people both individually and as a group is out there.
Amen Ra Neter
Blackology.com