Talk:Interracial marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems like Wikipedia got rid of its list of famous people who are married interracially. I don't understand why. It was informative and was not meant to be offensive.


Why is the one and only picture depicting interracial relationships in this article an *extremely* racist mammy drawing from the turn of the century? I think this gives an inappropriate first impression of the article.

Les rapports d'Interracial devraient être illégaux.

---Mais pourquoi? J'aime mon mari africain.--Jlkwofie 04:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"The 1990 Census reports that 17.6% of black marriages occur with whites. Yet, it is found that black men are 2.5 times more likely to be married to a white woman than a black woman to a white man."

For those even small numbers where a black woman is married to a white man, you will find that these marriages are occurring from immigrant black communities (black from Africa and elsewhere). In other words, there is a significant number of marriages are that being counted as "black/white" as a result of this unnoticed trend.

This is interesting because for some reason white males are more likely to marry an African immigrant woman than marry to an African American woman. '''' I am sure the number of black immigrant woman/white is small but it still significant to the subject because it points not only to a trend but also to an interesting characteristic of interracial marriages.''''

What do you guys think? Shiferaw 16:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see more country data, not just the US. For ex. Canada, Brazil, Britain. The US-centric attitude is very unenlightening, and a broader perspective would be helpful.

I agree. When I went to Britain, it looked like black/white couplings for both sexes were more common than here in the US. Rhesusman 0:01 23 June 2005 (UTC)

The article concentrates too much on Black and White. Elaboration needed on other races.

Agreed on the need for elaboration about other races. If anyone has any information or sources that could be used for this please let me know on my talk page and I will work them into the article. ICanAlwaysChangeThisLater 23:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're totally right, but how about add it in yourself... I would like to see too,


Contents

[edit] Pictures in Article

How come all of the pictures in the article must all be of a black male or black person with others? It is almost as if you are sending the message that when others marry blacks, then it is an issue. I do agree with the hispanic (non-Mexican) type with regualr blacks not being mixed, as two of them with their own is a mixed marriage anyway. Where is the Italian, Greek and other presumed 'whites' marrying striahgt(turer) whites? That is mixing also.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.192.23 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Expansion into other countries

Here is a good report on inter-ethnic couples in England and Wales. - 68.33.120.32 00:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge & the pseudoscientifical concept of "races"

This article should be merged with miscegenation. I don't know what the best term would be, but if "interracial marriage" is de facto a common expression, it tends to make believe that the human species is effectively divided in various "races", an obvious racist lie. Beside, "white" is not a "race", but a color ! Same goes for "Black", "Yellow" and "Green". In latin languages, the word "métissage" in French or "mestizaje" in Spanish has no pejorative value, quite the reverse. Maybe this should be the appropriate name of the entry, since "miscegenation" seems to be of pejorative sense. Or maybe "trans-ethnic marriages" or something like that would be better... Lapaz

You're reading a bit much into this. "Interracial marriage" is the common name used in English, and we use common names. Ambi 05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And obviously races are not merely "make believe", considering the majority of the worlds biologists and physical anthropolgists believe they exist with well documented information to support such belief. Whatever you call it, there is significant physical differences between ethnic groups and populations, so "inter-racial" or "inter-ethnic" are valid terms. 69.157.121.76 14:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There is greater genetic variety within people groups (so-called "races") than there is between them. The full title of Darwin's book, Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the utter barbarism of his world view. The holocaust was a logical next step for Hitler, as was the killing of Australian Aborigines for sale to museums as "missing links". And, yes, "interracial marriage" is the most widely used term in my experience. mikekamrath@no-spam-please-gmail.com

"Miscenegation" is actually the derogatory term; "interracial marriage" is neutral terminology (neither approving nor disapprobing). AnonMoos 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

There seems to be a mistake. You wanted this article merged with miscegenation, right? Well you have proposed the opposite. I'm going to fix it. AucamanTalk 07:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation needed

I do not quite understand the second sentence in the following quote: "In the 2000 Census, 239,477 BM-WF and 95,831 WM-BF marriages were recorded, again showing the 2.5-1 ratio. But despite this, slightly more white men are married than white women, showing that white women are not as likely to marry interracially.". It seems like a very important point, so could somebody please add an explanation.

[edit] Ford 2003

The article says:

From a recent poll of 1,314 Americans of all races, it was noted that 3 in 10 people are against black-white marriage, but are far more willing to accept white-Hispanic or white-Asian marriages (Ford 2003).

What is "Ford 2003"? An reference is required here. -- Dominus 14:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I am Very confused (with a capital V) by the statistics of this piece. I believe they should put in a table or something to make is easier to read!

[edit] bad taste!

The paragraph on 'inter-racial' relationship in nature with the example of butterflies is at best made with good intentions but naive and plainly erring, at worst insulting, and most be taken out. It confuses mating between species and mating wihtin same species. Race among human is a phenotype occurence and has no genotype species- differentation consistent with our socially constructed perception of race. While the definition of species is commonly regarded as being the ability to progenete a healty non-sterile offspring, the species-distinction is often quite blurred among insects - there is however no question that the 'race' distinction tagged by skin colour among humans has little bearing on any significant species distribution. Therefore the example is not appropriate.

best regards.

[edit] Some serious work needed here.

This article needs some serious reworking. It lacks demographics, and mostly it lacks positive references to interracial relationship and descriptions of practical life situations of interracial couples. Many things in this article points to strange biases, as e.g. the idea of "marrying up" - which in itself could be an 'interesting' wiki piece from some questionable socio-biological perspective, but should be proportionally shadowed by more pertinent issues and thorough description of actually living couples. Not to mention the outer link in the end to some wiki article called "the silent holocaust [sic!]" which at most can be relevant to some outer-fringe conservative and fundamentalist judaists but hardly to interracial marriages in general, whether between 'gentiles' and jews, or for that matter to all the other multitudes of possible interracial marriages. At least it is a reason to put ones guard up against those who have worked this article up to this point. I call for other inputs.

best regards, JKL




"Marriages between Whites and Asians, and particularly light-skinned North East Asians such as Chinese, are often looked upon as being non-controversial interethnic pairings in the United States and is becoming increasingly common (Lange, 2005). Reasons for this are often cited as being because of the great similarity in skin color, and low instances of ethnic strife between Whites and Asians in the U.S. since World War II."

This paragraph is laughable. Asian American females marrying Caucasian males because their skin colors are similar? This is a result, not a cause. It just so happens that their skin colors are of similar shade. Here are more legitimate reasons for the higher instance of Asian American females marrying Caucasian males. 1. the perceived stereotype that Caucasian males are the most powerful economically and most desirable sexually 2. denigration of the Asian-American male as physically short, geeky, unemotional, prideful, and sexually undesirable

And the term "light-skinned" is ridiculous in and of itself. Chinese are not necessarily "light-skinned", and Filipinos outmarry the most among Asian-Americans. Le Anh-Huy 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Couples Listing

A listing of fictional couples (many of which are not even fictionally married) adds nothing to the article. It should be removed. I have attempted to do so, but the removal was reverted. It seems to me painfully obvious that a listing of make-believe interracial couples makes little sense in this article, especially where it is placed. A listing of real-life interracial marriages makes sense. Listing TV show characters does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.226.129 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 July 2006.

I was responsible for the revert - I didn't think such a major unilateral change to a controversial topic was appropriate. But I have to say I tend to agree. Perhaps it could be moved to a separate list? --Lo2u (T • C) 22:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You wanted a new page? Voila -- new page. --ABCxyz, 31 July 2006, 13:32 (UTC)

[edit] 51% more absolute #s of Asian-Am Females than Males?

I couldn't find out where the author got this information, and I checked the 2000 census data, and the male-female ratio is about 94:100, which is certainly not 51% more. Someone want to fix it and/or verify data?

  • I found this whole section extremely confusing. Only the black-white section was really clear, because there's actually a set of hard numbers to demonstrate what the ratios actually mean. Also, I think there's a problem with the whole use of the term "Asian" which has become universal, but refers to two distinct racial groups. Just based on people I encounter, it would seem there are a fair number of interracial marriages involving East Asian ethnic groups , but (at least from what I've seen) far fewer involving South Asian ethnic groups. I don't even know what statistics exist which distinguish between them, but I strongly suspect the groups show very different patterns, and averaging them together gives a misleading picture. Fan-1967 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since this article is about interracial marriage rather than inter-ethnic marriage, specific ethnic outmarriage rates should be combined with their racial group when comparing the statistics. If User:Fan-1967 wants to create an inter-ethnic marriage article, a discussion on specific ethnic groups would be welcome there.--Dark Tichondrias 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the whole section about the asian female marrying other races is apprently an asian women because there are several paragraphs that point only to the positive traits of asian women and ignore all other possible marriages.


[edit] Americans Dating Asian Immigrants

What the fuck is this nonsense

...

Americans Dating Asian Immigrants

Relationships between immigrant Asian-Indian men and American women must be nurtured. Although Asian-Indian men in the US have traditionally gone back to India to find a wife, this is not always the case today. These types of relationships although small are increasing due to increased US business dealings in India. In a particular case, Veronica had trouble adjusting to her marriage to a recent immigrant from India. Pierre Coda told her to try to have her husband express his feelings more openly with her and to learn more about Indian culture.[12]

Between Americans and immigrant Japanese, relationships are not always as fruitful as they seemed. According to Pierre Coda, Jake a Californian and Kotoyo a recently immigrated Japanese did not have an easy time in a relationship. They had language barriers which impeded their intimacy. Coda claims that in Japan many women from the countryside are forced into arranged marriages and end up unhappy. On the contrary, Coda claims many Japanese women end up unwed due to lack of initiative of Japanese men. Due to a lack of romance in the homeland, Coda claims many Japanese women travel overseas for excitement. Coda suggests men to be more aggressive in their declaration of romantic feelings for Japanese immigrant women since they are not used to the culture or the language and may think negatively of their physical appearence.[13]


who says it must be nutured?

Isn't this supposed to be just information about the subject and not some asian guy's lament on not attracting american women. Whatever I'm taking it out.

keep it so it can be used later in Whineypedia Kransky 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deleting Pictures

Please do not remove pictures without discussion and consensus. --Ramsey2006 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pictures should not be used as illustrations. The picture of "Asian black" interracial marriage should not be used. The original uploader labeled the woman as an "Asian", but did not add her ancestry needed to prove that she was really Asian. The 2000 US Census requires ancestry to determine if someone's really Asian. Second, the picture of same race marriage is between a person of "Mexican" and "Iranian" ancestry. Mexican ancestry does not correspond to a 2000 US Census race, so it cannot be determined if the two people in the photo were both white.--DarkTea 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
i'm a little confused by your logic. okay, so. you say that the woman might not be asian, because they don't specify her asian ancestery. fair enough. but, you don't ask for the man's ancestery, and his is not listed, either. Colorfulharp233 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I never stated a requirement for the black man in the "black-Asian" photo, because the US Census defines blacks differently. Whereas all other racial definitions use original ancestry, the black racial definition uses the term "black racial groups of Africa". Since he was clearly black in color, I interpreted him to meet the US census racial definition.--DarkTea 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Dark Tea, if the original uploader identifies her as Asian, and she is referred to as Asian in the photo caption, then what is the problem? The caption agrees with the information provided by the photographer who uploaded the photo, who, according to WP:AGF, should be assumed to have acted in good faith. If she were identified as Asian by the original uploader, with a more specific description given in the photo caption, then I could understand the concern. In the case of the Iranian - Mexican photo, the caption was actually written by the photographer who uploaded the photo, so again I fail to see the issue here. Again, if we were talking about somebody taking a randomly uploaded photo and making unwarranted assumptions in composing the captions, then I could understand the objection, but that does not appear to me to be the case here in either of these instances. Nobody appears to be making any assumptions here beyond assuming good faith on behalf of the photographers who originally uploaded the photos, in accordance with wikipedia policy. As for any issues reguarding the US Census, I don't even see a connection between the US Census and this wikipedia article titled Interracial marriage in the first place. Perhaps there is a separate article titled US Census that would be more appropiate for these concerns. --Ramsey2006 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
She would have to be Mexican of European, North African, or Middle Eastern descent to be white by the US Census standards. If she were mixed with the Indian, then they would not be in a same race marriage. Since she has not proven that she's not mixed with the Indian and has not proven her white ancestry, her race is undetermined, making the picture a poor representative of same-race marriage.--DarkTea 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if we assume good faith, the uploader could not have known she was Asian unless she stated that her ancestry is from the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent by the 2000 US Census definition. I cannot assume the uploader asked for her ancestry, so I cannot assume she's a real Asian.--DarkTea 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither you nor I have met the couples in real life. Neither you not I am in any position to second guess the photographer who took the picture of either couple and was actually there. And once again, the 2000 US Census is totally irrelevant to the whole issue. (I'm also a bit confused why you seem to want the picture of the Iranian/Mexican couple to be a white/white couple, but that's another issue. I thought that this was the Interracial Marriage page.) --Ramsey2006 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Mactographer is the one who originally added it as an illustration of white-white marriage. I just want her to be categorized according to the 2000 US Census racial definitions, since their racial or interracial marriage is under the jurisdiction of the 2000 US Census marriage tallies.--DarkTea 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Any statements that were made should be in the history for the page, and you should be able to link to them. What I see now is the caption in the current version, and everything seems perfectly in order to me at this point. I don't really feel the need to inspect her Census form. It's not a prerequisite for including the photo. (Geeze! Am I ever glad that I didn't upload our own picture. I had no idea the level of scrutiny that they get.) --Ramsey2006 03:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know this is English Wikipedia and not US government Wikipedia, what the US government may or may not think regarding the "race" of a person is totally irrelevant. What the US government census may require is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not answerable to the US state in this regard and US state policies and guidelines do not apply to Wikipedia. Who cares if the US state doesn't recognise "Mexican" as a "race", this is not an argument relevant to the article or the discussion. Wikipedia needs to have a global perspective, there is also no requirement to "prove" the ancestry of people who appear in images, this is not a police state. Indeed "race" is a social construct, so ancestry is practically irrelevant. Alun 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The interracial numbers in the United States are counted using the 2000 US Census definitions for race, so the illustrations must use the same definitions to adequately represent the content of the US interracial section.--DarkTea 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't. Wikipedia is not a project of the US government. --Ramsey2006 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Must, this is Wikipedia, this is not the world according to you. We reach agreement through consensus. No one demands that we provide the names and "race" of the subjects of pictures on wikipedia. Not only do you not have the right to demand that this person "prove" their "race", but you don't have the right to make up new rules just because you don't like a particular picture. I notice you have a lot of wikipedia rules plastered all over your user page, none refers to the the US census being the font of all knowledge. If the uploader of this image claims that this person is Asian, then why should anyone dispute it? You have given no good reason. Alun 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If the numbers of interracial marriage for the US do not come from the United States Census Bureau, where do you think they come from?--DarkTea 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about numbers. We're talking about pictures. I don't have the article page in front of me, but if any statistics are claimed in the article, the source of those statistics should be cited, so that readers can look up the definitions used in compiling the statistics. Statistics from the 2000 US Census are perfectly acceptable to use in the article, but not without citing the source. Statistics from other sources that might use different definitions would be acceptable, also, so long as they come from reliable sources which are cited. Common everyday definitions and usages of terms are also quite legitimate for use. Unless you have some specific reason to doubt the couples pictured are interracial couples, or to doubt the integrity of the photographers, I believe that we should assume good faith (WP:AGF) on the part of the photographers who uploaded the photos. There is no need for the photographers to submit the individuals pictured for you to interrogate to determine whether or not you consider them to be real Asians. --Ramsey2006 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the photographers inquired about the individuals' ancestry since it would seem rude. I do not have faith that they took the necessary step to categorize the individuals' race by the 2000 US Census racial definitions. The woman does not appear to be a real Asian until it is proven.--DarkTea 03:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you noticed that you are the only editor here who is at all concerned (I'm inclined to say obsessed) with how people filled out their 2000 US Census forms? You deleted 3 pictures from the article. They can't all be bogus. (By the way, in your edit summary, you said that she is not Asian, yet. I can't resist asking, when will she be asian?) --Ramsey2006 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
She'll be a real Asian for censal purposes when she states that her ancestry is from the Far East, Southeast Asia or the Indian Subcontinent.--DarkTea 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, until she fills out a Census form for you, I suggest that you hold from adding the photo to the US Census page. --Ramsey2006 06:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean I'm not really Welsh because I haven't filled out a US census form? By the way, just how do you know that she didn't fill out the US census form and claim to be Asian? Likewise I could fill out a census form and claim to be Martian if I wanted. In the UK census of 2001 390,000 people in England and Wales claimed their religion was "Jedi Knight".[1] This is how reliable census data are. Alun 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My Two Cents:LOLOL! That cracked me up, Alun! --Mactographer 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The UK census is unreliable, but the US census is reliable. The UK Census didn't provide a firm parameter for its "ethnicities" (races), making its data unreliable and subject to interpretation. On the other hand, the US 2000 Census provided clear definitions which makes its data read the same way by everyone. I do not know what the 2000 US censal definition is for a "Welsh", but according to the 2000 US Census an Asian is someone with origins in the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. The US 2000 conceives at least 5 races in the world and allows respondents to write in "some other race". Since the only part of the world without a race is indigenous Australians, they would have to be divided an infinite number of times to have an infinite number of censal races. It is most likely that the 2000 US Census only had in mind five races, but added in the write in category for the jokers. You could conceivably write in "Martian", but your censal race would be clear by definition even if you choose to not bubble it in.--DarkTea 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The UK census is unreliable, but the US census is reliable.
This is just opinion, it's totally unacceptable for you to make new rules for wikipedia just because of your opinions.Alun 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This was my topic sentence whose conclusion I defended in the paragraph's body. I believe I have shown the UK Census to be unreliable, but the reasonings were in the body.--DarkTea 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the US 2000 Census provided clear definitions which makes its data read the same way by everyone.
Not true, there are multiple problems with the US census, especially with regards to people of mixed origins. Furthermore how can you claim that the US census is more reliable? Were you there when every single individual filled out their form? Alun 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The definitions given by the US Census bureau are as clear as black and white. The filling out of the censal form, however, may be botched by ignorance of the definitions.--DarkTea 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The US 2000 conceives at least 5 races in the world and allows respondents to write in "some other race"
Quite, and most people probably think it's just stupid and chose something that more or less approximates to what they think might be their "race", I have absolutely no idea what my "race" would be and refuse to answer such stupid questions, indeed I have never been asked what my "race" is except once on an American website (NY Times of all places) and I found it quite offensive, probably because here in Europe we do not classify people by "race" because it is meaningless. To give these data more importance than they deserve displays a lack of objectivity on your part. You have no evidence or proof that the person in the picture is not Asian, if you do then you should present it. If you think that the uploader of the picture is a liar then you should state this. If you do not think that person is a liar then you have no reason to dispute use of the image. Alun 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
An argument from ignorance should not be used to argue for her inclusion because it comprises a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the uploader to prove she's Asian. To the best of my ability, I can tell you your 2000 censal race, if you first tell me your original origins.--DarkTea 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My Two Cents: Whoa! I had no idea all this was going on over here on the talk page! I knew that Dark Tea didn't like one or more of my photos for some reason, and that she called the lady in photo number #1 (as seen in the gallery below) "fat" and claimed I used that photo to "disparage" the concept of Black/White marriages. (I thought that was a bit presumptuous, and told her so on her talk page.) And oddly enough, while deleting the afore mentioned photo, Dark Tea also added this photo from my collection and labeled it as a "Asian and White couple." Why she did that? I don't have a clue! Both of these people (also seen in the gallery below at the #4 position) are as lily white as I am.

But I had no idea all this dialog was going on. Sorry not to clear the air sooner.

Here’s the scoop ... I just thought I had uploaded some nice photos that helped to illustrate the concept of “Interracial marriage.” That’s it gang! No ulterior motives. I thought all these wedding photos were of the best from the day of their individual weddings and helped to cast a positive light on all the parties involved AND on the concept of Interracial marriage.

For the record, to the best of my knowledge, the following is true:

Image #1: Was of an American Black man and an American White woman. (I have no idea of their heritages beyond that, they didn’t tell me, I didn’t ask.)
Image #2: Was a Nigerian groom (who I’m pretty sure was born there because he spoke with a heavy accent and had family dressed in native costume for the reception and wedding photos) and a bride of Filipino heritage. (I don’t know if she was born in the Philippines.)
Image #3: Was of (as was described to me by the parties involved) a Mexican-American bride and an Iranian or Iranian decent groom. (I have no idea if the bride had any Anglo-Saxon blood in her.)
Image #4: Both white or of Anglo-Saxon heritage. (I never added this photo, but had to remove it for obvious reasons.)

If consensus dictates that one or more of these photos should be removed for whatever reason, I’m not going to fight it. In good faith, I think all the couples involved look relatively nice and/or attractive, if not drop dead model gorgeous and MOST certainly were not included to "disparage" ANYONE or the content or concept of the article.

#1

#2

#3

#4

In as good faith as I can muster, -- Mactographer 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Beckinsale?

I'm confused. Kate’s a nice looking lady and all, but how does her photo illustrate the concept of “Interracial Marriage?” I guess she’s “technically” an interracial baby, but her presence seems oddly out of place to me on this page. But I won’t take it upon myself to delete it. Just posing the question.

--Mactographer 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pointless demographic statistics.

Apparently someone disliked when I removed the demographics from the article. The statistics in question refer to numbers of mixed race persons in the United States. This has nothing to do with Interracial Marriage, which is the topic of this article. The statistics in question should be put in the Multiracial article, along with the picture of Kate Beckinsale which is useful for illustrating multiracial ethnicity but not for illustrating interracial marriage. If anyone has an argument opposed to this rather than just telling me to look at the talk page which does not seem have discussion over the statistics in question, let me know. Otherwise I'm taking it out again. Jvbishop 12:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The demographics demonstrate the prevalence of interacial marriages. It should be left in. 69.107.85.4 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
They do not demonstrate the prevalence of interracial marriages. They demonstrate the prevalence of interracial people. Jvbishop 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInterracial_marriage_ab57.html"