Americans cannot draw anime

I am convinced, no matter how much wannabe-anime style art I've seen, that one has to at least have some Asian in them to draw the anime/manga style.  Yes, it's also cultural, but culture and genes go hand in hand.  The "L/R" misconception is actually the ear and brain processing the letters a certain way, and Japanese people are also more responsive to higher pitched sounds rather than low bass, as seen in a lot of their music.  So call me a eugenics Nazi, I don't care.

Most US or Europe art tends to have square or straight eyes, to denote seriousness or "toughness."  The anime round eye style seems to be a perception of femininity, a welcoming of it even in males, that allows the character to look naturally gentle or naive.  The sense of 2D moving fluidly in 3D is also different in some way.  US animators tend to focus on the whole body at once, from disney to Hanna Barbera to South Park to any show made for Adult Swim.

The closest thing to anime art is Pinup girls of the mid twentieth century (when females could be oggled without complaint) and some US comics, especially Image, but even these aren't pure manga style (they are unique, but some try to resemble anime). 

There is some perception of what a character "should" look like to manga artists, which creates the style, and can be seen in Korean anime style art where the heads are wider or more squished.  Somehow, the us perception of what a charracter should look like in 2D either ends up very two dimensional, or like Furry art.  Something in US artists makes a lot of them predisposed to drawing Furry art, or cartoon animals, but not humans.  Humans have always been the most awkward, strangest things to draw, and either must look photorealistic as in fantasy art, or be abstract and cartoony.

TO OP:
Genetic?  Do you draw at all?  As has been said, art and illustration both have more ties to cultural understandings and visual & artistic "norms" than genes.  Read an art history book.  I command you.  (Though I do agree that Americans tend to focus on showing the body rather than just the face and expressions when we animate, it ain't freakin' genetic.)

Also:
>Something in US artists makes a lot of them predisposed to drawing Furry art, or cartoon animals, but not humans.  Humans have always been the most awkward, strangest things to draw, and either must look photorealistic as in fantasy art, or be abstract and cartoony.<
Hilarious thing is, if you look at the history of Western art compared to the history of Japanese art, generally speaking our humans look LESS abstracted (until the last century or so). 

And just to be a pretentious ass...
a--you're using "photorealistic" wrong.  "Naturalistic" would be right in this case, or perhaps "Humans drawn in a more realistic style".  "Photorealistic" describes ONLY art that looks 100% like a photograph.  It does exist, some crazy fanatic artists DO paint like that.

b--"Anime", "Cartoons", "Comics", etc, are generally not considered Art (with a capital "A").  They are considered Illustration.  If you want to argue that some of the finer pieces in a Shirow or Clamp illustration book rival the works of actual contemporary artists, go on ahead (I kind of agree in a way)... B-U-T.  Straight up animation or straight up comic book work isn't "Art" anyway. 

While art now in the western world is all about breaking that last wall and just creating beauty/meaning/Art with the basest elements of art, illustration in the western world tends to move in funky "loops" around what is and isn't popular.  Oddly enough "weeaboo" crap is currently pretty damned popular.  Mostly because the sad and sorry doodlers don't understand general anatomy and bring those issues into their illustrations, and these issues eventually become conventions.  Like the funky on-the-cheek mouths.  Expressions used for the hell of it.  Etc.

Anyway that's enough for now; chew on it if you feel like.