Talk:Afro-Asians/Archive 2

No notable people

It's perfectly relevant to have NOT NOTABLE people shown on this page because this page is not dedicated to people who are notable. That is what the notable list is for. Blasians do not just exist in the media, they exist everywhere, which this page is showing.

"The term Blasian is not similiar to the term Eurasian seeing as we are dealing with those of African descent and not those of European descent. The term Blasian was created before it ever became a popular internet lingo. We hear the term more often, whether it be cyber or not, due to the massive increase in black/asian relations. Yes the same can be said for Eurasians, a term which not to long ago, was a rare term. Contingent to what can be classified as internet lingo, our society uses the internet as one of it's main sources for information, therefore if one were to create a term such as "heify", and it got picked up through the main stream web, there is no stopping it from becoming a world wide definition if society accepts it as one."

Sorry but the quote above was not written by me. Please make sure you are aware of who wrote what before you start applying names to them. As far as the interracial couple, "blasian" doesn't just concern an individual of black and asian descent. It includes black and asian couples who provide way for blasian individuals. It's where their heritage begins. So quite frankly, it doesn't matter which comes first. Americanbeauty415

Where's this quote from? In addition, why is an interracial couple - not a Blasian - the first picture in the article? --ColourBurst 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the quote was from you - I was suggesting that you placed it in the talk page, which you have done (according to the history). Anyways, you and HongQiGong's edit warring is getting a little out of hand - both of you, come out and support your arguments. The only reason I asked about the quote is because it looks like original research. --ColourBurst 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed that you added "or are in a relationship consisting of a black and asian individual." to the article. Do you have any sources? --ColourBurst 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a source to define a blasian relationship as one that consist of black and asian. Just like an interracial couple would come out with interracial children, or a latin couple would come out with latin children. I figured it should've came easily without having to clarify it, but I found myseld corrected and decided to put it in there to side step confusion. The mix in the relationship is what makes the mix of the individual. And what argument do I have to support of behalf on Hong Q? Where does it say anywhere on this page it is dedicated to notable blasians? We have a page specifically geared for that, why do we need another? The name of the page is blasian, not "notable blasians". Americanbeauty415

Okay. I did a search and found that some online forums seem to use it in the relationship sense as well as in the ethnic mix sense. However, if that's the case, then I think the two articles should be split (the two may be interrelated, but they're not the same concept and the article doesn't seem to separate the two). Google only gives me 655 hits for the search blasian relationship, so it doesn't seem to be common. You don't have to support HongQ (in fact, the edit war shows that you two do not agree) - I'm asking him to come out and support his edits. --ColourBurst 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, the use of "blasian" to describe interracial relationship is basically neologistic. But I'm really not interested enough in the subject matter to be engaged in edit wars over it. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind Hong Qi Gong, your edits were not made in part of the relationships, but on opposing non-notable blasians. That's the argument Colourburst was asking you to support.Americanbeauty415

blasian

"In terms of origins of the term "Blasian", people of full European and people of mixed European and Asian descent may have created the term "Blasian" in the first place to describe this ethnic mixture with a term similar to their own Eurasian. Furthermore, the term seems to be only used in Cyberspace. Subsequently, in real life, the term "Blasian" is rarely used or even heard of among people who are actually of Black and Asian mixed parentage." What is the source of this assertion? Kemet 7 Jan 2006.

Multiracial vs blasian

Multiracial people should be considered mutliracial not blasian. Its not fair to say that someone like Tiger wood 1/8 black native ancestry is greater than his 1/8 white ancestry

Race according to the government is an unconsious definition determined by society. Society would look at Tiger Woods as a man of African and Asian descent before they would ever look at him as White and Black or White and Asian. Whenever you listen to ESPN or anything that refers to him, they never fail to acknowledge him as black and asian, not white and whatever else. --lilnessaslove 01:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

blasian

Did the category blasian get deleted. I think it should be recreated.

Message Boards

I removed this section from the article, since the only link here is to a commercial site of questionable value to the article:

• explicitlymixed.com/themixiesboard/index.php?c=6Made for the Blasian Experience: An extremely interactive website meant for people that are a part of the Multiracial Experience. There are an array of resources (including Interracial Support based Resources), from Daily News to Monthly In Depth Features. The forum linked, is a direct location of the newly created Blasian Forum.

Okay, I'm restoring this as an external link (with a less advertising-y description) after a brief discussion with the contributing editor. --Alan Au 06:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, was re-added by author, and promptly removed again by another editor. --Alan Au 06:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just worried about slippery slope here - anyone can put up a blog or discussion board, and then assert they deserve to have a link. Where do we draw the line? I'm not entirely convinced of a specific line yet, and would appreciate more discussion regarding this. --JereKrischel 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What???

The entire article seems to be poorly written.

The term Blasian refers to those of mixed Black and Asiatic ancestry, or increasingly, mixed parentage.

In terms of origins of the term "Blasian", people of full European and people of mixed European and Asian descent may have created the term "Blasian" in the first place to describe this ethnic mixture with a term similar to their own Eurasian. Furthermore, the term seems to be only used in Cyberspace. Subsequently, in real life, the term "Blasian" is rarely used or even heard of among people who are actually of Black and Asian mixed parentage. Many of the peoples of the South Pacific are Polynesian, an ethnic group that superficially resembles Blasians, even though their indegenous heritage lines diverged early in human history.

1. Where are your facts that state the term "Blasian" originated from the term "Eurasian"? 2. Where are your references that state that "Blasian" is only used in Cyberspace? 3. Where are your references that say Polynesians "superficially" resemble Blasians?

While most people who are part black are often defined as black, Blasians almost never are. This is because Sub-Saharan Africans are thought to be the oldest population, North East Asians the youngest population, and Europeans intermediate, so peoples of Blasian ancestry are an average of two extremes, with an aggregate genetic mix that is no closer to the ancient African Eve than the typical European's is. In other words, their old African genes and their young North East Asian genes average out to a genetic age comparable to that of most European's. Indeed on the genetic level Europeans are sometimes considered Blasian because they share 65% of their genes with North East Asians and 35% of their genes with Africans1 and so while Europeans are not considered black, Blasian's tend not to be considered black either. Golfer Tiger Woods who defines himself not as black but Cablinasian is the larger than life prototype.

1. Where are your references that state that Blasians are almost never defined as black? 2. How are you making the connection between sub-Saharan Africans being the "oldest" population and North East Asians being the "youngest population" as being an "average of two extremes?" 3. How are Europeans considered "Blasian?"

I know this is wikipedia, but you can't just write anything up and expect it to fly just because you say so. You need to use references and site whatever you're trying to prove.

The genetic arguments are sound. Through DNA research it has now been well established that black people were the first race and those that left Africa evolved into Caucasians and some of those later evolved into Orientals. Thus Caucasians on the genetic level are nothing more than black people turning into Orientals. That's why crossing a black with an Oriental gives you the genetic equivalent of a Caucasian.

I'm sorry, but the genetic arguments are specious. Race is not about genetics, it is about social constructs. There has been no evolution between one race and any other. The only difference between people on a genetic standpoint is their nearest common ancestor, which for nearly all of the world, is less than a few thousand years ago. See the excellend documentary from pbs: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm --JereKrischel 01:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Race is a biological classification. It's now beyond scientific dispute that the first humans started out black in Africa, they migrated to Europe/the middle East/India and turned into Caucasoids and then migrated to North East Asia and became North East Asians. Thus a mix between North East Asians and blacks (i.e. blasians) is the genetic equivalent of a caucasian. Please don't put your politics ahead of science.

This is silly! Race has never conclusively been a biological classification. In fact, the variants between a black American, a black Somali and a black Congolese are so wide that it would be silly to classify these people as the same.

The conclusions you draw about Asians and blacks being the genetic equivalent of a Caucasian are just entirely false. I doubt you have any real understanding of genetics.

Futhermore, you have NO citations or references to back up your claims. Stop trying to rewrite genetics with your own personal ideas.

"Controversy"

1) Nowhere does Cavalli-Sforza assert that any genetic groups are "opposites";

2) The racial tensions expressed L.A. riots had a long history;

3) None of the cites for Rushton showed any support for the claims made in that section.

If you would like to bring specific citations, rather than an editorial, please feel free - but despite the work found with genetic "Eve" 200,000 years ago, the fact is that your NCA (nearest common ancestor) to anyone on the planet is most likely just a few thousand years back. --JereKrischel 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please manke an effort to understand the genetic work done by Cavalli-Sforza. In the "Geography of Human Genes" Cavalli-Sforza provides a genetic linkage tree [[1]] showing the genetic distance between major racial groups expressed by the total length of the line seperating any two populations. In clearly shows that Caucasoid populations are much closer to North East Asians and Africans than either of the two latter groups are too each other. The first population of modern humans emerged in Africa 200,000 year ago. Archaic Caucasians split off from this parent population 110,000 years ago, and archaic North East Asians split off from archaic Caucasians 41,000 years ago. So because Africans emerged first, and North East Asians split off last, those groups are genetic opposites, with Caucasoids falling in between both, just like Blasians. This is further confirmed by the work of Rushton which shows that on 60 different variables, Africans and North East Asians fall at opposite extremes, whith Caucasoids in the middle, just like Blasians. I understand these views are controversial which is why I put them in the CONTROVERSY section, but these views are ESPECIALLY relevant to the unique racial composition of Blasians, and deleting such relevant theory based research just because you don't like or understand the ideas is a form of censorship.

See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight regarding the appropriate treatment for tin-foil hat extremists with views contrary to generally accepted science. These views are not controversial, they are baseless and fringe. Even your assertion that based on a genetic distance tree you can proclaim any two points on it as "opposite" is an improper conflation of mathematical descriptions. --JereKrischel 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, you'll note on his page, the quote, "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise." You can see an article regarding his conclusion, completely opposite of those such as Rushton, here. Misrepresenting research, and using it to support poorly executed science, with the most fringe POV, has no place on this article, or anywhere in Wikipedia. --JereKrischel 16:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if classification of races is futile thet why is there is an article on Blasians in the first place? Just because a theory is politically incorrect does not invalidate it scientifically. You are free to quote alternative theories, but Rushton's work is uniquely well suited to an article on Blasians since his entire career is focused on studying the 3 main races and concludes that Blacks and North East Asians fall at opposite extremes in virtually every important trait. The notion that Blacks and North East Asians are a mix of the two most opposite extremes is what makes Blasians such a fascinating hybrid so without such discussion the article is absurdly incomplete.

The category is a social one, not a scientific one. Rushton's work is sophmoric and indefensible. When others have repeated his experiements and studies, they have universally found his conclusions to be incorrect. The notion that any two groups of people are "opposites", on any scale, due to genetic differences is thoroughly discredited by scientific study (see Cavalli-Sforza). The notion that this fringe, tin-foil hat POV should be given undue weight is clearly against Wikipedia policy. --JereKrischel 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a quote (with reference) by Cavalli-Sforza claiming the concept of genetic opposite is thoroughly discredited. Do you even understand what the word "opposite" means? All it means is that there is a continuum of variation and on every continuum, there are those at both extremes. The only reason J. Phillipe Rushton's work is even controversial is because it's politically incorrect. Wikipedia is not the place to put ideology ahead of science.

You're right,, as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, Wikipedia is not a place to put Rushton's ideology over the clearly accepted science regarding genetics. Arbitrary declarations of three major racial groups, and a complete denial of the integrated nature of human populations and genetics, much less the well documented variability between individuals outweighing heavily that between groups, is clearly both politically incorrect, and ideological, not scientific. --JereKrischel 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested quote from Cavalli-Sforza

In fact, genetic scientists appearing at an annual conference in Atlanta last week, including Cavalli-Sforza, are now saying that what we think of as racial differences are mainly superficial and aren't found to any great degree in genetic research.

"There is a surface difference, of skin color, but what we miss is the story of how the difference came about," Cavalli-Sforza said. Skin color, for instance, reflects how people have adapted to different environments over many, many generations.

"These are spontaneous changes, mutations, that can change the appearance of individuals," he said. "That's the theory of natural selection. There have to be spontaneous changes."

The debate over genetics and intelligence, Cavalli-Sforza thinks, overplays the importance of genetics.

On many measures, the difference between racial groups is what he calls minor or statistical. These differences become even more minor when compared to the wide range of intelligence within any one racial group.

The problem with "The Bell Curve" and its adherents, Cavalli-Sforza said, is that for some people, too much importance is assigned to genetics. The authors of "The Bell Curve," he said, simply ignored evidence contrary to what they were presenting.

The quote you cite in no way disputes the fact that blacks and North East Asians are genetic opposites.

Some argue that the genetic research Rushton cites has shown no biological basis for race and that his identifications of genetic groups are arbitrary - specifically, the genetic diversity found between members of a group is higher than differences between groups. "This is true, however, only if one is comparing the range of individual differences on a given characteristic (or on a number of characteristics) within each population with the range of the differences that exist between the means of each of the seperate populations on the given characteristic" clarifies Arthur Jensen on page 516 of "the g factor. "In fact, if the differences between the means of various populations were not larger than the mean difference between individuals within each population, it would be impossible to distinguish different populations statistically." Further the genetic linkage trees Cavalli-Sforza provides clearly show distinct branches for all the three main races Rushton describes. Further, when Cavalli-Sforza applied the wholly objective mathematical procedure of principal component analysis to his genetic data, the major racial groupings Rushton descibes formed very clear and unambiguous clusters. Further, Rushton's focus on race is consistent with the work of forensic experts, research in bio-medicine, and biologists studying geographic variation in other species. Emminent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson told journalist Peter Knudson. "The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is it's logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye."

Of course it refutes the idea of blacks (which have incredible genetic diversity, and more "opposite" characteristics between people within that group than between other groups), and north east asians being genetic opposites - Rushton specifically ignores evidence contrary to his ridiculously simplistic assertions. Although Rushton's basic reasoning applies when talking about geographic variations between species of birds, the genetic variation he's focusing on is an order of magnitude less than that within his arbitrary groups.

Third, how much genetic variation exists? Overall, humans share about 99.8% of their genes in common. The other .2% accounts for all human variation. This happens because 67% of all human genetic loci are invariant. The remaining 33% are polymorphic, that is capable of genetic variation and this is where the discussion of genetic variation within and between groups must begin. For forty years, we have known that 85% of polymorphic human genetic variation occurs at the individual level. What that means is that any two people in this room, without regard to the geographic origin of their ancestors, by chance alone shares 85% of their different genes in common. Nei and Roychoudhury in 82 showed that this could be as high as 93-97% of the genetic variation within groups and only 3-7% between them. Mitochondrial DNA shows the same picture. There is about 5-7% genetic variation between populations on the same continent but only about 10% between different continents.

Simply put, Ruston's science is anecdotal, sloppy, and does not withstand scrutiny. Although certainly by casual inspection by even "eminent" biologists it seems reasonable, the data simply do not back him up. --JereKrischel 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Above is a very specific quote provided from Arthur Jensen refuting your arguments about within group variation exceeding between group variation. And the fact that humans share 99.8 of their total genetic codes means nothing. Humans and chimps share 98% of their genetic code yet are still quite different.

You've ignored the data again - they are not asserting that differences in invariant be used (99.8%), they are specifically speaking of the fraction of the .2% that does differ. You are taking a comparison of total genomic similarity and conflating it with research based solely on the observed genetic differences. Jensen's fallacy is conflating the idea that any discovered distribution pattern is THE distribution pattern. --JereKrischel 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to study Cavalli-Sforza's principal component analysis of a global smaple of 42 different ethnic groups in "The history and geography of human genes". While you are correct in asserting that massive amount of genetic diversity exist in black populations (i.e. San Bushmen and Mbuti Pygmy are quite different from the Bantu, Nilotic, West African, and Ethiopain) all six black ethnic groups are still FAR more similar to each other than they are to any Caucasoid or Mongoloid populations. This can be clearly seen by the fact that all the black ethnic groups cluster in the bottom right quadrent of the PC analysis. Caucasoids cluster in the top right, and North East Asian cluster in top left quadrent (directly opposite from the black quadrent). Even geneticists who think Rushton is completely wrong in his conclusions, still agree with the fundamental genetic fact that blacks and North East Asians are genetic opposites. This fascinating fact needs to find its way into the Blasian article. If you don't like Rushton, find another way to make the point.

Your assertion as to the utility of Cavalli-Sforza is specifically rejected by him. Your read of the data is again, ignoring the evidence presented in the study. Rushton may have his basic genetic reasoning intact, but he's taking a simplistic, laymen's view of applying things selectively.

The fact of the matter is that it is tin-foil hat to assert that there is some sort of linear genetic continuum upon which we can do simplistic averaging. Even if you buy into the biogeographic isolation of the three major "races", selective pressures do not stop acting upon those isolated groups - that is to say, just as one isolated group is reacting to changing environmental pressures, so are others that have remained in place, but been subject to environmental changes. To think that you can assert that a "Mongoloid" mating with a "Negroid" produces a "genetic Caucasoid" is a complete misunderstanding of genetic inheritance - this would be like saying you could take a human (last on the primate tree), mate it with a gorilla (several steps ago), and come up with a chimpanzee (in between human and gorilla). Another way to think of "genetic averaging" is like asserting one of your cousins, mating with cousins from the other side of your family, would produce a genetic copy of your siblings. It simply does not work in the simplistic way Rushton describes. --JereKrischel 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you crossed a human with a gorilla, you would almost certainly get a creature that biologists would classify in the same genus as a Chimpanzee. Similarly, if you crossed a human with a monkey, you would probably get something that would be classified as an ape.

That assertion is completely unsupportable. Remember, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and other primates are not our direct ancestors in any genetic sense of the word - they are our cousins, and have been under the influence of environmental factors and genetic change ever since we "split" off of our common ancestor. Not only that, but Gorillas have 48 chromosomes, and humans only have 46 - a "cross" between the two would in no way represent a viable chimp, even if genetically engineered. I think you're completely miunderstanding the model of genetic inheritance. --JereKrischel 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Gorillas and chimps are not specifically our ancestors, but the general category they belong to is ancestral to the general category we belong to. Why do you think people say we evolved from apes? No one says apes evolved from humans. And I never said a gorilla-human hybrid would be a chimp, I said it would arguabley be classified the same genus that chimps belongs to. Similarly, a black and North East Asian hybrid, would not be a European, an arab, or an East Indian, however it would arguabley be classified in the same Caucasoid category that Europeans, arabs, and North East Asians all belong to.

Again, you've shown a complete misunderstanding of genetic inheritance. If your cousins from your mothers side mated with your cousins from your father's side, you would not have offspring essentially like you. Secondly, the arbitrary social classifications of race do not create genetic "hybrids", any more than you can claim your cousins who mate create a hybrid that is in your direct line.

The fallacy you are falling victim to is the assertion that there is a step-wise progression between one "race" and another, and that taking a more "advanced" race combined with a less "advanced" race would somehow "average" out. This is not how genetic heritability works. Taken more literally as per your hypothesis, if you have sex with your grandmother, you won't end up with a genetic equivalent to your mother - the particular bits of your dna, and your grandmother's dna, which would be given to your offspring are not deterministic - that is to say, the genes your grandmother gave to your mother will certainly not be the same genes they would give to your incestuous offspring with your grand-mother. --JereKrischel 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points

• The article itself asserts "Some studies have suggested that a perceived "shortage" of same-race partners lead Asian men and Black women in particular to embrace miscegenation as a positive phenomenon." So if that's true...

• Where are these studies?
• Why do Black men and Asian women partnerships still outnumber Asian men and Black women partnerships? See this table.

• The definition of blasian, as it stands now, rules out people like Rae Dawn Chong and Tiger Woods... or at least that's how the article reads to me. --ColourBurst 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not really because it classifies it as one of asian and african/american or black descent. Both of which can be found in Rae and woods. --Americanbeauty415

Pictures

Honestly, I really don't care, the pictures on this page about the interracial couples don't make sense to me. This page should be about Blasians, not about their potential parents. I can understand why some people have an aversion to celebrity pictures too. Anyway I'll leave it to the Blasians to decide how they want to represent themselves. Bethereds 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave celebrity photos to a celebrity page. Not all people have the glamorized look that celebrities have; by listing them on a page that represents ones identity, it could be misleading. Regardless, I found this page very interesting. Blasians were people I've seen before but never really took notice of until I heard people mentioning them more and more. In North Dakota we don't have to much diversity in a lot of our areas. I encountered two ladies that were blasian and to add to the stereotype, yes, they were drop dead beautiful. I was interested in learning more about the term blasian especially since I've began to hear the term referred to people in the media. It is not about how blasians represent themselves, it's about how they are represented period. As more people hear about blasians, the more people are interested in this particular mix, therefore it is essential that the information is geared towards everyone who reads it, not just the blasian community.--lilnessaslove 01:56 17, July 2006 (UTC)