Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Roots of Racism

Will we ever get beyond the notion of racial identity?

From time to time a bit of news crosses the desk that makes the mind reel, the jaw drop, the head shake. So it was the other day when Public Policy Polling, a reputable albeit partisan firm, reported that 46 percent of Republicans in Mississippi think interracial marriage should be against the law.

The poll was taken in late March—that's March of 2011, not March of 1963. Even allowing for the small sampling size (400 respondents), it's shocking and dismaying to see such repellent attitudes so openly expressed.

But perhaps one shouldn't be shocked and dismayed. Perhaps, like Pauline Kael, the New Yorker film critic who didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon, one just needs to get out more. Besides, Mississippi is (according to Gallup) the most conservative state in the Union, and Republican primary voters are bound to be the ones hanging off the far end of the starboard davits on that right-leaning ship.

Even so. It's one thing to display a susceptibility to stereotypes, as George Allen seemed to do recently when he asked a black male newsman, "What position did you play?" It's something else again to voice support for the legal strictures of the Black Codes and Jim Crow. One would have thought the foundation on which such laws were erected would have crumbled long ago.

Then again, maybe not. Because the mentality of anti-miscegenation relies on some intellectual habits that are still very much with us.

There is, to begin with, the notion of racial identity. Your garden-variety bigot is apt to argue that the differences between the races are not superficial but quite profound. He is apt to tell you each race possesses its own essential nature, its own culture and mores, and that for this reason it is best if each sticks to its own kind.

Some would call that backward. Others would call it progressive. Put a happy-face on the same sentiments and you have something like Somerville Place, a blacks-only residential floor at the University of Southern California. Says USC, "The goals of Somerville Place aim to foster an understanding of and respect for Black culture." Ahh, that. The bigot and USC might differ on whether black culture should be respected, but they agree it exists. Interesting.

Somerville is not unique. Voluntary racial balkanization has greatly advanced in recent years, and rare is the major institution without a diversity office premised on the idea that people of different races bring with them different traits. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously put it, "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Some might say this is far different from the racialism of the Jim Crow South—that Sotomayor spoke of experiences people live as a result of their ethnicity, not traits they are born with. And there is something to this. But it also would imply that, at some point in a happier future, the need for racial head-counting would disappear as people cease to experience disparate treatment. To the contrary: Diversity programs will always be needed, one gathers, even when discrimination no longer exists. Also interesting.

Second, there is the matter of what a friend likes to call the hive mentality. Opposition to intermarriage seems bizarre to those who think about people in an atomistic, individual-rights framework. If Bob and Mary are consenting adults, then their wedding is none of Steve's business, thinks Steve, so long as they aren't meddling in Steve's affairs. If their marriage takes nothing from his pocket and does not impede his movement, then why should he object?

Against this way of looking at things is set a very different framework: one that says people are not atomistic individuals but mere parts of a larger collective, and that their ostensibly autonomous behavior affects the larger organism in manifold ways, justifying state control over what might otherwise seem like personal choices.

Hence, e.g., widespread support for seat-belt laws and, more recently, the campaign against obesity—which used to be considered a byproduct of personal vices (gluttony and sloth) rather than a public-health issue. In each case the argument is made that seemingly personal choices actually have larger social consequences affecting the common good.

A similar hive mentality provides the rationale against intermarriage—miscegenation will "mongrelize" the white race, weaken the racial stock, and so on. If you think of Sally next door not as an autonomous individual but as a member of the tribe of white people, of which you also are a member in good standing, then whom she marries is very much your business.

Of course, you can support seat-belt laws on collective-good grounds and still oppose laws forbidding intermarriage (most people do) by saying the former are grounded in solid medical and financial facts, while the latter are grounded in nothing but vicious idiocy about white supremacy. Trouble is, that renders the position on intermarriage contingent, rather than absolute. If someone came along who could demonstrate that letting blacks and whites intermarry did indeed impose costs on society, then the collective-gooder would have to revise his position. The radical individualist would not: People have a right to marry whomever they please, he says, without regard for the wider societal effect.

Now one can certainly believe people of different races bring different things to the table, and believe as well that personal decisions have societal ramifications justifying state intervention, and still object strenuously to the bigotry of laws against racial intermarriage. A lot of people hold all three beliefs without contradiction, it seems fair to say. But it also seems fair to say that you cannot support laws barring intermarriage without believing in the two other notions as well. Beyond the boundaries of Mississippi, flagrant racism might have fallen out of favor. Its underpinnings, alas, have not.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

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.

  • ||

    I like the photo of all those Democrats in white robes.

    They should start wearing those again....it would make them easier to spot.

  • ||

    That's a damned lie! Everyone one of those people votes Republican now. Every. . .single. . .one!

  • ||

    That's me on the left.

  • ||

    the dixiecrats turned gop after the 64 civil rights act. joshua must be the product of a private education

  • ||

    That must be why it took a Republican takeover of the NC Senate last year for the Senate to apologize for (the Democrats) impeaching William Woods Holden for going after the Klan immediately after the Civil War.

  • ||

    dunno about n carolina. but the dixiecrats did turn gop after the 64 civil rights act. nixon's campaign mgr coined the term "southern strategy" for the gop. but the large hispanic immigration will put the south back into play

  • ||

    What about South Carolina which kept electing at least one Democratic senator until 2002, or Arkansas which has only elected two since 64, one in the 1990's, and the other being the guy that just beat Blanche Lincoln. Okay Georgia, they must've switched red and never looked back right... well their first R senator came in 1980, and they've gone back and forth since then (Zell Miller, Sam Nunn). Alabama's about the same, first in 1980, and have gone back and forth since then. This southern strategy myth needs to end.

  • ||

    However this all shook out over the last 60 years, racial attitudes don't fit in nice boxes like that. There are plenty of morons to spare in both parties.

  • ||

    Actually parts of the Southeast went for Carter and Clinton in '76, '92, and '96 so it never went completely for the GOP.

  • ||

    the large hispanic immigration will put the south back into play

    You've gotta love it! On a blog about how racial tribalism is a bad thing, along comes a lefty hypocrite to cheer for racial tribalism. And he does it immediately after complaining about the evils of white tribalism! Man, I never saw THAT one coming.

  • ||

    the dixiecrats turned gop after the 64 civil rights act.

    So when the dixiecrats were democrats they would lynch poeple.

    One can only assume the GOP's long record of racial tolerance and equality must have tempered them as lynching seems to have dropped considerable since 64'.

    So to sum up:

    Dixiecrats while Democrat = militant murderous thugs.

    Dixiecrats while Republican = awkward and annoying mild bigots.

  • ||

    im fm ohio & my people fought (& died) on the federal side. im not defending southern racism...or any racism. i simply pointed-out facts about the dixiecrats. end of story

  • ||

    im fm ohio & my people fought (& died) on the federal side.

    My people found the whole business to be royally fucked and moved west to the Oregon territory.

    Government fucking the world, and the people in it has had that effect on my family tree.

    By the way if your people died then how the fuck do you even exist?

  • Paul||

    My people were still in Europe until a generation ago and American Racism quaint, but are still strangely obsessed with ethnic identity.

    Fucking Europeans.

  • ||

    Is that why the same states that went for Goldwater in 64 went for Wallace in 68?

    Dumbass.

  • ||

    wallace was a old dixiecrat fool. try to keep up

  • ||

    Urine, I do give you credit for CONSISTENTLY bringing the stupid. You're always there with A1 dumbass for the rest of us. Thanks!

  • ||

    u aint seen nothing till u see ol mex's stupid weaponized. im tellin ya the drooling & poo-flinging wont stop

  • ||

    Never said he wasn't, however, your silly assed narrative doesn't fit with Wallace as he never switched parties, took votes away from Hubert Humphrey, initially polled well among union members in the north and midwest, and was the official Democrat candidate in his home state of Alabama.

    Take off your Team Blue hat and try to keep up.

  • ||

    the dixiecrats turned gop after the 64 civil rights act

    Repeating lies does not make them truth. The dixecrats continued to send Democrats to Congress for decades after 1964. You could look it up.

  • ||

    The Dixiecrats ran Strom Thurmond for president in 1948 and were long gone in 1964.

  • ||

    From beyond the grave? Don't you know that the dead vote Democratic?

  • ||

    Have some fun one day, take one of those recent red/blue political maps and compare it to a map of those who supported and opposed major federal civil rights legislation.

  • ||

    This is a silly meme. Everyone switched over? A blue state is all blue? A red state is all red?

    Sorry, but the shame is an American one, and, frankly, some of the worst places for racism are right smack in "blue" country. Like Boston.

  • ||

    Fucking Anglos

  • ||

    Exactly. The "your TEAM is the racist one! No yours is!" is one of the more fucking retarded things TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE engage in. It's like special needs children on the playground. Christ, just shut the fuck up about it already. You sound like idiots.

  • ||

    Aside from the racists in the Democratic party--and there are at least as many there as in the GOP--there's also the racist paternalism of the left in general. That might actually make them a little worse.

    In any event, the stupidity of the parties and those that waste time believing anything they say is just mindboggling. If we'd only be a little more skeptical and demand accountability, we'd avoid a lot of the problems we have today.

  • ||

    You're a towel!

    It's utterly uninteresting "who is worse". They don't give a fuck about racism; they care about tagging the other TEAM with it. How incredibly boring.

  • ||

    I like how people defer to these jokers as "our leaders" when they do virtually nothing other than trying to score political points on the other party.

    Despite everything, the real leaders aren't in the government at all. And the day we realize that, maybe we'll stop allowing the con game to continue. Because that's what government is--a big act of fraud, with willing shills.

  • ||

    Those not so blinded by the cult of false equivalence know perfectly well who's worse, objectively, uncontroversially.

  • ||

    Yes. I believe the left are taking us more quickly to disaster than the right, but they are both driving down the same road.

  • ||

    Wow, Tony and I agree twice in one day!

    You're right - the left sucks so much worse than the right. Team Blue truly are much worse fucking assholes than Team Red. Although they both suck; there's no doubt, objectively, uncontroversially, that Team Blue bite the big weenie way worse than Team Red.

  • ||

    Nice tapdancing, Tony, as usual. You did forget to say "all of it is THEIR fault", though. Let your inner voice speak, dude!

  • ||

    It's utterly uninteresting "who is worse". They don't give a fuck about racism; they care about tagging the other TEAM with it. How incredibly boring.

    If you can break down the left's incoherent race bating, and demonstrate how their policies and political positions today institutionalize racism you can move them to libertarianism.

    A none racist rational leftist is a libertarian.

    A none racist rational Republican is still a Republican.

  • ||

    "A none racist rational leftist is a libertarian."

    And a rational leftist is an oxymoron. Try again.

  • ||

    there's also the racist paternalism of the left in general. That might actually make them a little worse.

    Between the paternalism and the denial of the Law of Comparative Advantage the institutional racist effects that the Dems create are a lot worse.

    But I guess it is all ok cuz the dems have good intentions for the brown poeple they stomp on on a daily basis.

    Plus they get really hot under the collar when an N-bomb is dropped....the N-bomb dropping has nothing to do with the real poverty the left creates world wide but hell at least they can feel good about stopping the mean things poeple say.

  • ||

    Nobody did racism quite like the American South, and false equivalences merely serve to excuse it. The point is the parties have realigned to different voter blocs, the racism stayed put. And the current incarnation of the GOP relies on the South. And the current GOP hasn't really changed that much with respect to encouraging racial resentment to secure that bloc.

  • ||

    Virtually nothing you said is true. But you go on believing it.

  • ||

    Tony, contrary to other opinions, I believe a lot of what you said is true. I believe it is equally true that your party harbors racists of every other variety, including Black Panthers, those who advocate for all-black colleges (which they claim is not racist, unlike all white colleges, which are racist), and the soft racism of low expectations (we have to have special provisions for the blacks, hispanics, asians, women, etc, because they just aren't capable of achieving anything on their own).

    Both parties play on racism of their own variety, to keep their own constituents involved. "White people, all these crack-head welfare queens want to steal your money! Whatever you do, don't judge anyone as an individual; make group assumptions based on popular stereotypes! Vote republican!"

    "Black / hispanic people! All these racist whites secretly want to re-enslave you! Whatever you do, don't achieve anything on your own, because the only way you can succeed is with massive gov't assistance! Vote democrat!"

  • ||

    I believe that all racism is not equal. If we want to equate the Black Panthers or affirmative action with decades of lynching, then that probably tends to excuse the latter more than condemn the former.

    Worse, some want to make this equivalence using a single statement by Justice Sotomayor or other nonsense like that. This scraping for racial imperfection on the left has a political agenda--to excuse the vast history of meaningful and harmful racism on the right. It's kind of an important aspect of American history.

  • ||

    Does condemning racism wherever you see it necessitate comparisons to lynch mobs?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I believe that all racism is not equal. If we want to equate the Black Panthers or affirmative action with decades of lynching, then that probably tends to excuse the latter more than condemn the former.


    What did I tell you?> Very pliable ethics. Up is down. Each class has its own logic, yadda yadda.

  • ||

    Yes OM sometimes cultural norms are situational. Do you people ever leave your homes?

  • Paul||

    Do you people ever leave your homes?

    What do you mean, "you people"?

  • ||

    You would think that. What with your bourgeoises logic and all.

  • ||

    I believe that all racism is not equal.

    Well you think that the racism of the Democrat controlled south which murdered and oppressed people is equal to your imagined racism of the Republican controlled south.

    It seems the only metric in which you measure racism is:

    Real Left Wing Racism = OK so long as we can hide the body count with rhetoric and happy thoughts

    Imaginary Right Wing Racism = THE WORSE FUCKING THING THIS WORLD HAS EVER SEEN!!!!

  • ||

    You are so not getting this. Democrat does not = left wing in all times and all places. At one time the South tended to vote Democratic. When Northern Democrats succeeded in passing civil rights legislation, the South abandoned the party and went to the Republicans, where they currently are.

  • ||

    Tolerance =\= left wing in all times and places Tony. You seem to have no definition of "left" or "right" beyond "nice" and "icky" respectively. Either define your terms or just admit that those terms are just wank lube for you and your buddies.

  • ||

    When Northern Democrats succeeded in passing civil rights legislation

    When the Republicans and Democrats succeeded in passing civil right legislation

    Corrected

    But still not entirely accurate.

    It would be more correct to say that after 100 years or so of Republicans pushing for Civil rights in 64' enough democrats bowed to Republican demands and civil rights were passed.

  • ||

    Yeah, I've often wondered why the Democrats get credit for Civil Rights, since they were the one's holding it up for so long.

  • ||

    If we want to equate the Black Panthers or affirmative action with decades of lynching, then that probably tends to excuse the latter more than condemn the former.

    Those lynchings occurred when the south was Democrat controlled.

    Not so many lynchings since the Republicans took over.

    Amusing that in the previous post you mentioned false equivalence...cuz all your posts in this thread is full of it.

  • ||

    Are you suggesting there is some causal relationship between widespread racism and the name of the dominant political party? I don't even know what you're trying to argue.

    Yes racism has decreased as a problem. But it's not totally gone. The South still lags behind the civilized world. I know, I live here.

  • ||

    Tony, considering that most of the lynching occurred prior to the 1960's (before the Civil Rights bill), that would indicate lynching was mostly perpetuated by Democrats.

  • ||

    Fine, who cares. I am not in the business of defending a political party in all of its historical incarnations.

  • ||

    Race is a false paradigm that never served any legitimate or defensible purpose and anyone who promotes racial consciousness, whatever their supposed motives, is ensuring that racism will always be with us.

  • ||

    Actions and beliefs are not the same thing. The New Black Panthers have an ideology that is morally equivalent to that of the Klan. Obviously, the NBP do not lynch people, but then neither does the modern day KKK. You don't get away with that anymore. If the NBP were but in the same environment with the same ability to lynch people that the Klan once was, I have little doubt they would do the same thing.

  • ||

    Bullshit, Tony - all racism *is* equal.

    Talk about false equivalence...

  • ||

    Yes you are doing a good job making one. If racism means you are disadvantaged in society, that is more of a social ill than racism that means your sensitive wittle feewings are hurt and that's the end of it.

  • ||

    "Nobody did racism quite like the American South"

    I beg to differ.

  • ||

    Me too.

  • ||

    I was thinking that, too.

    The Nazis were a lot worse that the South, too.

  • ||

    Than the South.

  • ||

    You're supposed to say something like "You know who else was a lot worse than the South?"

  • ||

    the racism stayed put.

    You forgot that the racism was marginalized and considerably mellowed by the south voting GOP.

    the current incarnation of the GOP relies on the South.

    The GOP "relies" on a minority of a minority who might say something uncomfortable at the dinner table??

    I have my doubts on that one...but even if true the pre-1964 Democrats in contrast relied on racist thugs and murderers.

    Your Dixiecrat transformation thesis has a monstrous hole it in it.

    Your only defense is through some unicorn enabled slight of hand that makes crazy old grandma who drops too many n-bombs morally equivalent to 100 years of systematic brutality, imprisonment, oppression and murder.

  • ||

    Nobody did racism quite like the American South, and false equivalences merely serve to excuse it.

    The entire fucking world did racism quite like the American South, you babbling moron.

  • ||

    Nobody did racism quite like the American South, and false equivalences merely serve to excuse it.

    They probably lynched as many blacks in Indianna and Illinois during the early 20th century as any place in the south. Look it up some time.

  • ||

    Tony is saying there are ZERO racists among the Team Blue ranks.

    Simply fucking amazing.

  • ||

    Tony is saying there are ZERO racists among the Team Blue ranks.

    Oh really. Is that what I'm saying. Strange how I am always making absurd absolute claims that resemble strawmen when they're filtered through you.

  • ||

    Tony, do you mean like the racism of 98 percent of the black vote going for Obama? If that's not racist, nothing is. Fool.

  • ||

    100% of white voters voted for a white guy in 2004. They must be even more racist.

  • ||

    "The 'South' is south of the Canadian border." - Malcolm X

  • ||

    Have some fun one day, take one of those recent red/blue political maps and compare it to a map of those who supported and opposed major federal civil rights legislation.

    So when the south was Democrat they opposed civil rights and now that the South is GOP it supports civil right.

    I fail to see how that helps you and your historically racist party.

  • ||

    Have some fun one day, take one of those recent red/blue political maps and compare it to a map of those who supported and opposed major federal civil rights legislation.

    Which would be a fruitless and meaningless exercise, because a hell of a lot has changed in the social, economic and political landscape of the county in the intervening (nearly) 50 years.

  • ||

    Country, not county.

  • ||

    Have some actual fun. Take map of what states voted for which presidential candidate and compare it to a map showing what people in an area call a sugary, carbonated beverage.

    Dammed pop and soda people...

  • ||

    I want a pop!

    I want a Shasta!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_XEOrAl1J8

  • ||

    Dude...it is Coke!

    Jeesh.

  • ||

    Have some fun one day, take one of those recent red/blue political maps and compare it to a map of those who supported and opposed major federal civil rights legislation communism.

    Fun! Can we try it this way next?

  • Old Mexican||

    There is, to begin with, the notion of racial identity. Your garden-variety bigot is apt to argue that the differences between the races are not superficial but quite profound.


    Bigotry does not limit itself to racial stereotypes. Any form of collectivism (nationalism, tribalism, racism, class identity) share the same features: A sense of 'belonging' to a group and the mystical properties that one would enjoy from it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Second, there is the matter of what a friend likes to call the hive mentality.


    Goes to the same: the collectivist mindset, the mysticism of belonging to a larger whole, which has to be kept clean and pure - hence the efforts to keep workers being 'workers' (or "brothers") and not entrepreneurs or professionals; or keep whites the purest of white and blacks the purest they can be.

  • ||

    Would you include families? Many people feel a sense of belonging to their family treat family members differently.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Would you include families?


    Include them into what?

    Many people feel a sense of belonging to their family treat family members differently.


    But that's because they're related by blood, MNG. There IS an objective trait that makes families what they are and not a subjective one, like class, race, nationality, etc.

  • ||

    But that's because they're related by blood, MNG. There IS an objective trait that makes families what they are and not a subjective one, like class, race, nationality, etc.

    I don't think you understand the racist mindset, though (which is a good thing!). They believe that everyone of a certain race is related by blood, in the same manner as a family. Hence why members of that race share certain biological characteristics (i.e. color), and why it's their business who everyone else in the "family" decides to breed with.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jim,

    They believe that everyone of a certain race is related by blood, in the same manner as a family.


    Even between family members people treat each other as individuals, if your experience during family reunions are similar to mine. Racists aren't really being serious when they claim to be part of a "bigger family," that's only an excuse.

  • ||

    I agree it's a bullshit excuse to explain inane hatred, but families don't always treat eachother as individuals in the sense that we might mean from a libertarian or ancap perspective.

    For example, families tend to stick together through thick and thin, more so than a random collection of strangers. If I see a hobo, I may or may not give him a dollar. If a member of my family (say out to the cousin extension) were homeless, I'd try to help them out until they got back on their feet. Totally different treatment, based purely on the clannish blood relation aspect.

  • ||

    I have friends I'd help if they were homeless and family I wouldn't, so it's a little more complicated than that. I probably give family more of the benefit of the doubt that some random person, but not necessarily more than friends. I make decisions largely on the individual except, I guess, for my daughters who I'd burn down the world to save.

  • ||

    Racism is just another form of tribalism. If you're not in my "tribe" then something is wrong with you. Maybe you were born that way or chose that way but in any case you're not a member of my tribe.

    Racism is one of the most nastiest versions (with religious extremism being as bad) but we also see the EXACT same attitude in politics and even consumerism.

    Go onto any product forum and you'll see extremist behavior that would rival any Clansman or Panther: "MY TOY IS THE SHINIEST AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS A FUCKING SAVAGE WHO SHOULD BE SHOT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL!"

    Ever talk to some Mac owner about why don't they have a PC? Ask a gamer about why a PS3 is best? Discuss with a Trekkie with Captain is better? Fuck, some of the die hard fans in pro-sports are about a heartbeat away from setting up terrorist training camps to take each other out!

    Humans are hard wired for tribalism (which the research has proven) and that trait isn't going away anytime soon no matter how much the so called "enlightened" individuals wish otherwise!

    EVERYONE engages in tribalism in some form or the other, the only thing is that some forms of it are considered unacceptable and it's more obvious with some people!

  • ||

    Fuck, some of the die hard fans in pro-sports are about a heartbeat away from setting up terrorist training camps to take each other out!

    Maybe so, but the Sooners and Aggies fucking deserve it.

  • ||

    Maybe so, but the Sooners .....fucking deserve it.

    I can't say I blame you. Winning all of those National Championships in the second half of the 20th century has got to hurt.

  • ||

    Yes. You see this between Linux and Windows users. :)

  • Scott||

    Some family members also try to force their visions of life for their family members upon them.

  • ||

    Damnit, where's one of our racists to explain this to us? Of all the days for them to not be here...

  • ||

    There IS an objective trait that makes families what they are and not a subjective one, like class, race, nationality, etc.

    I don't understand this. What is the objective trait, especially in today's world of adoption and divorce and step-families and IVF and surrogate mothers ect?

    I thought that there were three scientific groupings(?), not sure of the proper term, of humans. Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian. While their significance is certainly subjective I thought that these classifications were pretty objective. I am pretty sure that Thomas Sowell mentions them in his book Race and Culture.

  • ||

    The old categories of Mongoloiod, Negroid, and Caucasian didn't hold up once DNA analysis became available. Modern genetic studies now show the World population divided into several African groups plus one group incompassing everybody else. (Meaning that a Briton, a Korean, and an Australian Aborigine, for example, are more closely related than a Nigerian, a Kenyan, and a South African.)
    But even these newer categories are somewhat artificial, because populations have been migrating and interbreeding throughout human history. So any random individual from one of these genetic categories may resemble a member of another category more than his own.

  • ||

    The old categories of Mongoloiod, Negroid, and Caucasian didn't hold up once DNA analysis became available. Modern genetic studies now show the World population divided into several African groups plus one group incompassing everybody else. (Meaning that a Briton, a Korean, and an Australian Aborigine, for example, are more closely related than a Nigerian, a Kenyan, and a South African.)
    But even these newer categories are somewhat artificial, because populations have been migrating and interbreeding throughout human history. So any random individual from one of these genetic categories may resemble a member of another category more than his own.

    Genetic categories? Several African groups? Would these be objective? Saying that people have mixed DNA doesn't mean that there are not distinct and identifiable differences. How could you even call it "mixed" without combining something?

    My point wasn't that the three classifications were correct. Or that they didn't overlap. I am only saying that there are plenty of different ways that you can objectively group human beings. Indeed, with genetics can't you point to groups of humans and say "they do or do not have this gene"?

    I am not taking the side of the collectivists, here, far from it. Only arguing against OM's point that families were the only objective grouping.

  • ||

    Race does have a scientific basis, but it is a lot more complicated and fuzzy than most common conceptions of race are. And it pretty much is the same basis as family, just writ large.

    Every human is related to every other human. But you are much more closely related to some people than you are to others. You are more closely related to your parents than you are to a second-cousin. This gets complicated though, as you may be more closely related to one second cousin than to another.

    Where you choose to draw the line in terms of who is and who isn't a member of your family (purely based on the degree of relatedness- no adopted kin need apply) is a bit arbitrary, and once you draw that line you will necessarily (unless your family is enormously inbred) have members of your family who have members of their family that you would not consider members of your family.

    There are some "clusters" of relatedness though, because humans have inbred to a pretty high degree, historically. And certain traits are associated with some of those clusters. Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, for instance are generally more closely related to each other than they are to bushmen, and they are visibly so.

    But visual cues, particularly the most obvious ones, are not always a very reliable guide to this. This is particularly true when talking about "Blacks." Due to some bottlenecks in the population of the peoples who left Africa it turns out that sub-Saharan Africans have a much larger pool of ancestors heavily represented in their family trees than people with very little sub-Saharan ancestry.

  • ||

    I thought that there were three scientific groupings(?), not sure of the proper term, of humans. Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasian.

    The only science that has any real card in the hand is biology (you could argue social sciences, but as far as hard data go it doesn't offer the same depth). A race is defined by a group of individuals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. All humans fall under this category, hence there is only 1 human race (species) to a biologist. Any other sub categories anyone has come up with (usually based on appearance and/or geographical origin) hold no water once genetics are taken in to account. Across the board we find that there are more genetic differences among (supposed) races of humans than there are between them.

    So to answer your question, no. There are only humans in science. Any subdivisions are superficial at best, and never cause an individual to fall out of the category of the human species as defined above.

  • ||

  • ||

    Any subdivisions are superficial at best, and never cause an individual to fall out of the category of the human species as defined above.

    I certainly did not say, nor mean to imply, that they were outside of the human species. I did not use the word "race". I even specifically said "humans". I also stated that I thought the "significance" of the differences were subjective.

    So in answer to your answer, I wasn't suggesting that any humans fell outside the definition of human for any reason. However, I generally don't consider susceptibility to disease as being "superficial". Superficial to their humanity certainly, but still significant.

    All that being said, it seems pretty obvious that there are going to be objective differences in people, especially genetic ones. This is not to say that they are superior or inferior, only objectively and identifiably different.

    Collectivism is about assigning attributes to every member of a group. Recognizing similarities in different groups need not be either subjective nor collectivist.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    A race is defined by a group of individuals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. All humans fall under this category, hence there is only 1 human race (species) to a biologist.

    Are you sure of that? Have all possible combinations been tested? If there's been any study confirming this, I haven't heard of it.

  • ||

    Ornithorhynchus beat me to it!

  • ||

    As a cousin once said when another cousin married a Latino: "It's about time we got some pigment in this family!"

  • ||

    Bunch of sleepwalkers?

  • The Fringe Economist||

    Glad to see someone point out the hypocrisy of those who would have an all black dorm

  • ||

    There's no hypocrisy there.

    When any group other than white non-liberals tries to exclude someone they are motivated by blind hatred. That is the only possible explanation.
    When liberals and non-whites exclude people it is in the name of inclusiveness. You see, they're not really excluding, they're including.

    An all white dorm is exclusionary and racist, born of blind racial hatred.

    An all black dorm is simply being inclusive of black people, born of inclusiveness, tolerance and a spirit of equality.

    See the difference?
    It's not what you do, it's who does it.

  • ||

    Nah. It's simply that USC didn't want its property values to decrease.

  • ||

    Us versus Them. Since the beginning of time; until the end of time.

  • ||

    And after all, we're all just ordinary men.

  • ||

    I wonder what percentage of black women would support such laws in a poll, considering the grumbling you hear about black men with white or Asian wives.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John Thacker,

    I wonder what percentage of black women would support such laws in a poll, considering the grumbling you hear about black men with white or Asian wives.


    Asian wives? I thought that one was a fantasy peddled by E.R. and Ming Na.

  • ||

    I have an Asian wife! And we've only encountered discrimination once, in 4 years of marriage. At a gun store in a very large and diverse city, of all things. I'm a big gun nut, and we stopped in to pick up some magazines for my XDM .40, but as soon as we walked in, everybody in that place, including the clerks, fell silent. They all just stared at us, without moving or saying a word, until we left. It was kind of creepy.

    And guess what? I won't spend a dime there, so their loss.

  • ||

    Maybe they all had boners.

  • ||

    Maybe they were all waiting on her to drive away before they went back out on the street.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jim,

    They all just stared at us, without moving or saying a word, until we left. It was kind of creepy.


    Maybe they were thinking "God, I wish I were THAT guy!"

  • ||

    Thanks guys! I never thought of it like that, but you all just made my day : ). I'm still not going to spend money there though : ( .

  • Old Mexican||

    Jim, not only did you break a paradigm I was harboring for a bit too long, but also made me shout "Woo-Hoo! Asian wife! Yeah!"

    So the pleasure is all mine ;-)

  • ||

    We are on the same page as I was thinking the same thing. Jay Severin, now off the air here in the greater Boston area, would concur.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    What makes you think they were staring at you on account of your wife? Did you check to make sure your fly wasn't open? Sounds like you're the one jumping to conclusions here....

  • ||

    ^quick get the homo^

  • ||

    Point taken, but the response to a fly being open is usually not immediate silence from everyone in the store, whether or not they could see my fly through the shelves, followed by hard stares and no expression or words until you leave.

    And as I said, that's literally the only experience I've ever had like that, so I'm not hyper-sensitive or seeing "racism" everywhere I look. Since I don't see it anywhere else I've gone, the incident really stands out.

  • ||

    What makes you think this was racial discrimination? Unless there's more you haven't told us, that's far from obvious. Maybe they were all struck dumb by the clothes you were wearing?

  • ||

    Sorry you and your wife had to experience that. Here in the "racist" south, very few would notice (unless your wife is a real sexy lady. Then all the men would stare with their mouths hanging open)

  • ||

    Huh? What was that? I kind of zoned out at "Ming Na".

  • ||

    A Barton Hinkle Heimerschmidt.
    His name is my name too.
    Whenever we go out,
    The people always shout:
    "Hey A Barton Hinkle Heimerschmidt."
    Lalalalalalala

    Haha. Beat ya to it.

  • ||

    Damn !

  • ||

    *shakes fist at sloopy, curses having to WORK on a Friday afternoon*

  • Citizen Nothing||

    All those interracial couples who want to get married are just looking for special rights, right? Like the gays?
    What it we call it "biracial unions"?

  • ||

    Haven't you ever ate an oreo with one of the black parts already consumed?

  • ||

    I oppose government sponsored interracial marriage AND intraracial marriage.

    Your point destroyed.

  • ||

    I'd certainly agree with this. The only real justification I can see for marriage as a legal institution is pretty much in line with what this article is decrying.

    If marriage is such an important societal institution that special legal rights should be accorded the married, then who should be able to marry who should be a question of what is in society's best interests, rather than a question of rights (to be clear I don't think interracial marriage is societally harmful.)

    If marriage is a matter that concerns only the individuals involved, I am don't see why we should accord it any special legal status. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and all that.

  • ||

    Dunno why it's such a big deal... I've ALWAYS been down with the swirl.

    And I've caught hell about it from more than just white-supremacist types. I dated a black girl, a few years ago, and we mutually gave up due to the hassles we got from ALL sides.

  • ||

    That picture is funny. Ironically, I happened to stumble across Birth of a Nation this past weekend on some nether-channel of DISH. Didn't really watch it beginning to end, it was just there while I cleaned my house. I couldn't believe it as I watched it.

    I had only heard of that flick, how racist it was, etc. And now that I've seen it...holy shit its as bad as they say!

  • ||

    It wasn't a nether channel--it was TCM. I saw it for a minute just a couple of days ago.

  • ||

    "It's like history writ with lightning" -- noted racist Woodrow Wilson about Birth of a Nation.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    It does have the advantage of having been made while the events of the Civil War were still within living memory. So it probably does reflect the understanding of those events by those who lived through them.

  • ||

    Seems sad, but folks like that 1980 guy and Boon, are probably real Team Redders. People call them "false flag" plants, but the sad and sorry truth is, there is still a significant portion of the conservative movement (probably esp. in the south) that believes these things.

    Of course, I would tell them to their face that they aren't real conservatives, but they're probably all registered (R), so what do I know?

    I'm also making a big assumption that all of them turned Red after the 60s; I wonder if there are any true-blue dixiecrats still left around? THAT would be an interesting (albeit nauseating) conversation.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jim,

    People call them "false flag" plants, but the sad and sorry truth is, there is still a significant portion of the conservative movement (probably esp. in the south) that believes these things.


    I have no problem with people that do not like people of other races, or cultures, or like interracial marriage. If that's what makes them happy, so be it.

    As a libertarian, I do not strive to make people virtuous by force of arms or law - that is something the Statist fuck/Fascist/Progressive may like, but not me. I would not think or dream of unleashing the aggressive power to kill, steal, maim and, as we have seen, sexually molest, that the State enjoys, to make people comform to my world view. I would not find it acceptable that people rely on this force to impose their views, of any sort. If I want to be a bigot and not like a person for the color of their skin, or not want to engage in commerce with that person, that is my right, as I am the owner of MY person. By the same token, I would not use the force of the state to force another person to like me, or to force him to engage in commerce with me.

  • ||

    I wasn't denying or arguing any of what you're saying. I was referring to the frequent comments that our resident friends cannot possibly be actual republicans or conservatives, because there is no such thing as a racist republican or conservative. My contention is that yes, Virginia, there are racists, and I would imagine that the white variety congregate in the republican party. The ethnic variety, who insist on all-black colleges, for example (which I also count as racist) tend to congregate in the democratic party.

  • ||

    You would imagine wrongly. The non-ruling D brand is resentment. Always has drawn the racists. Still does.

  • ||

    I have no problem with people that do not like people of other races, or cultures, or like interracial marriage. If that's what makes them happy, so be it.

    As a libertarian...[fades into chest thumping]

    Even an anarchist can oppose bigotry.

  • ||

    The question is, to what degree can an anarchist compel other people to act as if they weren't bigots? Luckily I'm not an anarchist, so it's not a question I am all that concerned with.

    I don't think that in all cases you can favor the Utopian answer, when our history has been so much less than Utopian. As a matter of principle I would oppose the 1964 civil rights act, as an unconscionable imposition on the freedom of association. Given the history of slavery and Jim Crow I think it was called for, even if distasteful in some ways.

    I can't agree with people who think that that history is a blank check. But I also can't agree with the people who think that it should have no bearing at all on policy. It is a hard question, and I am not entirely sure exactly where I fall on it, at least in the hard cases.

  • Old Mexican||

    If someone came along who could demonstrate that letting blacks and whites intermarry did indeed impose costs on society, then the collective-gooder would have to revise his position.


    You're talking about people with a very pliable ethic, Barton; they would simply rationalize the problem away, relying on polylogism, expediency and obfuscation. Just like they always do. Just read what Tony, MNG, et al. have posted. Up is down.

  • ||

    Considering Mississippi's huge black population, may of that 46% in favor of banning interracial marriage HAD to be black. I wonder if that percentage matched the white poll respondents. If so, that would be a much more interesting news story.

  • pmains||

    46 percent of Republicans in Mississippi

    Unless blacks in Mississippi are less overwhelmingly Democrat than elsewhere, I would say this is not the case.

  • Otto||

    Peter- the polls was of Mississippi Republicans. I don't doubt there are some black Republicans in Mississippi, but in a sample size of 400, I think the number would be small.

  • ||

    Yes, it was of Republicans - and isn't that a pity? It would be an interesting thing to see.

  • ||

    Yes, it was of Republicans - and isn't that a pity? It would be an interesting thing to see.

  • Otto||

    But if they did a study that included all races and political beliefs, it might not confirm their narrative.

  • ||

    He's already got the black vote -- Earl -- and the gay vote -- Earl.

  • Robert||

    But didn't they report only slightly lower percentages among Democrats? ISTR that's what I read elsewhere.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Considering Mississippi's huge black population, may of that 46% in favor of banning interracial marriage HAD to be black. I wonder if that percentage matched the white poll respondents. If so, that would be a much more interesting news story.

    It would also have been a much more interesting story if they had polled Democrats to see how many would favor banning inter-racial marriage. Somehow, I suspect that is also a non-trivial number.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously put it, "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

    Except that that isn't a full quote. Sotomayor said she "hoped" that would be the case, meaning that, in her view, Hispanic women are more exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (all of which is "good for you," morally, she supposes) than a white man, and they should profit from having lived the life of the underdog. It's self-congratulatory rather than racist. If you put yourself through Ohio State getting up at 5 AM every morning to serve breakfast to frat boys, don't you think you know more about "life" than a preppy snot like, say, George Bush?

  • ||

    No.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alan Vanneman,

    Except that that isn't a full quote. Sotomayor said she "hoped" that would be the case, meaning that, in her view, Hispanic women are more exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune[...]


    That would make a person like Clarence Thomas even wiser; there's NO QUESTION the guy suffered much more from racial discrimination than the "wise Latina," yet receives not the same consideration.

    So, either her claim (and yours) is wrong, or it is correct, which would mean you would have to accept Clarence Thomas is a better and wiser person.

  • ||

    So, either her claim (and yours) is wrong, or it is correct, which would mean you would have to accept Clarence Thomas is a better and wiser person.

    ...cricket chirp...

  • ||

    Thomas is a far wiser person than Sotomayer - but not because of race or gender.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That would make a person like Clarence Thomas even wiser; there's NO QUESTION the guy suffered much more from racial discrimination than the "wise Latina," yet receives not the same consideration.

    That's because Thomas is a house nigger, OM. Don't you pay attention to lefties?

  • ||

    In Sotamayor's case, she ceased being the underdog decades ago.

    Bill Clinton - a very white dude - had to scratch and bust his ass every bit as much as Sotamayor ever did to get where he is.

  • ||

    Possibly more. Do you think a white dude would have gotten as many breaks as Sotomayer has? Not a chance.

  • ||

    Bill Clinton scratched his ass to become a former president?

  • ||

    43 white presidents. 1 Latina SC Justice (an appointee).

    While on an individual basis you're probably right, you can't say that Clinton's whiteness wasn't a benefit in general.

  • ||

    Ditto for Sotamayor.

    And BTW, if you put that fat little lady in J. Crew and get her driving an SUV badly, she's just another middle-aged white chick. A Harvard alumni, government flack, perpetual lawyer/judge white chick. 'Latina?' I laugh.

  • ||

    *yawn*

    Don't you ever get tired of hearing your own bullshit, Tony?

  • ||

    Nope, it's racist ... and sexist.

    She makes the broad statement that a Hispanic woman is, on average, wiser than an Anglo man in certain matters. But there is no evidence to make such a statement. It comes purely from her simple racist sexist brain.

    Unfortunately that simple racist sexist brain is now deciding Supreme Court cases - thanks to Barack and his buddies. And will be doing so for many years to come.

    That makes it harder to get pass racism and harder to protect individual rights and liberties.

  • ||

    Besides, "hispanic" is not a race.

  • ||

    My hispanic wife would like you to have a word with the long time Mainers among whom we now live.

  • ||

    Even better, I'll have my Panamanian wife talk to them instead.

  • ||

    Is Gisele of Victoria Secret fame 'hispanic?' How 'bout Shakira? Alex Rodriguez? Cameron Diaz?

    Relegating most of a whole hemisphere full of diverse people into one ethnofolder is retarded.

  • ||

    Yup."Hispanics" are about as Heinz 57 as you can get.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Giselle? No. She's Brazilian. Never a hispanic was she being that Brazil was colonized by the Portuguese, not the Spanish.

    My Brazilian wife will chew you a new one if you call her hispanic.

  • ||

    Agreed, but my point (I thought obviously) is that while you and I and other smart people know hispanic is not a race, the perception of folks in a state that's 97% white is different.

  • ||

    That's funny, because the hispanics I know sure think anglo is a race.

  • ||

    Yeah, no kidding. How many dikey chicks are left at Harvard? Obama cleaned'em out it seems over the past year.

  • ||

    We have a Supreme Court Justice whose views on gender and ethnicity seem to be based on a Jennifer Lopez movie.

  • ||

    Sotomayor said she "hoped" that would be the case,

    A couple of thoughts:

    (1) People often say "hope" when they mean "expect."

    (2) Regardless of how you parse it, that thought shows a degree of racialism, sexism, and collectivism that should be unacceptable in a judge.

  • ||

    Was Sotomayor ever a POW?

  • ||

    Was Sotomayor ever a POW?

    No, but every woman is a prisoner of the rape culture.

  • ||

    Believe me, that fat beaner has little to fear from any rape culture.

  • ||

    Why does she (and you) presuppose what sort of life a white male might have lived?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    BCUZ ALL WHITE MALZ IS FROM PRIVLIGGGG.

  • ||

    You're every bit as tedious as Tony.

  • ||

    I love that separating a dorm (or floor) at USC to all black people is seen as a way to "foster understanding and respect for black culture."
    Um, how are other people gonna understand/respect anything when you won't let them in or associate with them?

    By that logic, then segregating a diner or a bus, or moving all the white people to suburbs (and later putting up walls and gates) helps foster understanding and respect between the races.

  • ||

    makes it easier to hunt the brown sugar

  • ||

    Even so. It's one thing to display a susceptibility to stereotypes, as George Allen seemed to do recently when he asked a black male newsman, "What position did you play?

    Not everything is about race. I once had a black co-worker ask me, a white guy, the same question.

  • ||

    Allen has a history of casual racist remarks, do you?

  • ||

    No, but most men have a history of playing sports.

  • ||

    "Most"?

    Cite, please.

    Seems to me that in high school and college, the proportion of men who were on a sports team to mean who weren't was much less than 50%. I mean, simple numbers - my high school had something like 450 students. Let's just for simplicity's sake assume 1/2 is male - that means about 225 guys. The football team had, I dunno, let's say 30 or 40 guys on it.

    So it would seem that "most" guys did NOT, in fact play on a sports team.

    In college, the proportion was even smaller.

  • ||

    I never played on a high school or college athletic team, but I'll be on three softball teams and possibly one ice hockey team this summer.

  • Robert||

    You're counting only interscholastic and intercollegiate teams. When you count the males who've played any team sport with anyone, it's gotta be most -- even if you count only those who played often enough to consider themselves to have had a definite position.

  • Robert||

    In fact, the likely comeback will be, "In which sport?" Because most boys play several. Even the least athletic among them. And that's not counting the individual sports or sports where they weren't even specialized enough to pick out a position.

  • ||

    But most men who have a certain physique did play sports, and played one more than others, and concentrated on one position. There's jocks, and there's nerds. And, as with race, they are often, but not always, visually distinguishable from each other.

  • ||

    When I was in High School (a million years ago) everyone to Phys Ed for at least two years.

    If you took Phys Ed. you played sports. Basketball, softball, track, even tag football.
    Even the girls played (but not football).
    Everyone = 100%

  • ||

    Yeah, it does seem that way. He apparently is trying to turn his "Macaca Moment" into a lifetime trend.

  • ||

    I was curious about the age break down for the poll.I wasn't surprised to see that majority of those polled, where older. 400 people where polled, of which only 32% where 45 or younger, and 32% were 65 or older.

    How much of these results breaks down to generational differences?

  • ||

    The youngest were the most for anti-miscegenation laws. It makes sense when you consider that respondents were primary voters, and young people who vote in primaries are crazy.

  • ||

    Once a bitch always a bitch, what I say.

  • ||

    was the saddest word of all

  • ||

    I checked the poll data as well, and the one thing that jumped out at me is that the people who supported the legality of interracial marriage appear to be more establishment Republicans - they were more supporting of Romney and Barbour, less so of Palin.

    They didn't survey Mississippi Republican Party members; they surveyed people who usually voted in Republican primaries. However, Mississippi has open primaries (and you may switch at every election cycle). I have voted in both parties' primaries in the past, with the choice largely dictated by the down-ballot elections; the statewide ones will largely go to the most conservative candidate, so there is little point in missing out on primaries for local elections in which the Democrats are the only game in town.

    It doesn't change the underlying attitudes, but it is interesting to consider.

  • ||

    The other night TCM aired a 1935 Shirley Temple flic. Ms. Temple played the daughter of a confederate spy.

    In one scene, Ms. Temple told her ailing, soon to die mother that "father will soon be home" and that everything will be better. The mother responded to the effect that they should not get their hopes up that the father would be returning.

    One of the house servants had left the plantation in search of the father. Ms. Temple told her mother that her father was coming back for sure as Uncle Billy, the house slave "can do anything. Why, he can sing and dance and climb trees".

    My wife and I could not believe what we had just heard. Then we laughed and laughed knowing that such dialogue would offend the politically correct group think stalinistas.

  • ||

    Yep, only communards would find that offensive. Hahaha.

  • ||

    You're not one of those fundies who are opposed to singing and dancing (as well as climing trees), are you? Why, to compliment anyone who could do all that would be just terrible.

  • ||

    Also had a nit to pick a couple paragraphs later:

    To the contrary: Diversity programs will always be needed, one gathers, even when discrimination no longer exists. Also interesting.

    Who said that diversity programs will be needed when discrimination is gone? No one.
    Well, you did.
    Then you said that that statement (which you made) was "interesting" in a dismissive way...but you were the one who said it!

    Sotomayor certainly didn't say it. Following your line of inference, if everyone was raised the same and all had the same experiences and background, then clearly Sotomayor's statement would no longer apply. We'd all be white, middle-class, status-quoians. Or whatever.

    I agree with the thrust from the article, but this was one of the strangest rhetorical sequences I have ever seen, at least here. And that includes everything John Stossel writes.

    Create a quote in your head, paraphrase it, attribute it to no one, then dismiss the idea and its author offhandedly and hope no one realizes that was you.

    Here, I'll try one:
    America has its first black president. One day a black politician could suggest we double taxes on all white people. Interesting.

  • ||

    Full disclosure: I live in Central GA, and many of those attitudes persist down here.

    The most common thing I hear around my area is variations of "I'm not against interracial marriage, but I wouldn't do it". I'm not sure if that's racist or not; could there be logical reasons?

    Anyway, one thing that I don't think was noted in the article was the impact that the media has on the racial environment in this country. How many of the people in Missississippippi (never sure when to stop) watch rap videos and think thats what black people are/do/think? How many of the people there live in close proximity to what my grandmother used to call "trailer trash"? White or black, my feeling is that most "regular folk" don't want to associate with certain elements of society. I'd also think some people might be a little nervous if their sister started dating a rapper. Makes me wonder how much of the racial problems in this country are generated by outside forces versus just Billy Bob not liking black people. There's a lot of incentive for some people if you can keep the racial divide alive.

  • ||

    ""I'm not against interracial marriage, but I wouldn't do it"."

    What age group does that tend to come from?

    I've heard my mother say that before, and she is the furthest thing from a racist I have ever met. When she was growing up in Western NY, my grandparents were a host family for black, inner-city school kids, participating in school integration program. 40 years later, they are still friends, which is why I was shocked to hear this from her.

    She had mentioned that when she was growing up, it was just viewed as something you didn't do. I wonder if this comes from a social norm, vs bigotry.

  • ||

    Maybe she was expressing more of a cultural norm that manifested itself in what she's attractive to... Sort of like how I have no intellectual problem with women who don't shave their legs or armpits, but I still wouldn't want to marry someone who didn't shave because it's still gross to me.

  • ||

    That was my long-winded way of saying, "Yes, social norm."

  • ||

    At least you put all of the hairy women on notice.

    And yes, I'm sure that's where she was coming from.

  • Robert||

    Ilike them hairy. It shows they're grown up.

  • ||

    I dunno, sounds suspect to me. I mean, isn't the whole notion of prejudice "pre-judgment"?

    To say "I wouldn't marry a black person" pre-judges and assumes that the speaker finds it objectionable for some reason.

    I mean - no black person, ever, anywhere? I've seen lots of incredibly hot black women.

    I would have no problem whatsoever marrying a black women.

    But my wife might have something to say about it.

  • ||

    "But my wife might have something to say about it."

    Wive's are funny like that. When are they going to get with the program?

    I'm going with ClubMed's answer. Your's opens up a big can of worms. I would never marry a man, does that make me a homophobe?

  • ||

    Q: Why don't blacks and Mexicans marry?

    A: They're afraid the kids will be too lazy to steal!

  • ||

    hear about the spic & jew in business together?...they went blind watching each other! bada boom...

  • ||

    Q: Why don't blacks and Mexicans marry?

    Cuz the blacks think the Mexicans taste just like chicken?

  • ||

    "Now one can certainly believe people of different races bring different things to the table."

    I think that's literally true. Having lived in the Chicago area for a quarter century, and associating with a wide range (Black, Asian, Hispanic, White "ethnics"(Albanian, Greek, Polish)) of people, it seems to me the most substantive differences between the races are food preferences that get handed from one generation to the next. Beyond their cuisine, of which each group is so proud, the differences don't amount to much.

  • ||

    So we need diversity in the workplace so that we can have a lively discussion
    on pierogies vs. fried chicken in the cafeteria?
    I once got into a good argument with a "diversity in the workplace" advocate over something similar. I said "My employer doesn't want diversity when it comes to punctuality,
    honesty, loyalty, dressing professionally, etc. Are you saying
    you buy into racial and ethnic stereotypes?' Sputter, sputter. I followed with, "If I want diversity of opinions or ways to look at business problems, I'd rather have a Jewish employee from Queens, a white kid who grew up on a farm in Iowa, and a fundy Baptist from Plains, GA than a white, a black and an asian who all attended Choate and Harvard."

  • ||

    I have no idea why you would want Jimmy Carter looking at your business problems.

  • ||

    LOL, but I was thinking more of Billy.

  • ||

    We elected the wrong Carter...

  • ||

    Well I'm a "miscegenated" child (my mom is French/Canadian and my dad Hipsanic) and I honestly do not understand why people feel it's wrong for races to mix. I mean, to make a case against it would require one to make some bullshit pseudoscientific argument and I don't think the average racist even bothers to take their thoughts that far. So to me it seems the simple cause is a lack of interaction which is why the all-black dorm is a ridiculously bad idea.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    This or this might be good reasons....

  • ||

    Nothing to see here, just the fascist making retarded statements. Move along now.

  • ||

    I don't think many people have bone marrow transplants on their minds when they are trying to find a potential mate. Even if health issues were something you worry about, reproducing with someone from a different racial background has its advantages. Most genetic disorders are caused from recessive traits so marrying some one outside of your race will pretty much guarantee your children won't be mentally disabled or have some degenerative condition.

  • ||

    Really, a person would be awfully lonely if he/she based his/her search for a mate on genetics. Good luck bringing that up on a date.

    But since I'm already biracial and you make some good points about genetics, I feel much better about dating an Asian woman. :D

  • ||

    Likewise, a person must be borderline retarded to think that lack of interaction between blacks and whites in Mississippi is the cause of white racism.

  • ||

    "So to me it seems the simple cause is a lack of interaction which is why the all-black dorm is a ridiculously bad idea."

    That certainly explains the racism in Mississippi.

  • ||

    As a show of solidarity with the poll respondents I hereby propose a law banning all marriage between my fellow minnesotans (and desendants of minnesotans now living in other parts of the world) with any and all persons of Iowan desent to prevent dilution of our Minnesotan bloodline and culture.

  • ||

    Yah, hey..well it least that makes some sense, by golly.

  • ||

    What about Youpers? Aren't they practically Minnesotans?

  • ||

    It's Yooper dude, yooper.

  • ||

    Back when I was in college, my parents came to visit and we went out to eat in a restaurant. Suddenly my father say "look at that!" He had a shocked look on his face. I looked out expecting to see an auto accident or something. I couldn't see anything. "Right there, look!" said my father. I still couldn't see anything. There! That couple walking down the sidewalk!" I still didn't notice what was wrong.

    It was of course a mixed race couple.

    And them my father looked away and his eyes started misting up slightly. He thanked me and my brother for not noticing. "You are going to live in a far better world that I did."

    p.s. I had dated an Japanese girl in high school and even took her to the prom, but that didn't bother my father. The White New Deal Democrat culture he came from didn't have a problem with Asians but it did have a problem with blacks.

  • ||

    That's largely the same as my grandparents, who live in rural southern Illinois. I'm married to a Chinese woman, which they were OK with, but they informed me directly that if I married a black woman, she would not be welcome in their home. Seems strange to me; if you're gonna hate on the coloreds, why make exceptions?

  • ||

    Better math skills?

  • ||

    Less record of violent crime?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    STFU, you goddamned liar!

    According to Team Blue and their media lackeys, racism doesn't exist outside of the south.

  • ||

    Have you ever been to southern Illinois? It may not technically be "The South," but it's an honorary member.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Not even Kentucky, just south of south IL is part of the south.

    Which of course is the whole point of my post. The narrative is that racism is a purely southern activity.

    Thinking peoples know better.

  • ||

    I know, it was just a dig on southern Illinois. Of course, as a Chicagoan, anything outside of a 60-mile radius of the city counts as southern Illinois.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm not sure that being from Chicago is a badge of honor to hold over your southern statemates.

    Zing!!

  • ||

    You mean "downstate."

  • ||

    Yeah. I was just too lazy to make that distinction.

  • ||

    Thinking peoples know better.

    Anyone moderately familiar with American history knows better. They had race riots in several northern cities in the early 20th century after WW I - Chicago was one of them.

  • ||

    ClubMed is correct; in fact, several books on the local history mention that the southern Illinois counties sent ambassadors to the Confederates asking about how they could break off of the rest of Illinois and join up. That was in the very early days, when there was a real possibility that Kentucky would go, too.

    My grandmother has told me she stood in the way of "freedom buses" that were traveling south from Chicago for the civil rights movement. Apparently a bunch of the townsfolk blocked the roads, to register their unhappiness as the prospect of race mixing.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    But Illinois is the home of TEH SAVIOR.

  • ||

    A couple years ago I was at the best rib joint in Chicago, which is naturally in an all-black area of the South Side (and any of you fuckers who argue some trendy shit like Smoque is better can suck an egg. Anyway...). I'm waiting in line, and as is always the case I'm the only white person there. The woman behind me has her daughter with her, who's probably nine years old. The girl suddenly goes, "Mama! Mama! That boy is with a WHITE GIRL!" as a mixed-race couple happened to pass by on the sidewalk. The mom looked up at me and got this look of terror in her eyes and promptly scolded the daughter, saying, "Why are you saying something like that??!!" She then looked at me and said, "We don't teach her these things." I just laughed and said, "Don't worry about it, lady." I've always said that if we really want to get beyond racism, we have to first acknowledge the fact that most racism isn't evil, it's human. You have to realize that before you can move beyond it.

  • ||

    Good story

  • ||

    "We don't teach her these things."

    She was probably afraid you were part of the PC police.

  • ||

    My mom told me this story: we were in line at the supermarket; it was my mom, me, about four, and my younger brother, less than three. A black fellow steps behind us in line, and my brother turns, looks up at him and asks:

      "How did you get brown?"

    The guy's response was perfect:

      "The same way you got white."

  • ||

    Should have asked him why his palms are white.

    "Cause his hands were on the hood of a cop car when God painted him."

  • Robert||

    An interracial couple I met said the only state they had trouble in was Ill.

  • ||

    The root of all endogamy? "I want my grandchildren to look and act like me because they are my projection into the future after I have passed on".

  • ||

    Overall, I'd prefer my grandchildren to have a brain as good or (preferrably) far better than mine. So long as the body is in good shape for survival and use, I don't care so much what it looks like.

  • ||

    The White New Deal Democrat culture he came from didn't have a problem with Asians

    Odd, then, that it put the Japanese in concentration camps, but not the Germans.

  • ||

    Yes, they did. It's just not emphasized as much in popular culture.

  • ||

    Yes, they did. It's just not emphasized as much in popular culture.

    Then why was my grandma and her parents living free in this country from 1940 to 1950?

  • ||

    Me, too. My German ancestors ran amok in the U.S.

  • ||

    Where did your great-grandparents live?

  • ||

    Where did your great-grandparents live?

    From 1940 to 1950?

    Washington State.

  • ||

    Actually, several thousand German nationals were interned in both WWI and WWII.

    Internment of enemy nationals is common practice and not considered contrary to international law as long as decent treatment is afforded.

    What was outrageous about the Japanese internment was that not only Japanese nationals interned but so were American born people of Japanese descent.

    They were the only group of American citizens whose loyalty was questioned on the basis of their ancestry.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    That might have been a little rough to pull off, given that Germans have the largest ethnic representation in the US, and have for nearly two centuries.

    The mythology about the "melting pot" is mostly just that.

  • ||

    Vote Republican if you hate backs, but vote Democrat if you just want the blacks to stay in their public housing and out of your sight.

  • ||

    ^^THIS^^ is a much better way of expressing what I was trying to tell Tony farther up the thread.

  • ChrisO||

    Underlying such attitudes is that black and white Americans don't really have much desire to integrate our separate cultures. We're centuries away from that, if it happens at all.

    One unfortunate side-effect of the continuing legal existence of the "one drop rule" is to reinforce the idea that a mixed-race person must choose to identify as black or white.

  • ||

    Underlying such attitudes is that black and white Americans don't really have much desire to integrate our separate cultures.

    Whites Americans don't want to engage in music, sports, food, movies, art, and television with black americans?!?!?!

    Are you fucking retarded?

  • ChrisO||

    No, I fuck intelligently.

    If you can't see that black and white have largely separate cultures in this country, then you clearly haven't spent much time amongst "the other." It's deeper than the surface stuff.

    Our cultures are related, but different.

  • ||

    Half my roommates in college were black. We pretty much all liked the same TV, movies, music, food, etc. There was about as much difference between "our cultures" as between me and any random white person.

  • ||

    The KKK was crippled by Superman
    http://io9.com/#!5394980/how-superman-defeated-the-ku-klux-klan

  • ||

    " Your garden-variety bigot is apt to argue that the differences between the races are not superficial but quite profound." So if you think there is a difference between the races, you're a bigot. Who the fuck wrote this Tony???

  • ||

    Huh? Try reading the quoted sentence again realist. It doesn't say if you think there are differences you're a bigot. It says that a bigot sees the differences as "profound" rather than superficial. And yes, if you think the differences are "profound" rather than mostly superficial then you're probably a bigot.

  • ||

    Who the fuck is dfd? You're just a fucking troll. I can read the sentence right the first time without your help. This is just liberal bullshit.

  • rather||

    How cute, the movie opening had a parade!

  • ||

    "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."

    -Ayn Rand

    And fuck you for making me quote Ayn Rand. I hate her books.

  • ||

    Poor little boy lost his sense of humor :-(

    You might be happier on the tits thread

  • ||

    There is a tits thread?!?!?

  • rather ||

    there always is a tits thread-but I don't think this is has real breasts

  • ||

    Well...it's pretty hard to call an Objectivist racist.

  • ||

    Nobody helps to perpetuate stereotypes more than a media that constantly peddles images of gang violence, illegal immigrants jumping fences, among others. It's a useful way to inundate the public with these images and then proclaim them racists for believing the stereotypes they try so hard to push (even though few take the media seriously).

    However, the worst offenders have to be the Jackson/Sharpton cabal of self-proclaimed black leaders. Demanding a loyalty to black culture requiring a self-mitigating of one's education and intelligence in order avoid that most unforgivable of offenses against the black culture, "acting white."

    Blacks don't naturally speak incoherently, but to do otherwise is to be a race traitor.

  • ||

    "Blacks don't naturally speak incoherently, but to do otherwise is to be a race traitor." Then blacks are racist.

  • ||

    Some articles really bring out the dumb fuck liberal trolls!

  • ||

    This whole thread is RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIST!

    That is all

  • ||

    Mr. President, please get back in the Whaaaaambulance.

  • ||

    So it was the other day when Public Policy Polling, a reputable albeit partisan firm, reported that 46 percent of Republicans in Mississippi think interracial marriage should be against the law.

    One should note that a law that prohibits blacks from marrying whites also prohibits whites from marrying blacks.

    In a fucked up sense it is equal in its racism.

    yeah it is a disgusting idea but if we contrast it with say Jim Crow which made it defacto law that Whites could vote and blacks who tried to vote got lynched then by comparison the marriage segregation law is down right mild.

    It is racism but nothing near the kind of institutionalized racism that Missouri had only 50 years ago.

  • ||

    In a fucked up sense it is equal in its racism.

    Unless you believe that overall Blacks want (and should want) fervently to marry whites, but Whites don't *really* want to marry Blacks. Then it's just a very biased prohibition, but you'd first have to agree with that presuppostion.

  • ||

    Unless you believe that overall Blacks want (and should want) fervently to marry whites, but Whites don't *really* want to marry Blacks. Then it's just a very biased prohibition, but you'd first have to agree with that presuppostion.

    No there is no presuppostion needed.

    It is racist because it segregates people racially. No need to find motives and shit to explain why that is racist.

  • ||

    Genetic research may well show that dimwits who buy into simplistic ideologies have lower IQs regardless of race. Nothing personal.

  • ||

    Well if you want to point your own flaws, more power to you.

  • ||

    Can we at least agree that if black people aren't allowed to have grievances because y'all don't see color (like Stephen Colbert) and racism is over, then white guys don't get to have the fainting couches rolled out for them over a comment by sotomayor...

  • ||

    then white guys don't get to have the fainting couches rolled out for them over a comment by sotomayor...

    I think the sotomayor thing can be divided into two camps.

    One camp really does not give a shit and only uses it to point out the hypocrisy of leftist race bating.

    The other camp is offended.

    There are of course infinite shades between the two camps.

  • ||

    All I see is the implied claim that the only people allowed to have racial grievances are white people...

  • ||

    Well, that's because that's what you're looking for. I see nothing like that in jc's post.

  • ||

    All I see

    I did not expect you to be very perceptive on the subject which is why I explained it to you.

  • ||

    That there is white racial resentment that can be divided by levels of absurdity?

  • Paul||

    Oh shit I can definitely agree with that. Hell, some of my best friends are even white.

  • ||

    I call Leap of Logic. Believing that individuals are "atomistic" beings necessarily leads to race-free attitudes or that the belief that we are not fully atomistic beings, but share some deeper....I don't know, atoms...leads to the opposite. Well, at least the latter I believe is a leap. It's a mixing of philosophical categories and reminds me of a Woody Allen story. He wouldn't do his homework because he came to understand that the universe was shrinking. His mother took him to the doctor because he was just moping around all day. When the doctor saw him he said, "The universe might be shrinking, but Brooklyn isn't. Do your homework."

  • ||

    Besides, Mississippi is (according to Gallup) the most conservative state in the Union

    Google much?

    2008 presidential election:

    MS: 56-43 for McCain

    UT: 63-34
    OK: 66-34
    WY: 65-33
    ID: 61-36
    AL: 61-39
    AK: 60-38

  • ||

    While browsing this article on reason.com, a few advertisements for dating websites were present on the right-hand side of the screen. Two of the advertisements were for dating websites; a site for ethnically african singles, and another called "Chinese kisses".

  • ||

    Filipino Cupid was on a few days ago.

  • ||

    While reading this article, I noticed an advertisement on the site for "afrointroductions.com" for "African Dating and Singles." I suppose the hypocrisy does not detract from the author's point.

  • ||

  • ||

    Did you actually link to Teen Vogue? You pervert.

    Thank you, btw.

  • ||

    I just finished tracking down the Senators who voted against the CRA.

    The following states had both senators oppose it:

    Virginia, Mississppi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, NC, SC, Alabama and Georgia. Only an ignoramus who wanted to argue that our political parties were immutable entities would even try to argue that those areas are the bedrock of the modern Democratic Party...

    Interestingly among the other nay votes many were from GOP Senators (New Hampshire, Tower from Texas, Simpson from Wyoming, Goldwater from AZ etc).

    http://www.senate.gov/artandhi.....CR1964.pdf

  • ||

    Only an ignoramus who wanted to argue that our political parties were immutable entities would even try to argue that those areas are the bedrock of the modern Democratic Party.

    If you were not such an ignoramus you might realize that that fact is that neither the political parties nor the states are "immutable entities", and that this undermines your entire argument.

    California elected Ronald Reagan as governor twice, then as President twice. Today California is a reliable Democratic stronghold. Using your lefty-logic, this means that Ronald Reagan would approve of todays Democratic Party and not that states change over time.

  • ||

    Yes, the dolts here like to ignore all the obvious evidence of where racism exists. Most commenters here, like most commenters elsewhere, are ideologues who defend their position at all costs.

    OTOH, have you ever met a liberal yuppie whose children attend a majority black school? What does that say about what their voting habits would be if they were of modest means and lived in an ethnically heterogeneous district?

  • ||

    Public Policy Polling, a reputable albeit partisan firm

    That's a polite way of admitting that it's a branch of the Democratic Party.

  • ||

    Your garden-variety bigot is apt to argue that the differences between the races are not superficial but quite profound. He is apt to tell you each race possesses its own essential nature, its own culture and mores, and that for this reason it is best if each sticks to its own kind.

    Wait a gosh-darned minute! Most black people believe all this. So A. Barton Hinkle (what a phony name) is saying that most black people are bigots! Well, I'm not going to to just sit here and watch A Baron Hinkle slander and defame blacks!

    Seriously, the implicit assumptions on display in Hinkle's piece are themselves rather racist.

  • ||

    Trouble is, that renders the position on intermarriage contingent, rather than absolute. If someone came along who could demonstrate that letting blacks and whites intermarry did indeed impose costs on society, then the collective-gooder would have to revise his position. The radical individualist would not: People have a right to marry whomever they please, he says, without regard for the wider societal effect.

    This really jumps out at me as a bizarre argument. Especially in a magazine with a name like Reason.

    Why shouldn't we re-evaluate our positions in the face of new evidence?

  • ||

    Drink!

  • ||

    I was pleased to see from reading your article that a majority of the conservative republicans in Mississippi are opposed to laws preventing inter-racial marriage. It was not always so. Change comes slowly, but it does come.

  • ||

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index......-you-back/

    Statistically, white folks either aren't attracted to or aren't comfortable dating 'most' black folks on ok cupid. I wonder what's cultural and what's biology?

  • ||

    Race as we know it today is a rather recent phononomon

    If you check old newspaper article and academic. Journals that was coming out of americasnd Europe a ghetto turn of the twentiet century. There was insertions that there were pround differences between the Irish, Greek, Hungarian, etc.basically the more western European you were the smarter. And more you were. It wasn't until afterwwi that racism as w know it evolved. Also trying to type an coherent argument on a smartphone is impossible.

  • ||

    Drunk!

  • ||

    Konrad Lorenz hypothesized that the more aggressive a communal-living species, the better able they are to recognize individuals. This gives them the ability to immediately recognize members of their community, thus preventing them from fighting/killing members of their community. Of course, this helps ensure their survival.

  • ||

    I love seeing moronic comments from lefties like Tony - "souther democrats that opposed civil rights for minorities (aka dixiecrats) all switched GOP after the bill was passed" so they can argue Dems championed civil rights and embrace it still today while GOP has always been racist.

    While I'm not about to state that the GOP hasn't had it's issues with race, I do have to point out factual historical information that those like Tony seem to be ignorant of:
    1 - First black American sent to Congress was when GOP sent Hiram Rhodes Revels to D.C.
    2 - All the GOP that has long supported civil rights and pushed the 1964 bill would have had to have equally all switched to democrat
    3 - GOP had supported far more civil rights bills than just the one in 1964, including pushing for equal rights for women
    4 - to keep this short, Al Gore SR. not only was one of the major fillebusters against the 1964 civil rights act but also voted against it. His son that bears his namesake is of the same party to this very day (just like many others are who oppposed the bill as well as their children/grand-children)

    http://www.black-and-right.com.....-race-lie/

  • ||

    A more telling poll would have also listed the percentage of all Mississippians. then a breakdown by race. As somebody who grew up there, I have a sneaking suspicion that the numbers would not be so far apart.

  • JD Meyer||

    Check out my article at Digital Journal of Canada: "Should Racial Prejudice be Considered a Mental Illness in the next DSM?"

  • ||

    go to Africa, say Ethiopia or Kenya, or talk to the Watusis or the Ashantis, ask how they would feel if all their people intermarried with Chinese? They would hate it. Would you consider that a mental illness? Add to that that their culture and their language and their identity as it is now will disappear and become Chinese or some kind of hybrid. see how they react.

  • ||

    Excellent article.

  • ||

    We are constantly making collectivist arguments for everything. Our economic philosophy is founded on individualism yet we are forced to justify our individualness in terms of what positive it brings to the collective. When we can't prove that then our argument in favor of individualness is nuked.

  • ||

    BTW, I'm a little suspicious of this pole since its sample is so small and it seems to be done in such a way to prove that republicans are racist by default. They pick the redest states in the union to do this. I actually do not believe that southerners are any more racist than ANYONE ELSE in this country.

  • ||

    Voluntary self-segregation at a private university is morally equivalent to state anti-miscegenation bans.

    With intellectually honest arguments like that, it's absolutely shocking that 95% of African Americans vote Democratic. Why can't they see the truth?

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

  • kangzhu||

    This plan has no merit

  • دلعني||

    good man

  • دلعني||

    good man

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online