text:
Archive for the 'Genetics/Medical' Category
Nobody Here Chickens Out
Saturday, April 5, 2008 in Genetics/Medical, Media/News, Social commentary
Nobody Here Chickens Out
A Mexican Community Leader Dies of AIDS
New America Media, News Feature, Alonso Yáñez, Posted: Mar 02, 2008
The sixth in the weekend series "Stories Against the Silence: HIV/AIDS in the Latino Community" profiles artist and activist Jose Santibáñez who fought for basic social services such as electricity and water for his neighborhood in the outskirts of Tijuana.
Unbearable pain. Infections. Partial deafness.
This is how a Mexican community leader spent his last days in Casa Hogar Las Memorias, a hospice for HIV/AIDS patients 10 miles east of Tijuana, Mexico.
Jose Santibáñez, 41, lobbied politicians and obtained basic services such as electricity and water for his neighborhood, Terrazas del Valle, in the outskirts of Tijuana.
He is another talent lost to an AIDS epidemic that has infected approximately 42 million people worldwide.
Tijuana, located 130 miles south of Los Angeles in the busiest frontier in the world, is a focal point of the epidemic.
"We live in a border city," said Santibáñez. "A lot of people migrate and they don't have the courage to accept they cheated. Once they reunite with their partners, they infect their families."
Born and raised in Mexico City, Santibáñez moved to Tijuana nine years ago to take advantage of the public assistance available to poor HIV/AIDS patients in Baja California.
He was married and had three children, but his whole life changed when he was diagnosed with the disease. He confessed to his wife that he cheated, and she left him and took the children.
The following months were very difficult. He was depressed and attempted suicide several times. These were crucial months of reflection, after which he opted to live.
"Initially, I cursed having HIV but now I welcome it because I value my life more," said Santibáñez. "If I made a mistake, now I have to be responsible for it."
Santibáñez was weak when he first arrived in Tijuana. Desperate, his mother Candelaria Gonzáles took him to Las Memorias, where he recovered in six months.
During his recovery, he complained that he had too much time on his hands. He started to paint replicas of paintings by Salvador Dalí and Diego Rivera to finance his medication. Soon after that, he was hired to work exclusively for a businesswoman from Rosarito.
"She was also a painter," said his mother Candelaria. "She hasn't found a person who can paint like him, so she's begging him to continue working with her."
His messy, rustic studio is still as he left it. Numerous sketches lay inside the feeble wooden shed, illuminated by a faint light entering from a solitary window. Under the window, a photograph of a Democratic Revolutionary Party march summarizes his relentless personality. In the picture, a group of people carry a banner that reads: "Nobody here chickens out."
After Santibáñez returned home, he devoted his efforts to improving the quality of life in Terrazas del Valle, which at the time lacked paved roads, electricity, water and sewage.
"He lobbied to get a police booth," said his neighbor Elizabeth Jiménez. "We are abandoned. Thanks to him, the neighborhood has progressed, because no one from the government has ever listened to us."
"This neighborhood always had corrupt leaders," added Jaime Fuentes, who worked with Santibáñez as a member of the neighborhood council. "But he always led the community in an honest way and achieved important things."
Although Santibáñez acknowledges progress in some aspects, he urged the government to conduct more campaigns emphasizing education and testing. Santibáñez' niece, Zahory Gonzales, 13, remembers how everyone in the family had to educate themselves about HIV and AIDS when they found out about her uncle's condition, and laments how the topic was discussed superficially by her school teacher.
"I don't think they teach enough (about it) at school. My teacher was scared of talking about birth control methods, like condoms," said the seventh-grader. "We asked her questions but she said we would discuss that topic later. And then she would skip the topic in our textbooks."
Two days before he died, Santibáñez talked about the need for more public campaigns designed to educate people about HIV and AIDS.
During the interview, he was constantly interrupted by phone calls from his neighbors, who asked him for advice even though he was partially deaf and his voice was barely a murmur.
"We need people to understand the need of a massive campaign to get everyone tested," said Santibáñez. "You can trust your partner all you want, but you need to find out if you are infected or not."
Photos by Moisés Reyes.
This series first ran in Spanish in "El Nuevo Sol," a publication for Spanish-speaking college journalists at California State University, Northridge. It also aired on "Nuestra Voz," a public affairs show on KPFK, Los Angeles, and in Fresno on Radio Bilingüe.
Home Paternity Test Released
Thursday, March 27, 2008 in Genetics/Medical, Sexuality, Social commentary
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A swab, a consent form, an envelope and a waiting period of three to five business days is all there is to settling paternity issues with the test kit that went on sale Wednesday at some US drug stores.
Identigene, which runs a DNA testing laboratory, said its DNA Paternity Test Collection Kit went on sale at the 4,363 Rite Aid drug stores throughout the United States, except New York.
The swab in the kit is used to collect a saliva sample, to be mailed to the Identigene laboratory for an analysis that costs additional 119 dollars.
It takes three to five business days to get the test results, which are delivered by mail, email, or online through a secured Web service.
The paternity test kit is already a hit in California, Washington and Oregon states, where they have been selling on a trial basis since November, Identigene said.
"Demand has been very strong, store sales are brisk and Identigene has been inundated with questions regarding the product's availability," it said in a statement.
Test kit buyers include women who want to know the identity of father of their child — or unborn child — as well as people looking for their parents.
Sold without prescription, the paternity kits are not allowed as evidence in court, where more precise and costly DNA tests are required.
European, African, DNA Differences Affect Response To Drugs, Disease
Saturday, March 1, 2008 in Black Culture (black people), Genetics/Medical, Media/News, Mixed race/mulatto, Social commentary, White people
Although you may personally choose to embrace one ancestry and ignore another, germs and drugs don't care about your preferences.
Gene Expression Differences Between Europeans And Africans Affect Response To Drugs, Infections
ScienceDaily (Feb. 29, 2008) — Differences in gene expression levels between people of European versus African ancestry can affect how each group responds to certain drugs or fights off specific infections, report researchers from the University of Chicago Medical Center and the Expression Research Laboratory at Affymetrix Inc. of Santa Clara, CA.
Researchers used Affymetrix exon arrays to show that expression levels for nearly five percent of the 9,156 human genes they studied varied significantly between individuals of European and African ancestry. The research team took an unbiased whole genome approach and found significant differences in several unrelated processes, especially among genes involved in producing antibodies to potential microbial invaders.
The researchers used lymphoblastoid cell lines derived from blood from 180 healthy individuals. They studied 60 nuclear families, including mother, father and child. Thirty of the families were Caucasians from Utah and 30 were Yorubans from Ibadan, Nigeria.
"Our primary interest is the genes that regulate how people respond to medicines, such as cancer chemotherapy," said cancer specialist Eileen Dolan, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and senior author of the study. "We want to understand why different populations experience different degrees of toxicity when taking certain drugs and learn how to predict who might be most at risk for drug side effects."
But in the process they saw several other differences. Some, including variation in the immune system's response to microbial invaders, were expected. Previous studies have found that African Americans may be more susceptible than Caucasians to infection by certain bacteria, such as Porphyromonas gingivalis that causes periodontitis.
Others were unanticipated, including significant differences in expression levels among genes involved in fundamental cellular processes such as ribosomal biogenesis, transfer RNA processing, and Notch-signaling–part of a complex system of communication that governs basic cellular activities and coordinates cell actions.
"Population differences in gene expression have only recently begun to be investigated," said Dolan, "We believe they play a significant role in susceptibility to disease and in regulating drug response. Our current research focuses on how these genetic and expression differences play a role in sensitivity to adverse effects associated with chemotherapy."
Understanding at the genetic level how individuals within and among populations vary in their response to drugs could improve treatment. The University of Chicago team worked closely with Affymetrix on new technology that enabled them to perform a very comprehensive study including evaluation of expression levels of every known gene.
This research appears in the March 7, 2008, print issue of American Journal of Human Genetics, and is published early online. The National Institutes of Health funded the study through a grant to the Pharmacogenetics of Anticancer Agents Research Group. Additional authors of the paper include Wei Zhang, Shiwei Duan, Emily O. Kistner, Wasim K. Bleibel, R. Stephanie Huang and Nancy J. Cox from the University of Chicago Medical Center and Tyson A. Clark, Tina X. Chen, Anthony C. Schweitzer and John E. Blume from Affymetrix.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Chicago Medical Center, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
White Woman Infects black Men with HIV For Revenge
Friday, February 29, 2008 in Black Culture (black people), Genetics/Medical, Media/News, Social commentary, White people
This is shocking!!!
White Woman Infects black Men with HIV For Revenge
This article was taken from this is local london.co.uk
AIDS revenge woman may have infected dozens By Peter Law
POLICE are searching for men across the country who may have had unprotected sex with a HIV positive London woman who was jailed for giving a lover the killer virus.
Sarah Jane Porter, a 43-year-old mother of one, was yesterday sentenced to 32 months in prison for knowingly infecting her boyfriend of two years with HIV, which then led to AIDS. She pleaded guilty to recklessly inflicting gross bodily harm in court last month. It was reported today that the blonde hair salon receptionist embarked on a campaign of revenge over several years after contracting HIV from a former black lover in 2000, soon after the birth of her son. Police believe Porter regularly had unprotected sex with young black men she met at nightclubs in London and other cities across England. Police denied that they had spoken to 2000 men as part of the investigation, but reports today said police had traced 24 men who they believed had sex with Porter. advertisement But only four men agreed to be tested, one of whom tested HIV positive.
One of the tested men today said Porter was on a "payback mission". "She caught HIV off a black guy and now she's on a payback mission. All the guys she has slept with are black," he told The Sun. The 37-year-old man had a three month relationship with Porter. "Sarah is very very attractive, the sort of woman any guy would love to be with. But make no mistake she is a very dangerous woman.
She's sick in the head," he said. "She has had an awful lot of counselling over the HIV but it doesn't seem to have worked." Police launched their year-long investigation in May last year after the man was told by a mutual friend that Porter had HIV. It was also reported that Porter allowed the 31-year-old man she infected with the virus to believe that he was in fact the source of the infection. In court he said he felt suicidal after he was diagnosed. "Besides the pain already suffered by me, my family and partner, I am petrified about what is to come. I know that my health will deteriorate," he said. Porter was charged in January this year, but she reportedly slept with other young black men while on bail.
Detective Sergeant Brian McClusky said Porter refused to help police trace men that she had slept with. He said the men police had traced may just be the "tip of the iceberg" and urged others to come forward. "Porter herself was a victim. She was infected by another partner so I can understand people thinking that revenge was a motive, but she never told us," he said. National AIDS Trust chief executive Deborah Jack said people must take responsibility for their own sexual health.
"The prospect of the police investigating the sexual history of people living with HIV in this speculative way is profoundly stigmatising, and appears to treat everyone with HIV as a potential criminal," she said. "We seem to be back in the bad old days at the beginning of the epidemic when HIV had to be someone's fault. "With only 46 per cent of people in 2005 always using a condom with a new sexual partner, it is time we stopped condemning some people living with HIV for majority behaviour. "We must reassert the need for everyone to take responsibility for their own sexual health instead of instinctively trying to blame someone else."
Wayne Joseph Thought He was Black
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 in Genetics/Medical, Media/News, Mixed race/mulatto, Social commentary
Wayne Joseph Thought He Was Black
By Chance, chancellorfiles.com
Wayne Joseph was a victim of the one drop rule that said if you have one drop of black blood meaning black ancestors in your then you are black. Wayne was born in Louisiana and he is creole. All of his life he thought he was black. Wayne had a phenotype that in his eyes, and in the eyes of black and white Americans rendered him black. Thus going on the assumption that he was black he lived the life of a black man. He internalized the African American experience, dealt with all of the good and bad situations and circumstances that go along with being an black man in America.
From the time of his childhood he had been raised black, his phenotype (physical appearance) looked black to him — and his neighborhoods. So there was no reason to think of himself as non black.
Until He had an DNA test done on him. The test came back 57% indo European, 39% Native American, 4% east Asian, and 0% black African. Geneticist believe that about 5% of the African American population don't have any DNA markers from sub Saharan Africa meaning they don't have any black genes. But even though they don't have any DNA markers from sub Sahara Africa they still call themselves black because that is how they have been raised, they think they have black ancestry in their genes.
Wayne says he has been called a nigger before. This is very interesting because he you look at his photo he looks like a man from India. He looks just like many Indian men and women, looks like people from Bangladesh and Pakistan. The DNA test said 57% indo European, and indo European is central Asian (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan).
The one drop blood rule has always been a problem, and Wayne Joseph is one of the victims who has found some liberation from it.
Puerto Rico, High Blood Pressure, And Skin Color
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 in Genetics/Medical, History, Media/News, Mixed race/mulatto, Social commentary
Puerto Rico, High Blood Pressure, And Skin Color
Black people all over the Americas no matter what country they are found in have higher blood pressures disproportionately for their numbers. They have higher blood pressure than members of other ethnic groups. Some say it is genetic, but new research says that it possibly is more than likely the result of culturally institutionalized social racism that is interwoven throughout those countries where black people live.
Researchers went to Puerto Rico and did a study on how High blood pressure varies across skin complexion lines. The research was set in Guayama, Puerto Rico, a southeastern coastal town of approximately 44 000 residents. In Puerto Rico there are three major racial classifications Blanco meaning white, Negro meaning black and Trigueno meaning the mixed looking people. Trigueno literally means the color of wheat, and it is applied to people who don't look white or black — they are mixed race in physical appearance, and these mixed race looking people have various mixed phenotypes (physical appearances). Basically even though they are all called Trigueno there are many different combinational looks among them.
Researchers discovered that dark skin black Puerto Ricans had higher blood pressure than white and Trigueno Puerto Ricans, and also discovered that the high blood pressure was not genetically based. Some medical Doctors and researchers in the United States have propagated that due to genetic factors — people who have black African ancestry naturally are more prone to develop high blood pressure — because they have black ancestry or are mixed with black.
Researchers Clarence C. Gravlee, William W. Dressler, and H. Russell Bernard based upon their research in Puerto Rico believe that sociocultural processes mediate the link between skin color and blood pressure. In other words due to socially institutionalized racism against people who are considered black– because of their skin color is the major reason for black Puerto Ricans having a higher blood pressure rate.
Their high blood pressure rate is not because they were born black. The study shows that the white Puerto Ricans have the lowest blood pressure, then the Trigueno population, and the black Puerto Ricans have the highest. Being a Trigueno puts the person between black and white, and therefore, allows Triguenos to be more fluid (mobile) in Puerto Rican society. The majority of Triguenos are mixed with black, white, and Native Tanio Indian (Arawak). Some of them are mixed with black, white, Tanio Indian and other ethnicities also.
These mixtures allow the mixed race people to feel comfortable associating with white and black Puerto Ricans. In return many white and black Puerto Ricans feel comfortable associating with the mixed race people (Trigueno). Do to their being an intermediate group called Trigueno this is the major reason that the mixed race people suffer less social racial discrimination, and thus having a lower blood pressure rate than black Puerto Ricans.
Mixed Race People In America
In the Untied States of America currently if you have black ancestry that is visible in your phenotype (physical appearance) you are considered black (African American). The reason for this is because of two racist pathologies called the One drop rule (ODR) and hypodescent. The one drop rule says that if you have one drop of black blood then you are black, even if your physical body shows no visible signs of black ancestry. Basically because you have some or a black ancestor, or one black parent, this makes you black.
Hypodescent is the practice of determining the lineage of a child of mixed race ancestry by assigning the child to the race of his or her more socially subordinate parent. If one parent is white and the other is black then the child will be considered black — even when that child marries another person. These two racial pathologies are genetically and medically scientifically inaccurate. The two racial pathologies were left over from Slavery and Jim Crow eras of American history. In 1967, the Supreme removed Court anti miscegenation laws, and also, removed the one drop rule (ODR) from the law books of all states that still had these two laws in effect. The ODR and hypo descent are only applied by way of social tradition meaning that many black, white, and other ethnic groups continue to follow the tradition that if a person has visible or invisible but especially visible black ancestry that person is seen as an African American (black).
The mixed race people of America who have some black ancestry but don't have black phenotypes have high blood pressure, and their blood pressure is just as high as any black person regardless of skin color. Yet the mixed race people (Trigueno) of Puerto Rico have lower blood pressures. Both the mixed race African Americans and mixed race Puerto Ricans are mixed with black, white, and Native Indian ancestries.
The difference is, that in Puerto Rico the Trigueno (mixed race) are not labeled black, and therefore, do not have to deal with the same amount of racism that black Puerto Ricans have to deal with. Wherefore, in America the mixed race people who have some visible black ancestry are labeled black, and therefore, experience the same type of racism that black Americans experience. If there was a government recognized third category that would separate mixed race African Americans who don't have sub Saharan African phenotypes from African Americans who have sub Saharan African phenotypes, and this category would become socially accepted by society then the mixed race people would eventually have a lower blood pressures. While African Americans who have phenotypes that look more sub Saharan African would continue to have high blood pressures as long as they are more socially discriminated against by general American society.
So the major culprit is social racism of Puerto Rico and America against black people that is responsible for the High blood pressures.
Copyright American Journal of Public Health 2005
Skin Color, Social Classification, and Blood Pressure in Southeastern Puerto Rico
The Researchers Clarence C. Gravlee is with the Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. William W. Dressler is with the Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. H. Russell Bernard is with the Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville
The Objectives. We tested competing hypotheses for the skin color–blood pressure relationship by analyzing the association between blood pressure and 2 skin color variables: skin pigmentation and social classification.
Methods. We measured skin pigmentation by reflectance spectrophotometry and social classification by linking respondents to ethnographic data on the cultural model of "color" in southeastern Puerto Rico. We used multiple regression analysis to test the associations between these variables and blood pressure in a community-based sample of Puerto Rican adults aged 25–55 years (n=100). Regression models included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), self-reported use of antihypertensive medication, and socioeconomic status (SES).
Results. Social classification, but not skin pigmentation, is associated with systolic and diastolic blood pressure through a statistical interaction with SES, independent of age, gender, BMI, self-reported use of antihypertensive medication, and skin reflectance.
Conclusion. Our findings suggest that sociocultural processes mediate the relationship between skin color and blood pressure. They also help to clarify the meaning and measurement of skin color and "race" as social variables in health research.
There remains no consensus as to why this pattern exists, leading some to call it "the puzzle of hypertension in African-Americans."8 One key piece of the puzzle is that, within populations of African ancestry, darker-skinned individuals tend to have higher mean blood pressures than do their lighter-skinned counterparts. Previous researchers have proposed 2 major explanations for this relationship. The first is that dark skin color, as a marker of African ancestry, is linked to a genetic predisposition for high blood pressure.9,10 The second is that dark skin color, as a marker of subordinate social status, exposes dark-skinned individuals to racial discrimination, poverty, and other stressors related to blood pressure.11–13 These competing hypotheses—1 genetic, 1 sociocultural—encapsulate the debate over race and health in general, making the skin color–blood pressure relationship a convenient microcosm of the broader problem.
Our purpose was to test competing explanations for the relationship between skin color and blood pressure more directly than has been done before. We address an important limitation of previous studies by recognizing that genetic and sociocultural hypotheses refer to distinct dimensions of skin color. The hypothesis that skin color is linked to a genetic predisposition for high blood pressure refers to the phenotype of skin pigmentation. The hypothesis that skin color is a marker of exposure to social stressors refers to the cultural significance of skin color as a criterion of social classification. These conceptually distinct variables require distinct measurement operations. However, previous studies have not aimed to isolate the cultural and biological dimensions of skin color or to test their associations with blood pressure.
We argue that genetic and sociocultural hypotheses for the relationship between skin color and blood pressure entail 2 distinct skin color variables: the phenotype of skin pigmentation and the cultural significance of skin color as a criterion of social classification. Our measurement strategy operationalizes this distinction, and results suggest that the cultural rather than biological dimension of skin color may be the key variable of interest.
Among respondents who are at or above mean SES, those who are culturally defined as negro, or Black, have higher SBP and DBP, on average, than do those classified as blanco, White, or trigueño, Intermediate. This relationship holds independent of age, gender, body mass, skin pigmentation, or reported use of antihypertensive medication. We found no evidence of darker skin pigmentation being associated with higher blood pressure in this sample.
The nature of the relationship between ascribed color and blood pressure is consistent with the ethnographic record in Puerto Rico. First, the interaction between color and SES corresponds to ethnographic evidence that status distinctions based on color are relatively insignificant in low-SES contexts, and that racism is most pernicious in the middle and upper classes.28–31 Thus, respondents who are classified as negro in high-SES contexts may experience more frequent, frustrating social interactions as a result of institutional and interpersonal discrimination. Experimental and observational studies suggest that chronic exposure to such interactions may be linked to cardiovascular responses, including sustained high blood pressure.32,33
Second, the absence of statistically significant differences in blood pressure between the categories trigueño and blanco is consistent with ethnographic evidence. One notable feature of ethnic classification in Puerto Rico, as opposed to the mainland United States, is the existence of intermediate categories, such as trigueño, that do not carry the stigma of "Blackness." Whereas people defined as negro are likely to encounter institutional and interpersonal constraints on social mobility, those defined as trigueño face relatively few such constraints as a consequence of color.30,31 The finding that high-SES respondents estimated to be negro but not trigueño have the highest blood pressures is therefore consistent with the hypothesis that sociocultural processes mediate the link between skin color and blood pressure.
Despite speculation about possible genetic links between skin color and blood pressure,9,10 it should not be surprising that skin pigmentation and blood pressure are not significantly associated in our sample. Recent studies show that skin pigmentation is associated with molecular estimates of continental ancestry, with correlations ranging from weak (Mexico, ? =.21) to moderately strong (Puerto Rico, ? =.63) across populations.34 Yet the central question is whether continental ancestry is informative about alleles related to blood pressure. Available evidence suggests that it is not.35,36 Skin pigmentation is informative about continental ancestry precisely because its distribution differs from most human genetic variation. Most genetic markers show relatively small differences between human populations,37 but skin pigmentation shows marked regional variation in response to geographic differences in the intensity of ultraviolet radiation.38 Our findings thus reinforce criticism that skin color should not be used uncritically as a marker of racial–genetic predisposition to disease; genetic hypotheses require genetic data.34
Our findings also relate to recent discussions about causal inference and the measurement of "race" as a cultural construct in social epidemiology. Kaufman and Cooper39 suggest that standard comparisons of racially defined groups are ill suited to explaining racial differences in health. In particular, they point out that causal reasoning in epidemiology is based on a counterfactual framework that asks, "What would the outcome have been if the exposed individual were not exposed to the alleged cause?" When the alleged cause is race, they argue, this model breaks down, because there is no logical counterfactual state: "a Black person who is not Black cannot be considered the same person."39(p115)
Yet, as others have noted,40,41 the constraint on this counterfactual state is empirical, not logical. To imagine a Black person who is not Black, it is necessary only to distinguish between 2 exposures: having dark skin and being culturally defined as "Black." It is difficult to operationalize this distinction in the mainland United States, because the prevailing cultural model of racial classification defines dark-skinned people with any detectable trace of African ancestry as "Black." However, as the Puerto Rican case shows, the relative salience of skin color as a basis of social classification is variable across societies, such that people with a given skin tone may be assigned to different folk ethnoracial categories in everyday social interaction.
A key innovation of our study is the attempt to estimate how survey respondents would be classified in everyday social interaction by linking survey measurement to ethnographic data on the salient cultural model of color.19 This strategy treats the notion that race is a cultural construct as a mandate for research. Some well-meaning commentators argue that, because race is a cultural construct and not a biological reality, public health researchers should abandon it as a variable. For example, Fullilove asks, "Why continue to accept something that is not only without biological merit but also full of evil social import?"42(p1297) We suggest that this question contains the answer. Because racial classification in the United States—and other folk classification schemes in other societies—are full of evil social import, social scientists must devise strategies to operationalize racial classification as a sociocultural variable. Our approach to this problem complements other strategies to explain racial health inequalities, including what Krieger40 identifies as the direct and indirect impacts of racism on health.
Perhaps because research on skin color and blood pressure often reflects the assumptions of a racialized worldview,43 previous studies have not distinguished between skin pigmentation and the cultural significance of skin color as potentially independent predictors of blood pressure. However, once we recognize that distinction, existing evidence favors the cultural rather than biological significance of skin color. Seven previous studies of skin color and blood pressure7,9,44–48 measured skin pigmentation with reflectance spectrophotometry; none reported an association between pigmentation and blood pressure in the entire sample after control for age, gender, and SES. One of these studies found an association only in low-SES respondents,46 whereas another reported an association only in Egyptian women.48 By contrast, 5 studies16,49–52 that measured skin color by observer ratings reported a consistent association between skin color and blood pressure across the sample. Thus, studies that measure skin pigmentation precisely using reflectance spectrophotometry provide the weakest evidence for an association between skin color and blood pressure. Those that approximate social classification with observer ratings provide the strongest evidence of such an association.
This set of findings underscores the importance of our measurement approach. However, limitations of the research design moderate the strength of our results. First, by comparison to previous studies, our sample is small. It is noteworthy that, despite the small sample size, we observed a statistically significant relationship between ascribed color and blood pressure. Case diagnostics also indicate that this relationship does not depend on a small number of unusual cases. Still, it remains to be seen whether our findings can be replicated in other parts of Puerto Rico or elsewhere. A larger sample would also increase the statistical power to detect more complex interactions between SES, color, and other important factors, such as gender, perceived discrimination, or access to health care. Second, although our measure of ascribed color is linked to ethnographic data regarding the salient cultural model, it is unclear how well it estimates everyday social classification.
This unresolved question is a critical area for future research. One important extension of this work would be to examine whether nonbiological markers of social status influence the ascription of color and, if so, how this effect alters the association with blood pressure. Third, we did not collect data on dietary intake or energy expenditure. There is evidence that both skin color and exposure to social stressors are associated with blood pressure, independent of such measures,16,21 but attention to nutritional status and physical activity would enhance future research. Fourth, the biological significance of skin pigmentation may differ in Puerto Rico and the mainland United States, given different historical processes of admixture. This difference limits direct comparability between Puerto Rico and the mainland. However, the fact that skin color and blood pressure are related in societies with different histories of genetic admixture, but with common histories of slavery and racial discrimination, suggests that nongenetic factors may provide a more parsimonious explanation.
Given these limitations, our study is significant, more for the questions it raises than for the answers it provides. Skin pigmentation is central to debates about race and genetics, but most researchers fail to distinguish its significance as a biological parameter from its significance as a marker of social status and exposure to stressors.34 Our measurement strategy provides one way to make this distinction explicit. Our finding that blood pressure is associated with culturally ascribed color—but not with skin pigmentation—does not exclude a genetic basis to population differences in blood pressure. Yet it does cast doubt on genetic explanations for the relationship between skin color and blood pressure. This finding highlights the need for testable hypotheses and appropriate measurement operations in future research on the causes of poor health in the African Diaspora.
Discrimination Against Blacks Linked To Dehumanization
Friday, February 8, 2008 in Black Culture (black people), Genetics/Medical, History, Media/News, Science, Social commentary, White people
Chance writes: This study is very interesting, and this why African Americans who constantly engage in negative behavioral pathologies in public — have to be careful. They constantly help give a bad reputation to the black American race, and this helps give the go head to the subconscious biases — that whites and non whites have about blacks being animal like, and bruteful in behavior. The pathologies of Black sub culture are partially responsible for why blacks are seen as ape like, and racism is the other culprit. These two combined have given certain people from other ethnic groups the go head to feel comfortable mistreating blacks. Even police officers feel comfortable mistreating blacks because they are aware of the social climate — that they may not be punished for mistreating and beating a black person. There is no justification for mistreating people because you believe they are lower than you.
Discrimination Against Blacks Linked To Dehumanization, Study Finds
Sciencedaily.com Friday February 8, 2008
Crude historical depictions of African Americans as ape-like may have disappeared from mainstream U.S. culture, but new research reveals that many Americans subconsciously associate blacks with apes.
In addition, the findings show that society is more likely to condone violence against black criminal suspects as a result of its broader inability to accept African Americans as fully human, according to the researchers.
Co-author Jennifer Eberhardt, a Stanford associate professor of psychology who is black, said she was shocked by the results, particularly since they involved subjects born after Jim Crow and the civil rights movement. "This was actually some of the most depressing work I have done," she said. "This shook me up. You have suspicions when you do the work—intuitions—you have a hunch. But it was hard to prepare for how strong [the black-ape association] was—how we were able to pick it up every time."
The paper, "Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization and Contemporary Consequences," is the result of a series of six previously unpublished studies conducted by Eberhardt, Pennsylvania State University psychologist Phillip Atiba Goff (the lead author and a former student of Eberhardt's) and Matthew C. Jackson and Melissa J. Williams, graduate students at Penn State and Berkeley, respectively. The paper is scheduled to appear Feb. 7 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is published by the American Psychological Association.
The research took place over six years at Stanford and Penn State under Eberhardt's supervision. It involved mostly white male undergraduates. In a series of studies that subliminally flashed black or white male faces on a screen for a fraction of a second to "prime" the students, researchers found subjects could identify blurry ape drawings much faster after they were primed with black faces than with white faces.
The researchers consistently discovered a black-ape association even if the young adults said they knew nothing about its historical connotations. The connection was made only with African American faces; the paper's third study failed to find an ape association with other non-white groups, such as Asians. Despite such race-specific findings, the researchers stressed that dehumanization and animal imagery have been used for centuries to justify violence against many oppressed groups.
"Despite widespread opposition to racism, bias remains with us," Eberhardt said. "African Americans are still dehumanized; we're still associated with apes in this country. That association can lead people to endorse the beating of black suspects by police officers, and I think it has lots of other consequences that we have yet to uncover."
Historical background
Scientific racism in the United States was graphically promoted in a mid-19th-century book by Josiah C. Nott and George Robins Gliddon titled Types of Mankind, which used misleading illustrations to suggest that "Negroes" ranked between "Greeks" and chimpanzees. "When we have a history like that in this country, I don't know how much of that goes away completely, especially to the extent that we are still dealing with severe racial inequality, which fuels and maintains those associations in ways that people are unaware," Eberhardt said.
Although such grotesque characterizations of African Americans have largely disappeared from mainstream U.S. society, Eberhardt noted that science education could be partly responsible for reinforcing the view that blacks are less evolved than whites. An iconic 1970 illustration, "March of Progress," published in the Time-Life book Early Man, depicts evolution beginning with a chimpanzee and ending with a white man. "It's a legacy of our past that the endpoint of evolution is a white man," Eberhardt said. "I don't think it's intentional, but when people learn about human evolution, they walk away with a notion that people of African descent are closer to apes than people of European descent. When people think of a civilized person, a white man comes to mind."
Consequences of socially endorsed violence
In the paper's fifth study, the researchers subliminally primed 115 white male undergraduates with words associated with either apes (such as "monkey," "chimp," "gorilla") or big cats (such as "lion," "tiger," "panther"). The latter was used as a control because both images are associated with violence and Africa, Eberhardt said. The subjects then watched a two-minute video clip, similar to the television program COPS, depicting several police officers violently beating a man of undetermined race. A mugshot of either a white or a black man was shown at the beginning of the clip to indicate who was being beaten, with a description conveying that, although described by his family as "a loving husband and father," the suspect had a serious criminal record and may have been high on drugs at the time of his arrest.
The students were then asked to rate how justified the beating was. Participants who believed the suspect was white were no more likely to condone the beating when they were primed with either ape or big cat words, Eberhardt said. But those who thought the suspect was black were more likely to justify the beating if they had been primed with ape words than with big cat words. "Taken together, this suggests that implicit knowledge of a Black-ape association led to marked differences in participants' judgments of Black criminal suspects," the researchers write.
According to the paper's authors, this link has devastating consequences for African Americans because it "alters visual perception and attention, and it increases endorsement of violence against black suspects." For example, the paper's sixth study showed that in hundreds of news stories from 1979 to 1999 in the Philadelphia Inquirer, African Americans convicted of capital crimes were about four times more likely than whites convicted of capital crimes to be described with ape-relevant language, such as "barbaric," "beast," "brute," "savage" and "wild." "Those who are implicitly portrayed as more ape-like in these articles are more likely to be executed by the state than those who are not," the researchers write.
The way forward
Despite the paper's findings, Eberhardt said she is optimistic about the future. "This work isn't arguing that there hasn't been any progress made or that we are living in the same society that existed in the 19th century," she said. "We have made a lot of progress on race issues, but we should recognize that racial bias isn't dead. We still need to be aware of that and aware of all the different ways [racism] can affect us, despite our intentions and motivations to be egalitarian. We still have work to do."
For Eberhardt, two stories of race exist in America. "One is about the disappearance of bias—that it's no longer with us," she said. "But the other is about the transformation of bias. It's not the egregious bias anymore, but it's modern bias, subtle bias." With both of these stories, she said, there is an understanding that society has moved beyond the historic battles centered around race. "We want to argue, with this work, that there is one old race battle that we're still fighting," she said. "That is the battle for blacks to be recognized as fully human."
This research was supported by a Stanford University Dean's Award to Jennifer Eberhardt.
Adapted from materials provided by Stanford University.
From sciencedaily.com
Discrimination Against Blacks Linked To Dehumanization, Study Finds
Native American DNA Contribution Among African Americans
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 in Black Culture (black people), Genetics/Medical, Media/News, Mixed race/mulatto, Science, Social commentary
Native American DNA Contribution Among African Americans
By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com
Researchers at the University of Pittsburg Pennsylvania did DNA research to estimate how much has Native American ancestry contributed to the African American (black American) population genetically.
The researchers chosed 1,000 African Americans from ten cities (Maywood, Illinois; Detroit; New York; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Baltimore; Charleston, South Carolina; New Orleans; and Houston) to participate in the DNA experiment.
These ten cities are located in the eastern part of the United States of America. The result was that only four black Americans showed DNA markers that came from the Amerindian (Native American) haplogroup.
Therefore, based upon the results, The African American population has received very little genetic contribution from the Native American racial group. Now maybe in the southern states and western states the African American population might have more people who have Amerindian DNA markers in their genes.
But at the same time, even if this was true the reality still is -– that the majority of the African Americans don't carry a lot of Native American DNA in their genes thus meaning that the average African American has non or only a few Native American ancestors.
If you observe the phenotypes of many African Americans you can see that the majority look non Native American mixed in phenotype (physical appearance). There currently is still a tricky situation with the African American population, and that is, the one drop rule that says if you have one drop of black blood then you are black.
The mixed race people who have some black ancestry but have skin complexion that are yellow, yellowish red, yellowish brown, beige, or whitish are currently also called black (even if some of them wish to be called mixed race they are forced into blackness by society).
There is a possibility but not a guarantee that a larger percentage of this population may have more Native American ancestry. I will say this also, that among black Americans who have dark skin and caramel brown skin and even among those who have yellow, yellowish red, yellowish brown, beige, or whitish skin that the majority of these people do not possess a large amount of Native America DNA markers. This means that the Amerindian population and African American population did not mix interracially through sexual union to a significant and high degree.
You may have some African Americans who have one or two Native American ancestors. Others may have two or three but the reality is the majority of them don't have probably even 10 or more Native American ancestors. Some of the Native American DNA markers that show up in African Americans is the result of a white ancestor who was mixed with Native American and he or she married a black person.
If you observe the Mestizo latino populations of Mexico, South& central America and the Caribbean you will notice that in their phenotypes (physical appearance) that many of them have Aztec, Mayan, Inca, and Arawak Native American Indian ancestry.
More white Americans have Native American ancestry than the black population of America. Yes the African American population does have members who have Native American ancestry – but the number of Native Americans ancestors in their ancestry tree is not very many. Which explains why many who have Native American DNA markers don't look similar to Native American in phenotype.
There are more African Americans mixed with white, and they look like they have white in them. Yet when you look at the African American population they don't look even close to Native Americans in physical appearance. The reason is because they don't have many Native American ancestors. Having 5% or 10% of some particular ancestry from another racial group is not a lot.
Genetic DNA science is progressing and unlocking doors of human biology.
IQ And None Of The Above
Monday, December 24, 2007 in Black Culture (black people), Genetics/Medical, Media/News, Mixed race/mulatto, Social commentary, White people
Good article and a very interesting read!
None of the Above
What I.Q. doesn't tell you about race.
by Malcolm Gladwell
(this article came from New yorker.com)
If what I.Q. tests measure is immutable and innate, what explains the Flynn effect—the steady rise in scores across generations? Related Links Audio: Malcolm Gladwell on race and I.Q. Keywords I.Q.s; Race; Flynn, James; "What Is Intelligence?" (Cambridge; $22); Flynn effect; Intelligence; Racism Correction appended. One Saturday in November of 1984, James Flynn, a social scientist at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, received a large package in the mail. It was from a colleague in Utrecht, and it contained the results of I.Q. tests given to two generations of Dutch eighteen-year-olds.
Eugenics, Genetics, And Society
Monday, November 26, 2007 in Genetics/Medical, History, Social commentary
Eugenics, Genetics, And Society
By Chance Kelsey, Chancellorfiles.com
Sir Francis Galton was a British social scientist he was born on February 16, 1822 and died on January 17, 1911. Galton was Charles Darwin's cousin. Francis Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 the word eugenics means good breeding. The goal of eugenics is to improve the genetic quality of the population regarding intelligence, health, conscientiousness, and moral character. Eugenicists have been concerned with increasing the over all health, higher intelligence, eliminating diseases, and increasing the moral character of the population by selective breeding. This selective breeding is really not new to humanity it has been going on for thousands of years in one form or another.
In eugenics selective breeding means when men and women procreate with someone whom they are compatible with the marriage partner must be highly intelligent, educated, morally developed, healthy, employed, and conscientious.
It is better to have more educated people than uneducated, healthy over unhealthy (sickly), good moral character over weaker moral character, intelligent over unintelligent. Basically eugenics is saying marry and have children with someone on your intelligence level, in good health, employed, and of good moral character.
Europe And Eugenics
During the European renaissance and medieval time periods Kings, Queens, and the aristocracy married high class society people whom were of nobility. The social elite of society seldom married serfs and peasants (socially lower class people) who had nothing to offer because they were poor. During those times periods in Europe many of the poorer did not live long due to bad health, illnesses, starvation famine, killed by other people because they did not have the means to protect themselves to the same degree that the social elite had, and I personally believe that stress and depression of daily living also contributed to the early deaths of some of these poor peasants.
The result of the social elite which was made up of Kings, Queens, and the aristocracy marrying other socially elite people was a class of healthy, educated, intelligent, employed, financially secure, consciousness, and morally developed people. The children born between these socially elite men and women displayed the same qualities of their parents. Many children born to the serfs and peasants often died in child birth, and some died at a young age.
Combined with the poor people already living shorter life spans than the aristocracy, the results were the population was heavily replenished with healthy, educated, highly intelligent, morally developed people. These children grew up to become kings, Queens, business people, explorers, scientists, Doctors, government officials, religious leaders, educators, artists (painters) and many other important positions in life. Europe experienced some of its greatest cultural achievements during the time periods from 13th to the mid 19th century.
It is a known fact, that in order for an advanced civilization to continue progressing economically, educationally, good health, and continue having a democracy type government that civilization must have enough citizen who are educated, intelligent, and morally developed (good moral character). If intelligence and good moral character are missing that civilization (country) will deteriorate.
Sir Ronald Fisher born February 17, 1890 and died on July 29, 1962 was an English statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist. Fisher believed that the genetic deterioration and decline of classical Greece and Rome came about partly due to deterioration of this kind. Brought on by the failure of patrician class to reproduce itself. With this failure by the patrician class (social elites) not reproducing itself, the serf peasant class (poor people) reproduced more children whom were uneducated, less intelligent, bad health, and of lower moral character. Sir Ronald Fisher was the professor of genetics at the University of Cambridge during the 1920's and 1930's.
Ancient Civilizations
Even in ancient civilizations like Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, India, Greece, Rome, Ancient Mexico and the American continent selective breeding was done with the aristocracy and social elite marrying people who were elite persons of society like themselves. And also, because the elite people of society were the ones who were more educated this helped them to transfer their money, power, positions, culture, and knowledge to their offspring (children). A lot depended on your birth back then. If you were born poor you died poor, there was little or no room to move up the social and economic ladder towards middle class or wealth. If you were born in the aristocracy or middle class then you remained apart of that class for the rest of your life unless some unfortunate event manifested that caused you to lose your status.
Selective Breeding For Plants, Foods, And Animals
In The middle ages larger and stronger horses were breed for war, carring soldiers around, heavy armor, labor, and strong enough to carry the rider around without getting tired so easily. Different types of Dogs were bred for different functions sheep dog, retriever, hounds, the German shepherd, and other dog breeds. Race horses were breed for faster running speeds. Flowers and plants were breed for better quality. Fruits and vegetables were breed for higher quality. The modern strawberry that we see today was breed in a London garden during the first decade of the 19th century. A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. So eugenic breeding for plants, animals, and foods has been around for hundreds of years and maybe even longer.
Slavery And Eugenics
Eugenics has been used during Slavery also. Throughout history were slavery has been practiced, certain slave owners encouraged their slaves to procreated with each other to produce more slaves. Slave owners liked strong slaves because they could work harder. Having many slaves also allowed more worked to get done.
Scientific research eugenics
The scientific research program of eugenics demonstrated that intelligence and moral character are determining factors when it comes to cultural, economic, education, and scientific achievements, and these qualities tend to be transmitted in families generation to generation and, these qualities are partly determined genetically. In the early decades of the twentieth century none of these qualities were established as fact, but research in the social sciences and genetics have proven that they were true.
Culture, environment, and childhood upbringing also play a role in determining how successful a person and country will be but genetics play a role too.
Political Eugenics
Eugenics has been used in a negative political way also. During the political reign of Adolf Hitler the leader of Germany during the Second World War (1939 – 1945) the Nazis used eugenics to eliminate and kill many Jews and other people they saw as undesirable and inferior. Approximately six million Jewish people killed by the Nazi Germans. The Nazis used gas oven chambers, Hangings, firing quads, etc to eliminate Jews and other people. This was eugenics being used in a bad way.
Also countries through out history have put people who were mentally ill or retarded in institutions for the rest of their lives because they were viewed as mentally ill. This also is a type of eugenics of purifying the countries of undesirables.
Another objective of eugenics was to influence and persuade the elite people of society to have more children by offering them financial incentives for having more children. This was called positive eugenics. This policy of offering finical incentives (money) to the elite to produce more children has not had very much success. Only in the country of Singapore did offering finical incentives to citizen to produce more children have some moderate success under the political leadership of former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew was a keen eugenicist.
Birth Control
Birth control also have are a part of eugenics. Birth control helps prevent the increase of unexpected pregnancies. At the same time many of the under class (poor) don't use birth control, and therefore, they produce more children than the middle class and rich people (the elites of today). When birth control came along many of the elite people of society started using it, and the result is that they produce fewer children than the under class. Unless the under class poverty stricken people move up to the level of middle class a once prosperous country will deteriorate due to an increase in less educated, morally developed, and intelligent people.
The Under Class
The under class are the poorest people society, and they have more criminals among them, highest pregnancy rate, less educated, chronically unemployed, violence, gangs, more welfare dependency, and live in most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. The underclass increased due to medical science finding cures for illnesses and diseases that long ago use to kill off many poor children and poor adults who were born into the under class. Another factor is that food is now more available due to technologically advances in agricultural department. Long ago draft horses, oxen and mules use to plow the field so the seeds could get planted and harvested in the summer. These animals could only do so much work before getting tired. Technology comes along and creates a Tractor. The tractor can plow a field faster and this allows farmers to plant more seeds and grow more crops to harvest, thus more food is produce and more people are fed. Now with more food this meant that more lives will be saved from starvation, and with more under class people now having access to better and more food they began to grow in numbers.
The key is to help the under class move up to the leave of middle class, and help them improve in education, moral character, intelligence (by educating them), and gain employment this will help society and the under class. The more under class people move up the economic ladder towards middle class the less crime, violence, gangs, out of wedlock births, and social ills.
Middle Class
When middle class men and women marry each other they increase their chances of producing children, who are intelligent, good moral character, educated, and able to become economically stable in society. So you see eugenics in and of itself is not bad it is practiced by all countries and ethnic groups. Eugenics is a natural part of humanity; it is when it is being abused in a negative way that eugenics becomes a problem.
Eugenic and genetic science will increase in popularity and credibility the twenty first century, and some married couples will use eugenic and genetic science to have embryos implanted in the females to produce healthy and intelligent children. As stated eugenics is a natural part of humanity; it is when it is being abused in a negative way that eugenics becomes a problem that can lead to many innocent people being harmed.
Dr. Jan Adams under investigation regarding the death of Donda west
Saturday, November 17, 2007 in Black Culture (black people), Celebrities, Genetics/Medical, Hip Hop, Media/News, Music, Social commentary, Videos
Update: Hip Hop artist rapper Kanye West broke down into tears on Saturday, November 17, 2007 on stage at a concert in Paris, France while attempting to perform (sing) the song "Hey Mama." The fans starting chanting Kanye, Kanye, and some (certain) members of his came to console him. West eventually left the stage and returned soon to perform the song "Stronger" and the audience started yelling their support. West is expected to return to the United States (America) for his mother's funeral, which will take place Tuesday in Oklahoma city. Dr. Jan Adams under investigation (regarding the death of Donda west) By Chance kelsey, chancellorfiles.com Chance: Dr. Jan Adams is in serious trouble after his patient Donda West died one day later after receiving cosmetic surgery from him. Donda West was the mother of Hip hop artist Kanye West. The surgery was done on November 9, 2007 and Donda died the next day on November 10, 2007.
Dr. Andre Aboolian of Beverly Hills, California said that Donda West came to him and wanted him to do cosmetic surgery but he refused because she had a medical condition that could lead to a heart attack. Abolian told her to go and get medical clearance (approval) from another Doctor, and then come back and see him. Donda never came back to see him. We now know she got the cosmetic surgery done by Dr. Jan Adams. Some of the comments I have seen and read on the Internet blogs, and websites are very interesting. Some people ask was Donda West pursuing Vanity?
Dr Jan Adams is not even board certified to practice and perform plastic surgery according to the Medical board. According to records Jan Adams has been sued twice, Some new organizations say Adams has been arrested twice on on DUI's — but the website TMZ.com says that Adams has been arrested three times for DUI (driving under the influence).
DR. Jan Adams is a very handsome Caramel brown skin black, with a deep voice, aura of confidence, friendly personality, and comes across as very intelligent. So it is easy to see why people would trust.
Julie Coleman is a young female in her late 30s, and she went to DR Jan Adams for cosmetic surgery. The end result was she ended up physically scared for life around the breast and waist areas of her body. Julie did an interview with TMZ.com, and she said that because of the scars her husband would not look at her for 9 months, and it almost caused a divorced.
Also Jan Adams has his personal website advertising his cosmetic surgery. He also, has another website that sells skin bleaching creme to lighten the skin tones for women of color.
http://www.drjanadams.com/ and http://www.drjanadamswomenofcolor.com/
Jan Adams career as a Doctor is over, and it is sad to see that Miss Donda west lost her life she died at the age of 58 years old.
Why Whites Prefer Asians
Wednesday, November 14, 2007 in Black Culture (black people), Genetics/Medical, Science, Sexuality, Social commentary, White people
Why Whites Prefer Asians
By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com
Blacks as a collective have lower IQs than whites and Asians, but blacks are more masculine than both whites and Asians. Blacks produce more testosterone than whites, whites produce more testosterone than Asians. It is also, a medically proven fact that black women produce more testosterone than white women, and white women produce more testosterone asian women.
The more testosterone you produce the more masculine, stronger personality, deeper voice, more muscle mass, taller in height, a presence that command respect, more sexually active, larger genital, more courage, braver, less fear, a type of charm, and a more extroverted personality. Whites producing more testosterone than Eastern Asians (the orient) therefore, have all of the above mentioned qualities (more masculine, stronger personality, deeper voice, more muscle mass, taller in height, a presence that command respect, more sexually active, a type of charm, and a more extroverted personality) more developed than Asians. But blacks as a collective have all of these characteristics more developed than whites.
(black women produce "moderately, but significantly" more testosterone than white women — Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1996; 81: 1108).
(Black men produce significantly more testosterone than white men Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1986; 76: 45) and (black women produce "moderately, but significantly" more testosterone than white women Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1996; 81: 1108).
The result is, that white men feel more comfortable in the presence of Asian men because they know that they (white men) are stronger physically, stronger personalities, stronger command presence, and more extroverted. The average Asian man is less threatening and physically is less masculine in appearance. White men know that they can run the show and seldom will Asians men argue and oppose them.
Research studies have been done dealing with why many Asian women prefer white men. White men are seen as less demanding, more appreciative, better looking due to white men coming in variety of looks, higher status of being married to a white man, more extroverted personality, etc these qualities make a white man more appealing to some Asians women. Whites complement Asians on their intelligence but you can be intelligent but still not be in control. When compared to the IQ intelligence of the Asian white men make up for what they lack in IQ buy exerting their masculinity, extrovertism, and personalities.
The masculinity, extrovertism, personalities, and other characteristics that white men have trumps the higher IQs of Eastern Asian men. The masculinity of black men trumps the masculinity of white men, and white men often are intimidated by the stronger personalities, and command presence of black men. Black men who are masculine, intelligent, and educated have the best of worlds. Now I do understand that sometimes IQ trumps masculinity it all depends on the situation. Testosterone production is genetically based the more of it the better. It is only when one give way to sexual misconduct that then too much testosterone production can become destructive in society. As long as one has self control one will reap the rewards.
Estrogen And Asians
In genetic science it is a known fact, that Asian women and men also produce more estrogen than whites, blacks and other ethnic groups. Estrogen gives Asians their smooth, nearly hairless skin (for those who aren't mixed with whites). It also explains their cultural collective consciousness for getting along for the greater good of their people. The high levels of estrogen also explains why asian women look more feminine than manuy women from other racial groups, and why asian men look more feminine than men from other racial groups. This looking more feminine plays a role in why many Asian women prefer white men, because white men look more masculine due to a higher tesstorone production. Asians also, when they get older still look younger than their age. Example an 60 year old Asian man looks 42 years old.
This higher estrogen production is the major reason why Asians are more reserved and introverted. Females produce more estrogen than men and men produce more tesoterone than women. The more estrogen the more feminine, and the more testoterone the masculine. Therefore, when men from other ethnic groups encounter asian men they seem to view asian men as less masculine in peronality and appreance. There are asian men who are the exception to the general rule. It appears that msculinity trumps higher IQs in popularity to some degree among humans. Genetic science has helped expalin the difference between racial groups when it comes to masculinity, femininity, and human behavior.
The various types of food that many east Asian men and women eat often contains (have) soy. The Soy diet that asian men and asian women have helps protect them from prostate cancer, and increases the estrogen levels in Asian men and women.
estrogen, soy Diet, and Asian men By: Maureen Williams ND, Men benefit from Soy, Too Quote: Soy is rich in
estrogen-like plant chemicals,
Filipino Child Dying From Rabies
Monday, October 8, 2007 in Genetics/Medical, Social commentary, Videos
Filipino Child Dying From Rabies
By Chance kelsey, chancellorfiles.com
In this video a Filipino child is dying from rabies, he is in a lot pain and suffering, and all the Doctor and nurse can due is wait for him to die. Parents must watch out for their kids, and keep them away from animals that have rabies like Dogs, Foxes, Bats, etc this is a very emotional video to watch you feel helpless watching this poor child suffer.
Rabies is a disease which may get from being bitten by an animal infected with the rabies virus. Rabies causes acute encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). Rabies in human has been regarded as uniformly fatal when associated with the hydrophobia symptoms (a pathological fear of drinking fluids because of painful spasms while swallowing). A common rabies symptom is drooling (like in this case). Raccoons are the most common wild animals infected with rabies in the United States. Skunks, foxes, bats, and coyotes are the other most frequently affected.
Psychopaths And Sociopaths
Friday, September 21, 2007 in Genetics/Medical, Social commentary
By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com
Scientist, psychiatrist, and psychologist have stated that there is a difference between a psychopath and sociopath. A Psychopath's antisocial behavior is genetic and sociopath's anti social behavior is the result of a dysfunctional environment. Most antisocial people are sociopaths and not psychopaths.
PSYCHOPATHS – psychopaths are born anti-social, and are not corrupted by bad parenting, culture, or environment scientists have revealed.
SOCIOPATHS — a sociopath's negative behavior is shaped by the environment that they grow up in. A dysfunctional environment is the reason why sociopaths engage in crime and antisocial behaviors.
Profile of the Psychopaths and Sociopaths
All characteristics listed below are shared by sociopaths and psychopaths, the only difference is that a psychopath will never change because the origins of his (or her) behavior is genetic, and a sociopath can change because the origin of his negative antisocial behavior is environmental. Researchers have also proven that antisocial behavior that predicts whether a child will be a sociopath (or psychopath) show up before the age of 15. These antisocial behavior start manifesting in childhood.
1. Glibness and Superficial Charm
2. Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
3. Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
4. Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
5. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
6. Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
7. Incapacity for Love
8. Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
9. Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
10. Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
11. Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
12. Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
13. Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
14. Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
15. Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)
Psychopaths are born bad, say scientists
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Rhiannon Edward,
by RHIANNON EDWARD, Scotsman.com (Edinburgh),
PSYCHOPATHS are born anti-social, not corrupted by bad parenting, scientists reveal today.
A study of twins showed that anti-social behaviour was strongly inherited in children with psychopathic tendencies. In children without psychopathic traits, being anti-social was chiefly the result of environmental factors.
The findings support previous research indicating that children with psychopathic tendencies often remain an anti-social problem. Psychopaths are generally recognised by a lack of empathy and weak conscience. If a psychopath does something that hurts another person, he or she is less likely to feel remorse than other people.
These tendencies are a recognised warning sign of anti-social behaviour in young children.
To help identify the genetic components of anti-social behaviour, a team of British psychiatrists studied 3,687 pairs of seven-year-old twins.
Twins are often used by researchers investigating inherited traits. Identical twins share the same genes, and, therefore, the same inherited influences, whereas non-identical twins do not. By comparing the two groups, it is possible to see if a trait is or is not carried in the genes.
In the new study, teacher ratings for anti-social behaviour and psychopathic tendencies were obtained for the children. Those in the top 10 per cent of the sample for anti-social behaviour were separated into two groups, with and without psychopathic tendencies. Analysis showed that anti-social behaviour was only strongly inherited in the psychopathic children.
The chief investigator, Dr Essi Viding, from the Medical Research Council's Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, said: "The discovery that psychopathic tendencies are strongly heritable suggests we need to get help for these youngsters early on."
The research is published today in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
DNA And African Ancestry Test Results
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 in Black Culture (black people), Genetics/Medical, Social commentary
DNA And African Ancestry Test Results
By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com
Chance: In 2006 PBS did a show called "African American lives" Henry Louis Gates jr. was the host, Gates chose 9 famous African American (black Americans) people to do DNA testing on. Gates wanted to see what were these people genetically mixed with. The show had some nice surprises, and verified that many so called black Americans are mixed to various degrees. Some are mixed very little an other are mixed a lot. All of the participants had African ancestry, but at the same time some had a lot of European ancestry in them.
This raises the question, should Americans continue to follow the one drop blood rule that says if you have one drop of black blood in you then you are therefore black? Another name for the one drop blood rule is ODR (one drop rule), many Black Americans continue to follow and demand that the ODR remain in effect. Now at the same time there are a small number of people who are labeled black but are so mixed that their physical appearance (phenotypes) don't fit into the black race. These people have skin tones that are yellowish, reddish yellow, beige, whitish, and have various eyes colors, hair textures ranging from general black American type hair which is the same as black Africans to hair that is a combination of black and white mixture to strait hair like whites and other non black ethnic groups.
As long as black Americans continue to follow the ODR, and have these types of mixed race people among them — there will always be jealousy directed at these mix race people at the hands of blacks who are dark skin and caramel skin. Especially dark skin blacks. At the same time some of these mixed race people are white in phenotype (white in appearance to the point where you see no visible black ancestry in their physical bodies) but are labeled black because of ODR. Then you have those who are what is called 50/50 looking, they show in their physical bodies visible signs of black, white and other ancestries, on top of that there are some who are labeled black but look like mestizo latinos or Asian or some other ethnic group. With all of these mixed race looking people being labeled black actually holds then back from progressing, and has opened them up to the same social and racial discrimination that blacks who are dark skin and caramel skin experience in America. Having these mixed race people among blacks benefits blacks, but in many ways hurt the mixed race people because they get mistreated by whites and other non whites and mistreated by blacks for being too mixed looking.
Chance: Henry Louis Gates jr DNA test revealed he was 50% whit and 50% black, Music Producer Quincy Jones' DNA test revealed he is 34% white and 66% black, Sociologist Sara Lawrence Lightfoot's DNA test revealed that she was 45% European. All three of these people have Caramel brown skin, yet have a high percentage of of European ancestry all three had European ancestry that was past 30%. Now imagine if we DNA test all of the blacks who have yellow, reddish yellow, reddish, and whitish skin, many of them would have high percentages of European and other non black ancestries.
I must say too, that some people may be predominately black in ancestry but their phenotype may look more mixed race instead of looking predominately black. The reality is, that DNA and genetic science has opened up a do that allows many people of all ethnic groups to study their genetic past.
"We now know that our ancestors brought something with them that not even the slave trade could take away: their own distinctive strands of DNA. And because their DNA has been passed down to us – their direct descendants – it just might be the key that unlocks our African past." – Henry Louis Gates, head of the Department of African and African American Studies at Harvard University
Mark Shriver, a white population geneticist at Penn State, talked about how surprised he had been by his own test – which had come back 86% European, 11% sub-Saharan African, and 3% Native American – and how his mother wanted him to stop publicizing these results. Then to test for specific African ancestry, two more tests were done: a mitochondrial DNA test that traces the matrilineal line (mother to grandmother to great-grandmother, and so forth). The Y chromosome test is only done on males – women must get a male relative to do it – and traces the patrilineal line. The conclusions for some of the more famous case studies:
Oprah Winfrey: The billionaire talk show host said that she didn't believe that she had any European or Native American ancestors. Her admixture test showed her ancestry to be 89% sub-Saharan African, 8% Native American, 3% East Asian (researchers said that Native American ancestral traces show up here too), and 0% European. Henry Louis Gates told Oprah that, no, her other test results didn't show Zulu ancestry, as she has claimed (and she had to take a breather). She descends from the Kpelle people (who cluster in the Guinea Highlands of what is now central Liberia and Guinea), the Bamileke people (who cluster in modern-day Cameroon), and a Bantu tribe in Zambia. I hope Oprah travels there, and does a show about these findings. Let us not forget that in the previous installment, Ms. Winfrey – born to unwed parents in rural Mississippi – discovered that an ancestor owned land after the Civil War, and had a school for black children on it (and she broke into tears upon hearing the news).
Quincy Jones: Mr. Jones' admixture test showed his ancestry to be 66% sub-Saharan African, 34% European, and 0% Native American. Given family stories, the music producer was surprised that he had no Native American ancestors, and shocked at the high percentage of European ancestry (the average for black Americans is 20%). His Y chromosome test – which traces the patrilineal line – showed only European lineage and no African match (not unusual as apparently 3 out of 10 Y chromosome tests for black Americans reveal European ancestry). His mitochondrial test – which traces the matrilineal line – connected him to the Tikar tribe, who cluster in present-day Cameroon. And apparently the Tikar people are famous for their music and artistic genius, hence no surprise given Jones' prowess in the music industry.
T.D. Jakes: The famous minister's Y chromosome test showed him to be of Igbo descent (clustered in what is now Nigeria). He was the only one of the nine famous people to correctly guess his African ancestry. Jakes is fully black with no other racial mixtures.
Whoopi Goldberg: Her admixture test revealed her ancestry to be 92% sub-Saharan African, 8% European, and 0% Native American (which meant that family stories about having such ancestry were untrue). The comic / actress descends from the Papel and Bayote tribes, who mainly cluster in modern-day Guinea-Bissau. Apparently, these were popular tribes in the slave trade.
Mae Jemison: The first black female astronaut to go into space (who is light-skinned) had no discernible European ancestry in her admixture test. Out of all the famous guinea pigs, I expected her test to come back with the most mixed ancestry. Not. Her ancestry reveals her to be 84% sub-Saharan African descent, 13% East Asian, and 3% Native American. Researchers were unable to find a conclusive match for her in terms of a specific African tribe. Researchers explained her high East Asian ancestry (for black Americans) to the fact that Chinese laborers were sent to Mississippi – her family's ancestral state – in the late 1800s, so apparently one of her great-grandfathers may have been such a laborer. She was surprised to be of Asian descent (I wasn't…has she looked at her eyes?), although she indicated that people had told her such during her travels to Asia. She figured that it was just traces of Native American ancestry.
Chris Tucker: The comic's admixture test came back 83% sub-Saharan African, 10% Native American, and 7% European. He guessed that he was descended from a tribe in modern-day Ghana. His Y chromosome test was the most intriguing of the group: it linked him to the Mbundu tribe, who inhabit modern-day central Angola. In fact, the DNA link was so strong that researchers said it was within the last eight generations…which is rare (researchers were only able to trace his family tree to the 1830s, and you may recall how one of his fascinating relatives kept selling plots of land to keep it in black hands during the Jim Crow Era). Apparently 1 in 4 U.S. slaves came from what is now the Congo-Angola region. Mr. Gates accompanied Mr. Tucker on a trip to Angola, where they visited a village in the region where the Mbundu people cluster (and folks were very excited to see him, did a homecoming celebration for him, and a village elder / griot talked about how they had heard stories about people disappearing during the slave trade).
Sara Lawrence Lightfoot's (Sociologist) DNA test revealed that she was 45% European.
Sarah Lawrence-Lightfoot, a sociologist and professor of education at Harvard University, has written eight books, which include: Worlds Apart: Relationships Between Families and Schools (1978); Beyond Bias: Perspectives on Classrooms (1979); and The Good High School: Portraits of Character and Culture (1983), which received the 1984 Outstanding Book Award from the American Educational Research Association.
Henry Louis Gates: The head of Harvard University's African And African-American Studies department had an interesting family history. Researchers traced his family tree back to the American Revolution (where a relative fought). His admixture test revealed his ancestry to be 50% sub-Saharan African, 50% European, and 0% Native American. Like Quincy Jones, his Y chromosome test revealed only European ancestry (in common with British and Dutch males). His mitochondrial DNA test also revealed European ancestry (in common with French and Irish) – and it is very rare for black Americans to reveal European blood on the woman's (mitochondrial) side, so there is definitely a creepin' story there – with weak traces of ancestry from modern-day Egypt. No sub-Saharan ancestry. To help trace his sub-Saharan African ancestry, researchers took his 50% DNA strand that was African and compared it to African individuals. The result came closest (but not definitely) to the Mende people, who cluster mostly in modern-day Sierra Leone, as well as Liberia.
A DNA test also showed that Heny Louis Gates jr's father is 67% white
March 2020 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
- Black Culture (black people) (116)
- Books (8)
- Celebrities (11)
- General (1)
- Genetics/Medical (29)
- Ghosts (1)
- Hip Hop (9)
- History (55)
- Media/News (50)
- Mixed race/mulatto (58)
- Music (10)
- Personal (myself) (6)
- Politics (44)
- Religion (34)
- Science (5)
- Sexuality (16)
- Social commentary (252)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Videos (10)
- White people (72)
Blog Stats
- 687,889 hits
Recent Comments
J singh-maraj on Wayne Joseph Thought He was… v on The Willie Lynch Speech Is a… 2DayItsTheOppositeOf… on Who Has It Harder, Light Skin… Rick on Clowns And Fear Organic Royalty on The Origin Of Baggy Clothes In…
Recent Posts
- Chancellorfiles new local
- Black Politicians need to be Careful
- The Resurrection
- Christianity Needs a Reawakening
- Blacks need more Cultural Representations
- Record number of Americans using food stamps: report
- Soup With Prince
- Wanda Sykes says she's 'proud to be gay'
- Powell, Obama, and Their not Born African American Advantage
- It Pays To Be a Mexican Vendor


text:
I asked someone out this weekend.
He said no.
It's an awful feeling to put yourself out there and then have the risk not be rewarded, to feel a keen sense of rejection and try not to let that affect you. When it comes to relationships, I am familiar with this type of rejection, it happens all the time. The scary part for me is that I know that I am not only risking a rejection of that one instance but that I am also risking the rejection triggering a trauma response. It always does when it comes to relationships because so much of the psychological pain I've experienced as a result of my abuse comes in one particular phrase, "No one will ever want you." So, each time I am rejected in my dating pursuits that sentence becomes more and more solidified as true in my mind and heart.
The "No" did trigger me to fall into my old patterns of rejection and I spent most of the weekend hearing the echoes of a past that never seems to let me go, the sentence ricocheted in my mind and I added fuel to the fire of my pain by calling myself every awful thing one could possibly imagine. I couldn't stand to look at my reflection because all I could see were the painful words and all that I wish was different about myself.
Sunday morning I went for a walk to try and clear out some of the meanness in my mind and hoped that if I was outside walking the suitcase of anxiety that seemed to be pressing down on my chest would finally leave. As I was walking I passed a dirty puddle of water and only noticed it enough to stay clear of it; but, just as I was almost passed, I saw in it the reflection of the sky, clouds, and the trees that surrounded the path. I turned around and went back. I stared into the water and was overcome with thoughts and feelings that seemed to be hitting me all at once.
I thought of how that puddle is just like me and millions of other people. What I first saw was a dirty, ugly, lopsided, puddle of water that needed to be avoided. What it reflected, however, was so much more than that. What it reflected was an infinite sky with changing colors of gray and blue, beautiful white clouds that seemed to stretch on forever, and trees that swayed with the slight breeze. I sought to see it from every angle and with each new corner, something else popped out at me, it seemed to be filled with so much possibility. I imagined the puddle trying to look at its own reflection and was sure that what it would see would match what I first saw – dirty, ugly, lopsided, of no consequence. How could it not see that? That is what it has been told all its life that it is, that is what it believes itself to be.
I believe this inability to see in our reflection what we truly are is one of the most prevalent and damaging aspects of human existence. I work with individuals on a daily basis that are on the outskirts of society – those who are homeless, those who suffer from substance abuse, those affected by trauma, refugees, those who are unable to see any good in themselves. I don't have to imagine what they believe their reflection to be because I can see the result of what they see in how they act, in what they do. How is this changed? How does a person begin to see within themselves their own infinite sky of changing blues and grays, their own bright, white clouds, or powerful trees swaying in the breeze? I don't yet have an answer for it is something I have struggled with my entire life.
In my path of spirituality and religion I have been told that it changes as I begin to allow myself to see who I am through the eyes of a loving God and his son Jesus Christ. I believe this can happen as I believe others who have told me that it has happened for them, but for me I have yet to be able to see myself in that light, through their eyes. What I believe it to mean to see yourself through the eyes of God is exactly what I have confidence in that he allowed me to notice as I looked into the puddle – it's the ability to see the infinite possibilities that individually we possess, just as I did with the sky; to see the depth of emotion and strength that is inherent to each human soul, just as I saw the swaying trees; to see goodness and purity in the individual that is constantly trying even amidst their falling and weakness, just as I did with the beautiful, white clouds.
I am not there yet; in fact, I am pretty far from there. What I do have, however, it the ability to see all of that in another person. People sit across from me and sometimes I am overwhelmed at the possibility I see in them. People tell me horrible, awful things about what has happened to them and what they have done but it doesn't change my mind. It doesn't change my mind because when they speak I know that I have my own past I wish to hide from, my own mistakes and pains I have caused other people and damage that others have caused me. There are times when seeing the good in others can get hard and most often it comes as a result of their actions being similar to the actions of those that have harmed me in my life. I haven't figured out a good way to handle that yet, but I'm trying.
What I do know is that what we see in our reflections is important, its crucial to who we are because in this life we become what we believe ourselves to be. Right now I believe myself to be alone, to be unworthy of love and companionship, to be "fat, ugly, pathetic, disgusting" – the four words spoken to me so many years ago that have seemingly been emblazoned into the fiber of my being. How will this change if I am unable to believe I deserve it to change? How will this change if I am not the one putting forth the effort to let it change? It won't.
So that means I begin today. I begin to slowly allow for just the possibility that it can be different and then I work at trying to make it so. It will take time, it will be hard, I will want to give up and sometimes I will. That's okay because that is real life. What is also real life is getting up, trying again, pushing forward. So if you have ever felt like me, if you have ever looked at your reflection and saw nothing more than a dirty, ugly, puddle of water, know that you are wrong.
You are so much more than who you think you are! You are infinite possibilities, a strength without end, and goodness waiting to be shared with the world. All you have to do is BELIEVE it! No one else can believe for you but you can believe in others, you can seek to see them for their inherent worthiness. Each time that you seek for the good in others and see it, I believe that it opens up your heart to more fully embrace the truth of who you are and what makes up your real reflection. When others tell you what they see in you, don't push it out, give your mind permission to believe them!
You and I are not dirty, mud puddles on the path to nowhere.
We are possibility. We are strength. We are goodness.
Now we just have to believe it.
Let's start together; let's start now.
Who's with me?

subset: commoncrawl