When Tragic Mulattos Use Scientific Racism…

To justify their identity, you should be neither surprised or offended. The White supremacist perspective on “racial realism” expresses the belief that race is a biological and scientific reality and that different races have inherent qualities and capacities that can be measured/predicted accurately along those racial lines. This is why you often hear people like AD Powell say “stand on your own genetic feet”, or Mixed White Advocate author Vanguard say “Hey, can you prove YOU’RE NOT inferior?…like other idiotic multiculturalists you deny scientific reality”.  Remember this as you become familiar with their perspectives and goals.

There are actually TWO perspectives on racial realism. According to research conducted by the National Institute of Health, Skin color diversity (and *genetic* diversity) is actually highest among Sub-Saharan Africans. This is important to note because it flies in the face of many assumptions about GENETIC race, and confirms that race is a matter of our social interpretation of our physical world.  This is the version of racial realism generally accepted by the scientific community (and anyone familiar enough with different types of people to know that just because you share skin color/appearance with someone doesn’t mean you are similar). Race is real because we  interact with each other based on assumptions made from appearance. It is a social reality, not a genetic reality. Two perspectives: one social, one genetic.

It’s funny that people who believe they are making “genetic contributions” to the Black race don’t realize their  argument implies that their genetic Blackness (although less visible) “contaminates” the White race, and therefore a racially conscious White society may be right in excluding them. Sounds familiar? This is the scientific premise of the one drop rule. They actually support this logic.

Although they often rely heavily on “scientific” logic to strengthen their argument, this is usually done with strategic omissions of contemporary scientific truth. View the charts below created by Zach/Vanguard (I must commend him for his “passion”):

The second chart is even funnier:

He states the following rationale:

…look at this composite of negro-cauacasian hybrids, negroes from Africa, and caucasians. Note the distinctions in racial phenotype. Color eyes from brown to blue, skin tone from brown to white, thin and medium lips, curly or semi-curly (as opposed to woolly) hair, a protruding nose of moderate or thin width, a rectangular face, unpronounced cheek bones(WHAT? LOL), are all caucasoid or caucasoid derived racial traits. Most are absent in pure negro populations. Now, as you can see, the mixed-race faces span a range of phenotypes between negro and caucasian. Use the perfect averages in the previous slide to evaluate these faces. In the general population, most mixed-race people fall into a range from the midpoint of the “mixed spectrum”, to several faces towards the caucasian pole. This exactly matches their genotypic ancestry, which is approximately 60% caucasian and 40% negro. The near perfect correlation between anthropometry and racial admixture has also been confirmed by scientific studies. Clearly, negro physical traits are neither dominant nor prevailing.

I couldn’t stop laughing when I saw these charts because he claims to be a student of sociology at Western Illinois University. Online universities don’t even play that mess!

Let’s start with his data set: pics of celebrities and google images of Africans, Europeans and Middle Easterners.  It does not occur to him for a second, that there is an inherent bias in the selection of Black Americans and Biracial celebrities as data representative of biracial people. It does not occur to him to at least use the same (or nearly the same) number of faces for each category (not that this would strengthen his conclusions by much), and lastly, if your Whiteness is about your European heritage, why are you using pics of White people who aren’t European at all-some of which coming from populations with non-Caucasian/White admixture? White people are assumed more genetic and phenotypic diversity than their beloved science actually states to be true, and Black people are given less. Coincidence? I doubt it. Even his second computer generated chart gives one typographic visual representation of Blackness and Whiteness (mind you the first and second charts don’t actually support each other when it comes to defining visual Blackness and Whiteness).

Anthropometry has been denounced as an accurate measure of race for generations now. But Vanguard and AD are on a mission to resurrect scientific racism-and use it for their “benefit”.

By the way, here is an African American with significant/recent European ancestry (according to African American lives-“19%”):

What does this tell you about someone’s genes & gene expression? What does it tell you about what someone’s appearance can communicate, and what their biological makeup might be?

It’s a crap shoot.  Just Ask these folks:

There is no chart you can point to (sorry Zach). There is no computer software you can use (lol) to accurately predict what your child will look like, and what social reality they will have due to their looks. According to Zach, the brother on the right should have more claim to his “European heritage” than his apparently “inferior” twin brother who will be relegated to the dreaded “tar bucket”.  These two boys, born at the same time, to the same parents, with the same genetic ancestors.

Can we honestly say that a movement that supports scientific racism  is really a movement that wants an egalitarian racial society and personal identification????