Black Parents Shocked to Give Birth to White Baby Girl

  • Share
  • Read Later

IAN HOOTON/Science Photo Library/Corbis

A black couple living in the U.K. were shocked by the birth of a blonde haired, blue-eyed girl.

Ben Ihegboro must have briefly questioned his wife Angela’s fidelity after the birth of Nmachi, and he conceded: “We both just sat there after the birth staring at her”.

As there is no known mixed-race background in either of the parents’ families, geneticists are baffled by the newborn’s surprise appearance.

Nmachi is the couple’s third child, with Dumebi, 2, and Chisom, 4, each bearing a strong resemblance to their parents. Doctors rejected the possibility of the baby being albino. The real cause is unknown, with the only explanation being a “genetic quirk.” (See pictures of the first years of four babies.)

Professor Bryan Sykes, head of human genetics at Oxford University, described the birth as “extraordinary,” telling The Sun that for the baby to be completely white, both Ben and Angela would need to have “some form of white ancestry.’” The explanation for this lies in that mixed-race women carry some eggs containing genes for white skin and others for black; similarly men carry the same range of genes in their sperm. (See pictures of pregnant belly art.)

Professor Sykes commented: “The hair is extremely unusual. Even many blonde children don’t have blonde hair like this at birth.”

Ben said that his son Chisom “keeps coming to look at his sister and then sits down looking puzzled.”

Well, Chisom, we’re puzzled too! (via The Sun)

- Zander Sharp

7 comments
mary.waterton
mary.waterton

In as much as news journalists are all habitual liars, I'd have to see this story in a peer-review science magazine before I'd believe it.

ethenardier
ethenardier

The idea of being "purely of one race" is ridiculous. People seem to think race mixing is a modern concept, but Europe, Africa and Asia have had contact for /hundreds/ of years, and whenever humans have contact, our nature compels us screw around. You think a European trader, traveling deep into Moorish lands contained himself for months because he only wanted a European woman? Absurd! He laid that cold Frankish pipeline all over the desert.

And trading isn't even something new to the colonial era. All throughout the middle ages there was a great deal of contact and influence between various cultures and regions.

Then, of course, there was the institution of slavery in America, a slightly more recent event. Most states either had a "one drop rule" where if you had any slaves in your ancestry (one drop of blood) you were enslavable, or they had laws that mixed children had the status of their mother. So the rape-baby of a master was his slave, and raised as a slave, and grew up to marry a slave, has a child who is also a slave, ect. Soon the family forgets there was a white great-grandfather. (Likewise, in some cases where the plantation owner's daughter got a craving for some chocolate after seeing the rippling muscles of her father's virile slave hoisting hay bales.... That mixed child was born free, and was eligable to marry a white person.... and the cycle repeats)


So even if neither of them can recall a white ancestor, they obviously both have one. Its not even that farfetched of an idea. And you, dear reader, likely have ancestors from both Europe and Africa too.

cehunt
cehunt

I thought I had seen this story before and I am right. This is not new news, this story first happened 3 years ago.


Why is TIME recycling these "news" stories.

jakewastaken
jakewastaken

@cehunt "I was right." Hahahahaha. How about NO. You couldn't be more wrong. No one recycled a news story. You just randomly commented on an old article that was published in 2010. When something is published on the internet, it stays there forever. You might want to double check before you try to diss Time. 

SuperC142
SuperC142

@cehunt An even better question is why you're complaining that articles posted in 2010 describe events that occurred 3 years ago.