Question Mutant emergence and skin color.

I recently wrote in my story about the revelation that one of my characters underwent a change in skin color. It's not the first time, as Chou went from Caucasian to Asian. Kayda and Danny's emergences, brought their Native American heritage to prominence. There is evidence that Okami might have changed Ethnicities.
My question is that sure, for many mutants it's hard to cope with the change of gender, but what about ethnicity? you wake up from a burnout and discover that you have say, gone from African-American to say, Caucasian. That would certainly cause issues. and at Whateley, even more problems would appear. YOu have students running around like Tempest, and some of the Tigers that would see that as a "betrayal to their ancestry".

Humanity First draws in a lot of general bigots, the sort that see any minority as a threat, so I would imagine they have members that are also in groups such as the Clan, or Aryan Brotherhood. To discover a young mutant not only WAS a mutant, but that they changed into an undesired race, that would bring them even more trouble.

So, what are your thoughts?

----



----


----

Like, if you're Caucasian American, presuming your ancestors came from Europe in the 1600s, you likely define yourself as American / White, instead of European??

Environment would also play into it to some degree. Changing into a white kid in the middle of say, Compton would have a different outcome in the community if you were outed, than if it happened in Palm Springs. Likewise, turning from White to Black in the deep south might be a death sentence.

And 'cause I forgot about this, we do have reevaluation of ancestry with the characters who were exposed to their past lives, Loophole, and Tansy.

Then there's Absinthe, who literally has non-humans (Sidhe) in her family tree.

And I think that's everything? I'll cede the floor.

Very few human beings are genetically "pure", for any definition of "pure" you care to name (I don't, my understanding is that "racial purity", and "race" for that matter, are meaningless labels in population genetics -- scientists prefer to talk in terms of "clines" of density of particular genes)

Meaning that everybody carries recessive/inactive genes more typical of a different population. Now, mutants are pretty much defined by the unexpected (and unexplained) activation of a bunch of genes that are inactive in most of the carriers. Why couldn't the same process activate genes which had been heretofore inactive, and turn off others that had been active?

Kayda and Danny were 1/4+ Native American, and it became more prominent, but they didn't change ethnicity. The same with Okami, he was part Japanese before manifesting.

Chou completely changed, but she isn't a mutant.

Billie, Fey, and the other Sidhe had bigger changes. Are any of the Sidhe still human? Are the Crow collective still human?

Rose Bunny wrote:
Humanity First draws in a lot of general bigots, the sort that see any minority as a threat...

Eh, you proceed from a false assumption. Race relations in the sense of White/Black/Asian are actually much better in the Whateley Universe than they are here. Why hate someone for pigment when they have lasers coming out of their eyes? And while there WERE Miscegenation laws on the books, (See The Angel and Cecil Barrows) with the rise of paranormals they very quickly lost traction.

Are there ignorant hold outs in sheets or bitter, angry revolutionaries in leather? Sure, see the conversation between N'Dizi and Chaka's Grandmother in the first Parent's Day story.

But they are looked down on with scorn or pity or both by most as relics. And by the H1 crowds as fools who don't realize who the REAL threat is.

True, but I'm not really talking about the source of the mutation, rather the implications culturally/environmentally. Like I said, it'd be dangerous to be a white kid in the deep south that manifests and changes into an African-American. I'm putting aside the GSD cases where you turn blue, or matte black, or the like and just thinking about the repercussions of becoming someone that still could pass physically for a baseline, but no longer the same race as before. It'd be likely that such a change would come from some random gene buried waaaaay back in the family tree, far down at the roots. Still, you have to wonder about the social aspect.

"Why do you treat me differently now? I'm still me! I'm still black, even if I don't look it anymore! But no, you treat me as some preppy white kid from the burbs now. I thought we were homies!"

"Pssshh... Naw, you just another cracker, get lost."

I do see what you're getting at Rose; what you're saying is that for the most part Whateley Universe still has ghettos like Compton or even Stockton. And the people in those places just like some of the places in the deep south, are all about skin color. One thing that gets brushed under the rug a bit is how much friction there was between the various Native American tribes. For example we only see a small sample of it in the tale where Speakeasy murders Heyoka. Yet it was there and that along with the homophobia that Speakeasy had was the impetus behind the murder. And like I said we only see the sharp edges.
The tigers are another example. They may be outliers and someone like Chaka can pretty much tell them to pound sand and make it stick. For others? Probably not so much so. There is a reason that humanity is tribal. The individual may need to find his own way, but he very rarely can find his way outside of an established tribe. So becoming a member and maintaining membership in a tribe becomes so important that one tribe will commit murder, rape and other acts against a different tribe, or even a 'wayward' member of their own tribe....

While there may not be a lot of mentions of tribal problems, there are more than just the murder of Heyoka. There are a few mentions and some problems that are caused by tribal rivalries. IIRC, in one story Kayda has to prevent a duel to the death over something extremely minor. There are other problems caused by Kayda including a Crow "handmaiden." But Kayda's mission is to unite the People.

Heaven help you if you go to Whateley, and Sharisha finds out.

"You used to be a sista, now you just white trash!"

Rose Bunny wrote: I'm putting aside the GSD cases where you turn blue, or matte black, or the like and just thinking about the repercussions of becoming someone that still could pass physically for a baseline, but no longer the same race as before. It'd be likely that such a change would come from some random gene buried waaaaay back in the family tree, far down at the roots. Still, you have to wonder about the social aspect.

Ah, I see. Well, it's such a statistical outlier that I really couldn't give a Universe wide response. I doubt there would be enough people its happened to for them to get a group rate on Greyhound. Certainly such an event would make the trade and peer reviewed papers that concentrate on mutation, but mostly as a curiosity, assuming the person involved didn't simply keep what happened to him or herself.

Rose Bunny wrote: Likewise, turning from White to Black in the deep south might be a death sentence.

Gotta say something here. Your comment is a broad-brush and unfair generalization of Southerners, and it is highly offensive. Statistically, it's just as likely that one would encounter serious racism in the Northeast or near the Great Lakes states as the average in the South. Assholes are not confined to the Deep South.

elrodw wrote:

Rose Bunny wrote: Likewise, turning from White to Black in the deep south might be a death sentence.

Gotta say something here. Your comment is a broad-brush and unfair generalization of Southerners, and it is highly offensive. Statistically, it's just as likely that one would encounter serious racism in the Northeast or near the Great Lakes states as the average in the South. Assholes are not confined to the Deep South.

Have to agree here, there are some pretty white bread places where having someone go from White to Black would not only be life threatening to the changie, but their family is at the least going to be run out of town. I know of towns where the total number of ethnic minorities can be counted on one hand, in some cases Captain Hook's hand.

As someone bred, born, raised and living in the Deep South I got to chime in. There are some places where you do NOT want to be a person of color down here. There are also some places you do NOT want to be a honkey... I remember a town in Florida that actually had signs warning non-whites to be out of town by sunset just a few years ago. I have seen klan parades in some towns down here as well. That being said, I have seen the klan hand out literature in Connecticut as well. There are plenty of places where there is a strong "whites only" type attitude and it is not limited to just the South.

I mentioned places where one would not want to be white...they are out there. The "Dixie Quarter" a few miles from my home is one such place. If you are white, you do not go there after dark. The police do not even send white officers there to give you an idea of how bad it gets. That is one such place, there are several others.

Strong racism is something frequently encountered where there is de facto segregation. Areas that are almost all white tend to be heavily biased against non-whites (sometimes violent, sometimes not). The same is true of areas that are nearly all black, all Asian, etc. As much as humans like to talk about diversity and equality, the reality is that all people tend to be "racist" to some degree, usually unconsciously. The reason is essentially instinctual, people tend to associate with those like themselves. The rich associate with the rich, the poor with the poor, and people of various skin pigmentations tend to associate mostly with others of similar pigmentation.

I didn't mean to offend with my comment about the "Deep South", I know there are racists everywhere. I mentioned it only due to those that do follow the "wave the confederate flag and follow the spirit of Jim Crow". Things have gotten better in the south, I know this. I still do have family in Arkansas though that call me a traitor and will have nothing to do with me for marrying an African-American man. No, not All southerners are stuck frozen in time back in the hatred and uncertainty of the pre-civil rights movement days.

MM2ss wrote: I remember a town in Florida that actually had signs warning non-whites to be out of town by sunset just a few years ago.

... Sundown towns still exist??

Just because her skin color changed, that doesn't mean that her accent, word choices, and body language (or, her responses to others around her) will also change right away.

A Deep South accent ranks fairly low in prestige compared to many other North American accents, but the girl may already be familiar with the concept of being "white but not that white". That wouldn't make it any more amusing when some of her progressive white classmates trash-talk at her in the name of social justice.

If her speech is more stereotypically urban, that may irritate folks seeing a white girl making fun of how they talk.

Keep in mind that in some respects (like what constitutes "good" or "down-home" food) the important divisions might fall along class lines more than racial divisions.

Malady wrote:

MM2ss wrote: I remember a town in Florida that actually had signs warning non-whites to be out of town by sunset just a few years ago.

... Sundown towns still exist??

I haven't seen that myself, though I haven't been to every town in the state.

null0trooper wrote:

Malady wrote:

MM2ss wrote: I remember a town in Florida that actually had signs warning non-whites to be out of town by sunset just a few years ago.

... Sundown towns still exist??

I haven't seen that myself, though I haven't been to every town in the state.

As of 2002 there was one in Florida... Doesn't seem to have changed much based on census data... Altha Florida:

As of the census of 2010, there were 536 people and 219 households in the town. The racial makeup of the town was 99.5% Caucasian and 0.5% Asian or Hispanic/Latino.

The population was 47 percent male and 53 percent female. Twenty-three percent of the population was under 18 and 15.5 percent was 65 or over.

The town where I grew up used to be that way, and it isn't in the deep south. I recall someone saying as late as less than 50 years ago they had a sign don't stop here.... Even twenty years ago they wouldn't allow a black doctor to practice there. The town is in rural kalifornikation....
Then again as MM2ss notes segregation due to skin color is not a uniquely American thing. It is endemic to the Human race. I've been to Korea and Saudi Arabia. Please tell me of any more prejudicial society than China?

Anne wrote: I've been to Korea and Saudi Arabia. Please tell me of any more prejudicial society than China?

Maybe Japan, just based on Ethnic Demography? Although, that's not the best measure? And according to Wikipedia - Ethnic groups of Japan :

Though it is said that Ethnic Japanese make up 98.5% of the total population and that the rest are Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%, in fact these numbers are not known.

Compare China :

The People's Republic of China (PRC) officially recognizes 56 distinct ethnic groups, the largest of which are Han, who constitute 91.51% of the total population in 2010. Ethnic minorities constitute 8.49% or 113.8 million of China's population in 2010.

Why would anyone expect significant percentages of Europeans, Southwest and South Asians, Africans, and Pacific Islanders in either China or Japan?

In failing to find the expected outcome, why presume "racism" instead of re-examining the bases for the original assumptions?

null0trooper wrote: Why would anyone expect significant percentages of Europeans, Southwest and South Asians, Africans, and Pacific Islanders in either China or Japan?

In failing to find the expected outcome, why presume "racism" instead of re-examining the bases for the original assumptions?

I was thinking that Anne was using near-monoethnicity as a proxy for prejudice, and answering her question, but I probably should've confirmed that was the measure being used instead of just using it, and confronting that, instead of answering.

I suppose it could be a serviceable proxy, due assuming that members have basically no exposure to people from the out-group, allowing stereotypes about them out-group to gain more traction as presumed fact??

----

So, the most multicultural places in the world are... ... And I'm using that as a proxy for tolerance... Sigh.

Well, the most multicultural places had... lots of immigration? And that's because of reasons, mainly that they needed people, I think? So, if your country doesn't need labor from abroad, you're not gonna have many immigrants?

----

Shall we just get back on topic, presuming that we haven't exhausted it?

In some groups in the African American community there is the idea of "The white man is always trying to keep the black man down", so if a black person were to undergo a change and become a white person... some people of that minority in the african american community might certainly harbor hatred or resentment toward the individual. Conversely, that person for better or worse might feel a sense of empowerment in becoming the oppressor. I'm not saying this is a correct way to think on any side of it. Just a possible outcome.

Malady wrote: I suppose it could be a serviceable proxy, due assuming that members have basically no exposure to people from the out-group, allowing stereotypes about them out-group to gain more traction as presumed fact??

How the in/out groups are defined would depend on the culture in question, although 19th c. history would go a looong way in confirming that non-Chinese foreigners are as thoroughly barbarian as anyone might have thought before then.

---

On the original subject, the Whateley Universe is said to be different from ours w/r/t ethnic relations. Just saying she's biracial should be sufficient when rude people demand an explanation.

Rose Bunny wrote: In some groups in the African American community there is the idea of "The white man is always trying to keep the black man down"

One of my neighbors once reminded me that if you're going to play the white man's game, you're going to have to play by their rules. 73% of Americans are "White", so she does have a point. When you're outnumbered 6:1, any disadvantage plays more strongly against you than it would a majority member.

That doesn't mean that some things aren't more suspiciously unequal than others.

Rose Bunny wrote: so if a black person were to undergo a change and become a white person... some people of that minority in the african american community might certainly harbor hatred or resentment toward the individual.

"Passing" has happened and does happen. Why shouldn't a person take advantage of that to get ahead in a system that doesn't favor minorities?

It can cut them off from their cultural roots as an African-American, but if they were raised outside of that community, that's probably already happened. European ethnic identities aren't doing that great either. How many identity activists even comprehend that Ireland and Hungary aren't the same place but labelled with weird road signs?

Rose Bunny wrote: Conversely, that person for better or worse might feel a sense of empowerment in becoming the oppressor. I'm not saying this is a correct way to think on any side of it. Just a possible outcome.

That might be an unwise way to go.

While it might be an unwise path to take, history has shown it to be a common path... There are some pretty bestial elements present in humans (we are animals after all). Using prisoners as enforcers, torturers and executioners has a long history and in some eras and societies prisoners strove to gain those positions of power for their own security and to have authority over others. Most human conflict can be reduced to resource control and/or power over others. Give a person the chance to take a position of power after being in a position of disadvantage and they are likely to take it. What they then do with that position is the great question. Some will remember the oppression and struggle to thrive while maintaining a sense of empathy...these will try to improve conditions for "their people". Others will remember the situation while focusing on the ability to "do what they want"...these will potentially become caricatures of the oppressor and be worse than the previous oppressors.

In the military for example it was once considered axiomatic that enlisted people made poor officers. Not because they lacked knowledge of the military, but because in the old days NCO's enforces rules and discipline with brute power and would continue to do so as officers. Such officers were viewed with contempt by the enlisted for forgetting where they came from and viewed with contempt by "proper" officers for lacking breeding and reducing the prestige of the officer corps. Essentially, it was believed that taking a servant class person and putting them in the place of a gentleman just made them into bigger brutes.

We have evolved from that to some degree, now, many consider prior enlisted as the best officers...but we don't do many battlefield commissions these days. The person has to go through a great deal of additional training to become an officer (OCS or the various other programs). I suspect part of this requirement was originally attached to the same basic thought process that just putting stars on someone without special attention made them a problem instead of an asset.

MM2ss wrote: I suspect part of this requirement was originally attached to the same basic thought process that just putting stars on someone without special attention made them a problem instead of an asset.

The greatest difference is the different way of thinking. While most people use the words interchangeably, tactical advantage and strategic advantage are actually very different things and require different modes of thought. The NCO is concerned with the the tactical situation, his squad or platoon, taking or destroying immediate targets and suppressing enemy activity in the immediate area. He makes sure his men are taking care of their equipment and have it with them to accomplish their assigned task at hand.

The Officer, on the other hand, is concerned with the strategic situation, even junior officers like lieutenants must have a much better understanding of how his units actions are important for the combat operations in the region. The officer must be concerned with logistics, making sure his unit has the equipment they need before they go into battle, or how to acquire it if a need crops up in the field. This is one of the reasons why Officers are more valuable prisoners.

The NCO knows they have to take that hill over there and how.
The Officer knows why.

While these skills can be taught, it does take time.

Yeah, there is this old (probably apocryphal) story about a military academy cadet... I think he was supposed to be Robert A. Heinlein, but this couldn't possibly be right, because RAH was a Navy officer and the story is about infantry.

So, the story goes, the teacher gives the cadet a problem: there's a heavily-defended hill that has to be taken. How does the cadet proposes to do it? And the cadet answers, "Sir, I would call my sergeant and tell him, 'Take that hill.'" Because tactics is the job of the NCO, not the officer.

I was born and raised in a very ethnically diverse community, with a significant Jewish population, so to me race has never really mattered

E. E. Nalley wrote:
The greatest difference is the different way of thinking. While most people use the words interchangeably, tactical advantage and strategic advantage are actually very different things and require different modes of thought. The NCO is concerned with the the tactical situation, his squad or platoon, taking or destroying immediate targets and suppressing enemy activity in the immediate area. He makes sure his men are taking care of their equipment and have it with them to accomplish their assigned task at hand.

The Officer, on the other hand, is concerned with the strategic situation, even junior officers like lieutenants must have a much better understanding of how his units actions are important for the combat operations in the region. The officer must be concerned with logistics, making sure his unit has the equipment they need before they go into battle, or how to acquire it if a need crops up in the field. This is one of the reasons why Officers are more valuable prisoners.

The NCO knows they have to take that hill over there and how.
The Officer knows why.

While these skills can be taught, it does take time.

I am a history nut, reenactor, etc. The era I was more directly getting at was more the US Civil War and earlier time frame. Back then tactics were not really to domain of the NCO (one could argue there was a lack of tactical thinking, two and three rank lines at 50 paces and frontal assaults are not the height of tactical planning after all). The domain of the NCO was more in the enforcement and discipline area. They were the muscle while the officers were the thought process.

That was in an era when commissions were often purchased or going back to even earlier times the officer was responsible for the equipping of the unit. However, that was offset by a societal view that the "real" leaders had certain qualities (breeding and being gentlemen mainly) while the common folk were strong of back but not of mind and character.

Moving to our own era, the "battlefield commission" is now a very rare thing. We have moved to a more regular commissioning process (OCS, ROTC, STA-21, Greed to Gold, etc.) that is designed to transition a person from enlisted (or civilian) to officer. Prior to that process we had the "brevet officers" and the battlefield commissioned officers. In the earliest times of these types of officers they were simply given their insignia and a munition quality sword then sent to some new unit. Such officers had a hard time being accepted. They lacked the "genteel" background and so were looked down upon by other officers and often treated more as an NCO by the enlisted ranks. The lack of leadership training tended to result in them using their NCO background to enforce their will on their troops as well. That situation did not aid them in gaining acceptance in the officer corps or respect from the enlisted either. Frequently, such officers were assigned to either unpopular postings, duties like quartermaster or sometimes they were assigned to light units that acted as skirmishers. The reasons were fairly obvious, those with the ability to buy a posting wanted to go to the "good" postings and popular units. Assigning them as quartermasters was a way to cut down on thievery and cheating by the enlisted (it was assumed that a former NCO would know the tricks and methods and be able to ferret it out). Then, postings to skirmish units and such (say a forlorn hope type of job) was a way to have a bonafide fighter in place without risking the loss of a proper officer.

It was only much latter that any extra training as an officer was included in the process.

Strangely, the overlap between NCO and officer is now much greater than in the past. We are at a point now where many NCO's are already doing the jobs once assigned to junior officers (Ensigns, Lieutenants, Subalterns, etc.). Literally, we are at the point where the least additional training is needed to transition from NCO to officer while the support system for the transition is the most comprehensive it has ever been.

I had exactly one (1) officer that I encountered in the Navy that was actually a battlefield commissioned officer... He got his commission in Vietnam. You could also tell that the system was not as comprehensive then...he talked and acted more like a Chief than a Captain. But even in his case, there was something of a failsafe and a suggestion of the "old ways", he was commissioned, but as a "Limited Duty Officer", not as an "Unrestricted Line Officer". The support he received for the transition from enlisted to officer? 4 weeks in Pensacola of "indoctrination"...compared to the OCS standard of 14 weeks.