Why are the eyelids of Asian people typically slightly different in their appearance from those of non-Asian people?
What was different about the environment of their ancestors that would have selected for eyelids of that particular shape?
Thanks.
The physical reason is that most East Asians have what’s known as an “epicanthic fold”. I’ts a fold in the upper eyelid. I can’t tell you of any evolutionary reason it would exist, though.
Cecil Adams on epicanthic folds. Do excuse Cecil’s dated usage of “the Mongoloid race.” He knew better, even back then, but he was speaking to the people of the time.
Epicanthic folds are seen in non-Asian populations as well. In particular, the Khoi-San (bushmen) people of Africa have distinct epicanthic folds leading some scientists to think that the E.F. is the “normal*” condition for humans.
A parallel to this would be what we commonly call lactose intolerance. In point of fact, the “normal” condition is lactose intolerance and those of us who are lactose tolerant have a genetic mutation that allows us to digest lactose. So, it would be incorrecct to ask: Why did Asians become lactose intolerant? One should ask: Why did Europeans (and Middle Easterners) become lactose tolerant?
Just to be clear, though, I am not saying that scientist have determined that the epicanthic fold is the “normal” condition, I’m just saying that we don’t know which condition came first, so the question might not be the right one to ask.
*I’m using “normal” here for what scientists would call “primitive”, just to avoid the non-scientific bias that comes with the term “primitive”. A primitive trait is the original condition, and alterations to the trait are said to be “derived”.
Does it necessarily have to be an adaptive trait? Rather, is it possible that people back then found the slightly different eye shape more sexually attractive so the trait got selected for more often without it actually providing an evolutionary benefit?
Just as an ironic side note on the topic of sexual attractiveness: removal of the epicanthic fold is common cosmetic surgery in the Asia Pacific region. I’ve seen the result, and it tends to give the face a distinctly Eurasian quality, like that of mixed parentage.
It’s a rather sad import of Western ideas of aesthetics.
To hijack for the moment, why is *Mongoloid * (other than the unfortunate association with victims of Down’s Syndrome) insulting or non-PC? Same question about Oriental. I’m sorry, but Asian is too broad when you want to refer specifically to those Asians who have epicanthic folds - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and South East Asian - as in the OP.
I have a feeling that the answer is the usual one - people seem to think that if the term changes, whatever connotations that term has will go away. What happens instead is that the connotations simply attach themselves to the new word. Hence *challenge * is now too cruel a term to use to students, and *invalid * has become handicapped, has become disabled, has become challenged, etc, which doesn’t change the fact that the people are still in wheelchairs or whatever the problem may be. But can anyone confirm this vis a vis Mongoloid/Oriental?
Oh, and Waverly, it’s particularly sad and rather ironic given the western (or at least American) view about <pick-your-term> people, especially women. I know few women who wouldn’t consider themselves extremely lucky to look <pick-your-term> - lord knows, I would! But then, when I was in Japan some 15 years ago, I found that they had the same attitude toward “American” as we do about “French” - automatic implications of sophistication/chic/fashion. So maybe that’s part of it (assuming the attitude still exists).
Like most apparently non-adaptive differences between ethnic groups, the answer to “why epicanthic folds?” is “Why not?”
I think it’s the aftermath of rice. The bearing down during a bowel movement to eliminate its constipating affects. American eyes do it too but, we don’t eat as much rice.
I’m not entirely sure how epicanthic folds relate to the double eyelid thing, but going on a hunch that epicanthic folds roughly equal a ‘double’ upper eyelid, I’ve heard just the exact opposite. Most people will undergo surgery to give themselves a double eyelid because they find it more attractive and maybe for some because it’s “more Chinese/Japanese/Korean/et cetera”. If I’m wrong about the epicanthic fold/double eyelid thing, then I withdraw my statement.
Care to borrow my asbestos suit??? :eek:
Wouldn’t an adaptive trait be any that gets selected for more often?
You’re right. If it served a purpose in sexual selection, it would certainly be “adaptive”-- that terms only applies to having offspring, not simply to surviving.
I do recall reading speculation, and I stress that it was merely that, that the epicanthic fold developed as a defense against windblown sand and dust in arid climates. This would explain why it is present in Persons of East Asian Ethnic Groups, who are thought to have derived from steppe denizens, and the !Khoi-San peoples, originally occupying the Kalahari and the relatively-arid veldt country east and south.
I’m SURE I don’t need to remind you that you’re in GQ. But, you know what, it really wouldn’t make any difference WHAT forum you’re in.
“Ethnic” comments/jokes just don’t fly here.
Don’t do this again.
samclem GQ moderator.
Just for the record, what are the non-offensive ways of referring to:
a) Persons of sub-Saharan African ancestry, other than Afrikanders and !Khoi-San
b) Persons of East Asian ethnic origin
when one wants to make a broad generalization relative to characteristics which they share as a group? Obviously the traditional “race” usages have become less than courteous, in fact downright offensive; but equally obviously there are characteristics shared across the broader groups formerly referenced by racial terms, which it sometimes becomes appropriate to speak of, as in this thread.
I’d simply use “African” (or “black African” if there was a danger of confusion with the others you mentioned) and “Asian” respectively. In Australia, Indians and the like are not usually refered to as “Asian” and that simplifies things somewhat, but if I were in the UK or somewhere I’d just say “East Asian” to avoid confusion.
Polycarp raises a really good question. My answer to it is “we probably shouldn’t have these terms at all,” because just about any broad statements you could make about groups of people that diverse would be stereotypical and in many cases incorrect.
What does “black Africa” (the issue we attempt to dance around linguistically; skin color) really have in common? Not much. You’ve got Muslims (various sects), Christians (various sects), animists (a catch-all term that isn’t really a “group” at all), and a group that claims to be a Lost Tribe of Israel. You’ve got oil workers, fishermen, imams and nomadic cattle herders. You’ve got a number of different language families, as well as various dialects of languages imported from Europe (not to mention transplanted Europeans). Genetically, you have the tallest and shortest people on Earth. The only shared genetc trait is a general darkness of skin (this too varies), which is really the point of referring to “sub-Saharan” Africa as some groups have more in common in language, religion and culture to the Sahara than they do to more southerly Africa. (And, something that cracked me up reading the slight above - some of them rely upon rice as a grain! Others barley, others…)
You could say the same about “East Asians.” Tonal or non-tonal languages? Yes. Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Taoist, Caodai? Yes. Alphabet, ideographs or syllabaries? Yes. Tall and darkish or short and light? You betcha. Democracy, military dicatatorship, kingdom? Uh-huh. Rice or starchy roots? Yup. Bankers, herders or coal miners? All of the above.
You get the idea. I’d liken the eyefold line in Asia & the black skin line in Africa to drawing a “swarthy line” across Europe and making general statements about everyone who lives below it. Y’know… all the statements you could make about Albanians, Portuguese, Maltese, Italians, and Greeks that are just generally true… and even that is a heck of a lot less variation than you get in Africa or Asia (the distances alone don’t allow us to use anything in Europe as a fair comparison.)
Contrast this with the level of detail we’ll go into to describe and differentiate Europeans. How many threads are there which regularly rehash the Dutch vs Flemish issue, or Manx and Cornish, or the specific descendants of inbred royal families. Yet we don’t bother in general to differentiate at that level in the two largest continents on the planet. Pity; that’s a lot of stereotyping, and it doesn’t help us learn much about these areas.
Didn’t the Mongul hordes that ravaged Europe also deposit this trait here and there? :rolleyes:
I think that is the reason, or at least a major part of it.
Another problem would be that it is a term associated with the old “three race” model. Even if you set aside the racist “Negroids are less evolved than Mongoloids are less evolved than Caucasoids” business, the three race model is still an outdated and inaccurate way of looking at things.