African, Asian and Caucasian Hair Growth

[Tamster]

I'm going to go through and respond to a number of posts.

Does the article state their sources? I'm very interested on how they went about conducting the study.

It's Loreal's site.

I realize that race is a social construct. However, if someone can break hair growth down in terms of race, as L'Oreal did here, then there is quite possibly some genetic basis by which this could be studied.

Just because someone releases a ‘study’ does NOT mean that it is any way scientifically sound, viable, or even scholarly. Was it peer reviewed? Who conducted it? Their methods? Please.

Given that

Well considering there is not even any real genetic consensus on what constitutes "race", any outcome is possible.Race is actually a social construct. Race in genetic terms is not real.

I would be interested to know how the investigator actually defines race. How would you even begin to do that? Are we going back in time, talking about quadroons,etc (so and so has 1/8th black in them therefore ____)? Give me a break.

Well from an anthropology perspective traditionally speaking there are only 3 races: Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid...in other words, black, asian, and white (and possibly polynesian depending on who you talk to).
So from that standpoint African would be the race and everything that falls under that is a sub-group, an ethnicity. So African American would be an ethnicity, Ethiopian would be a different ethnicity, and so on.
I don't think it would be possibly to find an African American that isn't mixed or one without non-black or bi-racial relatives. Which is why I think it would be interesting to study AA vs A (provided that there are Africans with no mixed ancestry).
I think you might be on to something with the climate thing as well. Perhaps its a combo of climate and genetics.

I don’t think that Anthropology would be the correct discipline to look to on this one. They have a strong history of racist scholarship—it is clear in that breakdown of the ‘races’. I think that you are right that it would be possible to find a ‘pure’ version of anything—it doesn’t exist. We do not have a real definition of what we are looking for. Give me one. Brown skin? curly hair? The definition of the races has changed so much over time that any definition could be challenged.

I do not think it is right to give this study any credence. Loreal is not an authority that I care to give value to. The questions and issues that other posters have raised have a lot of merit—shrinkage, curl pattern, retention, diet (did someone mention this? If not, then I am), resources available, relative status in society (more leisure time = more time to work on things like hair).

In sum, genetic arguments based on factors like race have little to do with scientific basis, and more about an agenda trying to explain why we are different. We just are. There are some genetic differences I am sure, but I bet you there are black people with more in common with any random white person than they would have with eachother (with regard genetic makeup). I’m not a scientist, but I’d rather say it is a toss up, than on something that is aiming to rank eachother (and once again, shock, putting black people dead last).

Whew. I'm done.

 

[Sugar]

I don’t think that Anthropology would be the correct discipline to look to on this one. They have a strong history of racist scholarship—it is clear in that breakdown of the ‘races’. I think that you are right that it would be possible to find a ‘pure’ version of anything—it doesn’t exist. We do not have a real definition of what we are looking for. Give me one. Brown skin? curly hair? The definition of the races has changed so much over time that any definition could be challenged.

I do not think it is right to give this study any credence. Loreal is not an authority that I care to give value to. The questions and issues that other posters have raised have a lot of merit—shrinkage, curl pattern, retention, diet (did someone mention this? If not, then I am), resources available, relative status in society (more leisure time = more time to work on things like hair).

In sum, genetic arguments based on factors like race have little to do with scientific basis, and more about an agenda trying to explain why we are different. We just are. There are some genetic differences I am sure, but I bet you there are black people with more in common with any random white person than they would have with eachother (with regard genetic makeup). I’m not a scientist, but I’d rather say it is a toss up, than on something that is aiming to rank eachother (and once again, shock, putting black people dead last).

Whew. I'm done.

In terms of genetics, from what I saw in a documentary last year there is less than 2% difference between all human beings. But someone made it clear to me that 2% is not anything to sneeze at. It allows for a vast amount of differences.

I haven't really seen the definition of race change over the years. I've seen the word ethnicity thrown into the mix more often. I've even seen folks try to get their ethnicity recognized as a race, by calling it a race...but that's more of a political thing...an effort to have a voice.

But I think race as its traditionally been defined by anthropologists is cool. Simply because there needs to be some easy to understand classification system, like in the animal kingdom. Canine and felines, for example fall under the heading of mammal...but you can break both of those down into a bunch of sub-species...or ethnicities if you will.

So in terms of studying hair growth its perfectly fine to study the growth of Blacks, Whites, and Asians or to further break it down and study AAs vs As. L'Oreal would not be my first choice to conduct such a study. However, I'm sure there is some group not attached to L'Oreal that could be entrusted to conduct it. There are a bunch of studies out there in medical and science related publications. It would just take some research to find them.

 

[Tamster]

At one point, someone who was 1/4th black was black. someone who was 1/16th was black. Today, phenotype takes precedence. So even if someone was 1/2 black (one phenotypically black parent, one phenotypically white parent), and they looked white... they could be considered white depending on how they personally identified.

There are legal cases dating back to the 1800s where someone who was from China was deemed white because of their class, and then a few years later the definition of whiteness changed, to exclude more people. At one point Native Americans were considered white-- because they could be 'civilized'... then it changed. They are their own ethnicity, no?

Either way, lhcf isn't a history lesson sorta place, but I do think its important to see where studies like this can mislead, and where some of the bias in them comes from. And how they can be flawed.

 

[southerncitygirl]

That's pretty much similar to the theory we were told about in my screenwriting class as well...LOL

With regard to Latinos it would depend on which group of "latinos" you're talking about because the term "latino" is very misleading. When I first came to L.A. people who were previously called Hispanic were wearing shirts that said "Hispanic is Not Latino" or something like that...and they made it clear they wanted to be called Latino. I believe it was to further distance themselves from Spaniards.

From the research I've seen certain groups of latinos are most closely related to Asians (with regard to race). Which helped me understand why a large number of Mexicans I come into contact with look Asian to me. It has to do with migration that happened centuries ago and how those people came to settle in what later became North America and South America. They became the Native Americans, Aztecs, Mayans, and other indigenous groups if I remember correctly.

many people don't realize that native american actually is a variation of asian as they have the same dna markers as asians.....melanesians and micronesians would fall under this category as well. hispanic-latino is a mixture/variation of many races black, white, native american and any mixture of each.....its not usual to see hispanic people from central and certain parts of s. america have asian features....but i also see this with certain african peoples as well.
i'm still not buying the slow growth thing....i thought i had slow growing hair till recently....in 9months i went apl to almost a 1inch below bsl and am 5'11 with a long torso i estimate that was at least 5-6 inches worth of growth.i had to cut back to apl cause my ends were raggedy, oh well. now i know that along with excercise and tweaking my diet i'll be back there in no time and be wsl before dec 2011 with no problem maybe even longer.

ladies think of someone like mdwezi who has uber shrinkage.....if they stretched her hair i bet unless it was pressed and blown out throughly they wouldn't get that she was bsl or longer.

 

[Sugar]

At one point, someone who was 1/4th black was black. someone who was 1/16th was black. Today, phenotype takes precedence. So even if someone was 1/2 black (one phenotypically black parent, one phenotypically white parent), and they looked white... they could be considered white depending on how they personally identified.

There are legal cases dating back to the 1800s where someone who was from China was deemed white because of their class, and then a few years later the definition of whiteness changed, to exclude more people. At one point Native Americans were considered white-- because they could be 'civilized'... then it changed. They are their own ethnicity, no?

Either way, lhcf isn't a history lesson sorta place, but I do think its important to see where studies like this can mislead, and where some of the bias in them comes from. And how they can be flawed.

Your first paragraph is exactly why I'm suggesting studying African American hair growth vs. African hair growth. The fact that there has been such a heavy amount of mixing in African American people makes me wonder if that's enough to cause some differences.

As far as the 2nd paragraph, I'm not sure what that has to do with studying hair growth. But Native Americans are considered their own ethnic group.

I do think studies can be misleading, but what I'm suggesting is conducting a credible study by a credible body of scientists.

 

[Sugar]

many people don't realize that native american actually is a variation of asian as they have the same dna markers as asians.....melanesians and micronesians would fall under this category as well. hispanic-latino is a mixture/variation of many races black, white, native american and any mixture of each.....its not usual to see hispanic people from central and certain parts of s. america have asian features....but i also see this with certain african peoples as well.
i'm still not buying the slow growth thing....i thought i had slow growing hair till recently....in 9months i went apl to almost a 1inch below bsl and am 5'11 with a long torso i estimate that was at least 5-6 inches worth of growth.i had to cut back to apl cause my ends were raggedy, oh well. now i know that along with excercise and tweaking my diet i'll be back there in no time and be wsl before dec 2011 with no problem maybe even longer.

ladies think of someone like mdwezi who has uber shrinkage.....if they stretched her hair i bet unless it was pressed and blown out throughly they wouldn't get that she was bsl or longer.

I'm definitely not buying the slow growth thing, I get .5" a month myself.

ETA: I keep trying to thank you but the button isn't working

 

[Tamster]

My second paragraph is about how the definition of race has changed over time. So a study on hair growth based on race is based on not much at all because our current definitions are based on almost random rulings on who is white and who is not.

 

[belldandy]

first of all loreal? You gotta be kidding me. I don't trust anything from them in regards to race ..their track record speaks for itself.
secondly, almost all studies like this are biased.
third, ALL of those numbers seem a bit low, no?

 

[B3e]

I think it's clear that race is a very debatable topic that should be left to the chatrooms or any possible history thread. Lol I feel like there is no right answer so we may end up circling each other for nothing.

Back to the original question that sparked the discussion: AA and A similar hair growth/textures?

Well, perhaps hair will always be as different as eyes and these features, I have learned, are adaptations to different places (amount of sun, air type, prey v predators, and cultural things that have inadvertently altered physical features for survival among social groups).

If anyone finds a comprehensive article/text on the discussion I suppose that would be something to share. But I fear until then we're just chasing ghosts and speculations. I know I am.

So I'm going to agree to disagree/agree and thank the maker that my hair grows more than .9cm a month lol

 

[EccentricRed]

I just assumed it's genes. I get a 1/2 (.5) to 3/4ths (.75) of an inch per month for the most part. My hair grows pretty fast. My mothers is about 3/4ths (.75) EVERY month.

I'll just go with what I know!

 

[spoogeywoogey]

For the OP, I remember reading an article where they studied different subjects :caucasian, african, and asian. They shaved a section of their scalp hair and then measured the growth and they got similar or even greater lengths than what you described. I don't remember this particular study being conducted by L'Oreal. But as pointed out above, if the hair is curling from under the scalp then that isn't really the true length. The true length should be determined from a scalp biopsy, which I think was done in some study (can't seem to find it again).

In another study that was conducted with purely african subjects, they chose people who were originally from ?Chad. I read this a long time ago, so pardon my memory. Now my thing is that Africa is composed of all sorts of ethnic groups. They just lumped us all as if to say we are all the same. So far from the truth. The subjects chosen should have been more varied. Also, it would be better if they conducted those studies in Africa itself. Maybe being in your native land would make a difference. Because since coming to the UK, my hair has gone into shock, and is only just coming back to life.

But I don't recall that many African conducted studies in my research, and the ones I saw just came across as people just wanting to get themselves published. They didn't really challenge what was already put out there. There was a laughable one where the writer was saying that apparently African hair just does not seem to grow (for breakage reasons which we all know), and she mentioned ONE patient that hadn't had a hair cut in two years but was still at the same length. And the FIRST thing that came to my mind was, doesn't this person know about shrinkage??? My hair shrinks to the same length no matter how long it gets. Better proof needs to be provided at the beginning and end point. The hair could have grown but shrank to the same level and the person didn't realise.

It would be interesting to see if there is a difference between the diaspora and the continent. But I've always been of the opinion that having a white great grand father and an indian great great grandfather wasn't going to make much of a difference to my current growth rate. Too many black people in between... I'm just saying. But if you're just one generation away, it might. Who knows? That just gave me an idea, I guess I could look at Maroon hair growth versus Ghanian or Nigerian (since Jamaicans are from both countries). There are Maroons in Jamaica who do not know of any other racial input into their genes, so that could be something to look at.


In all, so many questions have yet to be answered. I'm just in my preliminary literature review stage for my dissertation. When I'm finished I will tell you all what I've found. And just to let you all know, just because something is published, doesn't mean that the study was actually valid based on its methodology. There is a hierarchy within the scientific world, some journals are more reputable than others, but that still doesn't preclude crap getting into the more "reputable" ones. So read carefully and always keep your eye open. I've been reading journal articles on our hair since I was 14 (does that make me a nerd or what?). Anyhow, those days I just took the info as gospel. Now that I'm 2 degrees wiser, I'm looking back at some of those articles and I see a lot of flaws.

 

[UrbainChic]

AA as an ethnic group sure. But what is African hair? there is such a wide variety all over Africa, its a ridiculous comparison to make if you want to be scientific.

Race is a social construct and falls apart when you try to hold it together with science. As someone said before, science can help explain why humans have dark brown vs light brown skin or pin straight verses extremely coily hair etc. but when it comes down to it race is determined by several phenotypical ( or outwards appearances) in concert, as defined by said society. And when you get away from the extremes of the variety theres billions of people who fall in the gray zone. Its not all that concrete.

Also, Latino is not a race. Latinos and Latinas come in basically every shade and every hair type that exist on this planet. How is that a race? Why do you exclude latinas and latinos who aren't indigenous peoples of central and south america? Are you including or excluding those mixed with european and african heritage?

Have you guys SEEN the variety that exists on the continent of Africa? If you want to pull the * mixed ancestry card* on east and north africans, just save it because then you have to take the entire middle east and put it in mixed ancestry, all of southern Europe.... and then where would Indians and the rest of that subcontinent go? They are traditionally labeled as caucasianoid, despite some of them being the darkest humans walking around on this planet. Where to Aborigines and South Pacific Islanders go?

I repeat, race is a social construct. It doesn't make it less real as an identity or an experience, I am just saying that scientific "evidence" of race is scarce, or usually pushed by pseudo scientists and easily debunked and that even when they do studies that asians are more likely to have x disease or african americans are most likely to get y disease, there are numerous factors for these groups such as shared diets, lifestyles, culture, and limited mating within a community.

Example of something genetically solid= sex. a female is a female is a female, easy to discover this with DNA, Race is determined by so many social factors and external factors that if you find a naturally blond, light skinned individual, with not so tightly curled hair, who has one parent of african heritage, born in africa, black etc. Their genetics can tell you a lot, probably about what they look like, where they have ancestors from, but not what race they are... and based on their society, their race will vary. You could try to sort the genes based on your own criteria of race, but its ultimately determined by social rules, the human mind, society, whatever. Its not science is the bottom line.

 

[Neith]

African blacks are just as "mixed" as American Blacks from my experience.

There has been a lot of "race mixing" all over the globe. erplexed

Especially on a continent of more that 50 different countries... that has been extensively colonized by all types of Europeans and other countries.

I personally have a feeling that there would be no significant difference between Black Africans and Black Americans.

 

[Sugar]

African blacks are just as "mixed" as American Blacks from my experience.

There has been a lot of "race mixing" all over the globe. erplexed

Especially on a continent of more that 50 different countries... that has been extensively colonized by all types of Europeans and other countries.

I personally have a feeling that there would be no significant difference between Black Africans and Black Americans.

I don't honestly think of most Africans as being mixed, with the exception of Ethiopians (I'm of Ethiopian descent) and other east Africans and some northern Africans. Being from America its always been impressed upon me that MOST African were of "purer stock" than us.

This is the answer I was looking for Neith. Thank you.

 

[maghreblover]

I doubt there would be much of a difference between AA and A, but @Neith I don't think A is as mixed as AA.
I grew up in Nigeria and I've known people whose hair grows very fast, and others whose hair grows relatively slowly.
I come from a 100% Nigerian family, and even within our family there's different growth rates. One of my older sisters gets about 1/4 inch per month but retains little and is at SL, another gets nearly 1 inch on the good months and is a couple of inches away from WL. I get about 1/2 an inch per month and I'm between APL and BSL.

 

[Neith]

Kay, maybe it was my wording...

I wasn't really trying to quantify the amount of mixing.

My point was... both groups of people have a lot of non-African ancestry. You can go to Africa and see the "full spectrum" of black people just like you can here. We are more alike than we are different. (excluding cultural differences)

imho

 

[Kurlee]

^^ actually my prof was telling us that the whole "race" thing is gibberish and a "white" person and a black person could be more similar genetically than two "black" people. Notions of racial purity and "mixing" 1/2, 1/4 and 1/16 are hilarious. It really DOES NOT work that way.

 

[LunadeMiel]

Kay, maybe it was my wording...

I wasn't really trying to quantify the amount of mixing.

My point was... both groups of people have a lot of non-African ancestry. You can go to Africa and see the "full spectrum" of black people just like you can here. We are more alike than we are different. (excluding cultural differences)

imho

Just because Africans from different regions look different that does not mean "race"/ethnic mixing was the cause.


I agree with the study (for the most part) T'is all

 

[Neith]

Just because Africans from different regions look different that does not mean "race"/ethnic mixing was the cause.

I never said that

(In fact, I had a discussion about it on this board once. About people with type 3 hair not automatically being "mixed" There IS variety amongst Africans without having to introduce other types of people. Black people don't come in one color and one hair texture! lol )

However, there has been a lot of "race mixing" all the same.

I'm also aware that race is a social construct It's not scientifically based and all of that... but every person here still uses the terms white and black while referring to people. That's just how the world is. lol

 

[B3e]

AA as an ethnic group sure. But what is African hair? there is such a wide variety all over Africa, its a ridiculous comparison to make if you want to be scientific.
...
Also, Latino is not a race. Latinos and Latinas come in basically every shade and every hair type that exist on this planet. How is that a race? Why do you exclude latinas and latinos who aren't indigenous peoples of central and south america? Are you including or excluding those mixed with european and african heritage?
...
I repeat, race is a social construct. It doesn't make it less real as an identity or an experience.... Its not science is the bottom line.

Yea race is definitely social rather than scientific.

As for latino/as being arace...I don't even know how to use the word race anymore but all I know is that not all are necessarily the same as the caucasians they are grouped racially with...case in point being what you just said...different heritages: african, european, asian..etc To say that there are only 3 races was what urked me. I have many latino/a friends and they are all soooooo different its not even funny.

But to say they are more like the anglos across the board was just kind of weird/wrong to me. I suppose I'd rather epically fail and call them out as their own group than push them together into a single pre-existing category.

You're so right though, race is such a maldefined thing and rightfully so because there is no scientific way to determine exactly what makes a race such beyond melanin production.

 

[Sugar]

Kay, maybe it was my wording...

I wasn't really trying to quantify the amount of mixing.

My point was... both groups of people have a lot of non-African ancestry. You can go to Africa and see the "full spectrum" of black people just like you can here. We are more alike than we are different. (excluding cultural differences)

imho

The bolded is what I assumed you were trying to say. Which is why it answered my question.