Q: "There has been a discussion on the FML about ferrets having slanted
eyes can some ferrets from Japan really have slanted eyes?"
 
A: Sure, sure, sure.  And I have a Protestant work ethic and British
humor and an Irish temper and Oriental wisdom and Quaker modesty and
Arabic passion and a Greek beard and the Japanese reluctance to say no
and an African nose and a Mongoloid spot and the German love of order
and hot Latin sexuality and American (or is that French?) arrogance.
Just call me Stereotypic Sybil.
 
I am nearly two weeks behind on the FML, so at first, I thought this was
a joke, but I had three different people ask basically the same question,
so I'll take it seriously.
 
First of all, NO HUMANS have "slanted eyes."  The eyes are not actually
slanted, but rather the difference is in the appearance of the eyelids;
what is crudely termed a slanted eye is actually the presence of an
epicanthic fold that lowers the inner corner of the eyelid.  For a very
long time, it was assumed the epicanthic fold was to help protect the
eye from cold, but that hypothesis couldn't explain the presence of the
structure in people from both Europe and Africa.  Also, many northern
European people lacked the trait, even though they lived in colder
climates than some Asian groups for about as long (Lapps, however, are
of European ancestry and resemble the Inuit [Eskimos]).  Later, it was
realized ALL humans had the trait during early development and it can
often be noted in many human newborns, regardless of ancestry.  As the
child grows and the bridge of the nose is elevated, the epicanthic fold
is gradually reduced until it is no longer present.  The trait is
dominant and if the epicanthic fold proves to be ancestral to all humans
as scientific studies seem to indicate it is, then it would mean the
general European population lost theirs because of a founder's effect;
that is, inbreeding.
 
The epicanthic fold is nothing more than a small section of skin that
covers the inner corner of the eye.  Originally, it probably helped
protect the inner eyelid common to most mammals.  Today it probably has
little or no real function the eyeball equivalent of an appendix but
that hasn't prevented it from sparking lots of debate among physical
anthropologists.  Some physical anthropologists suggest the epicanthic
fold seen in early human development is a coincidence, and the one seen
in some groups of people is a trait that developed about 10,000 years
ago.  Others argue all humans had the epicanthic fold 10,000 years ago,
but after that, it became more pronounced in some groups and lost in
others, and the reason it is so easily changed is because it has little
current function.  Additionally, there is a general correlation between
the flatness of the nasal bridge (the bony ridge between your eyes) and
the prominence of the epicanthic fold.  For example, the reason babies
have an epicanthic fold is probably because their nasal bridge is
flattened to facilitate nursing.  Also, persons suffering from any
disorder that flattens the bridge of the nose will have epicanthic folds,
including Dubowitz syndrome, monosomy and trisomy 21, Williams syndrome,
Costello syndrome, and even Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (there are many
others).  I am not saying that a flat nasal bridge is the CAUSE of
epicanthic folds in some groups of people; many African groups have
flattened nasal bridges but do not have epicanthic folds.  Likewise,
some Asian groups have elevated nasal bridges and possess epicanthic
folds.  Still, as a rough, general rule that makes no attempt to explain
why, in many cases the flatter the nasal bridge the more pronounced the
epicanthic fold.  People of European descent generally have a low
incidence of epicanthic folds and also possess a high incidence of
elevated nasal bridges, whereas people of Asian ancestry tend to be
the opposite.  It is possible although unproven by any means that the
epicanthic fold is nothing more than an epiphenomenon an accident caused
by a jutting nose.
 
Many domesticated animals tend to have slanted eyes, but those changes
are almost certainly due to structural deformations in the shape and
proportions of the skull, which tilt the eye socket in relation to other
parts of the skull (structural changes), or in the way parts of the
skull grows in relation to other parts (allometric changes), or both.
I personally find the osteology of these animals quite intellectually
stimulating, but I find the discomfort that can be caused to the animal
extremely emotionally distressing.  One of the reasons I am so vocal
about breeding standards in ferrets is because I know the breeding
programs required to create such monsters will invariably result in the
suffering and death of many ferrets.  Make no mistake about it; the
changes wrought by such breeding programs DO create monsters.  I'm not
implying the individual teacup Chihuahuas or monstrous Great Danes are
not individually wonderful animals and worthy of love; by all means, they
are.  However, the amount of suffering inflicted to create and stabilize
these breeds, as well as the individual misery exacted in terms of
genetic problems and various aliments associated with each breed, are in
my opinion quite excessive.  We could easily do the same with ferrets,
but at what cost?
 
As for the joking nature of the original comment, well, I doubt if anyone
on this list has a better sense of humor than I.  I own hundreds of
demented music CDs, the only non-fiction I buy is satirical or humorous,
I love puns and jokes, and I am proud to admit I was an extra in "The
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes."  Yet, the joke offended me because it
promoted "racial" stereotypes (I put "racial" in quotes because race is
a cultural or political construct and not a biological reality).  Some
comments, even if they are your right to say, even if they are funny,
even if others speak them, and even if you only meant to make someone
smile, are still offensive.  I know; I unintentionally make the
"offensive joke mistake" all the time.  If I ever had to describe myself
in a single word, it would be "clueless."  Even so, I know if I ever want
to live in a world where all people are equal, all people are free, and
all people are common citizens of a peaceful world, the first step for me
to take is to shed myself of all my petty prejudices.  Even if I believe,
I try to suppress them; it is called taking the high road.  Oh, you can
laugh, poke fun of my comments, and even say that is not the reality of
the world and my vision is a dream, but the simple truth is all our
current progress, all our reality, was once someone else's dreams and
you cannot laugh or poke fun at that.
 
Whomever it was that made the original comment HAD the right to make
it, they are probably telling the truth about their intent to joke, and
I sincerely believe they did not want to harm anyone in telling it.
That still doesn't mean it wasn't offensive in the way it promoted
stereotypes.  Some things are simply wrong REGARDLESS of intent.
Punishing millions to protect the exceptional few, censoring information
because you don't agree with it, disingenuous attacks on your opponent
so people erroneously judge the person rather than the argument, refusing
to admit mistakes, using scare tactics to frighten people way from new
ideas, and promoting ethnic prejudices top the list (I forgot the
designated hitter rule, those AL wussies).  No, I am not talking about
the president.  These things are wrong simply because they are wrong, and
intent makes NO difference.  I don't have to accept comments or actions
on these lines, I will not accept them, and neither should you.  The way
to stop it is by admitting people have the right to express themselves,
but show they are wrong by reasonably and fairly arguing against it when
it does occur.  Finding fault in stereotypic statements does not mean you
don't have a sense of humor; all it means is that you have taken a stand
against prejudice.  I'm against prejudices simply because if you allow
one, you welcome them all, and I'm too American, ugly, intellectual,
fat, old, and short to want others deciding I'm not worthy of friendship
simply because I have been stereotyped as undeserving because of those
traits.  Hate me because I am a loud-mouthed, know-it-all, condescending,
scruffy, self-righteous ass, but not because of your prejudices.
 
Scruffy?  Who's scruffy?
 
Bob C: [log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 4674]