It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Miscegenation - why was interracial coupling illegal, and is it still stigmatized?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Reviewing some threads on normal and abonormal sexuality, I'm struck by the fact that in the 1980s (my childhood) one never saw interracial couples in film, unless it was for deliberately controversial material like "Guess who's coming to dinner?".
Now, it seems that DNA evidence is revealing a lot of historical coupling.
I think of apartheid's Immorality Act, the "stolen generation" in Australia, or even trying to breed out the undesireables with eugenics and Nazism.
How do people feel nowadays?
Does US "WASP culture" welcome interracial kids?


edit on 26-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




edit on 26-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
People are so holy about the Bible when it comes to gay issues.
Don't they recall that just two decades ago apartheird was supported by the Bible, and Reagan and Thatcher supported it?
Blacks are the sons of Ham? (well strangely enough some Rastafarians and Africanists see that as a positive).
Don't you rememeber?
Well, if you are too young to recall, segregation and apartheid was supported by the Bible.


edit on 26-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Both my Nephews and my Niece are mixed race and in the area they live (Essex, UK) they still get abuse over it, my nephews have been bullied in school for it.

I wish it was a thing of the past but sadly it still seems to be rife in some places



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Don't they recall that just two decades ago apartheird was supported by the Bible, and Raegan and Thatcher supported it?


I'd need some info on that because that is not what I have read.

As to mixed kids, they've been accepted for more than just this generation.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 

Thanks for sharing that.
I'm sure it's still a difficult journey.

Here in SA the problem is constructed as white racism, however, mixed couples on TV report glaring racism also from the black position.

The stigma seems to be that a white wife (for a black man) is not real love, but a fashion accessory.
A "status symbol", really.

Sometimes I think one racial constuction has replaced another.
It's actually very sad.
So power to you and your children.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I think Canada is a little more tolerant than a lot of other countries, probably partly because of the melting pot of cultures that we are. We've been mixing races and cultures for many, many years here.

From what I've seen as a mom, the mixed kids are very popular, some of them have an almost exotic look to them. Our kids here are also curious about other cultures and welcome them openly.


edit on 26-9-2010 by snowspirit because: adding something



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 

Not sure, I once had a thread on the Abnaki people, whose numbers were massively reduced with forced sterilization, along with those of poor Catholics, and that was in the era of Eugenics (1920s) in Canada.
Doesn't sound too tolerant.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on 26-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Reviewing some threads on normal and abonormal sexuality, I'm struck by the fact that in the 1980s (my childhood) one never saw interracial couples in film, unless it was for deliberately controversial material like "Guess who's coming to dinner?".
Now, it seems that DNA evidence is revealing a lot of historical coupling.
I think of apartheid's Immorality Act, the "stolen generation" in Australia, or even trying to breed out the undesireables with eugenics and Nazism.
How do people feel nowadays?
Does US "WASP culture" welcome interracial kids?


edit on 26-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



If a women with a high IQ has kids with a low IQ man her kids will have a lower IQ.
If a man with a high IQ has kids with a lot of women those kids will have a higher IQ.



edit on 26-9-2010 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by snowspirit
 

Not sure, I once had a thread on the Abnaki people, whose numbers were massively reduced with forced sterilization, along with those of poor Catholics, and that was in the era of Eugenics (1920s) in Canada.
Doesn't sound too tolerant.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Not saying we haven't had our problems, and it wasn't always about race. We brought over the Doukabors years ago, I think in the 40s or 50s, and treated them horribly after promising them a better life. There was also a very bad time with how we treated our Native Indians not too long ago, mostly trying to force Christianity and whiteness on them. Our government has given them a very public open apology, which is something they don't do often. There is still a few issues here.

Most of the above was years ago, and I'd like to think we've learned from it. These days things are much different. There is still pockets of racism, but not like before.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 
Back at Uni I studied the Slave Trade and Abolitionist Movement.

Miscegenation and the racism we know and love today seems to be a direct outcome of the period. The slavers and associated parties sought to reinforce and justify their business model by defining a hierarchy of humanity. They created the notion that Africans were sub-human and outside of the morality of 'polite society.' They held them as being bottom of the hierarchy. To support their argument, they proposed that Africans were intellectually inferior...a beast of burden in human form.

The society of the time was paternalistic and women had no rights to speak of. In this light, miscegenation only applied to white women. Men could have sex with any colour of female...or male if they were quiet about it. Women having sex with African males was a serious offence. Like poetic justice, it was a black female who played a part in the abolition of slavery when her biography was published...Mary Prince.

Mary Prince helped to turn public (middle class really) sentiment against the pro-slavery interests.

Before the slave trade was forced to invent justifications for its existence, racism and miscegenation didn't exist in the way we know today.

If we go back to before the Abolitionist Movement, people of different colours moved freely between nations. Prejudice and stereotypes still existed...it's human nature to gather into groups in opposition to other groups. It just wasn't anything like the 18th-20th century racism. The courts of the aristocracies of Europe had African members...whether they were guests or musicians in the background. Shakespeare had Othello as a sympathetic central black character some 400 years before Sidney Poitier or the controversial 'interracial kiss' on Star Trek in the 1960s.

The haplogroups of Europe have African markers in there that show migration and sex between colours spanning centuries before the BS of pro-slavers.

Anyway, that's enough for now. The racism we know today was born in the cultural and economic debates to end the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. IIRC you're South African? I guess you'll recognise the same arguments used to support apartheid in the 1980s? How low can people stoop to maintain their advantages over others?



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 

Well, I suppose everyone is in denial.
Even white apologists for apartheid. They say that the SA black population (which arrived here from Congolese migrations in the 17th century, and displaced the truly indigenous Khoisan peoples) increased from 3 million (apparently in 1820) to 40 million during colonialization and apartheid. Apartheid offered the highest general living standards and hospitals for blacks in Africa and the diaspora.
We (I'm using a general argument that I often hear) were the only colonial country that did not decrease it's indigenous population, or try to wipe/breed it out.
Yet countries like Canada, Australia, the US and New Zealand pointed fingers at us!
How amusing.




edit on 26-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Yeah, people living in glass houses need not throw stones. I would think most countries have lots to be ashamed of, I know Canada does. Even though we've tried to learn from our past, those things that we've had issues with, and still have some issues, should never be forgotten. Thankfully its getting better.

At one time, our prime minister, Harper, tried to bring up with China, their human rights issues. They threw it right back at Harper about our Native Indians, and how much still needs to be fixed. He was smart enough not to bring it up again.


edit on 26-9-2010 by snowspirit because: removed quote from above post



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Where I live race is not that big of an issue, except for the preferential treatment that some get. Inter racial couples are all over the city, with the majority being a black male with a white female. The children of interracial couples are not picked on. Often they happen to be the most popular kids on the athletic teams and in schools.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I'm going out on a line here but are trying to justify apartheid? It's looking like it. You asked a question about mixed children and when we answer attack our countries. What's the deal?



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

No, I'm nor defending apartheid, although some aspects were not wholly bad (but even some in the ANC note that - many have degrees from apartheid universities). I did say that I was using a very tired argument to illustrate a point.

The first post spoke about a tolerant Canada and I immediately thought otherwise according to a past interest in the Abnaki people. So many people also suffered in Canada because of their race. Maybe it wasn't the best point, but sometimes when one finally gets a first post one wants to really engage that person. And I do have questions on other countries and putting forward unpopular cases to find out more.

So apologies if I insulted any country - I think I wanted debate and reaction.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by snowspirit
 

Well, I suppose everyone is in denial.
Even white apologists for apartheid. They say that the SA black population (which arrived here from Congolese migrations in the 17th century, and displaced the truly indigenous Khoisan peoples) increased from 3 million (apparently in 1820) to 40 million during colonialization and apartheid. Apartheid offered the highest general living standards and hospitals for blacks in Africa and the diaspora.
We (I'm using a general argument that I often hear) were the only colonial country that did not decrease it's indigenous population, or try to wipe/breed it out.
Yet countries like Canada, Australia, the US and New Zealand pointed fingers at us!
How amusing.




edit on 26-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



I'm sorry I am confused, you say that " (which arrived here from Congolese migrations in the 17th century, and displaced the truly indigenous Khoisan peoples)".

Followed with " were the only colonial country that did not decrease it's indigenous population, or try to wipe/breed it out."

In the first sentence you say that your people displaced the original inhabitants and in the second say that your people have never enacted crimes on the original inhabitants.

Can you please clarify?



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Well there's a huge difference between Canadian history and that of Apartheid SA. When we attempted, and sometimes accomplished genocide, see the intentional introduction of small pox to the native population, times were so different. Let's look at those differences with SA.

Canada / SA

Muskets / Nuclear Weapons
Mud houses / High rises
Boats / Jets
No papers / Sports Illustrated/Time/Newsweek
Grounded / Moon expeditions
Game / McDonalds

I could go on but you get the point. I'm only speaking for Canada and yes, other countries committed atrocities as well but they were long in the past. Not in a supposedly enlightened, advanced society.




edit on 27-9-2010 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
It was illegal for a few reasons.

1. Fear.

2. Hate

3. Ignorance

4. Envy

Yes 'mixing' the races is extremely frowned upon by the majority of people where I live.(US) But the hate is now hidden, and only discussed among 'trusted' company. (other 'true' racists)
As a kid you have to listen and participate so as not to be ostercized..(or worse)
This is a very sensitive issue.
Extreme racism is alive and thriving where I am. Its everywhere. And if you have bi-racial kids, you can pretty well expect not to land certain jobs, be looked at with hate, have your children treated with ignorance and disrespect, even to the extent of being forced to leave by way of round about economic sanctions. Even non-immediate family members are treated differently if you choose to inter-marry or even associate with other races.
Sure, big companies will hire 'token' ethnics, I dont even want to discuss this any further as it is embarassing to exist in a place where this is SO alive.

Later

psyko45




top topics



 
1

log in

join