Greeting to All visiting readers, especially all my Khmer brothers and sisters,

It seems that in general, some of our tanner, "darker" Khmer folks feel less attractive than other "light-skinned" people. This general self-defeating view is such an ISSUE that I want to find out what scientists have to say about people's different shades of colors.

It is a scientific truth that ALL people belong to the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Unlike the cat family, there are no subspecies in the species Homo sapiens sapiens. "RACE" doesn't exist in the natural world, and "race" is also not found in people's DNA or blood.

Now comes the question "If all people belong to the same species, then why do we look different ethnically?"

Two reasons explain the phenomenon:

(1) People are different due to random genetic mutation or when a new gene is introduced.

(2) People evolved in order to adapt to their environment. For example, in an environment that has less sunlight, people developed light skin and straight hair to conserve heat. People in an environment that has more sunlight developed dark skin and curly hair to allow heat to escape.

To further satisfy your curiosity about skin color, I would like to invite you to reader Natalie Porter's paper posted below. I retrieved her research review on March 4, 2004 from
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/Papers/Porter.doc

It is my hope that my Khmer brothers and sisters will find some settling meaning about their skin tones as a result of reading the paper below.


Skin Color is a Regional Adaptation

Natalie Porter
February 25, 2003

Text pages: 2- 6
Figures: 2, 4, 5
Bibliography: 8

The evolution of skin color is one of the most studied and important issues of modern time. Why is this so? There is a social interest in because skin color because it is one of the first things a person notices about another. This is a characteristic upon which numerous other things are also commonly inferred. This paper will examine some common myths, as well as the natural selection theory, all attempting to explain why we have variation oft skin color.

Skin color is perhaps the most decisive and abused physical characteristic of humankind. When differences are found within populations, humans have a tendency to classify these populations into different varieties, or races.

Unfortunately, racial classifications are often confounded with racism, the belief that some races are innately inferior to others. Many biological anthropologists have suggested that the term, “race”, should not be applied to human biological differences. Even after eliminating race, anthropologists must still explain skin color variation.

With this paper I intend to examine many of the “just-so” stories, the function of skin and how it is measured. Is skin color really an important characteristic in reference to individual identity? You would think so by the amount of societies that are stratified by this quality alone. Just-so stories are explanations that people tend to believe because they seem to make sense. I believe that skin color variation is directly linked to geographic locations and/or origins.

Lewontin did a study of 17 polymorphic traits in groups from seven different geographical areas. The results showed that there was 94% genetic variability within the groups, and only 6% between the groups. There is greater variation within racial groups than between them (AAA, 1998). I believe that skin color is nothing more than the process of natural selection all over the world. So, skin color is not a viable characteristic on which to base any judgment about an individual, nor is it a viable way to separate people into groups, it is simply an external expression of natural selection and evolution.

Throughout history there have been many theorized explanations for variation of skin color. A few of my favorite “just-so” stories about skin color are:

The first, we have Santorio’s theory that a black bile determined
the coloration of skin. Eighteenth century anatomist confirmed
the presence of black bile in the Malpighian layer of the skin.

Next, based on passages from the Bible (Genesis chapter 9),
tells about Noah’s curse on Ham’s son. The problem is that
darkening of the skin is not even mentioned here.

Thomas Browne dismissed that story as a foolish tale. His
Seventeenth century theory was that the African’s blackness
was innate and permanent. But in the mid to late sixteenth
century, the view had been that differences in color of the
skin was a response to the sun’s heat.

In 1810, Samuel Smith posited that pigmentation was nothing
more than an “universal freckle” that was occasioned by
environmental exposure to UV radiation.

Clearly there was an issue with whether skin color was due to differences in biological structure, or a response to outside factors. Most theories were relatively short lived but other, even more ridiculous, theories abounded.
Skin, which is the body’s largest organ, has many functions. Skin not only plays a vital role in our protection, but it also manufactures a nutrient essential for humans. Folic acid deficiency is a chemical breakdown of folic acid circulating in the blood stream, caused by ultraviolet light. Folate deficiency in pregnant women is related to an increased risk of birth defects such as spina bifida. Folate is required for the production of sperm cells, also, folic acid treatment can boost the sperm counts of men with fertility problems (Kirchweger, 2001). These, and other, observations led Jablonski and Chaplin to hypothesize that dark skin developed to protect the body’s folate stores from destruction.

Melanin, which is produced in the skin, absorbs and disperses sunlight, producing the effects of tanning and skin coloration. The other job of melanin, and perhaps the most important, is to block out ultraviolet, or UV, radiation. Skin color is also affected by hemoglobin and carotene, but on a much lower level. The amount, density, and distribution of the melanin pigment, in the skin, directly effect variability of coloration. In dark skin melanin is larger and more dispersed. Light skin, on the other hand, contains fewer melanin granules. Regardless of ethnicity, epidermal melanin content is significantly greater in chronically photoexposed skin than it is in corresponding photoprotected skin (Alaluf et al., 2002). Skin color is a polygenic trait. Basically this means that several genes work together in very complex combinations.

As Dr. Bindon discussed, measurement of skin pigmentation has also been a critical issue. In the last half of the nineteenth century Broca established a 34-tone scale. Later, one of his students, Topinard, modified the scale to make it 36 tones. All clinal maps of skin pigmentation are based on these models. Clinal maps, like this one, show the intensity of skin pigmentation across the globe. Darker pigmentation is prevalent in the tropics, while higher latitudes have less and less the farther they are away from the equator. This technique was used until the invention of the reflectance spectrometer in the early 1950’s. This device, and many like it, measures the percentage of light reflected back from relatively unexposed skin, usually from the inner part of the upper arm.

Local adaptation is the evolution, through natural selection, of traits with a high fitness in that population’s specific environment. The degree to which this adaptation can occur depends on the potential for populations to evolve differences from each other, and also on the potential for natural selection to occur within each population (Ember et al., 2002). Sub Saharan Africa, believed by many to be the location of modern human origins, has the highest average within-population variance, also a variety of other genetic traits have shown higher diversity here (Relethford, 2000). Europe and the New World have the lowest diversity within their populations Jablonski and Chaplin believe that the skin color of the indigenous people of Africa has had the longest time to adapt because anatomically modern humans first evolved there. Others argue that this is simply the result of a high population on the African continent.

Selection favors for dark skin in high UV areas. One major adaptive significance of dark skin is related to skin cancer and melanoma. In the United States skin cancer is three times more likely to occur in a light-skinned individual when compared to a dark-skinned person. Among these lighter-skinned people, the ones located in southern areas of the U.S. have a higher incidence of skin cancer and related diseases. Put simply, darker skin is more difficult for the harmful ultraviolet radiation to penetrate. So, these individuals are more protected from the sun than light-skinned ones.

Selection favors low levels of melanin, or light skin, for high latitude areas that experience low levels of UV radiation. However, other factors are in play here, like the regulation of vitamin D synthesis. Vitamin D comes primarily from the skin, it is synthesized in the skin by the UV-B action (Frisancho, 1993). Vitamin D functions to cause calcium absorption through the small intestine to the blood stream. This calcium is essential for proper bone development. A vitamin D deficiency in babies and children is known to cause diseases such as rickets. Rickets causes bones to be weak, bowed legs and pelvis deformities are common symptoms (Meade, 2000). In adults the deficiency can cause osteomalacia. Sufficient sun exposure allows healthy people to properly synthesize vitamin D in the skin, but pigmentation and even our environments can block sunlight (Shupp, 2000). Jablonski and Chaplin found that women in all populations are generally lighter-skinned than men. Their data showed that women tend to be between 3 and 4 percent lighter than men.

There is a strong and somewhat predictable correlation between skin color and the amount of UV radiation across the globe. Jablonski and Chaplin state that recent epidemiological and physiological evidence suggests to us that the worldwide pattern of human skin color is the product of natural selection acting to regulate the effects of the sun’s UV radiation on key nutrients crucial to reproductive success. People in the tropics have developed dark skin to block out the sun and protect the body’s folate reserves. People farther from the equator developed fair skin to drink the sun in order to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D during the months when light was more scarce (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2002).

In conclusion, I believe that human skin color variation is the result of adaptations to the amount of UV radiation experienced in different regions of the planet. Human bodies have adapted their skin color to let in just the right amount of UV light. UV light affects the skin’s folate production that is essential for reproductive success. Folate is necessary for proper development of the nervous system in fetuses, and also for sperm production in males. This process of evolution through natural selection has taken many thousands of years to become the different skin tones we see today all across the world.

Alaluf S., Atkins, D., Barrett M., Blount K., Carter M., Heath A. 2002. Ethnic variation in melanin content and composition in phtoexposed a photoprotected human skin. Pigment Cell Research, 15:112-118.

American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race”. (May 17, 1998); http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

Chaplin G. and Jablonski N. 2002. Skin deep: throughout the world human skin color has evolved to be dark enough to prevent sunlight from destroying the nutrient folate but light enough to foster the production of vitamin D. Scientific American, 287:74-81.

Ember CR., Ember M., Peregrine PN. 2002. Anthropology. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. p. 209.

Frisancho AR. 1993.Human adaptation and accomidation: enlarged and revised edition of Human Adaptation. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press. p. 164-170.

Kerchweger G. 2001. The biology of skin color: black and white.Discover, 22: 9-11.
Meade MS. and Earickson RJ.2000. Medical Geography. New York, The Guilford Press. p. 48-49, 232-233.

Relethford JH. 2000. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Human Biology, 72: 773-781.

Shupp M. 2001. Human skin pigmentation. http://www.csun.edu/~ms44278/skin.htm

The above research review was retrieved on March 4, 2004 from fromhttp://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/Papers/Porter.doc

khmer people are very diversed as far as physical appearance is concern. my family for example has dark skin and light skin. my mom is light and my dad is dark. when they made babies, we somehow turned out looking like mexicans,filipinos,vietnamese,even chinese! i got all those ethnicities that i mentioned from strangers.

Greeting AngkorWat19,

[red]khmer people are very diversed as far as physical appearance is concern. my family for example has dark skin and light skin. my mom is light and my dad is dark. when they made babies, we somehow turned out looking like mexicans,filipinos,vietnamese,even chinese! i got all those ethnicities that i mentioned from strangers.[/red]

So some of your siblings look "Mexican"? Well, there might just be an explanation for that one. I find this funniest stupidest explanation on the internet, and I want to share it with you. This kind of internet stuff really warn people to be careful with their sources. Many so-called websites claim authenticity, but in reality they are just a bunch self-interest serving distorted sources.

I think you are right that some of the Khmer folks look like Mexicans because there is even a stereotype for the Cambodians that says that people often mistake a Khmer for being a Latino.

To make it authentic, now there is an idiotic writer who actually tried to prove that the Cambodians were actually Latinos in origin:

According to “Indigenous Americans: The Origin of Tribes” http://www.minorityx.com/viewarticle.php?artId=148 :

“Out of the Mexican also came the Aztec, Inca, Toltec, Mixtec, and Mayans which were the five barbarian nations.”

“The Mayans rejected their Olmec ancestry and gravitated toward their Chinese ancestry.”

“The Mayans began practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism. The Mayans were banished by the original Olmecs and were told to leave or be destroyed.”

“The Mayan relocated and sailed east to Asia and mixed in with the Mongols of Southeast Asia and became known as 'Angkor.'

“Today the Angkors no longer go by their ancient name; their modern day name is 'Cambodian.'

“Yes, the Cambodians are really the Native Americans that were banished.”

“This is why the ruins of ancient Cambodia are identical to the ruins of the Mayan Empire.

“Historians claim that the Mayan civilization just vanished. The word 'Maya' means "illusions", because it seemed as if they disappeared over night. The Mayans didn't just disappear; an entire ethnic group just doesn't simply vanish over night, they simply packed up and moved to the other side of the planet.”

Source: http://www.minorityx.com/viewarticle.php?artId=148

Oh This Is So Funny

What is going on here??? I want someone to explain to me why "Malay Ako" was banned because he was considered a "racist"? I don't know all the facts as I have not been following the various posts and comments of Malay Ako.

However, I assume, if his last post below was an indication of his "racism", then I am totally confused. By what standards do the administrators of this message board use to determine what is racism and what is not? I personally have read quite a few of those "racist" comments by other posters in various culture forums, but those posters are not "banned" because they are not considered "racists". Is there a preferential treatment here? It certainly seems to be an upcoming issue at least from where I am standing.

When the Laker Star Shaquille O'Neal bashed Houston Star Yao Ming, O'Neal's comments were considered "racist" BECAUSE he attacked Ming based on Ming's ethnicity. Based on this standard, has Malay Ako been attacking people based on their ethnicities?

According to the latest Forum Guideline 1.05, the following rules and expectations are spelled out:

Be respectful. No flaming, no inflammatory posts just to get people riled up. Don't expect everyone to assume that you're joking when making potentially offensive remarks.

My message to all posters in this forum is to post interesting and educational posts here, social and informative topics about Asia and Asians.

Members are expected to conduct yourselves as gentlemen and ladies here. That means showing courtesy to other members and avoiding excessive cursing and personal attacks like namecalling and flaming.

Based on the forum guideline above, what evidence that the administrators have to prove that Malay Ako was a racist through his comments and posts?

It is not my job to prove that Malay Ako was not a racist, but I am asking the responsible administrator(s) to present his/her/their evidence for the visiting readers to consider.

FKR

Please Read Malay Ako's last post below:

"i have to argue this. It seem more reasonable that people in artic enviornemnt should have black skin if you say the reason is to conserve heat, becaues white reflect the sun and black absorb sun and keep you warm. That one reason why people who go sekying usually wear dark color clothes.

LIke wise, it seem more reasonable that a person in equatorial enviornemnt should have white skin if you say the reason is to allow heat to escape, becaues white reflect the sun and black absorb sun.

I believe that skin color is result of another reason but is still dealing with adaption to evneiornment like you say.

first of all, the darkness of skin is determine by amount of MELANIN in your skin. Everyon, all human being has Melain. it is a pigment in the skin which gives you color. white peopel have little melanin so they look white. black people have most melin so they look dark. Anyway people in north artic evniornment have whit skin because of DEFINCIENTY of melin. Melanin protects skin from ultraviolet rays from the sun which damage & posion our body. lack of sunlight in the north make people's ancestors not need so much melanin so they lose it in their skin and get white.

But at the same time it make them in danger of geting cancer because if this white person from the artic sundenly decide to move south and go to usa or mexico where it is alot more hotter they can get cancer real quick becaues they have little melanin to protect from sun's ultraviolet rays. that is why when white peopel get in sun for long time, they get red sun burned not a tan, its not healthy for them. white peopel are only safest in the artic north poles.

black people's ancestors on other hand have lived in equatoral area, hottest place in earth where ultraviolet ray is strongest for thousands of years. so these people body had to develop more melanin to protect from ultraviolet rays. and more melanin make u look dark.

And if a black decide to live in artic suddenly, he can survive because his body will absorb heat and sun because he is black and black absorb not reflect. But i think if his family never leave artic and they stay for thousands of years, their melanin will go away and they will eventually turn white.

so i agree with theory that all human migrate from africa. it is clear that white people were orginally black who migrate out of africa and live in europe and turn white. and everyone else move where its not extremes like artic so we didnt get too white and not like africa so we didnt get too black but middle tan.

But you can see how chinese japanese korean are alot more lwhite skin then southeast asian because chinese, japanese, korean live near the artic so they losing melanin. but southeast asian stay in hot area and our body still kept some melanin. and that why we have beautiful tan skin no matter if your filipino or khmer, we have same beatuiful skin because we live in same region.

Fig. 34-5. The flux of UV light from the sun almost perfectly matches the skin colour of the people who have lived there for a long time (fromJablonsky/Chaplin)."

i dont feel like taking quotes but on that site you put up FKR, it said chinese and indians interbreeded. you know, my history teacher said that indians and asians are related. he said if you have high cheek bones, you're asian. that's sort of true since most asians have high cheek bones and slanted eyes. but the story of the mayan empire relating to angkor is non sense.

I do agree with you FKR, I am new here but it seem that many article attacked the Vietnamese are being banned while the Vietnamese themselve have said few improper words that consider too to be racist. No banned nor warning for them. I guess we have to be clever because after what khmerkrom have post, we are the POINTING FINGER my friend. The admin have the power, so do not light up the fire. For now, I do not want to be the one who lit up that fire. I still have many words to spread.

Thay_