Noting An Historical Irony on Interracial Marriage

|

More ebony and ivory

The Pew Research Center has released a new report on trends in interracial marriages in the United States. The Washington Post reports

According to the Pew study, about 15 percent of new marriages in 2010 crossed racial or ethnic lines, double the rate from three decades ago. Intermarriages comprise 8 percent of all marriages now, up from just 3 percent in 1980. And most Americans tell pollsters they are untroubled at the prospect of intermarriage in their own family.

At one point 41 states outlawed interracial marriages. Back in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case Loving v. Virginia that banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Virginia judge who had upheld the ban repugnantly argued [PDf]: 

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

As a resident of the Commonwealth, I happily note, 45 years after Loving v. Virginia, that the Post reports this wonderful historical irony: 

Virginia leads the nation in the percentage of marriages between blacks and whites….

Go here to see the full Pew report. 

NEXT: Is Harrisburg's Nightmare America's Future?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As a resident of the Commonwealth, I happily note, 45 years after Loving v. Virginia, that the Post reports this wonderful historical irony: Virginia leads the nation in the percentage of marriages between blacks and whites….

    And yet we keep getting told we’re racist.

    1. …An Historical…

      *glares at Ronald Bailey*

      1. I concur, though some people screw this up because of the English. They really need to conform their usages to ours.

        1. Does America need to choke a British bitch.,,,AGAIN?

        2. It’s not an incorrect usage.

          The use of “a” or “an” depends on whether the following word begins with a vowel or consonant sound.

          Pronouncing “historical” with a silent “h” is a valid pronunciation. The word comes from the French “l’histoire” which has a silent “h”.

          1. Like the French are so smart – they don’t even speak ENGLISH.

            The H is NOT silent in the US, where I’m reading this, and where RB and Reason are based, therefore….

            *glares at Bailey again*

            1. The H is NOT silent in the US

              That’s not really true.

              The “h” sound in “historic” (but not in “history”) is closer to the “h” sound in “honor” than it is to the “h” sound in “hat”.

              And you clearly say “a hat” but “an honor”.

              1. I’m trying to figure out how the “h” sounds in history and historic are different.

                Can anybody help me with that one?

                1. Must be regional differences. I aspirate the H less in historic than in history. I’m not sure whether “an historic” or “a historic” sounds better though. I think I would usually say “an”.

              2. And yet they pronounce the friggin’ “h” sound in “herb”.

                “You don’t so much speak the language as chew on it and spit it out!”

                1. And yet they pronounce the friggin’ “h” sound in “herb”.

                  Who the fuck does that?

                  1. And yet they pronounce the friggin’ “h” sound in “herb”

                    English people! I swear, it’s “‘ello” this and “istorical” that, but then when you get down the right frigging way to say “herb”, that’s when the “H” gets let back in.

                    What can you expect from people who think Gloucester is pronounced “gloss-ster” or that Worcestershire is “wooster-shire”? Freaks.

                    1. It is important to remember that regional accent variations in Britain are quite large. There is no “way that English people pronounce things.”

                    2. As annoying as it can be, I sort of like how fucked up English spelling is. It sometimes gives some interesting etymological insights and confounds foreigners.

                  2. I do it as a joke. As in “going to go see my friend Herb.”

                2. Most people I know pronounce it “weed”

              3. The “h” sound in “historic” (but not in “history”) is closer to the “h” sound in “honor” than it is to the “h” sound in “hat”.

                Maybe it comes down to regional differences, because I pronounce “historic” and “historical” with a discernible ‘h’.

                (And yes, I sat here and said it to myself a few times before I posted.)

                1. Surely you do not place the stress in the same place in both words? HIstory as opposed to HistOric…. You don’t say HIstoric do you?

                  1. The stress can be placed on different syllables, but the syllables themselves are pronounced the same.

                    1. Doesn’t putting the stress on a different syllable changes the way that syllables are pronounced?

                    2. I don’t know. I think they sound the same as I say them aloud.

                      Would you pronounce “hotel” differently if the first syllable was stressed?

            2. You guys should ask an history major.

              1. It’s lunch time though, they’re all too busy serving coffee.

                1. Ha! This Hisotry major is sitting at his desk, not working.

                  And I say History with the “h” sound, so I say “a history major” or “a historic building” or “a historical fact”

                  But professors in college were more mixed. I had a professor from Alabama who always used “an”… Not sure if that’s regional or not. I’m in and from Iowa, so my lack of accent is the proper way to speak ‘Merican.

                  1. But what about “An historical event?”

                    Hah!

                    I think the following word starting with a consonant or vowel determines the usage.

          2. I don’t pronounce the “H” in “historic”, but when writing I write “A historic”.

          3. You probably pronounce homage pretentiously with a silent h too don’t you. Goddamn commie

      2. N Historical?

      3. You crosed out the wrong letter. If you’re going to corect someone, make sure you don’t make any mistakes in your corection.

        1. He’s merely demonstrating joez law.

          1. read as “jew’s law.”

        2. joe’z law! You know what? Because joe from lol was such a d-bag, I hereby propose we rename this “Joe M’z Law”.

          Who’s with me?

          1. Revising history is a double-edged sword.

            1. Joe was Joe. Never forget.

          2. I could never usurp another Joe’s joe’z law.

      4. …An Historical…

        I’m glad I’m not the only one bothered by that.

        1. GHW Bush talked about “an historic moment” but he might have had a British speech writer …..

        2. You are too easily bothered. It’s a standard usage.

      5. Folks: I originally wrote it as “A Historical” and then pronounced it to myself and it sounded wrong. For some reason, saying “a historical” is just harder – there seems to be almost a lack of breath between the two words. So I changed it to “an historical” which seems to me to be much easier to say aloud. In any case, for more on the controversy, see this.

        All that being said: Celebrate voluntary diversity!

        1. All that being said: Celebrate voluntary diversity!

          Splitter!

    2. There is a decline of racial integrity in the U.S. We are becoming a mongrel race like south of our border.

      1. Why are you a Libertarian?

    3. Looking to bring more bisexual passion to your life? Welcome to=== Datebi.C/0/M ===, the world’s largest bisexual community for no strings attached encounters. Hundreds of thousands pretty girls and handsome guys eager for hookups, bisexual stands, and discreet affairs are active here. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! u_u

  2. The Virginia judge who had upheld the ban repugnantly argued

    “repugnantly”? Restricting marriage to within one’s own ethnic group is the rule rather than the exception and has been throughout human existence. The modern American obsession with proving one’s enlightenment by dwelling on and celebrating interracial and interethnic marriage is, historically speaking, just plain weird.

    1. No, legal restriction is the exception.

      That’s why U.S. racists turned up their noses at Latin America – all the intermarriages leading to mestizos and mulattoes.

      1. Historically, the key was marrying within one’s class and religion. Cosmopolitan elites (eg kings and nobles) had no intrinsic problem with interracial and interethnic marriages so long as it was with fellow elites. The peasants limited themselves to coreligionists in the same village, which meant more racial monotony.

      2. ^this

        The Spanish intermingled with the South/Central am natives big time. Well, the ones who didn’t die from diseases the Spaniards brought…but anyway…

        Same thing with yer French, British, German et al and the natives (and slaves) in North Am.

        And that’s why we have the delicious Halle Berry, children…

        1. are you the same “Almanian” who posts on the internet all black (and a lot of mixed) big bootied girls on the internet? Cause you have made one old fat white guy, very, very, very happy….and kind of dehydrated.

    2. It’s also a little repugnant – not to mention moronic – to believe that the races were created in situ in separate colors by a deity.

      Not even the Bible is that stupid.

      1. Indeed – read the Song of Solomon which explicitly mentions the lovers have different skin colors.

        1. And don’t forget that Solomon married the queen of Sheba (Ethiopia)!

    3. It’s also repugnant to use that as the basis of an argument in the text of a legal decision.

      It’s kind of like writing in a court decision that you’re freeing a defendant convicted of hitting a black man with a watermelon, because you heard somewhere that black people love watermelon so getting hit with one can’t possibly be an assault.

      You’d expect more decorum in a court document.

    4. Being the a mestizo product of such ”weird” mixture, I hereby declare you a moron.

    5. The founding of America was predicated on an interracial marriage, you big dope. Go back to whatever White Power forum you came from.

      1. The founding of America was predicated on an interracial marriage

        Well that’s a novel historical interpretation.

        1. It may be a slight stretch, but without the marriage of John Rolfe to Pocahontas, Jamestown likely would not have survived, which makes for a vastly different “America”.

          So suck it, honkey.

          1. Who said I was a honkey?

            If Jamestown hadn’t survived, it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. The political tensions that lead to the European settlement of the Western hemisphere would still have existed. All that sparsely populated land was going to be taken by Europeans sooner or later.

            Of course, elevating the interracial marriage of Rolfe and Pocahontas to world-changing importance probably makes you popular amongst the clowns that elevate race relations to a position of utmost importance.

    6. espc: As a matter of fact, you are right about propinquity being the most salient factor in choosing a mate – the “repugnant” aspect of the judge’s quotation is its warrant for criminalizing people who choose their mates on grounds other than propinquity and its mandate for enforcing certain social, economic, or god’s continental arrangements of the races.

    7. “Restricting marriage to within one’s own ethnic group is the rule rather than the exception and has been throughout human existence.”

      That’s just fucking stupid. There is no tradition of restriction. People just happen to have lived among people who look like them throughout history. Now we live in a society where races mix a lot more than has ever happened. Deal with it, asshole.

      1. I would imagine the Roman Empire saw alot of marriages (or at least fucking) between Southern Europeans, Northern Europeans, Persians, Slavs, Semites, and Black Africans, etc. Racial homogeneity was the result of poverty. In the 11th century, a poor peasant in Friesland couldn’t travel to Alodia and hook up with an ebony princess (although he sure would have liked to).

      2. There is no tradition of restriction.

        Tell that to members of the Hanseatic League who were killed for marrying outside of the league. Also, you might want to talk to some Hutus about marrying Tutsi and vice versa. And what percentage of arranged marriages do you think involved interethnic unions (other than to forge political alliances)?

        Now we live in a society where races mix a lot more than has ever happened. Deal with it, asshole.

        I have no problem with interethnic or interracial marriage. I just find the politically correct posturing pathetic. Interesting isn’t it, that because I expressed disapproval of the posturing that so many posters leaped to the conclusion that I oppose miscegenation? People are such slaves to political dogma – even libertarians.

        1. This is the kind of dogwhistling the Rockwellians do all that time.

          “Oh, we’re not opposed to interracial marriage or miscegenation! Oh no, you’ve got it all wrong. I was just ‘observing’ that ‘enlightened’ people natter on about interracialism, without any kind of background implications on the subject at all!”

          Yeah, right, Nancy. Then what relevance does this:

          Restricting marriage to within one’s own ethnic group is the rule rather than the exception and has been throughout human existence.

          piece of historical inaccuracy have to the subject?

          Oh, yeah, it isn’t about disapproval of interracialism or anything. Right.

          1. I am impressed by your ability to read my mind over the distance that separates us. I suppose you also believe that every person who worried about States Rights during the batter over segregation just had to be a flaming racist as well? How does that influence your opinions of Ron Paul and Rand Paul?

            Really, the “dogwhistle” meme that Democrats are using to smear Republicans opposed to liberal policies is insipid. Not every word or phrase is an arcane code for some diabolical political intent. I really do find the slavery to political correctness, the obsession about race and the use of the degree of obsession about race as a proxy for political enlightenment silly. Who cares to what extent races and ethnic groups intermarry? Let other people live their lives as they see fit. Don’t be such a busybody.

            Gawd, you’re as bad as feminists freaking out about the disproportionate number of men in computer science or Occutards railing about the existence of wealthy people.

          2. Rockwellian dogwhistles don’t have shit to do with this, you cosmotarian dick.

        2. The overreaction to perceived PC bias is just dumb. There are legitimate reasons why more racial mixing is a good thing.

          1. There are legitimate reasons why more racial mixing is a good thing.

            Spoken like a true social engineer. That kind of certainty about what is good for society inevitably leads to wanting to take positive actions to mold society to a particular vision.

            1. There are legitimate reasons why more racial mixing is a good thing.

              If you had meant that quasi-ironically, as in “cause Asian pussy tastes gooooood”, then fine.

              If you meant it in a more social engineering PC context, then =P on that.

        3. You inferred that the derision was directed at the notion of a taboo for interracial marriage when, as a libertarian blog, the derision was directed at the idea of a judge, arguing (and even more repugnantly using a scriptural basis that has no place in a legal decision) that a practice deemed taboo should be prohibited.

          Few here would wax poetic about the progressive virtues of heroin abuse, but we’d all agree that people should have the right to fuck their own lives up as much as they damn well please.

    8. The Vikings (and every other conqueror ever) wonder what you are talking about?

      1. Well, in all fairness it wasn’t all Viking lad meets Irish maiden and falls madly in love and marries her. Kill the men, rape the women, steal their stuff was the more common modus operandi.

        1. If you’re on a quick raid and then scampering back home, then rape (or abduction) was the more likely scenario.

          If you’re occupying the country, like the Normans did England, the occupiers are going to start pairing off with the locals, until eventually the differences disappear due to mingling of blood lines.

      2. The Vikings were pikers.

    9. Well, there aren’t records for “most of human existence”, so that argument is unprovable at best.

    10. So….as a libertarian, I’m supposed to be in favor of laws that ban interracial marriage? Is that what you’re saying?

    11. It’s not politically correct dumbass, it’s in celebration of freedom.

      The repugnancy was not (or at least not primarily) at the judge’s dislike for miscegenation, but at his like for government authority to tell people how to live.

  3. Almighty God created the races…

    Wow. Just breezes past the establishment clause.

    Interesting how religionists seem to be able to pull whatever message they want from their scriptures, even if others who hold to the same scriptures are able to pull out conflicting messages.

    1. Thank God atheists are always on the same page on every issue!

      1. Yes, since atheists by definition all follow the same holy book, revealed to the atheist prophet by the Great I AM NOT.

    2. The funny thing to me is that the Bible most definitely does not say that Man was created in separate races.

      The Adam and Eve story explicitly says the opposite. Adam and Eve were the same “race”.

      Separating the races after the Flood as a matter of descent is not “creating” them separately. Actually it’s closer to Darwin than it is to what this judge is writing.

      1. Herbert Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, speculated in his book Mystery of the Ages that Eve had three sets of ovaries to produce children of the black, white, and yellow races.

        So you see? It’s all sorted.

        1. Now wait one minute. I thought everyone was descended from Noah and his three sons (Larry, Moe and Curly Joe?) and their wives and that’s where we get the various hues. I think the wives were from Nod or someplace…..

        2. What am I, chopped liver?

          1. Mitt Romney told me you were white once, and Jewish too, but after you sailed to America you sinned so you were turned red as a curse.

            Hey, I’m just telling you what I heard.

        3. Confirmation bias, how does that work again?

        4. Did Adam have 3 dicks?

          1. No but he had one helluva ball sack.

  4. I’ve noticed that interracial-marriage seems to be the last taboo in advertising. You’ll see a self-consciously “diverse” selection of ethnicities featured within individual ads, but NEVER are different ethnicities paired off as couples. Never.

    1. Interesting – I actually saw a commercial with a clearly interracial couple, and I can’t remember what the product was…

      What struck me – to your point – was, “Hey! They’re showing an interracial couple. That’s cool – don’t see that in ads….ever…”

      1. Your response prompted me to search. Perhaps you saw this Ikea ad?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkWM69crGZ8

        Leave it to those avant-garde Swedes.

      2. They do this kind of shit all the time specifically for American audiences. I don’t know why foreigners believe in the Token Black Guy.

      3. What would really be interesting to see is what kind of interracial couples they are showing? Is it going to be a reflection of the most likely inter-racial marraiges or a hollywoodian version thereof? I mean lets face it, by and large interracial marriages are between a white man and a minority women, I’m not including hispanics in this generalization since they are white. It still not super common to see a minority man married to a white women.

        1. It still not super common to see a minority man married to a white women.

          I see white women married to black guys all the time.

          1. and that’s in freaking North Carolina.

            1. My cousin (a white woman) went down to Duke and then married a black man in North Carolina.

              The only other interracial marriage I am personally familiar with is also a black guy-white girl.

          2. Yep. Very common in the south.

            Only older people seem to be bothered by it any more.

        2. by and large interracial marriages are between a white man and a minority women

          White guy with Asian woman or Black guy with White woman is what I see mostly. Asian chicks love white guys and white woman love … never mind.

          I’m not including hispanics in this generalization since they are white

          Okaaaay …

          1. Hispanics are, in fact, white.

            “Hispanic” is an ethnicity and not a race.

            You’re tipping your hand, you know. Generally speaking (for example) anyone who says they don’t think Jews are white will turn out to be a full-bore white power racist, if you just dig deep enough. It’s a tell. It never occurs to a non-racist that Jews aren’t white, not in 2012.

            It’s a little less of a tell with Hispanics, but it’s still a tell. So, yeah, sure, you’re “just sick of the PC bullshit”. Yup.

            1. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity and not a race

              No, “Hispanic” is a language classification that is frequently misused and confounded with race or ethnicity. There are black Hispanics, in the Dominican Republic for instance. “Hispanic” has been misused enough that I supposed it is fair to say that it can also denote ethnicity now. “Semitic”, by-the-way, is also a language classification although continual usage of “anti-semitic” to mean “anti-Jewish” has made “anti-semitic” generally understood to mean “anti-Jewish”. Every once in a while some Arab with bitch about the fact that Arabs are also a semitic people, but that Jews seem to own the term anti-semitic exclusively. There are also black Jews, in Ethiopia for instance.

              You’re tipping your hand, you know.

              It is you who has tipped his hand. In your lame effort to expose me as some kind of cryto white supremicist, you have revealed that you an ignoramus. For extra credit and to help with your education, you should look up “Aryan” and see how that term was completely misused by the Nazis.

          2. I mean lets face it, by and large interracial marriages are between a white man and a minority women

            Maybe in your (red) neck of the woods. Here in Hawaii, not so much so. Lots and lots of interracial marriages here (and marriages with people who already are a mix of several races).

            And if you think that black men don’t chase big-bootied white women who are being ignored by white men, you haven’t been paying much attention.

        3. I mean lets face it, by and large interracial marriages are between a white man and a minority women

          Maybe in your (red) neck of the woods. Here in Hawaii, not so much so. Lots and lots of interracial marriages here (and marriages with people who already are a mix of several races).

          And if you think that black men don’t chase big-bootied white women who are being ignored by white men, you haven’t been paying much attention.

    2. Television programs show the noncontroversial black woman/white man couple much more than they show the “controversial” black man/white woman couple.

      Just a tangential observation.

      1. You’re right– I can only think of TV couples where it’s black woman/ white man. Also, it’s always Asian woman/ white man– never the reverse.

        1. Also, it’s always Asian woman/ white man– never the reverse.

          Kind of like IRL.

          1. Yes- the Asian woman/ white man thing rings true. White women only make exceptions for Asian men if they’re Bruce Lee.

            1. What’s funny is, I completely agree with you (I’m white and my wife is Chinese), but her brother and cousin both married white women.

              We never see it anywhere else. But there’s two examples just within our immediate family. We’re progressive!

              1. There is definetly a cultural thing too it. I’m going to take a big leap here, possibly get flamed, and say that men on the whole care a whole lot less about race when it comes to dating. Men have preferences but are almost always open to hooking up with an attractive girl of any race. I men the parts all fit right? Women on the other hand seem to care a lot more about it. I have spoken to women who admit that they would never date certain *races*. Hell I once spoke to an asian girl that was emphatic about how she will only date white guys. It was weird hearing that, but there you go.

                1. Women on the other hand seem to care a lot more about it.

                  Yup. Money, mostly.

                  1. Given the higher average incomes of Asian and white males, I find it surprising that black male/white female pairings are more common than the reverse – or white females with Asian males. I suspect income is not such a driving force. Women do seem to be more amenable to parental demands than men are, which is probably related to financial security.

                2. There is definetly a cultural thing too it.

                  Status plays a big part. A white woman means status for a black guy and a white guy means status for an asian woman.

              2. My best friend from high school is Vietnamese and he is married to a white woman.

            2. White women only make exceptions for Asian men if they’re Bruce Lee.

              I’ve known a few white woman who seem to like Jackie Chan.

        2. You’re right– I can only think of TV couples where it’s black woman/ white man. Also, it’s always Asian woman/ white man– never the reverse.

          Again, not here in Hawaii. Lots of Asian men with white women, and every other combination imaginable.

      2. Television programs show the noncontroversial black man/white woman couple much more than they show the “controversial” Asian dwarf paraplegic man/Hispanic transgendered woman couple.

        1. Damn you, Hollywood, damn you all to hell.

    3. There was an old SNL skit where an ad agency was pitching an ad for breath-freshening gum and the ad showed an inter-racial couple making out and had the tagline “You never go back!” The joke was the execs clearly didn’t like the miscegenation angle, but couldn’t come out and say it.

    4. We’re a movin’ on up,
      (We’re a movin on up.)
      To the east side.
      (Mo-vin on up.)
      To a de-luxe apartment,
      In the sky-.
      Mo-vin’ on up
      (Mo-vin on up.)
      To the east side,
      (Mo-vin on up.)
      We finally got a piece of the pie.

      1. That wasn’t an ad– it was a Norman Lear sitcom.

  5. “Virginia leads the nation in the percentage of marriages between blacks and whites”

    If nobody wanted to do it, you wouldn’t need a law against it.

  6. The Malaysians get to be their own race? And what race is John Boehner?

    1. Boner is of the Crybaby race. They are not widespread, because they’re delicate and therefore tend not to proliferate, not being hardy and all.

      1. I thought Boner came from a family with about a bazillion kids.

    2. Judging by his skin tone, I’m guessing umba lumpa?

      1. yes, he and snookie both come from the umpa lumpa clan.

        1. Technically, Oompa loompa gigantus

    3. What about the Americas? North Americans are red, I guess, but Central and South were much browner. Are they “malay”?

      1. What about the Americas? North Americans are red, I guess, but Central and South were much browner. Are they “malay”?

        No, they’re just dead.

    1. Whenever I need reminding of what a sausage fest libertarianism is, I bring up feminism.

    2. What is this I don’t even

    3. “The color, size, or shape of the characters’ body parts, particularly genitals, as they relate to his or her race or ethnicity is not mentioned”
      ???? Not mentioned?
      Well, most of the interracial porn I have seen is of white blond (always blonds for some reason – brunettes, the most discriminated women in porn) globbing a HUGE black schlong. Of course, she does NOT mention (if by “mention” you mean speak)the race of the schlong carrier, as the only sound exiting her mouth is mostly all umphhh, slurp, slurp…give it to me baby.
      Now, with regards to lesbian interracial porn, all I can say is: THERES NOT ENOUGH!!!!

      1. Shouldn’t you be seeing if our food and drugs (and e cigarettes) are safe instead of writing about porn on a gov’t computer?

        1. Or alternatively, applying for employment as the SEC?

    4. Lana : Wanna do it again and watch some interracial porn?

      Archer : God, it’s like my brain’s that tree and you’re those little cookie elves.

  7. What color is malay? Also he excluded South Asians….or are they counted as really dark Germans?

  8. People used to repuglently think the world was flat and that everything was made from air, earth, fire and water. People along time ago were repugnent morons. It’s fun to look back in history and make fun of how stupid and unenlightened they were. We’re clearly superior to them. Yea us.

    1. The future just called: they would call us a bunch of dopes, but in the future no one says nasty things about other people — even the unenlightened from the past. Oh, and the whole Man/Dog thing Santorum warned us about totally happened.

      1. I just gotta plug the short story “Day Million” by Frederik Pohl. Short and sweet.

      2. The future of the future called me and they realized it was ok to say mean shit to people when they say stupid stuff and the people from the future past were some dumb fucks.

    2. I don’t think we’re dealing with an error of fact here, but with a moral (immoral, I guess) impulse.

      People were violently against interracial relationships because they felt those relationships degraded the “superior” race.

      This is the American version of the honor killings of the Muslim world.

      We didn’t improve our knowledge of the workings of biology one iota between then and now (in ways relevant to this question, anyway). The US where a black male in an interracial relationship deserved hanging had the atomic bomb and had orbited satellites. These weren’t poor benighted savages with no science to guide them. They just thought black dick soiled white maidenhood and wanted to kill any nigger who got out of line.

      Sorry, that’s not like thinking the earth is flat.

      1. …and George Washington owned slaves. Low. Hanging. Fruit. Get your money for nothing and your chicks for free.

      2. Libertymike, if you’re out there…Fluffy’s comment is how you use the word “nigger”. Just thought you could use an example.

      3. Not everyone in American society is on the same page. We still have people who believe disproven stone-age superstitious BS. The people doing the hangings were generally not the same people who were building A-bombs, spacecraft, etc.

      4. People were violently against interracial relationships because they felt those relationships degraded the “superior” race.

        This is the American version of the honor killings of the Muslim world.

        As I recall, writers in France were worrying about white Europe being overrun by yellow and brown people back around 1700. And the British weren’t exactly fans of mixing the races either.

        1. It’s probably difficult to find the precise dividing line between demographic fear (of “race suicide”) and purity-based objections based on perceived degradation of whites based on mere sexual contact with blacks (regardless of whether offspring resulted from said contact).

          Rage that leads to vigilante murder generally doesn’t arise because Tom Buchanan is sitting around reading Spengler one day. It tends to arise when people feel that they have been personally insulted when a member of a lower caste violates a social taboo.

          That emotional response is the same one that generates honor killings. “That sexual relationship has soiled the honor of our community!” “If the races interbreed the white race might be gone in 1000 years!”

          1. Reason really doesn’t like the greater than and less than signs.

            Stupid squirrels.

            1. Blame html, not the squirrels.

              Apparently, you know as much about html as you do about dogwhistles and white supremicists.

    3. everything was made from air, earth, fire and water.

      This could be technically true, depending on how lenient you are in your definitions.

  9. I had to google the term Malay, and I’m a racist 🙁

  10. I don’t consider myself to be in an mixed-race marriage because my wife acts white and has a better credit score than I do.

      1. You know why this guy is a dumbass?

        A couple of reasons.

        First off, that chick has a much bigger problem with the fact that he’s short than with the fact that he’s black.

        If he was six inches taller she’d be trying to stuff her phone number in his pocket. In his FRONT pocket.

        Second of all, he is apparently completely unaware of how white people treat each other.

        If I’m on the elevator alone and some white guy gets on, I will probably step to one side and act creeped out if the person gets too close to touching me. I’ll also probably sneer and have an annoyed look on my face if you press a floor button that makes my trip longer. This is because I am unpleasant, and not because I am a racist.

        Also, an important note to all black guys: if I’m driving and I forgot to lock my doors, and I pull up to a stoplight and some pedestrian is standing close to my door, I press the door lock button regardless of what race the pedestrians are. Because fuck pedestrians, that’s why.

        1. Also, an important note to all black guys: if I’m driving and I forgot to lock my doors, and I pull up to a stoplight and some pedestrian is standing close to my door, I press the door lock button regardless of what race the pedestrians are. Because fuck pedestrians, that’s why.

          Perhaps you could buy a modern car, one where the doors lock automatically when the car starts moving, and let your car be accused of being racist instead of you.

          1. Will I be called sexist or racist if I order the talking car that says “come here baby; If your pants get any lower, I can’t help but want to spank your sweet ass”?

    1. i got one…

      I consider myself in a mixed relationship b/c I’m from Earth and my wife’s from some other fucking planet.

      1. The other white meat video is here

        -bottom

    2. My wife is half persian and half italian. I’m a euro mutt comprised of 25% Italian, 25% Polish, and then the other 50% is some permutation of English, Scots-Irish, German, and maybe French (although we prefer to think of that as francophone Swiss). Am I in an interracial marriage?

      1. nah, you’re both Caucasian.

    3. My wife’s credit score came back one point higher than mine. Even though she hasn’t worked in four years.

  11. …that banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    But they were still free to marry people of their own race! They just wanted state recognition!

    1. Sure, wise guy, because race is just like behavior – gotcha. Such a tiresome talking point.

  12. The northern half of Virginia is all Yankees now (including me), so it’s not quite the same entity.

    Miscegenation laws seem like such a quaint thing now. Sort of puts the issue of gay marriage in a long-term perspective.

    1. Historically speaking, not really.

      1. What I meant is that our grandchildren will probably have the same bemused reaction to the anti-gay marriage movement as you and I do to anti-miscegenation laws.

        I don’t mean to infer that the two circumstances are historically the same. As bad as it is that gays cannot suffer the joys of marriage just like heteros, you don’t see people getting lynched over the issue.

    2. Why yes it does. Both prohibitions are based on primitive worldviews which are not sustainable in light of modern knowledge about genetics and behavior.

    3. Sort of puts the issue of gay marriage in a long-term perspective.

      No it doesn’t. Laws generally deal with behavior which is what homosexuality is. The whole point of opposing racial discrimination is that superficial physical characteristics don’t determine behavior.

      These kinds of arguments are boring, but it had to happen. Gay marriage advocates feel compelled to conflate homosexual behavior with race whenever they can in order to hitch a ride on the success of the civil rights movement.

      1. How’s the weather on that flat earth you live on?

        1. My gaydar says he’s in denial about the weather

      2. Both race and sexual orientation are genetically linked traits, beyond the control of the person who has them. No the science isn’t “settled” on the genetic causes of homosexuality, but the preponderance of evidence points in that direction.

        Hitching a ride on the civil rights movement…that’s rich. Gays fought for civil rights for blacks and women and were told for decades “it’s not your turn yet.” Now it is.

        And speaking of the (black) civil rights movement, it’s sad to see black people get equality then turn their backs on other minorities. Not surprising, given human nature, but still sad.

        1. No the science isn’t “settled” on the genetic causes of homosexuality, but the preponderance of evidence points in that direction.

          No it doesn’t. There is some flaky pseudo-science claiming that homosexuality has some genetic basis. Would you like to guess what would happen to an academic who dared to publish research that showed no link between homosexuality and genetics? Heretics are savagely attacked. Every effort is made to wreck the heretic’s life and career to ensure that the “gayness is genetic” message is the only message around. The intellectual climate in academia and the political biases of funding agencies are such that few people would dare to publish a challenge to the pseudo-scientific evidence concerning genes and gays. Honest researchers avoid the hassle by researching other subjects leaving the field dominated by ideologues and funding whores trying their best to cook their results in order to “help the cause”.

          Hitching a ride on the civil rights movement…that’s rich.

          Nothing inspires imitation like success. The civil rights movement has so radically changed the public discussion of race in America that people have to walk around on eggshells and people with some regularity lose their jobs or are forced to make a groveling public apology for the most minor of alleged transgressions. It has provided non-whites, especially blacks with special legal weapons and privileged treatment in many situations.

          By claiming that gayness is genetic, gay activists absolve gays of personal responsibility for their sexual behavior, implicitly attack the idea that gays can give up homosexuality and become heterosexual, implicitly attack the idea that gays in contact with children can recruit them into the gay lifestyle, build sympathy for gays by suggesting that they are suffering because of something which they can do nothing about and set gays up to receive the same kind of special legal weapons and special treatment in some circumstances that blacks currently enjoy. Gay activists have consciously adopted the political strategies of the civil rights movement and use the tactics and circumstances that are credited with changing America’s public treatment of race. Claiming that homosexuality is genetically determined and is analogous to race or being left-handed facilitates the use of those tactics and strategies.

          Gays fought for civil rights for blacks and women and were told for decades “it’s not your turn yet.” Now it is.

          And speaking of the (black) civil rights movement, it’s sad to see black people get equality then turn their backs on other minorities.

          Boo-hoo. You’re upset that you don’t get paid back for all that hard work. Just who was it that made the promise that the entire leftist political coalition would rally behind gays in order to achieve their political goals? I’m sure that if you asked most blacks then they would tell you that they don’t have equality and that they never personally promised to march in the streets, yell slogans, intimidate people, destroy property and vote as a bloc to help gays out. I’m also sure that you would find that most are offended by the implication that getting dragged in chains to America, living under segregation and dealing with discrimination based solely on skin color is in any way similar to being stigmatized for your sexual behavior.

          1. How is it a child can recognize the sexuality of another before they understand the ramifications?

            It is undoubtedly biological but statistics are uneven because men have traditionally repressed their sexuality in some religious or intolerant cultures.

            I do believe the logic that a female producing male babies increases the occurrence of homosexual boys.

            I don’t believe boys would choose to be gay in a family they know would not accept them; answer that question

          2. The only people who still stick with the argument that homosexuality is a behavior and not some form of biologically determined orientation are people with low to zero libido and therefore perform straight sex (if at all) as a duty and self-denying homosexuals who pretend to be straight to get along in their chosen society. I know I’m straight because attractive females make me all “hubba hubba” and I assume the same for gay men towards attractive men. Since this is what I’ve been told by gay men as being the case I have to assume it is so.

            Desire is not behavior.

      3. How is fucking a brown person instead of a white person not behavior? What the fuck are you talking about?

  13. Over 70 comments and not a single Mandingo joke.

    You people sicken me.

    1. Well, I couldn’t find the Mandingo scene that just preceded this one, but here ya go.

      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/…..ng_school/

  14. Black guys marry the white girls.
    White guys marry the asian girls.
    Asian guys don’t marry the black girls.

    Both of those groups are going to be very lonely.

    1. This is why every black woman secretly wants to breed with Jeremy Lin.

      1. This is why every black Most woman secretly want to breed with get a piece of Jeremy Lin’s money and earning potential.

        Economic security counts for a lot.

  15. Out of my eight siblings, three brothers married non-whites: an African, a Mexican, and a Philippina. It has never been an issue at all.

    1. Don’t think anyone’s saying that it’s a problem. Unless I missed something.

      1. I just meant no lightning bolts from the sky.

    2. Sounds like the setup to a joke. Have they ever walked into a bar together?

  16. They have different skulls than us.

  17. The Virginia judge’s isn’t just poor logic, it’s poor history. Go back far enough (less than 200,000 years), and we’re all of African ancestry.

    1. And all the different ethnic groups traveled across the world on foot just to get the fuck away from one another.

      You think Inuits and Laplanders settled where they did by choice? They were just happy to be away from the (enter slur here).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.