What are the positives to being biracial?

What scientific sources are you talking about?

Since the terms "race" and "biracial" are not scientific terms, and since science has nothing to say about what is beneficial ... this seems like nonsense.

I'm not very educated... So I'm sorry if I came off as such ((which I'm sure I do)). So you're saying there's absolutely no positive traits that comes with being a mixed race person...? Like for example, a white mother and a Native American father... Wouldn't the individual who is mixed pick up on certain positive traits of both of these races...? So far, I haven't found any information that really talks about the positives... Only the negatives of being mixed-race ((like lacking self-esteem, having more health problems, and so forth, and so forth)).

Although I have ran into some sources that claim that mixed-race children are taller...? But I'm not sure how true that is, and just how "BIAS" of a source that this information is coming from... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQcATsy8Ct0 And no need to be so condescending in your replies either... I get it. You have a super high IQ and you're really, really smart and better than me ((in likely almost every way imaginable)), /rollseyes so since that's out of the way... Can you just answer my question? Or anyone for that matter? I would highly appreciate it... Thank you.

1. Race is a social construct. It doesn't have positive or negative traits. When you talk about someone's race, you are judging them based on your opinion of their appearance with no knowledge of anything real (i.e. genetics).

2. Human beings have been doing a lot of traveling and mixing for the past few centuries. Most modern humans are a mixture of genes from many parts of the world.

3. The idea that "mixed-race children" are taller seems ridiculous to me. Children receive genes from both parents, and these genes contribute their final height. I am not an expert in genetics, but based on my knowledge this sounds rather unlikely.

There are a lot of weird racial ideas on the internet. If you have a actual scientific source from real scientists with research (rather than random guys on the internet) I would be interested to see it.

4. There is a difference between mixed-race and mixed culture. My children could be considered mixed-race (althought that term doesn't mean very much).

The fact that they are bi-cultural is much more important. If you want me to tell you the advantages of being multicultural... I can give you quite a few.

What do you think of these links right here...

White-Asian children are twice as likely as Asians to have mental illness. Source: http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_det ... so?id=8732
White/Black babies are less healthy than White babies. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
Mixed race couples are more likely to have stillborn babies than same-race couples. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994621
Black-White children are more likely than both Black and Whites to make poor decisions. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14192
90% of women who have a child with a Black man never marry the father. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
77% of women who have children with Black men earn less than $10,000 a year. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
98% of White women who have children with Black men are not financially supported by the father. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
The average White woman who has kids with a Black man earns $7250 a year, excluding welfare. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
97% of White women who have children with Black men have used welfare. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
97% of Black fathers who have children with White women are not active in their children’s lives. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
Race-mixers may give less parental support to their children because of greater genetic distance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
97% of interracial (Black man, White women) children are born out of wedlock. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
White-Black couples have more partner violence than White couples and as much violence as Black couples. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611980/
Bias against miscegenation is likely biological in origin. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422626
Interracial marriages have a 23.5% chance of divorce, compared to 13% for same-race couples. Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145377
Mixed race kids suffer from low self-esteem, social isolation, and poor family dynamics. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
Mixed race children are more likely to have health problems, high stress, smoke, and drink. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
Interracial couples devote less time to maintaining their household than same race couples. Source: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100 ... 4-1623-4_9
interracial people cannot receive organ donations. Source: http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 74,00.html
Asians who marry outside of their race are less educated than Asians who do not. Source: http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/2/453
90% of White women who have kids with black men are unemployed or earn less than 10K a year. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2625893
White women who marry minorities tend to be poor and to “marry up” in socioeconomic status. Source: http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80046#page=7
Slim, slender, athletic, fit or average White women are 7x more likely than fat White women to refuse to date Blacks. Source: http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80046#page=23
Better educated men and women are more likely to exclude blacks as romantic partners. Source: http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80046#page=23

What do I make of these links? I think the links you have selected say quite a bit about you. They are unrelated in any scientific way. You selected them based on your personal psychology.

You seem to have an ideological opposition to what you feel is mixed race babies. And so you are chasing the internet to find links to support this ideological bias.

Do you have any idea why you have this need?

I assume I don't have to explain sex to you. You have a baby with whatever person you have sex with.

You understand that part, right?

First of all, asshole... I don't necessarily agree with the links I posted. I was actually having an argument with someone ((a white nationalist)) that sent me those links... I myself am a mixed-raced person, and I was trying to counter what he said, but I had really nothing to go off of, so I came here in hopes that someone can send me scientific links ((from a legit source)) that actually paint race-mixed children in a **POSITIVE** spotlight, and not a negative one... Clearly ((by the looks of it)) I wasted my time in coming here, but I still hope that someone will come along and give me what I'm looking for... That person is more than likely not going to be you though, and I **highly** **HIGHLY** doubt that race is "just a social construct"... Race is also genetic, and if you don't think so than you're a clown and I would say you're not truly scientific. Now are you done pretending to be "smart" (((or are you done trolling?))), or must I put you on block?

I have already answered your question.

1. The entire question is invalid because it supposes that there is something called "race", and that it is something more than a social construct. It is a scientifically meaningless question.

2. Do you know what the term "cherry-picking" means? Take a look at that list of links.... they don't even make any sense in context.

3. You note that your "friend" is a "White Nationalist". He cherry-picked this list. That a white nationalist made this list makes perfect sense.

4. Why would you want to paint "mixed-race" children in a positive light compared to any other children? They are just children.

If race is not a social construct, than what is it?

Take someone who is Asian, what does this say about them apart from a social construct?

We judge race based on how people look.

You can put me on block if you want. I am giving you the correct answer. You just don't want to hear it.

Anyone who gives you a list of the benefits of "mixed-race" children is an idiot. People have been having sex with each other for thousands of years.

Do you want to talk about multiculturalism?

Lol, /smh... Okay dude. W/e you say. I'm wrong you're right... @Anyone other than Maxdancona// if you want to answer my question and actually help me out here... I would appreciate it. Ty.

You'd need a way to determine which positives (and negatives) were the result of the genetic combination of the two partners and which ones resulted from the social milieu the child is born into. Any positive trait inherited from one parent could be mitigated by social conditions which affect people of mixed race. An aptitude for mathematics might never be noticed in a sub-standard school, for instance.

How do you get from "genetic combination" to "race"? These are not the same thing at all. It is not uncommon for two people with the same parents to hae different races. Their race is how people percieve them.

Race is not a scientific concept. Genes are a scientific concept.

You can't have an intelligent conversation if you confuse the two.

If our friend Yellow Dragon is really interested in learning, they should listent to scientists on the topic, rather than listiening to self-described "white nationalists". Race is not a scientific concept.



https://www.americanscientist.org/article/is-race-real

The correct scientific view is available for anyone who is truly interested in learning about this.

Since I am in the mood, let's talk about how stupid White Nationalism is.

Many thousands of years ago, human beings developed, probably in Africa, I don't know. Then they spread out. Some went to the fertile crescent, some filled out Africa (the continents were different then... but you get the idea). Some humans hopped accross the land bridge and started working their way down what is now the Americas.

Of course, as humananity spread out, there were genetic changes. However (and this important) humans never stopped traveling and ******* and mixing their genes. The land bridge to the Americans disappeared, and there was a lost branch of humanity for a thousand years or two, but other than that, people moved, and formed new countries and had wars and trade and all sorts of intermingling.

The White Supremiacists racial theories are based (not surprisingly) on the idea of "Whiteness". So what is Whiteness?

We have Egyptians on the East, who have a set of genetic features that are sometimes considered White. The majority ethnic groups in Russia are thousands of mils to the West, the are considered White. However Ethiopians (who aren't that far from Spain) are not considered White.

How do you explain that? People who live near to eachother and have trade are different races, where people who live farther apart with little contact are the same race.

The reason why is that being "White" is based on appearance. The people defining Whiteness don't have any idea of biology or genetics... they just look at two people and say "You are White, and you are not White".

It is stupid.

People can also change from being not-White to White as society changes. 100 years ago Italians and Jews were not White. Now Italians and Jews are White. It wasn't the Italians who changed, there weren't any genetic changes in 100 years.

You are White if society tells you you are White. And that is why it is a social construct.

Positive?

I don't know. Lemme think about that for a bit.

I reject the concept of "race" myself but I was using the OP's unscientific classification. Say a person perceived as belonging to one race mates with someone perceived as belonging to another race. And let's say the resulting child has an aptitude for some particular skill or is simply very smart. If a community considers one perceived race as "undesirable" or "not a real 100% ___ " (fill in the blank), members of that perceived "race" may be under-served by the educational institutions they attend. Thus, the genetic inheritance for this particular aptitude or skill (which is not a function of race, but a genetic characteristic of an individual) might remain latent and undeveloped in this setting. This is nurture at work, not nature, and could account for many of the findings provided by the OP's white nationalist friend.

Let's define the term "bi-racial" in a way that makes scientific sense. I propose that anyone who has two parents that aren't cousins is biracial.

My father has a mixture of English and Jewish ancestry (by way of Italy if you are wondering where the Dancona came from). My mother has German ancestry with some southern Mediterranean ancestry (if you believe the newly available genetic tests).

I am the result of race mixing. I bet most of us are. Does that make me biracial? For the record, most people classify me as White without any question.

The word "bi-racial" has no real scientific meaning.

Hightor... I am not saying that race doesn't exist. I am saying that race exists as a social construct. Social constructs (like race or wealth or education or dialect or religion) are real things with real consequences.

Being White or Black or Asian in America leads to real differences in how society relates to you. The current social movements are an important part of us dealing with past and present inequality.