JapanForum.com - Mixed race children.

JapanForum.com (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/)

- Parenting in Japan (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/parenting-japan/)

- - Mixed race children. (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/parenting-japan/23448-mixed-race-children.html)

Yes, her son was born underweight.

The comparison of race with dogs is not misplaced in any way. Dog breeders want pure-bred dogs, but some of those breeds are essentially inbred and the DNA purity also essentially guarantees certain diseases or other negative traits will be continued generation to generation.

I think it is fair to make this comparison to humans, as we are no more or less complicated DNA-wise with canines, and although I have never heard of any negatives with racial "purity" in humans, but I suspect humans around the world are nearly as "racially pure" as they like to think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhDP (Post 680281)

Your first point is, in my opinion, true, but not all scientists would agree.

The only genetic basis you could claim to race would be on the grounds that SOME regional tendencies exist. These tendencies are only really relevant in the field of medicine where race is used for convenience purposes rather than because it is an actual scientific phenomena.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 680312)

I suppose the saying "Fit as a mule" makes a lot of sense!

Uh oh, now I'm comparing kids to mules. :rolleyes:

I'd like to see a study that compares patterns in health between "racially pure" individuals with "mixed-race" individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu (Post 680306)

Well thanks, but I was far more tactful than Tenchu- who calls mixed-race children "mongrols". :rolleyes:

It was just a comparison... If you think I was referring to children as dogs you missed the whole point.

No i didnt miss it what you used was pretty much right i was just saying you could have used humans as well in your post. Ah sorry if you thought i was harping you i was not.

For example African Americans are more prone to sickle cell anemia than say Caucasians or Asians. I read an article quite some time ago that showed a mix child of a African American decent and any other race mainly Caucasian was far less likely to carry that gene than a pure African American.

A short time after i read another scientific article (im not sure how accurate this one is) That Caucasians are more likely to contract some type of skin cancer than races with a darker complexions the study showed the same results as the previous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu (Post 680318)

I too would like to see some info on that. Being a mut myself, I always wondered if being mixed helped me resist diseases that affect the races that make up my racial background. *off to google!*

Quote:

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu (Post 680318)

I'd like to see a study that compares patterns in health between "racially pure" individuals with "mixed-race" individuals.

There's the real question. What defines "racially pure". DNA is made up of tons of genes that give us our physical attributes.

For example, what is Caucasian? White people have black hair, brown hair, blond hair, red hair. It can be straight or curly.

Let's say it is only people with blond hair and blue eyes.

That's fine, but I know blond couples that have children with brown hair. so their genes must be "tainted".

In Japan families have been followed for generations, but there are non-Japanese that live in Japan and have for generations that did not reveal their non-Japanese roots, so even Japan surely has a "tainted" gene pool. And what we think of as the "Japanese race" is not even native to the islands of Japan. The native Ainu were in Hokkaido first.

Sorry for the off-topic discussion...

Quote:

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu (Post 680306)

I'm not sure I understand this- was your son born underweight?

Yes. Very underweight and premature. He was 14oz - born a little over halfway through the pregnancy. For proof, a fun photo from about 3 weeks after he was born;

Quote:

I'd like to see a study that compares patterns in health between "racially pure" individuals with "mixed-race" individuals.

I don`t know about a study on adults, but there is one for infants. Or at least premature infants. We were asked to take part in it as an example of a rare "mixed breed". In the case of early development, it seems that different races have different developmental schedules. The darker the skin, the more is dedicated to developing the lungs in the early stages - but less to the intestines. The lighter the skin, the more is dedicated to bodily regulation and the heart. So the darker a baby is the more likely they are to survive an early birth because the lungs are functional at an earlier stage - but at the same time they`re more likely to suffer from fatal infections. I believe that the senses receive more developmental resources in the early stages, so an Asian infant born early is less likely to lose their sight or hearing... There are also huge gender differences - females focus on brain development earlier than males (who focus on sexual development first in the order of things). This ends up meaning that the male brain is more susceptible to damage due to an early birth or other factors, and is supposedly the reason why cases of disability are higher in males. It is also what causes most premature males to die after they`ve been stabilized. Bleeding in the brain is almost a guarantee if it`s a boy, and that most often leads to death.

I can`t remember all the details, but it appeared that mixed race children were receiving the best of both worlds when it came to early development. Instead of 80 / 20 it was evening out at 70 / 70 - so everything seemed to be pretty even in developmental level, and all higher than the counterparts.

This was incredibly important to us, as otherwise we were given a 0.5% chance of my son actually surviving. He had pretty much everything against him otherwise.

I hope this isn't a bad question to ask and please warn me if I'm going anywhere uncomfortable so I know I'm in the wrong but because your son was born so early does he look younger than all the other children his age? I was also born early, but not too early. Only 18 days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyororin (Post 680422)

Yes. Very underweight and premature. He was 14oz - born a little over halfway through the pregnancy. For proof, a fun photo from about 3 weeks after he was born;

This just confirms my theory! ... I don't have anything else to say regarding the topic... This thread was extremely powerful, and enlightening.

Nyororin thank you for sharing the photo and your story i think that answered some questions for us or at least gave us some insight into what is gained and lost in mixed children. A lot of that information i did not know now i have the urge to research even more. Im glad everything worked out and hes grown to be handsome young boy.