Speaking from experiences in Japanese hospitals and with Japanese baby birthing friends, MOST of them have significantly more hair than white westerners.
It is true that babies like Whynot’s and my own two eggheads (got their hair genes from me, not their father, sob!) do have hair even if it is very fine and see through but it is more like peach fuzz with no length.
There are of course a lot of Japanese babies with a similar amount of hair but darker, so it shows up.
But there are also a lot of babies who need haircuts (literally!) at about three or four months. My kids first haircuts were around two to three years of age!
My husband’s hair in his 100 days photo is about three inches long and stands straight up. This is the case for maybe half the babies I know right now.
All my children had a lot of hair, my grandchildren and great grandchildren as well. Never heard that white babies were bald, A friend’s daughter had a mixed race baby and she was not bald but close to it.
Here’s a well intentioned hint. Start a new thread to ask questions if you really want an answer. Use the question as the thread title if possible. This will get you a better response.
Okay, I’m curious what kind of spammer bumped this. An ad for white baby hair shampoo? A trailer for White Babies Can’t Jump, the long-awaited movie prequel?
Probably someone who has been instructed to google for any discussion involving the word “bald” and posts a glowing endoresment for Acme Hair Transplant Clinic. Certain raptor-oriented orthithological forums are also scratching their (well-endowed) heads, as are hiker forums discussing the best route up various mountains.
Nitpick - since this is Factual Question.
South Asians, Indians and many other people are also Caucasians.
Caucasian does not mean white !!
" The United States National Library of Medicine often used the term “Caucasian” as a race in the past. However, it later discontinued such usage in favor of the more narrow geographical term European , which traditionally only applied to a subset of Caucasoids.[75]"
Isn’t this like insisting that a tomato is a fruit? As in - it’s a word that has different meanings in different usage contexts.
And in fact, unlike the technical usage in which a tomato is a fruit, I don’t think there is a technical sense in which Caucasian means anything at all. Isn’t it generally regarded as obsolete? It doesn’t correspond to any well defined taxon. If it has no technical meaning at all, I’m not sure on what basis you can claim that as a factual matter it includes South Asians and Indians.
19th century classifications of the peoples of India were initially uncertain if the Dravidians and the Sinahalese were Caucasoid or a separate Dravida race, but by and in the 20th century, anthropologists predominantly declared Dravidians to be Caucasoid.["
This being FQ, Please provide a cite for your assertion.
Any dictionary will tell you that one definition for Caucasian is a synonym for “White”. Definition per Google’s source (Oxford Languages):
1.NORTH AMERICAN
white-skinned; of European origin.
“twenty of the therapists were Caucasian, two were African American, and two were Hispanic”
2.
relating to the Caucasus.
Caucasian has two fairly distinct meanings, and the difference between them occasionally leads people to aver that one of them is incorrect. The earliest sense of the word is a literal one: “of or relating to the Caucasus (a region in southeastern Europe between the Black and Caspian seas) or its inhabitants.” The second refers to the racial group commonly referred to as white.
The objection to using Caucasian to refer to a white person is that many whites do not actually come from the Caucasus region. Be this as it may, there is no rule in language stipulating that the formation of a word must be based on logic; were this the case we would not call members of this racial group either Caucasian or white, since there are very few whose skin color is in fact that exact shade.
And that doesn’t challenge what I said. You may be correct about historical technical usage, but it’s an obsolete and scientifically discredited technical usage. That’s a pretty flimsy basis on which to be pedantically lecturing people that any alternative widely accepted common (non-technical) usage is wrong.
Try the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article that you linked to:
The tie in with the blonde and white skinned northern european seams to be evolutionary advantage is surviving the harsh winters with little nutrition. The baby that didnt waste nutrients on growing hair, survived …
