South Africa is the farthest from equater, why aren't the natives, very light or olive skin tone??

[SilverKnight]

South Africa is the farthest from equator in sub-sahara africa, why aren't the natives, very light or olive skin tone??

I was so damn curious to know why aren't native south africans (Afrikaans) like lighter then the rest of Sub-sahara africa since the latitudes even reach almost -35?

If any one can answer :confused::rolleyes:

[Grumpy Cat]

Um... a South African might be able to correct me on this but as far as I know, the people who are darker blacks like the Xhosa, Zulu, etc. are not actually indigenous to South Africa but came down from further north. The true indigenous people are the Khoisan and they are lighter than other SS Africans.

And Afrikaners are white South Africans, Afrikaans is their language.

[The Khagan]

Um... a South African might be able to correct me on this but as far as I know, the people who are darker blacks like the Xhosa, Zulu, etc. are not actually indigenous to South Africa but came down from further north. The true indigenous people are the Khoisan and they are lighter than other SS Africans.

And Afrikaners are white South Africans, Afrikaans is their language.

Correct, the Bantu speaking people migrated from areas around the equator starting from around the time the Roman empire was crumbling. They're fairly recent arrivals.

That native khoi-san are actually lighter skinned than their Bantu neighbors. Not by a whole lot, but some reach the pigmentation of the mixed African-Americans, ie; Obamatone.

EDIT: Also, as far as I know, the extreme southern tip of SA was uninhabited upon colonial arrival.

[Grumpy Cat]

Correct, the Bantu speaking people migrated from areas around the equator starting from around the time the Roman empire was crumbling. They're fairly recent arrivals.

Whites have been there longer than the Zulu have... is that right?

[The Khagan]

Whites have been there longer than the Zulu have... is that right?

Allegedly. The area in question is Cape Town and the surrounding lands south of a river I forget the name of at this moment.

[RoyBatty]

South Africa is the farthest from equator in sub-sahara africa, why aren't the natives, very light or olive skin tone??

I was so damn curious to know why aren't native south africans (Afrikaans) like lighter then the rest of Sub-sahara africa since the latitudes even reach almost -35?

If any one can answer :confused::rolleyes:

No offence but you're as dumb as a pile of rocks, lol :D :thumb001:

[RoyBatty]

Um... a South African might be able to correct me on this but as far as I know, the people who are darker blacks like the Xhosa, Zulu, etc. are not actually indigenous to South Africa but came down from further north. The true indigenous people are the Khoisan and they are lighter than other SS Africans.

The Xhosas and Zulu are indigenous for all intents and purposes (ok, depending on how far one winds back the clock) but they were originally settled along the North Eastern and Eastern parts of what is now known as South Africa.

The Khois / San (Hottentots & Bushmen) were more indigenous to the Western and Southern parts.

Other black tribes would have been living in / around the North Central areas..... forgot which.

The Dutch (later joined by some French and later on Germans) settled the Cape (which had a smallish Hottentot and Bushman population already) around 1652 onwards. As they eventually started moving inland and East they came into contact with the African tribes.

[Óttar]

Correct, the Bantu speaking people migrated from areas around the equator starting from around the time the Roman empire was crumbling.

Roman Empire!!! Roman Emp!!!!!!! Roooooo!!!!! :confused: :mad:


I heard the Sub Saharans moved in around the 15th century. Rome fell de facto early 5th century de jure late 5th century. Whitey came later, at least in the 16th century... Xhosa/Zulu beat us but not by much.

The Kung! aka Bushmen are the real natives.

[The Khagan]

Roman Empire!!! Roman Emp!!!!!!! Roooooo!!!!! :confused: :mad:


I heard the Sub Saharans moved in around the 15th century. Rome fell de facto early 5th century de jure late 5th century. Whitey came later, at least in the 16th century... Xhosa/Zulu beat us but not by much.

The Kung! aka Bushmen are the real natives.

I should have clarified. I meant initial Bantu expansion, as in, when it started, not when they arrived in SA. Which your date is pretty much correct.

EDIT: according to Wikipedia, it says the Bantu arrived in Northern Transvaal at around 500 ad, which might be where I got my dating from.

It's truly hard to say and find accurate unbiased information on this subject.

[Bloodeagle]

South Africa is the farthest from equator in sub-sahara africa, why aren't the natives, very light or olive skin tone??

I was so damn curious to know why aren't native south africans (Afrikaans) like lighter then the rest of Sub-sahara africa since the latitudes even reach almost -35?

If any one can answer :confused::rolleyes:

Because these African people didn't rely on domesticated cattle and the vitamin D deficient diet encountered by the early Europeans.

The evolution of the different skin tones is thought to have occurred in response to climatic conditions.[citation needed] The haired primate ancestors of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin. When hominids evolved relatively hairless skin (the most likely function of which was to facilitate perspiration)[citation needed] while living in sun-rich Africa, they co-evolved dark skin, which was needed to control the adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation on folate levels. When their descendants migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color re-emerged. Sexual selection and diet may have played a part in the evolution of skin tone diversity as well[4].

[Lulletje Rozewater]

South Africa is the farthest from equator in sub-sahara africa, why aren't the natives, very light or olive skin tone??

I was so damn curious to know why aren't native south africans (Afrikaans) like lighter then the rest of Sub-sahara africa since the latitudes even reach almost -35?

If any one can answer :confused::rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png)

[Bloodeagle]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png)

Compare that with this map of U.V. Concentrations.
http://www.soda-is.com/img/carte_Ed_13_world_small.jpg

[Tabiti]

I think the same question goes with relatively dark (for Asians) pigmentation of Inuits and other populations near the North Pole. Dark complexion helps the body to preserve more Vitamin D, something important on the North Pole, however is that needed on the Equator, where the people are also dark? Or as they say, Inuits are dark because they consume much fish fat - one of the best sources of that vitamin. Can we believe that theory?
If skin tone was only an adoptive trait, not racial (as some claim), then why the people in Southern America are lighter than those living under the same sun radiation amount in Africa?

P.S. Sorry for the stupid questions...

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I think the same question goes with relatively dark (for Asians) pigmentation of Inuits and other populations near the North Pole. Dark complexion helps the body to preserve more Vitamin D, something important on the North Pole, however is that needed on the Equator, where the people are also dark? Or as they say, Inuits are dark because they consume much fish fat - one of the best sources of that vitamin. Can we believe that theory?
If skin tone was only an adoptive trait, not racial (as some claim), then why the people in Southern America are lighter than those living under the same sun radiation amount in Africa?

P.S. Sorry for the stupid questions...

Long shot
Could it not be the jungle environment---trees and all keeping the sun shaded

[Loki]

South Africa is evidence that skin colour takes more than, say, 400 years to adapt to a local environment. We're talking many thousands of years here.

Families of Afrikaners who have been in the country for more than 300 years can have skin colour equally light to their genetic relatives in Northern Europe. Similarly, black families can be almost as dark as their distant relatives in West Africa.

[Äike]

I think the same question goes with relatively dark (for Asians) pigmentation of Inuits and other populations near the North Pole. Dark complexion helps the body to preserve more Vitamin D, something important on the North Pole, however is that needed on the Equator, where the people are also dark? Or as they say, Inuits are dark because they consume much fish fat - one of the best sources of that vitamin. Can we believe that theory?
If skin tone was only an adoptive trait, not racial (as some claim), then why the people in Southern America are lighter than those living under the same sun radiation amount in Africa?

P.S. Sorry for the stupid questions...

The American Indians came from Northern Eurasia, that's why.

[SilverKnight]

No offence but you're as dumb as a pile of rocks, lol :D :thumb001:

how does a good question make me dumb??

I guess that pile of rocks you where talking about is you.


Long shot
Could it not be the jungle environment---trees and all keeping the sun shaded


yea I was also thinking same about that

[Loki]

how does a good question make me dumb??

I guess that pile of rocks you where talking about is you.

It's not a good question if you haven't at least made a little effort to do your own research before asking a question which is fairly obvious. It betrays your ignorance and laziness at the same time.

[SilverKnight]

It's not a good question if you haven't at least made a little effort to do your own research before asking a question which is fairly obvious. It betrays your ignorance and laziness at the same time.

Well then i guess all the questions asked before and after by others in this forum should be also researched by themselves as well.

I hate arguments and i don't feel like getting into one now. I being all around google, trying to find an answer and none, so why shouldn't this forum be also part of where i get that source?.. :b

[Tabiti]

The American Indians came from Northern Eurasia, that's why.
I know, but the evolutionary theory says that spending too much years in one environment should lead to body changes due to adaptation. There's no big difference between skin colour of Northern American Indians and South American ones. Maybe more time is needed to become black?

[Äike]

I know, but the evolutionary theory says that spending too much years in one environment should lead to body changes due to adaptation. There's no big difference between skin colour of Northern American Indians and South American ones. Maybe more time is needed to become black?

Exactly, from an evolutionary perspective, the American Indians are quite "new" in their current habitat.

[Equinox]

How long does it take? It is my understanding that the Polynesian peoples adapted in a relatively smaller time-frame than that of the Amerinds, yet the former have changed far more than the latter.

:confused:

[RoyBatty]

how does a good question make me dumb??


Perhaps standards of excellence are a bit more lax where you come from but in my opinion the question that you posed doesn't qualify as particularly good.
Frankly, it's embarrassing to see you describe it as "a good question".

This is why:


I was so damn curious to know why aren't native south africans (Afrikaans) like lighter then the rest of Sub-sahara africa since the latitudes even reach almost -35?

Explanation:

Firstly, Afrikaans is a language not a "native south africans" (whatever that was supposed to mean).

Afrikaners meaning, the people from Southern Africa who have Afrikaans as their native (no pun intended) language are mostly white. They are descended from Europeans. They are not dark skinned nor are they Obama flavoured Blacks / Africans / Bantu people.

Thirdly, South African Blacks / Africans / Bantus ARE usually lighter skinned than Blacks / Africans from West and Central Africa.



I guess that pile of rocks you where talking about is you.


Afraid not. :)

[SilverKnight]

Perhaps standards of excellence are a bit more lax where you come from but in my opinion the question that you posed doesn't qualify as particularly good.
Frankly, it's embarrassing to see you describe it as "a good question".

This is why:



Explanation:

Firstly, Afrikaans is a language not a "native south africans" (whatever that was supposed to mean).

Afrikaners meaning, the people from Southern Africa who have Afrikaans as their native (no pun intended) language are mostly white. They are descended from Europeans. They are not dark skinned nor are they Obama flavoured Blacks / Africans / Bantu people.

Thirdly, South African Blacks / Africans / Bantus ARE usually lighter skinned than Blacks / Africans from West and Central Africa.



Afraid not. :)

Well I absolutely feel good at asking the question, not embarrass by it. Second, I didn't know about Afrikaans being of European ancestry that where born in South Africa, that's call learning moron.

I heard about the Bantus before, but I didn't took it into consideration, i thought there might have being other natives from Southern Africa who might be a bit more lighter, but now I know that's not the case.

You see, you're does kind of persons who love to give personal and incoherent insults with the purpose of feeling more "superior", like example when you mentioned the place where I'm coming from, you see I'm very proud, no even better EXTREMELY proud of where I come from, we might not be a developed country yet, but we sure very happy people with a strong sense of family union, cordial principles and with a rich history.

But I won't get into that topic anymore, so how about you get your " principles of excellence" and apply them in here by not behaving like little brat. :thumbs up

[Loki]

Wikipedia is of great use these days, for those who haven't yet discovered it.

[Falkata]

People, you have some weird theories about evolution :p If your father is white but spent too much time under the sun and he looks kind of brownish now, their kids will be white anyway. The traits that you acquire during your life are not inherited by your kids.
There´s hardly a natural selection in humans in the XXI century. Also, it´s a proccess that would take thousands of years. But as i´ve said , to be pale nowadays is not a disadvantage in South Africa, in the sense that the birth rate or the mortality is not altered by skin colour.



I know, but the evolutionary theory says that spending too much years in one environment should lead to body changes due to adaptation.

Your skin can change due to adaptation, but not your genes. If there´s not natural selection involved nothing will change.



I think the same question goes with relatively dark (for Asians) pigmentation of Inuits and other populations near the North Pole. Dark complexion helps the body to preserve more Vitamin D, something important on the North Pole, however is that needed on the Equator, where the people are also dark?

It´s the opposite, white skin was an adaptation to a different enviroment with less sunlight. White skin absorbs and sintetize much better the sunlight than dark skin. African immigrants in north Europe use to have more problems with the lack of vitamin D than the natives.

[Grumpy Cat]

Wikipedia is of great use these days, for those who haven't yet discovered it.

:lol: Wikipedia isn't very useful.

Ever look up your own ethnic group on Wikipedia???

I never knew Acadians ate seal meat until then. :coffee:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

How long does it take? It is my understanding that the Polynesian peoples adapted in a relatively smaller time-frame than that of the Amerinds, yet the former have changed far more than the latter.

:confused:

It depends on the need for a personto adapt to an environment.
A lot of Afrkaner/Boer have thick noses,not due to race mixing,but to the need to adapt to the highlands air intake.
It is easier to breath in Capetown then in Johannesburg for some and 3 hundred years could do the trick

[Lulletje Rozewater]

People, you have some weird theories about evolution :p If your father is white but spent too much time under the sun and he looks kind of brownish now, their kids will be white anyway. The traits that you acquire during your life are not inherited by your kids.
There´s hardly a natural selection in humans in the XXI century. Also, it´s a proccess that would take thousands of years. But as i´ve said , to be pale nowadays is not a disadvantage in South Africa, in the sense that the birth rate or the mortality is not altered by skin colour.




Your skin can change due to adaptation, but not your genes. If there´s not natural selection involved nothing will change.




It´s the opposite, white skin was an adaptation to a different enviroment with less sunlight. White skin absorbs and sintetize much better the sunlight than dark skin. African immigrants in north Europe use to have more problems with the lack of vitamin D than the natives.

Generally correct,BUT evolution goes also in spurts see the fruit fly saga.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

:lol: Wikipedia isn't very useful.

Ever look up your own ethnic group on Wikipedia???

I never knew Acadians ate seal meat until then. :coffee:

Wiki for dumbos also said that the Acadians regurgitate:lightbul:

[SilverKnight]

Wiki for dumbos also said that the Acadians regurgitate:lightbul:

Yea true, some if not most of the contents there can't be so trustworthy.


It depends on the need for a personto adapt to an environment.
A lot of Afrkaner/Boer have thick noses,not due to race mixing,but to the need to adapt to the highlands air intake.
It is easier to breath in Capetown then in Johannesburg for some and 3 hundred years could do the trick


That's really interesting, it seems as if the process of adaptation was accelerated in them.

[Grumpy Cat]

Wiki for dumbos also said that the Acadians regurgitate:lightbul:

Everybody regurgitates if given enough alcohol. :sick2:

[Loki]

That's really interesting, it seems as if the process of adaptation was accelerated in them.

I don't agree with this. Too short a time to adapt in such a way.

[Falkata]

I don't agree with this. Too short a time to adapt in such a way.

It´s not only that, i mean evolution doesnt work like that according with Darwin at least.
It´s all based in random mutations who give the animals/humans advantages, so these individuals have more descentants for some reason (they can live longer, get more food, they are more attractive to the opposite sex...). Natural selection.
The giraffe´s example is very typical. As a resume, giraffes had shorter neck in the past. A mutation appeared giving some individuals a longer neck so they could get food easily in the trees. These individuals had a very obvious advantage over the rest so they had more descendants who inherited the "long neck gen". After many (centuries or thousands of years) generations, the individuals with the mutation replaced the giraffes with shorter neck.
Is something like this happening in South Africa? I doubt it

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I don't agree with this. Too short a time to adapt in such a way.
Evolution is true; Darwinian evolution is false: Evolution comes from the Latin word meaning “to unfold.” Evolution is the process by which organism change over time. This is an observable fact. BUT, it is often used for Darwinian evolution, meaning that all organisms descend from a single living ancestor by modification, based on the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (DTE). DTE is accepted by faith, since there is no scientific evidence for it, only, at best, circumstantial evidence, after 150 years of vigorous looking.

Examples of evolution (or micro-evolution): Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotic; color changes in humans, and other environmental adaption events.

DTE requires: 1) random mutation of genes resulting in desirable traits, 2) natural selection of the desirable traits, leading to the creation of new life forms after 1000’s of minute changes. BUT: Only 1 in ~100,000 mutations results in desirable traits. (Note: Darwin had no concept of mutations of the genes).

[SilverKnight]

Evolution is true; Darwinian evolution is false: Evolution comes from the Latin word meaning “to unfold.” Evolution is the process by which organism change over time. This is an observable fact. BUT, it is often used for Darwinian evolution, meaning that all organisms descend from a single living ancestor by modification, based on the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (DTE). DTE is accepted by faith, since there is no scientific evidence for it, only, at best, circumstantial evidence, after 150 years of vigorous looking.

Examples of evolution (or micro-evolution): Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotic; color changes in humans, and other environmental adaption events.

DTE requires: 1) random mutation of genes resulting in desirable traits, 2) natural selection of the desirable traits, leading to the creation of new life forms after 1000’s of minute changes. BUT: Only 1 in ~100,000 mutations results in desirable traits. (Note: Darwin had no concept of mutations of the genes).



I heard that human skin color changes from darker to light and vise-versa in a process of about 1,000 years or 10 -12 generations

so one of the factors the Khoisans from S.A haven't gotten lighter is because there migration It's to recent in a time scale of millenniums , and there diet as it was mention wouldn't made them have the need for less melanin production.

[Falkata]

I heard that human skin color changes from darker to light and vise-versa in a process of about 1,000 years or 10 -12 generations


Where have you heard it? It´s absolutely impossible. Sunlight doesn´t affect genes. The europeans got their light skin after many thousands of years of natural selection. The individuals with darker skin who migrated to Europe had many problems asociated with lack of vitamin D such as delayed growth, rickets...so the lighter ones were more prolific and won the "battle"

[SilverKnight]

Where have you heard it? It´s absolutely impossible. Sunlight doesn´t affect genes. The europeans got their light skin after many thousands of years of natural selection. The individuals with darker skin who migrated to Europe had many problems asociated with lack of vitamin D such as delayed growth, rickets...so the lighter ones were more prolific and won the "battle"

I heard it from a conversation I had with a person in youtube.
Ok but Falkata, isn't that called genetic mutation?

[Falkata]

I heard it from a conversation I had with a person in youtube.
Ok but Falkata, isn't that called genetic mutation?

Yes, but genetic mutations appear for no reason, randomly, at least according with Darwin. If these mutations give advtanges to the individuals, then the mutations will survive. What i meant is that external factors like sunlight, food... dont change our genes, mutations aren´t caused by them. As I´ve said, you can get a heavy permanent tan after many years of your life if you´ve live in a tropical climate, but your kids will inherit the same genes that you have, so they will born white, not brown.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I heard that human skin color changes from darker to light and vise-versa in a process of about 1,000 years or 10 -12 generations

so one of the factors the Khoisans from S.A haven't gotten lighter is because there migration It's to recent in a time scale of millenniums , and there diet as it was mention wouldn't made them have the need for less melanin production.

You may find this book interesting,but do not jump to conclusions.

Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro.
211. Hannah West was born of English parents, in a village in Sussex, in 1791, about three miles distant from the sea. Her parents had nothing peculiar.
Her mother, who is alive now, (1820), has black hair, hazel eyes, and a fair skin, without any mark. Hannah was her only child by her first husband; but her mother has had eleven children by a second marriage, all without any blackness of the skin. The young woman is rather above the middle size, of full habit, and has always enjoyed good health. Her hair is light brown, and very soft; her eyes faint blue; her nose prominent, and a little aqualme; her lips thin; the skin of her face, neck and right hand very fair, in every respect, indeed, she is very unlike a negro; it is, consequently, very singular, that the whole of her left shoulder, arm, fore-arm, and hand, should be of the genuine negro colour, except a small stripe of white skin, about two inches

http://books.google.co.za/books?pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=An+accountof+a+white+female+part+of+whose+skin+ resembles+that+of+a+Negro&sig=W_eGilq3poXV1Nf0Any546w81wA&ei=8ksPTJGtBoOr4QaZ8OSVDA&ct=result&id=RlsOAAAAQAAJ&ots=4fpeltIH5E#v=onepage&q&f=false

and click on plain text top right.
The book as about 300 pages.:D

There should be a google info on generic mutations after Nagasaki boming.

[SilverKnight]

You may find this book interesting,but do not jump to conclusions.

Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro.
211. Hannah West was born of English parents, in a village in Sussex, in 1791, about three miles distant from the sea. Her parents had nothing peculiar.
Her mother, who is alive now, (1820), has black hair, hazel eyes, and a fair skin, without any mark. Hannah was her only child by her first husband; but her mother has had eleven children by a second marriage, all without any blackness of the skin. The young woman is rather above the middle size, of full habit, and has always enjoyed good health. Her hair is light brown, and very soft; her eyes faint blue; her nose prominent, and a little aqualme; her lips thin; the skin of her face, neck and right hand very fair, in every respect, indeed, she is very unlike a negro; it is, consequently, very singular, that the whole of her left shoulder, arm, fore-arm, and hand, should be of the genuine negro colour, except a small stripe of white skin, about two inches

http://books.google.co.za/books?pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=An+accountof+a+white+female+part+of+whose+skin+ resembles+that+of+a+Negro&sig=W_eGilq3poXV1Nf0Any546w81wA&ei=8ksPTJGtBoOr4QaZ8OSVDA&ct=result&id=RlsOAAAAQAAJ&ots=4fpeltIH5E#v=onepage&q&f=false

and click on plain text top right.
The book as about 300 pages.:D

There should be a google info on generic mutations after Nagasaki boming.

that's is really strange , it looks like there was big mistakes in the gene when she was being formed in the womb. I heard the same about kids in Africa being born with hazel or blue eyes, something hard to imagine.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

that's is really strange , it looks like there was big mistakes in the gene when she was being formed in the womb. I heard the same about kids in Africa being born with hazel or blue eyes, something hard to imagine.

The blue eyes-I have seen it only once- are penetrating blue.:eek:

[Catrau]

that's is really strange , it looks like there was big mistakes in the gene when she was being formed in the womb. I heard the same about kids in Africa being born with hazel or blue eyes, something hard to imagine.

You have to go to the Cape Verde islands, you'll see a lot of blue and green eyed Africans, in fact they are mixed with Portuguese, Dutch and French, and this is particularly true in one of the islands. Some time ago it was even used a touristic attraction as stated in the Cape Verde Tourism page but not anymore.

[The Lawspeaker]

That's because they aren't natives but recent invaders. late 17th (even after the Dutch arrived) to 20th century.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/San_tribesman.jpg

These are the real natives:


And:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Afrikaner_Commandos2.JPG

[Grumpy Cat]

You may find this book interesting,but do not jump to conclusions.

Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro.
211. Hannah West was born of English parents, in a village in Sussex, in 1791, about three miles distant from the sea. Her parents had nothing peculiar.
Her mother, who is alive now, (1820), has black hair, hazel eyes, and a fair skin, without any mark. Hannah was her only child by her first husband; but her mother has had eleven children by a second marriage, all without any blackness of the skin. The young woman is rather above the middle size, of full habit, and has always enjoyed good health. Her hair is light brown, and very soft; her eyes faint blue; her nose prominent, and a little aqualme; her lips thin; the skin of her face, neck and right hand very fair, in every respect, indeed, she is very unlike a negro; it is, consequently, very singular, that the whole of her left shoulder, arm, fore-arm, and hand, should be of the genuine negro colour, except a small stripe of white skin, about two inches

http://books.google.co.za/books?pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=An+accountof+a+white+female+part+of+whose+skin+ resembles+that+of+a+Negro&sig=W_eGilq3poXV1Nf0Any546w81wA&ei=8ksPTJGtBoOr4QaZ8OSVDA&ct=result&id=RlsOAAAAQAAJ&ots=4fpeltIH5E#v=onepage&q&f=false

and click on plain text top right.
The book as about 300 pages.:D

There should be a google info on generic mutations after Nagasaki boming.

Hmm... are you familiar with Sandra Laing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing) as well? It was found she had some kind of rare genetic mutation.