The Genetics of Racism – A Reflection Paper

[vg_ford]

My biology class has certain papers we have to write. My professor calls them Reflection Papers, and we had to do one on one of two topics to do with genes: either choosing the sex of your baby, or the genetics of racism. It’s basically your thoughts, combined with stuff that we talked about in class. I chose the genetics of racism, and mentioned it on Twitter, and folks were interested, so here it is.

The Genetics of Racism

There are over 100 genes that affect the color of our skin, either directly or indirectly, according to our textbook. Over 100 genes, that we all have. The picture of the two little sisters who look completely different and yet are twins is a wonderful image that shows the true diversity we’re capable of, and it makes the whole argument of one “race” of man being better than another complete crap, in my opinion. We have the same genes. We just have different amounts of melatonin in our skin, as a result of which alleles of a given gene we have that is dominant and/or active. There’s nothing superior about the fact that I have less melatonin in my skin than someone else.

In fact, it’s based, not only on the genes, but on how much UV light my ancestors were exposed to and how badly their chromosomes were damaged by that UV light. My ancestors, for the most part, were from Northern Europe – not the equator, where the UV exposure is higher. So my skin is paler, because I needed less protection. That’s it.

Sadly, this is not something that is understood by many people, or if it is, it’s imperfectly understood. Changes to these genes (I don’t think you can call them damaged anymore, considering it has been millennia since the damage was done) don’t make them inferior to genes that were not changed. It’s just a different allele. And different does not mean inferior. However, that is a notion held by many, in this country and others. And it’s not just whites holding blacks or Hispanics in contempt – in other countries, it is the Caucasians that are considered inferior, because of the lack of pigment in their skins.

Basing perceptions on something someone cannot control, like the color of their skin, is completely unethical. Not only is there no way for skin color to be determined before a child is born, but it has not been shown that skin color has anything to do with mental capacity. I am probably smarter than some people with darker skin than I have, but there are plenty of darker-skinned people who are smarter than I am as well. That has nothing to do with our skin color and everything to do with other genes, how we were raised, nutrition and a host of other things.

When you tie skin color to laws, then the injustice becomes even greater. The myth of different “races” of humans is just that. We are all homo sapiens – one race, regardless of what color our skin is. Due to the increasing globalization of our species and the intermingling of people from around the world, children with lighter or darker skin than their parents are going to become increasingly more common. Allowing discrimination on the basis of that skin color is completely illogical.

Also, it stands in the way of our social development. When you have two sisters that look completely different, and one is looked down upon because her skin is darker than her sister’s, she’s going to have less social opportunities. Why? Because people who base their perceptions of mental capacity on skin color are going to give her less of a chance than her paler sister. In a perfect society, the only thing that would matter was what she could prove she could do – the same doors would be open for both. It works both ways – there may be opportunities that she will have that her sister won’t. That doesn’t make it right, however.

It’s been very difficult for me to write this without it becoming a rant. Racism is one of my hot buttons – I can’t for the life of me understand why someone would equate mental capacity with the color of a person’s skin. Maybe because I’ve been raised in a household that taught me that it was what a person did that matter, not what they looked like or how they spoke or what they believed. I come from a mixed-religion family, a family that reads a lot of books, and have always believed that people are people. Whether you are red, white, black, blue or green – you are a person, and how smart you are, how capable you are, has nothing to do with what color your skin is. Until the entire world believes that, and understands it, our social development as a species is going to be very, very slow.

Edited to add: This is the picture from our book that I'm referring to, btw. This is a family - the girls are identical twin sisters. Isn't that cool?

Originally published at The words of Valerie Griswold-Ford. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[macfrode.livejournal.com]

Are they now saying that the genes for darker skin is due to damage and is the mutation? Back when I was in school they were leaning towards Caucasians being the mutation, that whole "we all came out of Africa" thing I think.

[vg-ford.livejournal.com]

In my class, we didn't talk about it that way. I've seen arguments for both sides, and neither has been conclusive - one is the mutation, but the mutation was so long ago that no one can really tell - or if they can, it's beyond the scope of my Human Biology class. Now, it's simply different alleles of the same gene.

[lupagreenwolf.livejournal.com]

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you for one more tool to cut through the bigotry of idiots.

[vg-ford.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! It's just my opinion, but really, I don't understand racism.

[albathetross.livejournal.com]

Sun damage to skin wouldn't result in a mutation that was passed on, anyway. Only mutations in reproductive cells are passed on to offspring, and they're typically caused by random copying errors -- certainly not by UV exposure to the skin.

It just happens that darker skin is more adaptive near the equator, where it helps protect skin against the higher levels of UV light, and lighter skin is more adaptive at higher latitudes because humans need a baseline quantity of UV to get through our skin in order to produce sufficient quantities of Vitamin D. (At least, we did before we fortified our milk with it).

So people with genetic variants causing dark skin were more likely to survive and reproduce near the equator, and those with light-skinned mutations were more likely to do so away from it. Combine that with genetic isolation between populations (since it would take a lifetime to travel from, say, northern Europe to the equator) and over the millenia the result is populations with differing prevalent skin colors.

[albathetross.livejournal.com]

Oh, and Amen to the not-quite-rant, btw. ;-)

[vg-ford.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And they probably simplified it down for my bio book - I'm taking Human Bio for Liberal Arts majors, after all. ;)

[cheesebk.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with the post. I think that skin color should never play a role.... it doesn't say a damn thing about the person 'inside'

I do however doubt that the two girls on the picture are identical twins. Twins they might be, but identical twins stem from the same fertilized egg and have the same basic genetic make-up. I suppose the two are fraternal twins, but it's still surprising and astonishing that sisters can look so completely different ;)

[vg-ford.livejournal.com]

They do have the same genetic makeup - with different alleles that are dominant. According to everything I've found (and there are a lot of citations with the picture), these two are identical twins.