Talk:Miscegenation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Miscegenation is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Asian Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Contents

[edit] Typo

The word "having" appears twice, one right after the other, in the first sentence. I'm apparently not allowed to correct it, could someone fix it please? Sailorknightwing 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese colonies

The information regarding the Portuguese colonies are wrong. The theory of Freire is considered wrong by the American Academia. Brazilian historians and researchers have a very rudimentary way of researching history. The theory of Racial Democracy proposed by Freire is wrong. Any body that goes to Brazil can see that the theory is wrong. African-brazilians still face a lot of racism and do not have opportunities. I suggest that somebody change this information since I tried twice but somebody changed it back. I think that wikipedia should control its information better.

Thank you

L. Della Sannella

And thank you for the racist comment and for showing how utterly clueless you are about current Brazilian historiography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.80.207.63 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] attitudes towards miscegenation today

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

If you have access to JSTOR, you can find scientific articles about the cultural politics of miscegenation in the US. Check out particularly the research of David Hollinger and Peggy Pascoe.

  • American holidays, religious parties and community events is where people of all races and creeds get together. I'm not Jewish, but like to get invited to a Jewish home for their holidays. I'm male, but to help me understand women is to attend women's studies class. And not gay either, I may want to attend a "gay pride" parade event. Jim, America is an example of a "melting pot" of cultural uniformity, but it's more called a "tossed salad" of diverse cultures, and in my words a "sandwich" made of different condiments actually are a singular society. Whatever you view America is, we're already miscegenated to a point other countries doubt if we're a "White, English, Christian" or Western country, because so many millions of Americans are not at all. And the future consequences you ask? There's not really any, but a less "European" or Caucasian population in the next century, or what some demographers suggest a minority-majority without an actual majority, the meaning of "white" totally changed to something different than we view as white today. In the past 400 years, the fear of miscegenation isn't over skin color, parents' approval or social acceptance, the person may have real logical fears: they don't want their children of mixed marriages to experience real dangers/ threats of a hostile society discriminates them, since they inherited their spouse's racial traits. I feel most of us educated, right-thinking people in the democratic free world in 2006, won't care or have a big deal on interracial marriage, and their mixed children growing up today won't have this kind of severe victimhood their counterparts had gone through 50-100 years ago. +Mike D 26 08:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • JIM, I wouldn't say that American whites have been "stripped of their cultural roots." Some white people are able to research and celebrate their original European roots, while others have had those "old country" roots replaced by roots in the United States - George Washington, fireworks on the Fourth of July, turkey and dressing on Thanksgiving, watching the ball drop on New Year. We have the whole new mythology of Hollywood, Civil War reenactment, legends of the Roaring '20s and the Great Depression, Jazz, Rock and Roll - These are our roots now. You may argue that all races celebrate these American things, and it's true. And as a white Texan male, I have celebrated Chinese New Year, Kwanzaa, Juneteenth, Martin Luther King Day, Diez y Seis de Septiembre, and Cinco de Mayo; as well as Mardi Gras, St. Patrick's Day, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc. etc. etc. We're Americans, and this is ALL our heritage. Applejuicefool 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] miscegenation laws

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


 . The Alabama constitution nullified section 102- regarding miscegenation laws with amendment 667. 
 . Section 182 does not refer to miscegenation at all. 
                 -just trying to uphold Alabama's reputation! 24.90.82.128 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)HM

yes, it does. Section 182:

"The following persons shall be disqualified both from registering, and from voting, namely:

All idiots and insane persons; those who shall by reason of conviction of crime be disqualified from voting at the time of the ratification of this Constitution; those who shall be convicted of treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crime involving moral turpitude; also, any person who shall be convicted as a vagrant or tramp, or of selling or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of buying or offering to buy the vote of another, or of making or offering to make a false return in any election by the people or in any primary election to procure the nomination or election of any person to any office, or of suborning any witness or registrar to secure the registration of any person as an elector."

many states and the U.S. have ugly laws "on the books" because everything is documented. things change, but the original legislature stays in the document as a matter of historical reference.

speaking of making states look bad...in Missouri, St. Louis Public Schools magnet school FAQ says "Who may attend a magnet school? Those eligible to apply to attend a magnet school are any student living in St. Louis City and non-African American students living in participating school districts in St. Louis County."

is that legal?

[edit] On Miscegenation

One has to keep in mind that all "racial" groups are stratified beyond the borders of white, black or Latino "communities." Not all people born into a particular category can be labelled as a "community," thus one must consult with the encyclopaedia of life experience often when discussing social phenomena.

Miscegenation was originally a term used as though referring to the mixing of biological material.Two human beings cannot mix on the level of "race" because all human beings fall under one "race". However, if you are talking about environmentally-based genetics, which today manifest themselves as socio-politcally racialised factors ( with the exception of lactose intolerance, and soft or hard ear wax, etc, I am talking about skin colour), you would be wrong again in using the term "miscegenation" out of the context of the 1864, when the term was coined by two anti-abolitionst journalists.

This term has transcended its evolutionary biological constraints only to take on an equally subversive social form today that relates it back to its origins. We must first agree on one usage of the term "miscegination" before we dare to toy with it. Are we mixing class (socio-economics), religions, castes, genders,etc? Because some people view "miscegenation through socio-politically relevant lenses. Think Muslim women, think middle-class minorities who do not marry outside of their class, think WASPs, and homosexuals, and so on, and so forth.

Thokozani

  • My point exactly! What if one married a person with a genetically inherited disease/disability...and you knew the children will develop it later in life? Genetic counseling is on the other side of the subject, but you decide who you want or love, and if you can handle being married to your spouse. Don't worry too much on race, just like some people may want to marry a partner NOT like a media supermodel (weight, height or appearance), and some young men are more comfortable in having an older woman as their wife. We have many preferences on who we want, but done out of attraction ("turn-ons") and stuff like that. The most important issue in selecting a partner is if he/she's the right one...and if that special someone is black/white/etc., maybe you need to think again. Still in these multicultural diverse times, there are people who hate/fear/dislike others because of the skin color or racial origin for no apparent reason. There are arranged marriages or preferences in ethnic groups to choose partners from the same culture, because they like to have similarity ("their own kind") and related well to the spouse's background. I wonder if I should marry a Frenchwoman, a Native American woman or a woman from the Southern US...you know, it never mattered to me, and where I live I seen many Latinas and Asian women are very pretty in my eyes. + Mike D 26 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

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." --MichaelClark 23:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. :) Based on that, I've reverted the date in the info I provided, but had changed to conform to an earlier date of 1863 mentioned later in the article. I also changed that date to 1864. deeceevoice 15:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Read a scientific article on the original pamphlet "Miscegenation", which coined the term miscegenation. The pamphlet was published in December 1863. That was definitely the first usage of the word. Before that the word amalgamation was in use in the English language for "race-mixing". Have edited the text to reflect all this and have added references195.73.22.130 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dates

What are the dates the states stop miscegenation?

[edit] 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


When India invaded/liberated Goa many of the Catholics, of varied backgrounds, fled as they faced, and still face, persecution. Pre-liberation Goa was arguably majority Catholic at about 60%, these figures have now reversed as many Indians have moved to Goa and many Catholic Goans moved out. In many cases, but not all, the Goans who fled mixed in with the cultures in those countries. Goa is not the best example but it did occur and should be recognised.

Look at the writing of Maria Couto, or Ben Antao, or any other prominent Goan writer.

Gonsalves.

  • Gonsalves said what I was going to say, the fact that many left after the indian invasion dues not change the background of that place. -Pedro 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


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)

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)

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)


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

[edit] 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)


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)

While the Bible may not explicitly condemn racial mixing, the story of Phineas has been historically linked to anti-miscegenation laws. As for negative connotations of "miscegenation," if you were mixed race, would you want someone to tell you you're the result of miscegenation? Sounds pretty perjorative to me.66.91.248.69 17:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This article makes some very dubious claims about the role of mixed race communities, which is why I raised the POV issue. PatGallacher 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

To explain my earlier comment, the 4th paragraph makes some very controversial claims about mixed race populations. Can anyone give any authority for this? If not, I suggest the para. should be delete outright. There are also some slight problems with the 5th para. PatGallacher 23:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not normally one for making drastic changes without discussion, but it is now about 2 days since I questioned this para., nobody has defended it, I now delete it. I also remove the NPOV flag, I put it there. PatGallacher 02:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with interethnic marriage

This article seems to concern itself mostly with legislation to ban interracial marriage, when there is already an article on interracial marriage. I'd suggest the articles as they stand should be merged, unless there is a lot to be said about the phenomenon of people of different races having children together that is separate from the phenomenon of them marrying each other. 131.111.8.100 15:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

MERGE. I agree with the merge... but with interethnic marriage. Interethnic marriage is a better name, because it avoids reference to the more than controversed notion of "race". Lapaz

  • Oppose. I see this article on the broader topic of interracial romantic relations (including same-sex interracial relations) and interracial marriage on the specific statistics regarding marriage itself. -- Reinyday, 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article deals with an entirely different topic to the nominated merge article RZ heretic 08:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sounds like P-C talk to me, and the term "miscegenation" does offend some people. "Inter-cegenation" is an alternative term, but most never heard of the word, unless I made that one up. The definition "mixed marriage" can indicate two spouses from opposite religions (a Jewish-Christian/ Muslim/Buddhist/non-religious/other faith couple), classes (a wealthy man/woman marries another from a middle-class or low-income family), and generations (age difference). Keep in mind the term has different meanings, but I oppose renaming the article to appear "sensitive" is unnecessary.+ Mike D 26 07:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems to me that miscegenation is more often discussed in the context of having children, i.e. people from different ethnicties having a baby, whereas interracial marriage concerns marriage.Natalie 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Racial purity

Racial purity, interethnic marriage, interracial marriage, miscegenation... Shouldn't they all form one article? What is the reasons for this division? Merge will be done in a week. Lapaz 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems best to include a brief summary section, along the lines of Wikipedia:summary style. This view is relevant for its historical role, if not other roles. The argument against including more than that is probably that WP:NPOV means including relevant views, but it doesn't mean giving equal weight to mainstream and fringe views.--Nectar 19:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE. Both miscegenation and racial purity have negative connotations that should be kept separate from the descriptive "interracial marriage." However, there is no reason to have "interethnic marriage" separate from "interracial marriage." All should be cross-referenced. Godfrey Daniel 06:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE. Same thing. Don't associate interracial marriage with racial purity. Please don't move or merge the article. You can place a hyperlink in articles dealing with racism, white supremacy or multiculturalism, to this co-related article. I worry it will attract vandals, trolls and those with deep racist hatred to come in here to cause trouble by posting crude language or racial comments. Interracial marriage is more socially accepted today, but some refuse to accept it and I'll look out for you all. +Mike D 26 08:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to bring up the matter again ragarding "racial purity" if only to point out the term mentioned in the "see also" section redirects to this same article. Shouldn't the term be linked (or used a redirect) to the White Supremacy article?--Kenn Caesius 20:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE. Don't merge everything.The Page would become too long. It's better to work with words in the text that link to the other pages. Also, miscegnation as a loaded word that is now getting old-fashioned deserves a seperate page about the U.S history of this word, and about the connection with anti-miscegenation laws, a phenomenon that was first introduced in the U.S. I have therefore merged the page on U.S. anti-miscegenation laws into this one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairlane75 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] White supremacists?

"[referring to Angolan, Brazilian, and Cape Verdian societies]: Because of white supremacist institutions and the values they inculcated among the populace, many such miscegenated societies were and remain to this day heavily stratified by color, with darker-skinned citizens assigned the lowest economic and social status."

Is there evidence that this is because of white supremacists? My impression living in Brazil is that the evident economic/social/educational differences between lighter and darker groups causes the difference in status (and is thus self-perpetuating). Also, you see this in mainland China, with no history of white supremacist groups (my guess would be that darker skin suggests manual outdoor work and thus poverty, maybe influenced by the image of the rich West). Blaming white supremacists seems a rather lazy explanation - but am interested to know more.AndrewEvelyn 04:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WASP?

From the section titled "Education and interethnic marriage"...

"The results for the propensity of individuals at higher educational attainment levels to participate less in endogamy over the 10 year period were similar across ethnic groups, including WASPs, Hispanics, and Asian Americans."

I have always been taught to avoid terms such as WASP and Nigger; especially in writing of the type Wikipedia is supposed to represent.

Since when is WASP a derogatory term? It seems that certain agenda based factions continue to dig for reasons to feel like they are victims of oppression. WASP is a term invented by white people to term themselves. Nothing derogatory about it. Nigger is a term invented by whites as a demeaning description of african descended (and aboriginal australians in some cases) people implying inferiority. (Lnstr)

Am I the only one objecting to the use of WASP in this context? If not then perhaps a less derogatory term might be used? ONUnicorn 16:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you rather say WASP or White Anglo-Saxon Prodistant?Billy Bishop 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather say White, and leave religion (The "P" stands for protestant, a religious affiliation) out of it completely. ONUnicorn 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I dislike racial slurs such as the "n word" and other pejorative terms that insult persons or entire groups of people for their "different" appearance. But for "WASP" is more a socioeconomic class term than ethnic or cultural, just like "yuppie", "blue collar" and "redneck" can indicate one from an upper-middle, lower-middle or poor background, of any race. I don't see much info. on white-American Indian marriages in today's US society, despite many white Americans claim at least one Indian ancestor and most of these claims remain ambiguous or skeptical to Native Americans from tribal nations. The mixed religious marriage thing isn't the same category, but please read the Jew article on that particular subject on Jewish-Christian marriages and children from those marriages find themselves between two related, but different faithes...and some of the products of these marriages qualify as "Jews". You can choose a religion you believe in, as well choose a spouse of your liking, but you can't choose your color or your parentage. I don't care if a very beautiful, attractive, friendly and nice woman is black or white, Asian or Latino, blue or green, Martian or Venusan, and French or Native american (this is my family tree) for that matter. +Mike D 26 08:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interethnic marriage disparities for certain ethnic groups

There seems to be a POV mismatch in [1]. While it's true that Japanese men marry foreigners more often than Japanese women, Japanese men tend to marry Chinese, Korean and Filipina women, while Japanese women marry Koreans, Americans (race not specified) and Chinese (this is from the link.). However, this is an article about interracial marriage, and I believe even the Japanese definition of race does not include at least Chinese and Koreans from the same category. The article does not help not prove the case for that section even if the data is true. --ColourBurst 05:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

>>> Japanese/Korean/Chinese are ethnicities...they are not races. -intranetusa

I don't think there's an intentional POV, but based on facts and studies on the higher intermarriage rates of Asians and Caucasians. Not many Asians and Asian Americans marry from other likewise ethnic groups, nor do Latinos and Middle Eastern groups marry each other. So far, the ratio of white and black intermarriage is the lowest of all inter-racial marriages in North America. Someday I hope, there won't be a race/color issue in choosing a mate and may we have better race relations this way. If I had children from a partner of the same race or different race (or they marry those from other races), I'm gonna be proud they don't hold hate or prejudice as I taught them well. +Mike D 26 08:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of Israel section

I removed the israel section as it is inaccurate. It stated israeli law (actually it said 'jewish law', and I don't know where to go with that) doesn't allow jews to marry non-jews. In fact, Israeli law doesn't allow non-jews to marry. Not debating it's reasons, just saying the paragraph was inaccurate and didn't belong.simnel

Actually, the paragraph is accurate because Jewish law governs Israeli Law. This clarity should be brought into the section on Israel. I will write a section with this clarification.

" Israeli Law does not permit civil marriage. This system causes problems for many Israelis who seek alternatives by traveling abroad to marry. IRAC, in coalition with other organizations, is trying to get the Knesset to pass legislation, which will permit civil and non-Orthodox alternatives. Meanwhile, IRAC provides counseling to couples seeking marriage options outside official channels.
No Civil Marriage Available in Israel
Israeli law grants authority over all matters of marriage of Jews in Israel to the Orthodox Rabbinate. The law does not provide for civil marriage and non-Orthodox Rabbis are not allowed to perform marriages. The Orthodox monopoly over marriage and divorce violates Israel’s Declaration of Independence protecting freedom of religion and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Israel is a signatory. Article 23 of the Covenant states: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." " [2]
While civil marriage is not CONDUCTED in Israel, Israel does recognize civil marriages from abroad and a notable minority does take advantage of this loophole. The article should be worded accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.112.98 (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From the article in question-

"The Justice Ministry is drafting a bill that would institute a type of civil marriage for couples who cannot marry in Israel according to Jewish law. Justice Minister Haim Ramon intends to introduce the bill during the Knesset's winter session.
The law is aimed at solving a problem faced by 300,000 Israelis who cannot marry because one of the partners is not Jewish, or his or her Jewishness cannot be determined. Ramon's proposal is more restrictive than the civil marriage (or "matrimonial covenant") plan devised by a committee headed by Roni Bar-On during the last Knesset session.
The ministerial legislative committee rejected Sunday a private member's bill submitted by a group of MKs headed by Yuri Stern (Yisrael Beiteinu) for a civil-marriage registry that would also deal with couples who are eligible for an Orthodox marriage, but do not want one. This bill, which resembles others submitted in the last Knesset session, would permit any couple in which the man and women are at least 18 and not currently married to register as a couple in a separate registry administered by the Justice Ministry. The couples would receive the same marriage benefits as other married couples, and in the event of divorce, it would be handled in family court and not the religious courts. " [3]
  • what does a marriage law having to do with religion have to do with 'racial' marriages? Thanks Hmains 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I also doubt whether the Israeli case is to do with miscegnation. Converted Jews are allowed to marry born Jews. A black Jew can marry a white Jew. etc. Zargulon 08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest merging the section on Israeli marriage law to the existing page "Jewish views on marriage", or creating a new page for it. What connected anti-miscegenation laws in the US, Nazi-Germany and South Africa during Apartheid was that they were all based on racist concepts of white (and in Nazi-Germany also Aryan) supremacy. The laws in Nazi Germany and South Africa were even inspired by the American laws. The Israeli marriage law is cleary not based on this white supremacism. It has more to do with religion and ethnocentrism.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to keep seperate pages for "miscegenation" and "interracial marriage" so that the article on miscegenation can be used to explain the long history of (racist) ideas about race-mixing and the laws formerly banning it. Or alternatively, the two articles could be merged, but there would be a seperate section on miscegenation in the US since it was fully legalized in the 1960s. (this unsigned entry added by 195.73.22.130 on 20:36, 9 April 2007)

Miscegenation isn't limited to the United States. To force the article to only cover issues directly related to the United States would be borderline POV and serve to conflate concepts of white supremacy with miscegenation. This would, in effect, serve to ignore the myriad of other nations/groups/ethnicities that have regulations regarding miscegenation. Similarly, would it make sense to delete the page and keep each nations laws on separation? Of course not. To cage in a term into this manner serves to keep the term within 19th century boundaries of the definition and ignores the broad treatment briefly mentioned in the introductory paragaphs.
Although, from looking at the Israeli marriage law page, it seems much of this information is absent from that page. Thanks for the heads-up.Brickhouse 1234 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to that postcard picture?

Why was that postcard called Not Particular removed from the United States section on August 5th?

Good question, the pic may violated wikipedia copyright rules/regulations or the pic may be damaged or poorly downloaded. Nice picture though, it tells us human beings can get along...romantically or sexually. Ok get that filth out of my mind, LoL. Remember, the practice of miscegenation is more common than we think, and humanity is a result of multiple marriages between races, tribes and nations for millions of years. It would be weird for everyone to be or look the same, and we need genetic variety to continue our species by selecting individual partners not related to you...such as avoidance of first cousins or insect is not only immoral, but can damage our genetic ability to reproduce healthy offspring. This is simple biology science, not a POV and I happen to be a 3rd-generation white/American Indian (plus my Dad is French from France). + Mike D 26 08:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Catholic church's stance on miscegenation

Is it true the Roman Catholic Church encouraged inter-racial marriage in ease comparable to Protestants, esp. the history of some US-based evangelical Christian sects formerly condemned miscegenation in the past? I studied the impact of miscegenation in predominantly Catholic Latin America, where more racial mingling of black, white and Amerindian took place over five centuries, and was somewhat promoted by the church to populate the open colonies of the New world. When the French ruled Louisiana in the 1600's/1700's, the church emancipated thousands of slaves to become citizens, but as church members, are given approval to marry anyone they choose, even outside their race. Also to note Catholicism tolerates high rates of multi-racial/ethnic cooperation, as in the many cases of Irish-Italian/Polish/French Canadian, or Anglo(white)-black/Latino/Filipino mixed marriages between partners of different races. But the majority of these ethnic groups, yet every race is represented in Catholicism, belonged to the Roman church. Can someone please give me an answer or any link on the web for reliable research? Thanks + Mike D 26 07:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns on bias toward certain groups

I made a modification to the article to address issues of "regional bias" (and if I have inadvertently introduced any other biases please correct me). Specifically in the U.S. it is common to associate all racial problems with the South. The article in its previous form strongly implied that anti-miscegenation was only an issue in the southern U.S. This is, of course, false. I tried to "neutralize" some of the descriptions with some specific citations.

Soapbox: I think the NPOV policy is important to consider here. Bear in mind that, in reality, virtually all articles in Wikipedia, this one included, are "summaries" in that they do not discuss every piece of knowledge that exists on a subject. So the articles are only presenting a subset of the knowledge available (i.e. details are being left out). The NPOV should be applied, not only in how facts are presented, but also in WHICH facts are presented. In particular it is important to resist the temptation to oversimply discussions of "sins" such as this one by reducing them to a problem with one particular group based on widely held biases (such as "All race problems in the U.S. are 'Southern' problems"). Wikipedia is frequently criticized with the argument that, because it is not necessarily written by experts on each subject, it is more susceptible to bias. This can be a legitimate concern that should be considered as these articles are written (not that "experts" cannot be biased but at least they presumably are aware of a wider array of facts than the "amateurs." The "amateur" in some sense has to be more careful to actually look for examples that might counter his/her biases). --Mcorazao 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that the article did not completely state that anti-miscegentation was only a Southern problem. But in its previous form it was easy to read it that way if you did not read carefully. --Mcorazao 03:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judgmental

Under >>Anti-miscegenation laws > United States there's a quote from Salon.com that says:
"...after a statewide vote in a special election, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law that was an ugly reminder of America's past, a ban on interracial marriage (sic). The one-time home of George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. had held onto the provision for 33 years after the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Yet as the election revealed -- 40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep the ban -- many people still see the necessity for a law that prohibits blacks and whites from mixing blood."

What purpose does the last sentence serve? It's very judgmental imo and doesn't really serve any purpose. People can figure out for themselves the reason that 40% of Alabamans voted to keep the ban. I know it's a quote, but as it the last part of it, it could be taken out...

Pomme

You right. It serves no purpose and is extremly biased. Seriously. "Mixing blood"? Thats a pretty harsh way of saying 2 people of differnt races love each other. This statment is wholly disparging and will be removed.

[edit] Israel

Here's the definition of miscegenation: "Miscegenation is the mixing of different ethnicities or races, especially in marriage, cohabitation, or sexual relations.". Here's Israel's law: "Marriages performed in Israel between Jews and non-Jews, while permitted, are not recognized as marriages by Israeli law.". How is this not an anti-miscegenation law? --Calibas 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Isn't that exactly backwards? Marriages (i.e. the actual wedding) between Jews and non-Jews are not permitted (indirectly since there are no civil marriages and all marriages are under the jurisdiction of the appropriate faith and the Orthodox Judaic authorities will not conduct interfaith marriages), but such marriages are recognized as marriages if performed abroad, for instance. [4] Gzuckier 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood the laws, it appears that the state doesn't recognize Jewish marriages that don't comply with the Orthodoxy. Marriages performed by other religions are still recognized. So a Jew and a non-Jew could get married by a Christian priest, but they couldn't have a Jewish wedding. The Israel section doesn't belong in this article and I will remove it shortly unless someone can explain why I shouldn't. --Calibas 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


The definition of Miscegenation at the beginning of the article is Miscegenation (Latin miscere "to mix" + genus "kind") is the mixing of different ethnicities or races. People that are not halachically Jewish, that is, either racial or following an Orthodox conversion cannot get married In Israel. Certainly, these people can get a conversion, but, until then, these people are not ethnically Jewish. The definition of ethnicity in wikipedia covers the religious angle, and I seriously doubt that anyone will argue that Orthodox Judaism does not constitute an ethnicity.

Under an orthodox view of Halacha, a conversion to Judaism is not kosher unless it is Orthodox. Even Actual Orthodox conversions are scrutinized. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/6943/edition_id/131/format/html/displaystory.html

U.S. Orthodox convert denied Israel marriage by chief rabbi MICHELE CHABIN Jewish Telegraphic Agency JERUSALEM -- The latest recruit in the battle over Israeli recognition of non-Orthodox converts hails from the most unlikely place -- Louisiana. An American man who underwent an Orthodox conversion in Metairie, La., was denied an official marriage in Israel a week ago on the grounds that his conversion may not have been legitimate and that the Orthodox rabbi who converted him in Louisiana is not recognized in Israel. The incident comes amid the struggle by the Reform and Conservative movements to obtain recognition for their conversions performed in Israel and the Orthodox establishment's push to strengthen its monopoly over religious life in the Jewish state. Moreover, the case of Avraham Elhiany appears to lend credence to Reform and Conservative leaders' claims that the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate's control over Jewish lifecycle events affects all Jews, including those who do not wish to live in Israel. When the Chief Rabbinate refused to provide an Orthodox rabbi to officiate at their wedding, Elhiany and Ilana Ohana turned to the Reform movement just two days prior to the ceremony. The difficulties encountered by this couple "demonstrate that even when someone has undergone an Orthodox conversion outside Israel, there is no guarantee that they will be recognized as Jewish by the rabbinate," said Rabbi Michael Boydon, chairman of the Israel Council of Progressive Rabbis. Boydon, who married the couple on Aug. 24, said he is convinced that Elhiany had a proper Orthodox conversion. "I have seen all the documents of conversion and circumcision," said Boydon. "The rabbinate has seen the same documents." The saga of Elhiany and his Israeli wife began about a month ago. The child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, Elhiany, 29, was raised as a Jew and attended an Orthodox elementary school, although he was not officially converted until prior to his bar mitzvah.

AIf your ancestoral line of Jewishness is in doubt, you cannot get a marriage, and the people getting married are forced to take classes to keep their lineage pure. If they are not ancestorally jewish or of a proper conversion and, thus, ethnically Jewish, then they cannot marry in Israel http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=5002

As a result, non-Orthodox Jewish couples are forced to submit to an Orthodox marriage ceremony with an Orthodox rabbi and are compelled to attend classes on family purity. No Israeli may marry outside her faith community. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens from the former Soviet Union who are not Jewish or whose Jewish ancestry is in doubt are unable to marry at all inside Israel. And more women every year are chained to men they wish to divorce but who will not give them the get required by Jewish law.

Also, the children of illegitimate unions are affected with a stigma. http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=5002

There are two related worries: intermarriage and illegitimacy. Children of marriages forbidden by Jewish law, or halacha (for example, unions between a kohen and a divorcee, between close relatives, or between a man and a previously married woman who did not undergo a halachic divorce) are considered mamzerim. They and their offspring, stigmatized with an irrevocable brand of illegitimacy, may marry only other mamzerim. A split in the nation, the argument goes, will follow: mamzerut will increase dramatically and it will be difficult to keep track of mamzerim to ensure they do not wed non-mamzer Jews.


Either ancestoral or ethnic Jews cannot get married in Israel. There are examples of converted Jews who cannot get married in Israel because their marriage doesn't conform to Halacha. There are even Orthodox Jews who's conversion is challenged along Halacha laws and, thus, cannot marry in Israel. The children of marriages forbidden by halacha are also stigmatised. These definitions fit within the definition of Misegenation as presented within the article and in Wikipedia. Jews are both defined along ancestoral and ethnic lines - as in a Cohen (Kohen) or Levi and a Convert, who is ethnically recognized. A person who is not ethnically or ancestrally Jewish cannot marry in Israel. Therefore, misegenation exists in Israel.68.105.167.227 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If all marriages are by rabbis, how do Arab Muslims get married in Israel? Ashmoo 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. All marriages are by religious practitioners. Rabbis, imams, priests, etc. Each religion has a central "official" authority which recognizes the individual practitioner and thereby their right to conduct a legal wedding ceremony. So Arab Muslims get married by an imam whose power is vested by some official Muslim Council recognized by the government. I don't know what happens with some low-frequency religion though, like if two believers in Amon-Ra want to get married. Gzuckier 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then, the sentence In the State of Israel, Civil marriage and non-Orthodox religious marriage are not legally recognized...' is misleading as I read Orthodox to mean Orthodox Judaism. I'll change it. Could someone fact check my changes? Ashmoo 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, you did definitely catch a misleading wording there. I tweaked your rewording a bit, because no real Wikipedian can stand to leave a sentence unaltered. Gzuckier 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The entire sentence "In the State of Israel, civil marriage and non-Orthodox religious marriage are not legally recognized..." is a simple error. They are in fact legally recognized, on a comity basis, where they occurred in another jurisdiction. Hundreds of thousands of such foreign civil and non-Orthodox marriages are registered. It is domestic civil marriage that is not performed, and -- for Jews -- non-Orthodox marriages that are not recognized if performed within the country. All marriages are performed by recognized religious communities, whether Jewish, Moslem, Christian (by denomination), or otherwise. However, as one example among many possibilities, because a Druze community member cannot marry a Circassian community member inside the country -- a problem usually solved by going to Cyprus, marrying there, and having the foreign marriage legally recognized in Israel -- does not constitute a ban on miscegenation. It and similar problems are issues arising from the application of religious law, and not miscegenation bans. Similar problems are visible equally in other Middle-eastern countries that employ religious law for family law. Neither does this constitute an issue that meets the definition of 'miscegenation,' although one might write a great deal about what else it constitutes. In short, this entire 'Israel' section is so misconceived, uninformed, and unsourced that it should simply be deleted.--Jlockard 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
I think the section about Israel could improve a lot by some changes. Some things are repeated and some are :::::unclear to me. Maybe someone who knows a lot about the subject can help by rewriting it a bit. Kalliope 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it exists in Israel. It's a Jewish state. I don't know how many times I've heard Jewish friends say that they'd never marry gentiles. I had a Jewish girlfriend who had to hide me from her parents so she wouldn't be disowned for dating a gentile. I hear more racist remarks about Asians, Indians and Africans from my Jewish friends than anyone else I know. I've even had Israeli's telling me, an Irishman, Irish jokes. So I told a few Jewish ones of a similarly offensive nature (not very), and a small crowd of them were calling me 'mick Nazi' , issuing threats etc. Dish it out just fine, but can't take it. It's like an obsession. And it's no small wonder that modern Jewish culture seems to feel like a sole target of racism, it's like the world has become a big mirror. Bad karma, man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.196.214 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I was always told that karma was individual, but you seem to think it works on entire ethnic groups. Is karma then racist? I'm sure the 50% of American Jews who marry outside the faith would disagree with your 'friends'. 41.243.96.122 09:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Several statements in this section could be misleading, e.g. "multi-faith couples must leave the country to get married". This makes it sound like they have forced to go into exile. A more accurate version would be "multi-faith couples must marry outside the country, e.g. in Cyprus, for their marriage to be recognised in Israel."

This section seems to be pushing an association between Israel and an idea commonly recognised as racist, when in fact the matter is one of religion. In countries following Islamic law a Muslim woman may not marry a Kafir man, but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Why? Is Orthodox Islam any less of an ethnicity than Orthodox Judaism? 41.243.96.122 09:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History?

Why does the history section of the article not cover more than a few years? Also indealing with the photo, why is the couple black and asian? Is it to impact the sub conscience mind of the reader? Don't give people with little or not histroical schooling such ideas. Even if the couple was German & French it would be considered mixed.--Margrave1206 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. This article goes over the history of the word since it was introduced to the U.S. and laws pertaining to miscegenation since then. If you have more info on the history feel free to add it, I'm sure there's much more. I think it's mainly about the U.S. because that's what we have the most information about, at least in english.
Why not a black and asian couple, what's wrong with that? What ideas are we giving people by putting it there, that miscegenation is okay? For some reason other people have also been offended by that photo but I think it's perfect for the article. --Calibas 23:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It is quite easy to understand, you are giving people the idea that miscegenation is only African + another group. You need to be clear of the fact that interracial marriage also means, if the person is Italian & Spanish. No one said that miscegenation was wrong, your article needs work. Add additional pictures of other couples. People have been mixing with other people for thousands of years, the only ones that need an education about that are the American people who will be reading these articles. There are people in American (USA) who are against interracial marriage, however they are so ignorant they do not realize Irish and Scottish = mixed. This could be a really great article however it needs more work.--Margrave1206 18:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, in reality we're all descended from a long line of milkmen and chambermaids anyway. Any time you have two groups of people anywhere near each other, there's always going to be "mingling". Anyone who thinks their ancestors were "pure" anything is living in a dreamworld. Noclevername 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with anti-miscegenation laws

I oppose the merge. In Australia at least, miscegenation was forced upon indiginous Australians - forced miscegenation does not belong in the same article as anti-miscegenation.Garrie 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Forced? Did you mean to say "raped"? Theres a huge differnce between legal marrage of two peole of differnt ethnictitys and the genorape of a society. If it is refernced in either article, please remove it, thanyou. 69.250.130.215

Agree with Merge. The anti-miscegenation artcle is nothing but a table with a couple of states. There is no reason for it to exist on its own. --Exodio 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have carried out the initial merge. More work now needs to be done to clean up this article. (references, lay out, language).195.73.22.130 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Does this page really need a picture? In most cases, a picture adds relevance to the article, but it makes this article seem like a joke. Especially since the file name is "blasian?" Little racist... Just a thought.

Looks to me like mostly a vanity photo, says it was uploaded by a sock puppet. I am removing it, surely we can find a better photo for this article.A mcmurray 09:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not too mention it had no copyright information.A mcmurray 09:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a picture of a high-profile couple... maybe Tigert Woods and his wife? As long as we can find a free-use one. Abeg92contribs 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Rather than a picture of high-profile couple, how about "Othello and Desdemona in Venice" from the article, Othello? It's a free-use image and good work. The only problem I see is that Othello's race is still debated and likely to be not settled. --Revth 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It already appears in Interracial marriage, so scrap this idea.--Revth 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Hmm. I like the Tiger Woods idea or Revth's idea, if Revth can find something appropriate along those lines, historical images would be most excellent. I'll poke around and see what I come with as well.A mcmurray 09:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Historical would be better. Abeg92contribs 10:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a great historical image via the National Park Service. It is of Frederick Douglass and his second wife, Helen Pitts Douglass. Great example for the article I think. Check it out, I added it to the article.A mcmurray 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
you might want to add that fredrick douglass was alredy biracial. Colorfulharp233 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the 'Douglass' from Helen Pitts's name in the image caption. It looked strange because only the first two names were linked to her article. Although a quick internet search indicates both Helen Pitts and Helen Pitts Douglass were/are used, and the wikipedia article on the woman is titled "Helen Pitts." If you guys disagree feel free to put the 'Douglass' back in, but remember to include all three words in the link. Ddawn23 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed we added the qualifier "mixed-race" to Douglass, our own wiki, Frederick Douglass, says he knew nothing of his father though he once said he was white he later recanted that. Can we get verification on that aspect, until it is cited by a reliable third-party source I am removing it.A mcmurray 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bad Writing

the following two sentences are so poorly written that i will not even attempt to correct them as i have no idea what they mean:

"In terms of ethnicity, most secular Jews think of their Jewishness as a matter of ethnicity.[12] Some examples of this can be food, of the Hebrew Yiddish language, of some limited holiday observances, and of cultural values like the emphasis on education."

somebody who knows this subject should really tend to them.

I tweaked this a bit. IvoShandor 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Fairlane75== Undo merge ==

Miscegenation#Anti-miscegenation_laws contains sufficient information, that is distinct from simply discussing what miscegenation is that it might actually deserve its own article.

The previous version of that article [5] was short and Americo-centric. It probably would have done better to merge information out of this page and expanded that one.

Any thoughts?--ZayZayEM 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that these pages leave out information from the rest of the world. Theres quite a bit of information that needs to be added to make this article representational on a global scale. Brickhouse 1234 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I agree. I will undo the merge and expand the article Anti-miscegenation laws by merging Anti-Miscegenation Amendment into it, an article on the actual attempt in 1912 to create a nation-wide ban on miscegenation in the US.

[edit] Interracial marriage / Miscegenation

I just noticed that Interracial marriage had been merged into this article and that Interracial marriage is now a redirect to Miscegenation. I think this article should be renamed Interracial marriage and Miscegenation should be the redirect.

The lede says, "The term miscegenation has been used in the context of ethnocentric or racist attitudes and laws against interracial sexual relations and interracial marriage. As a result, 'miscegenation' in English-speaking countries is often a loaded word, and may be considered offensive."

The lede is mistaken. The word 'miscegenation' is offensive. Jew would not be named Kike, with a redirect from Jew to Kike. The fact that Interracial marriage redirects readers to Miscegenation is deeply offensive. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please change the title of this article immediately. 68.6.37.200 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI Interracial marriage has been "unmerged" (i.e., restored). I'll start deleting the material in this article that was copied from that article soon. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asian and White

The following comment was inserted in the article at Miscegenation#Asian and White. I've moved it here, where it belongs.

There is no reference or whatsoever in the facts listed here. Either reference should be provided or this should be deleted. --71.109.180.100 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. The section in question came from Interracial marriage, which was merged into this article, and it somehow lost its footnote long ago. I found it, though, and I'll put it back in the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
well.. I checked it right now. there is still no reference.--71.109.180.100 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. There's a footnote that links to the source. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Use of WASP in the article

In the WASP article, it acknowledges that the term typically has negative connotations. In the sentence regarding relationships between Irish immigrants and "WASPS", wouldn't it be better just to state "White Protestants". The issue does not just concern ANGLO-SAXON Protestants. I realize this is picky, and I never like to be a member of the PC police, but I think this is a problem of accuracy. There were many non-Anglo Saxon protestants such as French-Americans, German-Americans, etc. who did not want to mix with Irish catholic immigrants. In fact, there were even Irish Protestants who forbid relationships with Irish Catholics. It just seems unneccesary and incorrect to use WASP, which some consider to be an offensive term. At the very least, it is inaccurate because the bulk of white Protestant Americans are German-Americans. My point is that there were plenty of Irish Protestants (typically from Ulster) before the mass Irish immigrations of later years. White Protestants opposed marriages to Irish Catholics - not to Irish Protestants. Many of the earliest immigrants were Scots-Irish. --CommonSense101 05:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is non-neutral

Every reference to miscegenation is positive even though it's very controversial. Both positive and negative references should be included especially if the most significant ones are negative, such as between Nicole Brown and OJ Simpson and recently between Bobby Cutts and Jessie Davis. A picture of Jessie Davis and Bobby Cutts represents a more significant event than a picture of some random couple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auno3 (talk • contribs) 19:20, June 24, 2007

If you would like to make a constructive contribution to the article, you are welcome to do so. Replacing a photo of an interracial couple with the mug shot of a Black man accused of murdering a white woman is vandalism, and it will be reverted. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Biodiversity section

I vote to remove the recently added section on miscegenation and biodiversity. The section is completely unsourced, and thus adds nothing informative to the article. The use of pseudo-science to defend "racial purity" and to oppose "race-mixing" is in itself nothing new, see the coinage of the word "miscegenation" itself. Moreover, these kinds of arguments against "race-mixing" have been thoroughly discredited. The boundaries seperating races are socially constructed, and therfore different in differnt places and always contested and changing. "Race" as a concept has little to do with mankind's genetic diversity, see the race article.195.73.22.130 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this in the scope Asian Americans?

How did that choose that category?

[edit] Source needed

I'm attempting to standardize the reference use in this article (using the earliest references as template) and cannot find a source for this claim: "In the US, black-white marriages still tend to be controversial in the public eye. From a recent poll of 1,314 Americans of all ethnic groups, 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)." I found a .pdf that includes recent data on acceptance of intermarriage, but it does not break down rates to say which intermarriage is most acceptable: http://www.prb.org/pdf05/60.2NewMarriages.pdf. This source addresses only those American who feel there should be laws against black-white marriage and how many Americans approve of black-white dating, not how many approve of marriages: http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=race&list=8. I will leave it with the relatively unhelpful (Ford 2003), but hope that somebody can find something substantial. Thanks! Moonriddengirl 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Apparently, (Ford, 2003) refers to a poll in Ford magazine, but I haven't been able to find a reliable reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.73.22.130 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altering numbers on interracial marriage to reflect source

I have altered this line from the article: "There are 287,576 Black White Marriages, 194,128 Hispanic White Marriages , and 504,119 White Asian Marriages." The source given is the US Census Hispanic Origin and Race of Coupled Households: 2000. I was completely wrong in my initial thought that it offers no data on black-white marriage or white-Asian marriage--that whole Hispanic Origin label threw me--but the numbers are off. A source of confusion may stem from the fact that the US census does not identify Hispanic as a race (Hispanic Origin), so in order to determine Hispanic-White marriages, you have to add all of the columns under Hispanic origin, both for nonHispanic white husband and for nonHispanic white wife. The math for the other given relationships is much easier, but a note should be made to indicate that those matches exclude relationships where one partner self-identified as Hispanic Origin. If you remove Hispanic Origin as an indicator, black-white marriage is much higher. I believe I've interpreted all this data correctly, but I'd really welcome review. :) Moonriddengirl 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiversity

Please cite a verifiable and notable source to support a section on the impact of miscegenation on biodiversity. Please also cite if you wish to make a case that dialogue is infrequent in anthropology (or the media). Please see something like language death.

WP:ATT and WP:FRINGE are important to consider here.--ZayZayEM 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that section about the reduction of biodiversity shouldn't be in here. It isn't sourced. It is also a fringe point of view that will need a very good source.----DarkTea 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, much of the info in this article is unsourced. Secondly, it is difficult to obtain sources for an issue that is specially not talked about due to the liberal media. In addition, the section is to illustrate how people (some sections of the public) feel about the issue, not whether it is commonly discussed in anthropology. Finally, one does not need a study to see that race mixing decreases biodiversity. Liberals often talk about "the race of the future" (wikipedia even has an article on it) this on its own shows a reduction in overall biodiversity and a sharp reduction in human biodiversity. Going from five races, to less or only one is a major reduction in human biodiversity. If you include all the sub-racial groups its an enormous reduction. The fact is, some ethnic groups are becoming extinct due to Racial mixing. That upsets some people (like the entire nation of Israel or Japan), and therefore its notable.

The reason you don't think it belongs here is because you don't like it. Everyone who has taken out the section has extrme left views, and therefore is taking their personal bias (the anti-white one, that hopes the future is brown) and letting interfere with an important aspect of this controversial topic. This topic is controversial. Many people oppose inter-racial breeding. Are you trying to say that loosing their individuality, bloodline and biodiversity has nothing to do with this ? It is a common view. How does one source a common view held by the public ? I agree tart improving the section could be improved, s lets start improving it! No ones stopping you guys from finding sources. This is supposed to be a community, so search it out and find a source! as for deletion, deletion is only happening for putative and political reasons. Whether you like it or not, whether there are antropologists talking about it or not, race mixing does affect the biodiversity of planet Earth, people believe it, its the truth, its a reality and therefore should have some mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.123.234 (talk) 23:16, August 4, 2007

You don't help your argument when you write that "the section is to illustrate how people (some sections of the public) feel about the issue, not whether it is commonly discussed in anthropology." Wikipedia isn't a forum in which to express how people feel; the threshold for whether or not material belongs in Wikipedia is that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Wikipedia:Verifiability
Because the section doesn't cite any references or sources, it may contain original research or unverified claims. If you wish to keep the section, please find some reliable sources that support the statements made in the section, or it will have to be deleted. It's that simple. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". This is you, 234, and nobody else. It is not hard to find sources even for viewpoints which are uncommon in the "liberal media", and if you do, then people will let the section stand, although they may dispute the sources' reliability. In the meantime, I will remove it. – Smyth\talk 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China History: Manchu vs Han.

i heard there were laws place in Qing Empire against marriages between Manchu and Han subject. as a means to protect the Manchu(ruling) from getting absorbed by the Han majority. Would such a law fit into the profile of Miscegenation? and did such a law exist? Akinkhoo 22:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

An editor has repeatedly added a pasted-together image depicting a white woman and a black man. Image:BobbyandJessie.JPG The caption on the photos is

His most recent edit summary was:

  • it is far more notable and POV-neutral than some random couple [6]

The man in the picture has been charged in the death of the woman. I don't think that the couple is famous for their miscegenation but rather for the crime. It appears to me that this image has been created and posted in order to present a negative POV regarding the topic. It is not a neutral image, nor is it presented neutrally or honestly. If we need an additional illustration I'm sure we can find a better one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the previous image, which was uploaded by the photographer of the couples' wedding under a license appropiate for wikipedia. --Ramsey2006 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. This image also depicts a notable couple Image:William Cohen Janet Langhart.JPG and is freely licensed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Auno3 repeatedly tried the same thing during the summer, insisting that the article needed a photo of Bobby Cutts Jr. for "balance". Based on this and many other edits, I suspect that User:P.W.Lutherson is his sockpuppet. I've begun an inquiry into the matter. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I had the same suspicion earlier this afternoon when I saw this edit[7], and scanned the talk page of the article as his edit summary suggested. Their contribution histories are rather similar. I didn't notice the edits of this particular page, though. --Ramsey2006 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. I've blocked the P.W.Lutherson account. Auno3's 3RR block has expired and he can edit under that account if he behaves himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible and race

The phrase "Since the Bible was written long before the emergence of the concept of race" in the article is patent nonsense.--Billymac00 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Mixed-Bloods

The short article Mixed-Bloods refers to the same topic as Miscegenation. Mixed blood already redirects to Miscegenation. Mixed-Bloods does not have sufficient distinctive information to stand on its own. It should be merged into this article.

Neelix (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed merge and I oppose to the addition of "mixed blood" to the lede.

This article is about miscegenation, that is, "race mixing". It is about the process by which different "races" (racially defined ethnic groups) become mixed, through marriage, cohabition and sex. (In genetics this is called admixture). This article is not about the end result of such mixing, which is the birth of multiracial people (who may or may not identify as such]], or the formation of "mixed" groups. By the way, "mixing blood" is a now obsolete term for "race mixing", so that term definitely does not belong in the lede.

Genetically "mixed" social groups may or may not be categorized or self-identify as a racially mixed group, depending on definitions of "race" and "race mixing". It all depends on how those who participate in, and others who observe, discuss, and categorize such "mixing", define race. See the articles Passing (race), Multiracial, Mestizo, Mulatto, African Americans#Who is African American?, One drop theory, Métis etc. on how individuals and and groups of "mixed race" have self-identified and/or been categorized. You will notice many differences depending on region and historical era. See also social interpretations of race and historical definitions of race.

Race is in many aspects primarily a social construction. This article explains how and why the term "miscegenation" came in to being (in 1863 in the US), which has been in the context of the European colonization of and migration to the Americas, and the institution of slavery(in the English-speaking world, "amalgamation" was an earlier term for racial or ethnic mixing). This article alludes to how the term "miscegenation" and concepts of "race-mixing" has been present in legal practice and in social discourse. It is an article that introduces the reader to the connections between the process of "race-mixing" and observations of and perceptions about this process.

The article Mixed bloods (which is badly in need of sources), is about people/groups of mixed Native American and (primarily) European ancestry. In North America, there are many groups of partial Native American descent who identify either as a distinct "mixed" group or as Native Americans. It would probably be best to preserve the article, provide sources, and links to relevant other articles about Native Americans and the colonization of the Americas. Fairlane75 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Mixed blood has been merged/redirected into this page! That is unacceptable. When I was new to wikipedia, I merged Interracial marriage into this article, and I was rightly reprimanded for this action. I now see that it was not a good idea to merge in the first place. But the more important point is that you always have to wait for others to vote on your proposal. Always wait for a consensus to form. I think Mixed blood should redirect to either Multiracial or Mixed bloods, although that is another discussion. See the talk page of Mixed blood. Fairlane75 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mixed blood has not been merged into this article. It never existed as a page unto itself; it has existed as a redirect page to this article for two years. No merging has taken place without adequate discussion on this talk page.
If articles like Mixed-Bloods, Half-breed, and Half-caste refer to a separate topic from Miscegenation, they should be merged together apart from Miscegenation. If this should be done based on geographical location, so be it. This still holds true of Mixed-Bloods and Half-caste, as they both refer mainly to people groups of Native American and European ancestry.
Neelix (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was too hasty in my second comment. Mixed blood never existed as an article, only as a redirect, you're right. Mixed blood should not be a redirect to this article though, and the term does not belong in the lede of the article. And Mixed bloods should not be merged into this article.

I'm not sure whether all the articles you mention should be merged into one. Whatever opinion you have on this also depends on whether ou are a lumper or a splitter. I think it would be a better idea to preserve the Mixed bloods article, and also to have a good look at the existing information on the mixing of Native Americans and whites in other articles to see what links you could provide from the existing article to other articles. I also think it is important to do a bit of research into the background of these terms. Halfcaste, for instance, has also been used in Australia to refer to people of mixed Aboriginal and white ancestry. The Multiracial article already provides an overview of the topic of mixed-race people and groups. That is a good place to have this dicussion about merging some or all of the different articles you mention. 195.73.22.130 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove the merge suggestion and do some more research. Perhaps I'll start another discussion on the Multiracial talk page if I come to a more definite conclusion about what should be done about the different articles pertaining to people descended from multiple races.
Neelix (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

This article could benefit from some IPA. — MusicMaker5376 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)