Assalam Alaikum
when we can get past the racial discrimination matter and into the actual biology only (by challenging every aspect of each our own behaviour and mental attitude that could manifest negatively toward difference) . . .
then we can realise that the real knowledge is truly informative and quite awe inspiring.
I like this sort of straight clinical data approach:
There are differences in the way you manage patients for instance... the way you'd manage Blood pressure in blacks as opposed to whites....... as each group responds better to a different set of meds..... blacks for instance don't respond well to beta blockers as whites do.... but respond very well to diuretics....... but then again dibetic patients don't respond well to the same type of diuretic and a beta blocker might mask the sympathetic responses in the face of hypoglycemia..... so in medicine it isn't one size fits all.... and that is something your doctor has to decide with you which is best..... but I am not sure what facial structures have to do with anything other than for forensic file cases where you are trying to idenitfy someone post mortum... in fact even the teeth would be an indicator of race as, native indians, mexicans, whites blacks and everything in between, have phenotypic and genotypic features different from the others......
Now I don't understand the Glucose thing?
unless you are talking about "Galactosemia"
which is a rare genetic metabolic disorder, any race can be affected..... it isn't exclusive for blacks..... but it is rare and it is one of the things they screen newborns for in the hospital........
Rest at ease..... all of humanity has its health woes.......
One thing I learned is that most darker skin folk have a larger proportion of cerebro-spinal fluid; and that is a significant fact. But it connects with liver function in the information I received, rather than any other noticed functional difference.
brown people are south asians i guess....we're not all black..we're all coloured..labels..hmpf
In Australia, East Asians alternative assume a black and then a white identity depending upon the skin colour and identification of whom they are in communication with: what ever way there is an advantage is their culture. Mostly in China nobody lets such easy advantages, while Aussies just seem not to notice.
The only difference medically that I know of is the increased cases of colon cancer in black males. I'm not sure what the reason is. Just as some other races have increased cases of other diseases.
Now that is a point which needs to be clarified as not belonging in this discussion. There are folk in Australia whom promote such information as though evidence that black skin men want to be sodomised. I hear that eating brassica's is the most effective methodology most often used to reduce incidence of colon cancer. But I have no raw data about what amount of brassica vegetables (and wasabi etc) that black men are consuming.
Also please remember that there are different biological causes of black skin. Among Africans there is a difference in the blood that has a dominent genetic. It is a strong kidney function thing.
While among Aboriginal Australians the black skin is the biological equivalence of a dark sun tan; but our kidney's get it younger.
Of course there are heaps of biological differences that are real; but the fact is that the shape of bones is determined far more strongly by the location of conception and birth and is not at all causally determined by colour of skin. Shouldn't it be clear that colour of skin is related to location also; and that location is the causal factor rather than . . . .. (or is it what is happening at that location? etc.)
The whole debate in anthropology between environment and human impact upon the environment is applicable. And medical anthropology is one of Earths most important areas of study.
wasalam
