Talk:Miscegenation

I would like to see some discussion in this article with regards to attitudes towards miscegenation today and how they vary between different races and genders. I ended up on this page after following a link to this page that was discussing how black women and asian men are currently the most vocal against race mixing. I was hoping to find more information on that topic, but there was none here. Root causes, a survey link, and such would be appreciated.

Additionally, speculation on future consequences of miscegenation seem to be sorely lacking. A look at the white community in america really highlights the way that intermixing of europeans has stripped them of their cultural roots. Now whites have nothing left outside of St. Patricks day and Christmas, but those can hardly be considered cultural events when almost everyone who is not of european descent celebrates them. -- JIM

Where are miscegenation laws still on the books?

I have no idea - and even if they are still on the books they are clearly unenforcable since the 14th amendment (in the United States at least). -- Cock

A cursory search revealed that Alabama (at least) still has miscegenation laws "on the books". See specifically sections 102 and 182 of their constitution. -- Cock

Suicides?

"Many interfaith and intermarried couples committed suicide when these laws came into effect." Are they're any sources to support this? -- Jevin 23:09, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Derogatory

As I see by the text, miscegenation is usually derogatory. What's the 'polite' term to this concept? I guess it would be useful, specially for non-English speaking people. - Ihsuss 01:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Mixed marriage" is another term that is used for inter-racial marriages, but that can also be applied to the marriage of two people from different religions, such as a Jew and a Catholic, or even a Catholic and a Protestant.

or a westerner and an easterner in the united states.A mixed marriage my even be jokingly applied to the marriage of a Northerner and a Southerner in the United States or any couple with broadly differing backgrounds. gK ¿? 02:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gringo300 05:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't really see how the term "miscegenation" could be regarded as pejorative in the strictest sense as it definitely has the appearance of a legal or theoretical term. I think the writer of the Miscegenation article may be confusing the repugnance that some hold for the practice with the term itself. Pejoratives tend to be slang terms - terms of abuse that are easily hurled at those one wishes to ostricise. I don't think that I've ever come across miscegenation being used in such a manner. --Shanon.daly 01:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the text to be accurate. The term is not inherently value-laden. No dictionary I've consulted has flagged the term as a pejorative. I'm an African-American, and I use the term the way many who deal with history and sociology do: to refer to "race mixing" when speaking or writing of social trends or the process of change in the "racial" or ethnic composition and/or characteristics of a human population over time as a result of what used to be politely called "intermarriage" -- even when no marriage was involved, as was often the case in my people's history, when rape was the most common form of this phenomenon; as well as today, in consensual sexual relations. There are numerous instances of the term being used nowadays absent the racism with which it is so commonly -- but not necessarily -- associated.

I see there have been other issues raised with regard to this article, but I have neither read that next nor addressed it here. I haven't gotten beyond the first two paragraphs, having been drawn here by a discussion in another article. Peace. deeceevoice 07:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One important thing that just occurred to me. I do not have an OED, but someone may want to check the age of this term. The source I consulted spoke of the "introduction" of the term -- not its coinage. The term actually may be older than 1864 and simply may have been "introduced" into common usage in the United States at that time. If that is the case, then obviously the lead paragraph needs clarification/correction. deeceevoice 08:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice, OED has the first usage of miscegenation as 1864: "1864 (title) Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, applied to the American White Man and Negro. Reprinted from the New York Edition."

dates

What are the dates the states stop miscegenation?

Portuguese case

Please correct what I added to proper English. Thanks.

I replaced the reference to Goa with one to São Tomé e Príncipe. In Goa, most people are Hindu, and unlikely to have been assimilated like the Catholics, who are not necessarily of mixed race either.

Quiensabe 05:27 UTC 6 August 2005

Possible Bias in Article

I am disputing the neutrality of two portions of this article.

"After World War II, many white southerners accused the US civil rights movement and Martin Luther King of being a Communist plot funded by the Soviet Union to destroy the United States through miscegenation. This was not an idea they created themselves, for it was something J. Edgar Hoover was indeed investigating legitimately at the time."

Was Hoover's investigation "legitimate?" This seems to say there was something credible to for him to latch on to. I would suggest "actually", or the deletion of the word "legitimately".

"This case reflects the social changes at that time, when Cold War tensions increased affection between the races of the United States and the Great Society was proclaimed to unite Americans against their Soviet opponents. Many such changes to the law were enacted through the Judiciary, when it is actually the primary function of the Congress of the United States."

This seems to be taking sides in the current culture war engulfing the United States, as it implies that the Supreme Court does not have the rightful authority to declare laws invalid on constitutional grounds. May I suggest: Many such changes ... Judiciary. These actions (and others in the civil-rights era) helped establish the judiciary and the Supreme Court as instruments of social change through interpetation of the Constitution, a role that remains controversial today. PaulSSC 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your first suggested change - theories and investigations aren't instantly made legitimate just because they are taken on by the President. But I can't agree with your second point. The Judicial branch does not have the right to change laws; the fact that they are subverting the constitution to do so, by means of popular support (and the security of lifetime appointments) does not mean that the issue is "controversial". It is still wrong - just as wrong as the sentiments behind Hoover's theory (which also had popular support) - and the passage is factually correct as it stands. Kafziel 14:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J. Edgar Hoover was not the President, but the director of the FBI. Herbert Hoover was the President, and since he served from 1929 to 1933 in that capacity, he was long out of office by the time of this debate.

I would argue that the Judicial Branch in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, has always had the power to arbitrate whether more minor laws fit into the general framework of the Constitution, and that this power is part of the checks and balances set forth by the Constitution, or at least is part of 200+ years of government tradition. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, then it is deemed unenforceable, not "changed." Congress and the American people have always had the recourse of amending the Constitution to allow the law, but have seldom, if ever, taken this route, partially because of the difficulty of passing an amendment, and partially because having a law declared as unconstitutional generally calms the furor for it. PaulSSC 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha, okay, you caught me: I must admit I just skimmed the first point - I know J. Edgar Hoover was never President, and that Herbert Hoover was President way before this investigation, but I agreed with you there regardless of who it was, so I didn't notice exactly who was said to have investigated MLK and misspoke in my reply. At any rate, I do agree that an investigation does not in and of itself lend credibility to an idea.

As to the second point, well, I have too much going on right now to get embroiled in a new debate, and miscegenation is not really an important topic to me, so I'll bow out of this one. I will suggest, however, that the NPOV warning be removed after correcting the first point, since the second point is more an issue of interpretation, and the subject of possible debate (the Supreme Court) is not the subject of this article. Kafziel 15:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first point, but would argue it doesn't go far enough. I would say that the very sentence "This was not an idea they created themselves" implies that the idea (i.e. communist conspiracy with ML King) had a factual basis - it was not created out of thin air. The subsequent reference to the Hoover investigation aims to then lend credence to the claim that the idea wasn't invented - but in fact, the mere fact that Hoover was investigating it does NOT imply that it was not invented. He could have been investigating the claims that the white southerners had invented in order to establish whether they had a factual basis or not. I would change the last sentence to simply: "This claim was also being investigated by J Edgar Hoover at the time." That takes out any possible bias from what conclusions we might want to draw from the fact that it was being investigated - as we certainly don't want any language in there that implies the mere fact of investigation lends credence to the truth of the claims.JRO 24 AUG 05

Paragraph needs work

This whole paragraph should be reworked:

In most of the southern U.S. states, various laws were passed making it illegal for members of different races to marry; these were known as anti-miscegenation laws, like the South African Immorality Act. These laws were based on passages in the Christian Bible, forbidding mixed race relationships. Interracial marriage was prohibited by state laws, the constitutionality of which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Pace v. Alabama" (1883). That decision was not overturned until the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Loving v. Virginia" (1967). At that time, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage; Mississippi's state statute was not repealed until 1987. Pace v. Alabama reflects the social changes at that time, when Cold War tensions increased affection between the races of the United States and the Great Society was proclaimed to unite Americans against their Soviet opponents. Many such changes to the law were enacted through the Judiciary, when it is actually the primary function of the Congress of the United States.

Issues:

Later in the article it's stated that Alabama's law was not repealed until 2000 - this is a later repeal (the last one ?) and should be mentioned as such.
The second time Pace v. Alabama is cited, it's mentioned in conjunction with the Cold War - perhaps Loving v. Virginia was meant, or this change FROM Pace?
The paragraph just gave examples of the cases decided by the judiciary - do we need a sentence to say that the judiciary did it?
Anti-miscegenation laws were always state laws - it is not now, nor has it ever been "the primary function" of the Congress of the United States to change state law.
I renew my objection to the phrasing of the last sentence - it seems to imply that the judiciary lacks the power to interpret the Constitution by declaring laws unconstitutional.

PaulSSC 20:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your objection to the last sentence. I suggest simply removing it entirely, as it adds virtually nothing to the subject at hand and has little purpose other than to seemingly legitimize the viewpoint that the Judiciary lacks the power of judicial review. Of course, the whole paragraph is a mess and should probably simply be rewritten. -JCB 8/28/05

A Wikipedian, Deeceevoice, has questioned the idea that the term "miscegenation" has negative connotations. What do people think? See Afrocentrism talk page. Also, I don't think the Christian Bible actually condemns racial mixing. PatGallacher 21:37, 2005 September 10 (UTC)