Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mixed Kids are NOT 'Prettier' (a memo on Mixed Stereotypes))

Expand Messages
  • rosanna_armendariz
    In my view, because it s objectifying and makes it seem as though we are some rare breed of animal or something. And like the author of the article said,
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 20, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      In my view, because it's objectifying and makes it seem as though we are some rare breed of animal or something. And like the author of the article said, there's no scientific basis for these generalizations. They don't even hold up based on plain old observation. We've all seen plenty of mixed folk who are not especially terrific looking, lol. It's like with any group; there's a lot of variance. I don't want to be labeled with some characteristic b/c I'm mixed.



      --- In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
      keisha dixon <keishakandy@...> wrote:



      why?



      From: rosanna_armendariz <rosanna_armendariz@...>
      To: Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 2:48:50 PM
      Subject: [Generation-Mixed] Re: Mixed Kids are
      NOT 'Prettier' (a memo on Mixed Stereotypes))



      Yes, I always find it insulting when people make comments about mixed folk being "exotic," "alluring," "mysterious," and so on. The people making the comments usually don't see why it's offensive, but I find it objectifying.



      In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
      "multiracialbookclub" <soaptalk@...> wrote:



      ARTICLE:

      Mixed Kids are not "Prettier":
      Blowing Up "Hybrid-Vigor"

      <http://choptensils.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/mixed-kids-are-not-prettier-blowing-up-hybrid-vigor/>

      -- By CVT

      Okay, I'm done.

      Just done with this s---.

      I am so sick of hearing people talk about Mixed folks
      like we're some sort of science experiment.

      "Positive" stereotyping out of ignorance and lack
      of exposure to make us just a new kind of "other."

      And I know people mean well, but . . .
      it gets 'tiring', to say the least.

      A few days ago, my cousin ("E"), his
      girlfriend ("J"), and I ("me") met up with
      a married couple that they are friends with.

      In this couple, the man is a white Australian
      man, and the woman is a Chinese woman.

      (*1) The guy's a nice one, but he's not
      killing it in the looks department.
      The woman (also quite wonderful) is
      average-looking. (*2) She's pregnant.

      So after we part ways, "J" (also Chinese)
      is excited about the baby, and she says,
      "I can't wait for their baby to be
      born – she is going to be so beautiful.
      Because she is Chinese and he is a
      foreigner, the baby must be so pretty."

      'Record-scratch'. I look at her, "What?!"
      I don't say it, but I'm thinking
      – `Has she looked at the father?
      What the H--- is wrong with people?'

      Because this isn't the first time
      I've heard this kind of thing.

      I hear it all the time –
      "Mixed kids are just so 'pretty'."

      And – although I'd love to bathe in the ego-stroking
      that entails (an interesting counterpoint to
      "Asian men 'aren't' hot") – I'm not having it.

      And before I break it down further, let me just say
      my family is now 'chock-full' of Mixed kids,
      and there's not a whole lot of "beautiful"
      running around (I'm so sorry family, but
      I just got to be honest here). (*3)

      The few kids that are actually above-average?
      Well, the ones with the above-average 'parents', of course.
      Just like with the majority of pretty "mono-racial" children.

      It doesn't end there, though. I've also heard that
      Mixed kids are "so intelligent" (mostly here in China).
      I've even been told (back in high school)
      that "all Mixed kids are just so 'nice'." (*4)

      When this topic gets brought up on a larger level
      – how beautiful and wonderful and 'healthy' Mixed kids
      are – we inevitably get a reference to "Hybrid-Vigor."

      In these cases, the person making the argument (wrongly)
      describes "Hybrid-Vigor" as the genetic superiority
      of "cross-bred" animals and plants in the world.

      "It's 'science'," they say – and people usually buy it.

      Well, sorry, people – but 'this' particular gorgeous,
      super-intelligent and wondrously kind Mixed-race
      "cross-breed" has a science background.

      And y'all – apparently, from your
      mis-use of scientific understanding – don't.

      So step into my class for a second.

      First-off, don't wrongly cite Gregor Mendel
      and his pea-experiments as any sort of
      evidence – either way – of "Hybrid-Vigor".

      Yes, his cross-breeds did better than those plants
      he did 'not' cross-breed, on an overall level.

      But . . . uh . . . you're missing a vital fact here:
      those plants that he 'didn't' cross-breed?

      He 'self-pollinated' them.

      As in, they were 'inbred'.
      Even closer relatives than brother and sister –
      because the sex cells came from the 'same plant'.

      It was practically 'cloning'.

      And even though lots of people like to say
      members of a particular "mono-racial" group
      "all look the same," you're really not all clones.

      Okay, so then our faulty scientists will say,
      "well fine, what about with dogs and
      pigs and horses and sheep, etc.?

      Cross-breeding 'them' increases fitness."

      Well, yes and no.

      First off, "Hybrid-Vigor" actually just references
      the times when cross-breeding 'happens' to
      increase fitness – 'not' a fact that it always occurs.

      There's another term, "Outbreeding Depression,"
      for when cross-breeding causes 'more' problems.

      So, again, y'all are skipping some important details.

      "But cross-breeding 'more often' increases fitness, then."

      Sure, sure.
      In dogs and pigs and other
      domestic animals, that's true.

      But again – look at the comparison –
      those animals that do 'not' get cross-bred:

      these are either "pure-bred" animals
      (like pugs, for instance) or "inbred" animals.

      We've talked about inbreeding (and no,
      I don't think mono-racial folks are all the
      products of thousands of years of inbreeding), so . . .

      "Pure-breeds"?

      Artificially, 'selectively-bred' animals?

      These are animals that have been forced to breed together
      for many many generations to enhance some specific physical
      characteristics –--- at the cost of a lot of health problems.

      These are not real-world animals.

      Outside of the domesticated world,
      "pure-breeds" simply 'do note exist'.

      Because, in the real world, "pure-breeds" would die out
      within a couple generations because of all their problems.

      All that remains in the natural world are cross-bred animals.

      So comparing races or ethnicities to
      "breeds" is just stupid, and poor science.

      Every racial and ethnic group out
      there is a result of "cross-breeding".

      Our human gene pool is all mixed up – because we
      have been (mostly) avoiding the inbreeding and
      artificial selection that creates domestic animals.

      Our DNA is more varied 'within' any particular
      "racial group" than it is 'between' them.

      Which then suggests that – if any of this "science"
      can be applied to human beings – then, perhaps,
      so-called "mono-racial" offspring would
      be 'more' likely to have the advantage of
      "Hybrid-Vigor" than "multi-racial" offspring.

      Of course, that would also be abusing the
      science, but I hope you can see my point –
      there is no such thing as "purity" in race.

      Every "race" is the result of hundreds of thousands
      of years of 'inter'-breeding, 'cross'-breeding.

      We've survived as long as we
      have 'because' we are not "pure."

      Mixed kids?

      The result of exactly the same reproductive processes
      and selection pressures as the rest of humanity.

      Flat-out.

      (*5) Some of us are super-hot or
      wondrously intelligent (or both), for sure.

      But, sorry, some of us just have to pull on
      'inner' beauty or wouldn't exactly astound others
      with our coherence of thought (or both), as well.

      B.S. "positive" stereotypes like this are just as
      damaging as negative ones (on a large scale).

      Allowing ourselves to be reduced to the
      equivalence of domesticated animals?

      H-ll no.

      Let somebody "other" you in a "positive" way, and
      you're just setting yourself up for the negative stereotypes
      and prejudice to follow suit – and trust me, it's 'going to happen'.

      And, finally, for those anecdotalists (*6) out there who want to say,
      "but, really, 'all' the Mixed people I know 'really are' beautiful,"
      .... I've got some things for you to ask yourself:

      First off – are they "beautiful" simply
      because they're "different" and "exotic?"

      That would be my first guess if they
      literally all are so gorgeous, in your eyes.

      And I don't need to go further into
      that one about why that's not okay.

      Second – honestly, how many normal,
      everyday Mixed people do you make note of?

      What does it take for you to even get to the point
      where you know for sure that we 'are' Mixed?

      Chances are, for us to be noticed on that level,
      we either have to be in the media (which is going to
      obviously over-represent the "hot" Mixed folks), or else
      we just have to stand out from the backdrop of everyday life.

      And if we're good-looking, that's one way to do so.

      I mean, how often do you think about or even 'ask' some
      "below-average" guy or gal, "wow – you have such an
      'interesting' look, what is your racial background?"

      Right.
      You don't.

      So you likely aren't even 'aware'of the
      thousands of Mixed people you walked
      right by on the street that were 'not' "beautiful."

      It's Confirmation-Bias, people – look it up.

      And that's it.
      I'm done.
      I've gotten it out there now.

      I feel confident in my breakdown of
      that particular line of "othering."
      And, even if I didn't, I tired myself out.

      Mixed folks are great – GO US – but it's simply 'not' due
      to our genetic difference from the rest of humanity.

      We are not aliens; we are not dogs
      or other domesticated animals.

      We're just another socially-defined group of people, and
      a force to be reckoned with – like the rest of our species.

      And if you 'still' don't believe me . . ?

      Well, sh–, 'please' don't make me fully throw my
      extended family under the bus and send you photos . . .

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      (*1) In general, if I say "Chinese" without specifying
      another country of origin, then I mean born and
      raised in China and of Han (majority) ethnicity.

      (*2) For perhaps the only time on this blog, I'm working
      off a general, shallow-as-Hell societal concept of physical
      "beauty" here, because that's the level on
      which I mean to take this stereotype down.

      If people were talking about Mixed-race folks being
      "beautiful" within a completely different framework
      for beauty, then we'd be living in a better world than we do.

      (*3) All my Chinese-American cousins except
      one – 8 of them – married white partners.

      (*4) Man, I thought of so many ways to disprove
      that last one after the fact, but – in the moment
      – I was too surprised to do much of anything.

      (*5) This is just plain-damn common-sense, and it
      just irritates the H--- out of me how people who
      have no idea what they're talking about mis-read
      scientific findings to "prove" stupid theories like this.

      (*6) I make up my own words, sometimes –
      because I'm so 'vigorous', I can do that and make it cool.

      (*7) And yes, I am wholly conscious of the fact that
      this entire post so fully falls out the way I lament we
      teach our kids to "argue" in my "Broken System, Part III."

      Sigh . . . see what prejudice can do to a guy?

      SOURCE:
      http://choptensils.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/mixed-kids-are-not-prettier-blowing-up-hybrid-vigor
    • multiracialbookclub
      Well said -- Rosanna !!!! And I agree with you 100% on this !!!! For me it s another of those so-called positive stereotypes (like all Asian people are good
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 20, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Well said -- Rosanna !!!!

        And I agree with you 100% on this !!!!

        For me it's another of those so-called 
        "positive stereotypes" (like all Asian
        people are 'good at math' or Black
        people have 'natural rhythm'; etc.).

        The target of the comment walks away 
        feeling insulted and 'typed' while the 
        person who offered it just happily
        walks away with no more knowledge
        of the actual person than before.

        No group wants to be stereotyped --
        especially not with some ingratiating
        pandering nonsensical phrases like:
        "you guys are the prettiest"
        "mixed people are the cutest"
        -- as if we were a bunch of 15 year
        old high school kids who need our
        fragile egos built up after being
        rejected for the cheerleader squad.

        And let's not forget that "positive" stereotypes
        have a way of both limiting knowledge of the
        true person AND of coming back to haunt the
        person when being thrown at them as an insult.

        It's like you said, Rosanna, we are
        NOT some 'rare breed of animal'.  

        We are also not some rare 
        anomaly of the human race.

        The members of most monoracial groups
        would never tolerate being condescended
        to in such a manner nor allow themselves
        to be 'set up' to come across as if they are
        "fishing for compliments" at every turn
        -- nor would they be expected to do so.

        Being 'objectified' is an insult
        - and is not a compliment!!



        --- In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
        "rosanna_armendariz" <rosanna_armendariz@...> wrote:



        In my view, because it's objectifying and makes it seem as though we are some
        rare breed of animal or something. And like the author of the article said,
        there's no scientific basis for these generalizations. They don't even hold up
        based on plain old observation. We've all seen plenty of mixed folk who are not
        especially terrific looking, lol. It's like with any group; there's a lot of
        variance. I don't want to be labeled with some characteristic b/c I'm mixed.



        --- In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
        keisha dixon <keishakandy@...> wrote:



        why?



        From: rosanna_armendariz <rosanna_armendariz@...>
        To: 
        Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 2:48:50 PM
        Subject: [Generation-Mixed] Re: Mixed Kids are
        NOT 'Prettier' (a memo on Mixed Stereotypes))



        Yes, I always find it insulting when people make comments about mixed folk being
        "exotic," "alluring," "mysterious," and so on. The people making the comments
        usually don't see why it's offensive, but I find it objectifying.



        In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
        "multiracialbookclub" <soaptalk@...> wrote:



        ARTICLE:

        Mixed Kids are not "Prettier"
        :
        Blowing Up "Hybrid-Vigor"

        -- By 
         CVT 


        Okay, I'm done. 

        Just done with this s---. 

        I am so sick of hearing people talk about Mixed folks 
        like we're some sort of science experiment. 

        "Positive" stereotyping out of ignorance and lack 
        of exposure to make us just a new kind of "other." 

        And I know people mean well, but . . . it gets '
        tiring', to say the least.

        A few days ago, my cousin ("E"), his girlfriend ("J"), and I ("me") 
        met up with a married couple that they are friends with. 

        In this couple, the man is a white Australian 
        man, and the woman is a Chinese woman. 


        (*1) The guy's a nice one, but he's not killing it in the looks department. 
        The woman (also quite wonderful) is average-looking. (*2) She's pregnant.

        So after we part ways, "J" (also Chinese) is excited about the baby, and she 
        says, "I can't wait for their baby to be born – she is going to be so beautiful. 
        Because she is Chinese and he is a foreigner, the baby must be so pretty."

        'Record-scratch'. I look at her, "What?!" 
        I don't say it, but I'm thinking – `Has she looked at the father? 
        What the H--- is wrong with people?'

        Because this isn't the first time I've heard this kind of thing. 

        I hear it all the time – "Mixed kids are just so 'pretty'." 

        And – although I'd love to bathe in the ego-stroking 
        that entails 
        (an interesting counterpoint to 
        "Asian men '
        aren't' hot") – I'm not having it.

        And before I break it down further, let me just say my family is now
        'chock-full' of Mixed kids, and there's not a whole lot of "beautiful" 
        running around (I'm so sorry family, but I just got to be honest here). 
        (*3) 

        The few kids that are actually above-average? 
        Well, the ones with the above-average '
        parents', of course. 
        Just like with the majority of pretty "mono-racial" children.

        It doesn't end there, though. I've also heard that 
        Mixed kids are "so intelligent" (mostly here in China). 
        I've even been told (back in high school) 
        that "all Mixed kids are just so '
        nice'." (*4) 

        When this topic gets brought up on a larger level 
        – how beautiful and wonderful and '
        healthy' Mixed kids 
        are – we inevitably get a reference to "Hybrid-Vigor." 

        In these cases, the person making the argument (wrongly) 
        describes "Hybrid-Vigor" as the genetic superiority 
        of "cross-bred" animals and plants in the world. 

        "It's '
        science'," they say – and people usually buy it.

        Well, sorry, people – but 'this' particular gorgeous, 
        super-intelligent and wondrously kind Mixed-race 
        "cross-breed" has a science background. 

        And y'all – apparently, from your 
        mis-use of scientific understanding – don't.

        So step into my class for a second.

        First-off, don't wrongly cite Gregor Mendel 
        and his pea-experiments as any sort of 
        evidence – either way – of "Hybrid-Vigor". 

        Yes, his cross-breeds did better than those plants 
        he did 'not'
         cross-breed, on an overall level.

        But . . . uh . . . you're missing a vital fact here: 
        those plants that he 'didn't'
         cross-breed? 

        He '
        self-pollinated' them. 

        As in, they were 'inbred'
        Even closer relatives than brother and sister – 
        because the sex cells came from the '
        same plant'

        It was practically 'cloning'. 

        And even though lots of people like to say 
        members of a particular "mono-racial" group 
        "all look the same," you're really not all clones.

        zgs4f2

        Okay, so then our faulty scientists will say, 
        "well fine, what about with dogs and 
        pigs and horses and sheep, etc.? 

        Cross-breeding 'them'
         increases fitness."

        Well, yes and no. 

        First off, "Hybrid-Vigor" actually just references 
        the times when cross-breeding 'happens'
         to 
        increase fitness – 'not'
         a fact that it always occurs. 

        There's another term, "Outbreeding Depression,"
        for when cross-breeding causes 'more'
         problems. 

        So, again, y'all are skipping some important details.

        "But cross-breeding 'more often' increases fitness, then." 

        Sure, sure. 
        In dogs and pigs and other 
        domestic animals, that's true. 

        But again – look at the comparison – 
        those animals that do 'not'
         get cross-bred: 

        these are either "pure-bred" animals 
        (like pugs, for instance) or "inbred" animals. 

        We've talked about inbreeding (and no, 
        I don't think mono-racial folks are all the 
        products of thousands of years of inbreeding), so . . .

        "Pure-breeds"? 

        Artificially, '
        selectively-bred' animals? 

        These are animals that have been forced to breed together 
        for many many generations to enhance some specific physical 
        characteristics –--- at the cost of a lot of health problems. 


        These are not real-world animals. 

        Outside of the domesticated world, 
        "pure-breeds" simply 'do note exist'


        Because, in the real world, "pure-breeds" would die out 
        within a couple generations because of all their problems. 

        All that remains in the natural world are cross-bred animals.

        So comparing races or ethnicities to 
        "breeds" is just stupid, and poor science. 

        Every racial and ethnic group out 
        there is a result of "cross-breeding".

        Our human gene pool is all mixed up – because we 
        have been (mostly) avoiding the inbreeding and 
        artificial selection that creates domestic animals. 

        Our DNA is more varied '
        within' any particular 
        "racial group" than it is '
        between' them. 

        Which then suggests that – if any of this "science" 
        can be applied to human beings – then, perhaps, 
        so-called "mono-racial" offspring would 
        be 'more'
         likely to have the advantage of 
        "Hybrid-Vigor" than "multi-racial"
         offspring.

        Of course, that would also be abusing the 
        science, but I hope you can see my point – 
        there is no such thing as "purity" in race. 

        Every "race" is the result of hundreds of thousands 
        of years of '
        inter'-breeding, 'cross'-breeding. 

        We've survived as long as we 
        have '
        because' we are not "pure."

        Mixed kids? 

        The result of exactly the same reproductive processes 
        and selection pressures as the rest of humanity. 

        Flat-out. 


        (*5) Some of us are super-hot or 
        wondrously intelligent (or both), for sure. 

        But, sorry, some of us just have to pull on 
        'inner' beauty or wouldn't exactly astound others 
        with our coherence of thought (or both), as well.

        B.S. "positive" stereotypes like this are just as 
        damaging as negative ones (on a large scale
        ). 

        Allowing ourselves to be reduced to the 
        equivalence of domesticated animals? 

        H-ll no. 

        Let somebody "other" you in a "positive" way, and 
        you're just setting yourself up for the negative stereotypes 
        and prejudice to follow suit – and trust me, it's 'going to happen'.

        And, finally, for those anecdotalists (*6) out there who want to say, 
        "but, 
        really, 'all' the Mixed people I know 'really are' beautiful," 
        .... I've got some things for you to ask yourself:

        First off – are they "beautiful" simply 
        because they're "different" and "exotic?" 

        That would be my first guess if they 
        literally all are so gorgeous, in your eyes. 

        And I don't need to go further into 
        that one about why that's not okay.

        Second – honestly, how many normal, 
        everyday Mixed people do you make note of? 

        What does it take for you to even get to the point 
        where you know for sure that we 'are'
         Mixed? 

        Chances are, for us to be noticed on that level, 
        we either have to be in the media (which is going to 
        obviously over-represent the "hot" Mixed folks), or else 
        we just have to stand out from the backdrop of everyday life. 

        And if we're good-looking, that's one way to do so.

        I mean, how often do you think about or even 'ask' some 
        "below-average" guy or gal, "wow – you have such an 
        'interesting' look, what is your racial background?" 

        Right. 
        You don't. 

        So you likely aren't even 'aware'
        of the 
        thousands of Mixed people you walked 
        right by on the street that were 'not'
         "beautiful."

        It's Confirmation-Bias, people – look it up.

        And that's it. 
        I'm done. 
        I've gotten it out there now. 

        I feel confident in my breakdown of that particular line of "othering." 
        And, even if I didn't, I tired myself out.


        Mixed folks are great – GO US – but it's simply '
        not' due 
        to our genetic difference from the rest of humanity. 

        We are not aliens; we are not dogs 
        or other domesticated animals. 

        We're just another socially-defined group of 
        people, and 
        a force to be reckoned with – like the rest of our species.

        And if you 'still' don't believe me . . ? 

        Well, sh–, '
        please' don't make me fully throw my 
        extended family under the bus and send you photos . . .


        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


        (*1) In general, if I say "Chinese" without specifying 
        another country of origin, then I mean born and 
        raised in China and of Han (majority) ethnicity.

        (*2) For perhaps the only time on this blog, I'm working 
        off a general, shallow-as-Hell societal concept of physical 
        "beauty" here, because that's the level on 
        which I mean to take this stereotype down. 

        If people were talking about Mixed-race folks being 
        "beautiful" within a completely different framework 
        for beauty, then we'd be living in a better world than we do.

        (*3) All my Chinese-American cousins except 
        one – 8 of them – married white partners.

        (*4) Man, I thought of so many ways to disprove 
        that last one after the fact, but – in the moment 
        – I was too surprised to do much of anything.

        (*5) This is just plain-damn common-sense, and it 
        just irritates the H--- out of me how people who 
        have no idea what they're talking about mis-read 
        scientific findings to "prove" stupid theories like this.

        (*6) I make up my own words, sometimes – 
        because I'm so '
        vigorous', I can do that and make it cool.

        (*7) And yes, I am wholly conscious of the fact that 
        this entire post so fully falls out the way I lament we 
        teach our kids to "argue" in my "Broken System, Part III." 


        Sigh . . . see what prejudice can do to a guy?


        SOURCE:  

        http://choptensils.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/mixed-kids-are-not-prettier-blowing-up-hybrid-vigor  

      • keisha dixon
        i just think it s the first thing that comes to peoples minds when they see mixed people we re so rare, they think of us as exotic.in my opinion it beats being
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 20, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          i just think it's the first thing that comes to peoples minds when they see mixed people we're so rare, they think of us as exotic.in my opinion it beats being told you're pretty for a dark-skin girl.


          From: multiracialbookclub <soaptalk@...>
          To: Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 11:19:32 PM
          Subject: [Generation-Mixed] Re: Mixed Kids are NOT 'Prettier' (a memo on Mixed Stereotypes))

           

          Well said -- Rosanna !!!!

          And I agree with you 100% on this !!!!

          For me it's another of those so-called 
          "positive stereotypes" (like all Asian
          people are 'good at math' or Black
          people have 'natural rhythm'; etc.).

          The target of the comment walks away 
          feeling insulted and 'typed' while the 
          person who offered it just happily
          walks away with no more knowledge
          of the actual person than before.

          No group wants to be stereotyped --
          especially not with some ingratiating
          pandering nonsensical phrases like:
          "you guys are the prettiest"
          "mixed people are the cutest"
          -- as if we were a bunch of 15 year
          old high school kids who need our
          fragile egos built up after being
          rejected for the cheerleader squad.

          And let's not forget that "positive" stereotypes
          have a way of both limiting knowledge of the
          true person AND of coming back to haunt the
          person when being thrown at them as an insult.

          It's like you said, Rosanna, we are
          NOT some 'rare breed of animal'.  

          We are also not some rare 
          anomaly of the human race.

          The members of most monoracial groups
          would never tolerate being condescended
          to in such a manner nor allow themselves
          to be 'set up' to come across as if they are
          "fishing for compliments" at every turn
          -- nor would they be expected to do so.

          Being 'objectified' is an insult
          - and is not a compliment!!



          --- In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
          "rosanna_armendariz" <rosanna_armendariz@...> wrote:



          In my view, because it's objectifying and makes it seem as though we are some
          rare breed of animal or something. And like the author of the article said,
          there's no scientific basis for these generalizations. They don't even hold up
          based on plain old observation. We've all seen plenty of mixed folk who are not
          especially terrific looking, lol. It's like with any group; there's a lot of
          variance. I don't want to be labeled with some characteristic b/c I'm mixed.



          --- In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
          keisha dixon <keishakandy@...> wrote:



          why?



          From: rosanna_armendariz <rosanna_armendariz@...>
          To: 
          Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 2:48:50 PM
          Subject: [Generation-Mixed] Re: Mixed Kids are
          NOT 'Prettier' (a memo on Mixed Stereotypes))



          Yes, I always find it insulting when people make comments about mixed folk being
          "exotic," "alluring," "mysterious," and so on. The people making the comments
          usually don't see why it's offensive, but I find it objectifying.



          In Generation-Mixed@yahoogroups.com,
          "multiracialbookclub" <soaptalk@...> wrote:



          ARTICLE:

          Mixed Kids are not "Prettier"
          :
          Blowing Up "Hybrid-Vigor"

          -- By 
           CVT 


          Okay, I'm done. 

          Just done with this s---. 

          I am so sick of hearing people talk about Mixed folks 
          like we're some sort of science experiment. 

          "Positive" stereotyping out of ignorance and lack 
          of exposure to make us just a new kind of "other." 

          And I know people mean well, but . . . it gets '
          tiring', to say the least.

          A few days ago, my cousin ("E"), his girlfriend ("J"), and I ("me") 
          met up with a married couple that they are friends with. 

          In this couple, the man is a white Australian 
          man, and the woman is a Chinese woman. 


          (*1) The guy's a nice one, but he's not killing it in the looks department. 
          The woman (also quite wonderful) is average-looking. (*2) She's pregnant.

          So after we part ways, "J" (also Chinese) is excited about the baby, and she 
          says, "I can't wait for their baby to be born – she is going to be so beautiful. 
          Because she is Chinese and he is a foreigner, the baby must be so pretty."

          'Record-scratch'. I look at her, "What?!" 
          I don't say it, but I'm thinking – `Has she looked at the father? 
          What the H--- is wrong with people?'

          Because this isn't the first time I've heard this kind of thing. 

          I hear it all the time – "Mixed kids are just so 'pretty'." 

          And – although I'd love to bathe in the ego-stroking 
          that entails 
          (an interesting counterpoint to 
          "Asian men '
          aren't' hot") – I'm not having it.

          And before I break it down further, let me just say my family is now
          'chock-full' of Mixed kids, and there's not a whole lot of "beautiful" 
          running around (I'm so sorry family, but I just got to be honest here). 
          (*3) 

          The few kids that are actually above-average? 
          Well, the ones with the above-average '
          parents', of course. 
          Just like with the majority of pretty "mono-racial" children.

          It doesn't end there, though. I've also heard that 
          Mixed kids are "so intelligent" (mostly here in China). 
          I've even been told (back in high school) 
          that "all Mixed kids are just so '
          nice'." (*4) 

          When this topic gets brought up on a larger level 
          – how beautiful and wonderful and '
          healthy' Mixed kids 
          are – we inevitably get a reference to "Hybrid-Vigor." 

          In these cases, the person making the argument (wrongly) 
          describes "Hybrid-Vigor" as the genetic superiority 
          of "cross-bred" animals and plants in the world. 

          "It's '
          science'," they say – and people usually buy it.

          Well, sorry, people – but 'this' particular gorgeous, 
          super-intelligent and wondrously kind Mixed-race 
          "cross-breed" has a science background. 

          And y'all – apparently, from your 
          mis-use of scientific understanding – don't.

          So step into my class for a second.

          First-off, don't wrongly cite Gregor Mendel 
          and his pea-experiments as any sort of 
          evidence – either way – of "Hybrid-Vigor". 

          Yes, his cross-breeds did better than those plants 
          he did 'not'
           cross-breed, on an overall level.

          But . . . uh . . . you're missing a vital fact here: 
          those plants that he 'didn't'
           cross-breed? 

          He '
          self-pollinated' them. 

          As in, they were 'inbred'
          Even closer relatives than brother and sister – 
          because the sex cells came from the '
          same plant'

          It was practically 'cloning'. 

          And even though lots of people like to say 
          members of a particular "mono-racial" group 
          "all look the same," you're really not all clones.

          zgs4f2

          Okay, so then our faulty scientists will say, 
          "well fine, what about with dogs and 
          pigs and horses and sheep, etc.? 

          Cross-breeding 'them'
           increases fitness."

          Well, yes and no. 

          First off, "Hybrid-Vigor" actually just references 
          the times when cross-breeding 'happens'
           to 
          increase fitness – 'not'
           a fact that it always occurs. 

          There's another term, "Outbreeding Depression,"
          for when cross-breeding causes 'more'
           problems. 

          So, again, y'all are skipping some important details.

          "But cross-breeding 'more often' increases fitness, then." 

          Sure, sure. 
          In dogs and pigs and other 
          domestic animals, that's true. 

          But again – look at the comparison – 
          those animals that do 'not'
           get cross-bred: 

          these are either "pure-bred" animals 
          (like pugs, for instance) or "inbred" animals. 

          We've talked about inbreeding (and no, 
          I don't think mono-racial folks are all the 
          products of thousands of years of inbreeding), so . . .

          "Pure-breeds"? 

          Artificially, '
          selectively-bred' animals? 

          These are animals that have been forced to breed together 
          for many many generations to enhance some specific physical 
          characteristics –--- at the cost of a lot of health problems. 


          These are not real-world animals. 

          Outside of the domesticated world, 
          "pure-breeds" simply 'do note exist'


          Because, in the real world, "pure-breeds" would die out 
          within a couple generations because of all their problems. 

          All that remains in the natural world are cross-bred animals.

          So comparing races or ethnicities to 
          "breeds" is just stupid, and poor science. 

          Every racial and ethnic group out 
          there is a result of "cross-breeding".

          Our human gene pool is all mixed up – because we 
          have been (mostly) avoiding the inbreeding and 
          artificial selection that creates domestic animals. 

          Our DNA is more varied '
          within' any particular 
          "racial group" than it is '
          between' them. 

          Which then suggests that – if any of this "science" 
          can be applied to human beings – then, perhaps, 
          so-called "mono-racial" offspring would 
          be 'more'
           likely to have the advantage of 
          "Hybrid-Vigor" than "multi-racial"
           offspring.

          Of course, that would also be abusing the 
          science, but I hope you can see my point – 
          there is no such thing as "purity" in race. 

          Every "race" is the result of hundreds of thousands 
          of years of '
          inter'-breeding, 'cross'-breeding. 

          We've survived as long as we 
          have '
          because' we are not "pure."

          Mixed kids? 

          The result of exactly the same reproductive processes 
          and selection pressures as the rest of humanity. 

          Flat-out. 


          (*5) Some of us are super-hot or 
          wondrously intelligent (or both), for sure. 

          But, sorry, some of us just have to pull on 
          'inner' beauty or wouldn't exactly astound others 
          with our coherence of thought (or both), as well.

          B.S. "positive" stereotypes like this are just as 
          damaging as negative ones (on a large scale
          ). 

          Allowing ourselves to be reduced to the 
          equivalence of domesticated animals? 

          H-ll no. 

          Let somebody "other" you in a "positive" way, and 
          you're just setting yourself up for the negative stereotypes 
          and prejudice to follow suit – and trust me, it's 'going to happen'.

          And, finally, for those anecdotalists (*6) out there who want to say, 
          "but, 
          really, 'all' the Mixed people I know 'really are' beautiful," 
          .... I've got some things for you to ask yourself:

          First off – are they "beautiful" simply 
          because they're "different" and "exotic?" 

          That would be my first guess if they 
          literally all are so gorgeous, in your eyes. 

          And I don't need to go further into 
          that one about why that's not okay.

          Second – honestly, how many normal, 
          everyday Mixed people do you make note of? 

          What does it take for you to even get to the point 
          where you know for sure that we 'are'
           Mixed? 

          Chances are, for us to be noticed on that level, 
          we either have to be in the media (which is going to 
          obviously over-represent the "hot" Mixed folks), or else 
          we just have to stand out from the backdrop of everyday life. 

          And if we're good-looking, that's one way to do so.

          I mean, how often do you think about or even 'ask' some 
          "below-average" guy or gal, "wow – you have such an 
          'interesting' look, what is your racial background?" 

          Right. 
          You don't. 

          So you likely aren't even 'aware'
          of the 
          thousands of Mixed people you walked 
          right by on the street that were 'not'
           "beautiful."

          It's Confirmation-Bias, people – look it up.

          And that's it. 
          I'm done. 
          I've gotten it out there now. 

          I feel confident in my breakdown of that particular line of "othering." 
          And, even if I didn't, I tired myself out.


          Mixed folks are great – GO US – but it's simply '
          not' due 
          to our genetic difference from the rest of humanity. 

          We are not aliens; we are not dogs 
          or other domesticated animals. 

          We're just another socially-defined group of 
          people, and 
          a force to be reckoned with – like the rest of our species.

          And if you 'still' don't believe me . . ? 

          Well, sh–, '
          please' don't make me fully throw my 
          extended family under the bus and send you photos . . .


          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


          (*1) In general, if I say "Chinese" without specifying 
          another country of origin, then I mean born and 
          raised in China and of Han (majority) ethnicity.

          (*2) For perhaps the only time on this blog, I'm working 
          off a general, shallow-as-Hell societal concept of physical 
          "beauty" here, because that's the level on 
          which I mean to take this stereotype down. 

          If people were talking about Mixed-race folks being 
          "beautiful" within a completely different framework 
          for beauty, then we'd be living in a better world than we do.

          (*3) All my Chinese-American cousins except 
          one – 8 of them – married white partners.

          (*4) Man, I thought of so many ways to disprove 
          that last one after the fact, but – in the moment 
          – I was too surprised to do much of anything.

          (*5) This is just plain-damn common-sense, and it 
          just irritates the H--- out of me how people who 
          have no idea what they're talking about mis-read 
          scientific findings to "prove" stupid theories like this.

          (*6) I make up my own words, sometimes – 
          because I'm so '
          vigorous', I can do that and make it cool.

          (*7) And yes, I am wholly conscious of the fact that 
          this entire post so fully falls out the way I lament we 
          teach our kids to "argue" in my "Broken System, Part III." 


          Sigh . . . see what prejudice can do to a guy?


          SOURCE:  

          http://choptensils.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/mixed-kids-are-not-prettier-blowing-up-hybrid-vigor  


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.