differences in color, religion, culture will not be easily accepted by the broad society. outside academic enclaves and major urban centres, cross-cultural/religion/color couplings are still hard to realize. it's one thing to have an exotic fling, but quite another to have community or family support when you or your partner hits the skids. that said, the Loving ruling DID take law out of the equation. which is a good thing. Go out and breed ye in the summer sunshine. WTF are you doing reading a blog.

yeah, ye

Did the judge really say "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. ".... didn't his white ancestors cross the ocean to a different continent against interfering with arrangement of the same God ? Seriously WTF.

Hat tip to you for acknowledging this, Ennis.
Khoofi, it is hard at times for our multiracial, multiethnic and multifaith family. But not as hard as 20, 40, 60 or 80 years ago. Because others before us paved the way. And we will pay it forward.

Ennis; appreciate the hat tip as well. Both my parents are what is now termed bi-racial, which always meant they were black in America; except if you do something really big like become POTUS, then the rule changes /is changed ;-) one of the grandparents match would have been legal, I think (?), the other not,-[ both were voluntary.]

#1differences in color, religion, culture will not be easily accepted by the broad society. outside academic enclaves and major urban centres, cross-cultural/religion/color couplings are still hard to realize
and

where I grew up on a block with kids whose parents were Ethiopian & White, Korean & German, and Japanese & white American. Family friends included couples who were Japanese & white American,

maybe if the scaredy cat crazies don't kill us all, the common thread will be 'American'

Great post Ennis...you increased my awareness...

clearly this post is a veiled attack on Prez Bam's apparent unwillingness to extend the Loving precedent to gay couples.

OK, now when are desi parents gonna step up to the plate in this regard?

Japanese & white American, Chinese & white American

This is not unusual. Japanese and Korean women marry White over their own race. If it were Japanese-Japanese or Korean-Korean pairing, then it would be a marvel of note.

This is not unusual. Japanese and Korean women marry White over their own race. If it were Japanese-Japanese or Korean-Korean pairing, then it would be a marvel of note

Your comment on my post makes an assumption which is incorrect: in one case the Asian was male (Chinese) in the other case the asian was female (Japanese). In any case thought the exogamy pattern was that Japanese-American women married out at 50%, in this case the Japanese woman was foreign born.

Very nice post. Thanks, Ennis.

Great post! For more on the Sikh-Mexican California connection, check out Jayasri Hart's film, Roots in the Sand and work by Arturo Singh (myspace). We're screening Roots in August on Aug 14- to point out the debt that California Chicanos owe India and Gandhi through the study Cesar Chavez did of non-violent resistance.

This is not unusual. Japanese and Korean women marry White over their own race. If it were Japanese-Japanese or Korean-Korean pairing, then it would be a marvel of note.

there is no sex discrepancy for native born japanese americans. additionally, the majority of *both* native born korean american males and females outmarry.

. outside academic enclaves and major urban centres, cross-cultural/religion/color couplings are still hard to realize.

this may, or may not be true, but plenty of people have argued that for many groups intermarriage is much more common outside major urban areas, because the pool of same-ethnic group partners shrinks. this is clearly evident among indian americans.

Good post, Ennis.

State laws couldn't separate them, but unfortunately a drunken driver did.

From Wiki: Richard Loving died at age 41 in 1975, when a drunken driver struck their car. Mildred Loving lost her right eye in the same accident.

OK, now when are desi parents gonna step up to the plate in this regard?

You might have to wait a while, the sad thing is that more then few desi/south asian women have had there own family end there life due to them chosing to be with someone of a different background.

Suki,
Seriously? I do live in a bubble, I will admit. How should we stop this?

"This could have caused problems for Punjabis married to Mexicans since desis had been classified as Asians under the Thind decision and Mexicans were considered white under California state law."

GRAVE INJUSTICE! Punjabis and White people are kissing cousins. We share much in common right from our Aryan ancestry to cultural obsession with pomp and facial aesthetic. How are Mexicans white? They like Chinese/Nepali to me.

How long until this comment section turns into an endless debate about how "[certain] Indian people are actually white" and vis a vis how they're somehow better off/worse as a result of this.

There was supposed to be a question mark at the end of that last thing I posted. :P

Grave injustice indeed! Because every race tirelessly strives to be the white race, the obvious pinnacle of human evolution.

"Grave injustice indeed! Because every race tirelessly strives to be the white race, the obvious pinnacle of human evolution."

We are the extract of a superior race. Punjabis are the last bulwark of the pure white race in South Asia, serving our race, and saving Delhi from the Madrassis, Biharis, Chinkies and other Sepoys since 1856. You would wish you were us, just look at your Bollywood movies, overrepresented by Punjabi heroes and their mothers mouthing bad Gurumukhi.

#21
It takes only one Neanderthal......

Oi. Stop y'all. Even if it's in jest, somebody else will take the bait and then it's all downhill from there ...

Protocol please don't feed the troll.

Seriously? I do live in a bubble, I will admit. How should we stop this?

I have to be honest, I don't know how this problem will ever be fixed. The fact that we live in such PC/white guilt world does not help the many young desi women who have to deal with this.

I learned about the Loving couple quite a while ago. In fact, one of their sons delivered materials at the job where I was about 10 years ago. Very nice guy who looked like a white person with a tan.
I don't want to get into the whole Scythian thing (they were knocking about on the central Asian steppes weren't they? What's the Indian connection?) The population of India is, to say the least, diverse and yet similar. Brown and yet yellow. Brown and yet white. Brown and yet browner. White and yet brown. Some are even black and yet brown. Old and yet new. Atheistic and yet religious. Modern and yet ancient. All things to all people potentially. There's a word for this dichotomy that I learned in poetry class but i can't remember it.
There has been a large population of "Mexicans" in the southwest U.S. since forever. What has happened in the last 50 years is that this population has gotten more Mexican identified as opposed to "Spanish" and less eligible for official whiteness, which they are not exactly lining up for anyway. Now that they are well established and numerous, they are Mexicans with a genetic major in Native American and a minor in European, and that is that.
In Texas and New Mexico, a lot of Mexicans actually are of Spanish and other European descent. Think Ricky Ricardo, Linda Ronstadt and Raquel Welch. The Mexicans in California, prior to the great influx of the post-60s, were somewhat more like this group, though there were always plenty of those with more Native American ancestry than European. But the readiness to call them "white" results from the fact that more of them actually were more white than brown. A survivor of the ill-fated Donner party, writing back east, encouraged her correspondant to come to California to marry because she could get a "Spaniard" as soon as she liked. This was circa 1855. She also advised against taking iffy short cuts on the journey but that's another topic.
The Mexican population in California is from a different demographic, has a different history and culture than those who had lived for many decades in the North American Southwest.

The fact that we live in such PC/white guilt world does not help the many young desi women who have to deal with this.

Suki, that's a real stretch. Think about it. Desi girl comes home with white / black / red / yellow / green boyfriend. Who will be more upset - a liberal father or a conservative one? C'mon. Next look at all the regions which were deadset against interacial marriage. Were they conservative or liberal?

Suki, that's a real stretch. Think about it. Desi girl comes home with white / black / red / yellow / green boyfriend. Who will be more upset - a liberal father or a conservative one? C'mon. Next look at all the regions which were deadset against interacial marriage. Were they conservative or liberal?

Depends on how you define "conservative" and "liberal". If its within the United States political paradigm of "republican" and "democrat", well, both were deadset against interracial marriage at the point in time. Working class southern democrats were and some still are, deadset against it, especially if they grew up during segregation.

So, are you drawing parrallels between conservative and liberal and republican and democrat, or not?

Next look at all the regions which were deadset against interacial marriage. Were they conservative or liberal?

I don't know if you can really make blanket statements about anti-miscegenation laws and conservative vs. liberal. California did not repeal its anti-miscegenation statute until 1948, when the state supreme court struck down the law as unconstitutional. On the other hand, Ohio repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1877. I think most people tend to think of California as liberal and Ohio as conservative.

What's more, through most of the 1950s and 1960s, most Americans (regardless of their political leanings) did not think of bans on interracial marriage as a form of injustice.

Next look at all the regions which were deadset against interacial marriage. Were they conservative or liberal?

Well, I know people from about 10-15 different religions, and the parents and grand-parents in ALL of them are against marrying people from other groups - be it ethnic, religious, caste groups and even regional and linguistic groups. And their relgions - especially if they are desi religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism, are all about the inherent equality of all living beings - from plants through animals up to human beings. Yet they still, by and large, marry within their groups and get flack from the elders when they don't.

I really don't think the objection has anything to do with religious influence but its more of a cultural thing or even perhaps a biological evolutionary thing.

Yoga practicioners in the West are shocked when they go to India and experience all the groupism and prejudice there. In their minds how could a place and people with such a rich "spiritual" heritage be so closed? To them spirituality = openness, not insular closedness.

So you see, religion and spirituality have very little to do with it. Though people still seem to suspect it would.

Do you really think because your Nani does puja to a sacred tree that she is going to celebrate her grand-daughter marrying her girlfriend? Or her grandson marrying a Ruskie or an African (either male or female?)

People's spirituality just does NOT extend into these areas unless they are post-modern types.

What's more, through most of the 1950s and 1960s, most Americans (regardless of their political leanings) did not think of bans on interracial marriage as a form of injustice.

Exactly my point. It just seemed like good, common sense to marry within "your own" group. For the most part, it still makes sense to most people around the world who are enmeshed in their non-post-modern cultures (just about everyone).

Sure, you find exceptions everywhere, but by and large, people are marrying within their ethnic group or their religious group. In India they are marrying within their caste group in addition to ethnic and religious group.

Human beings group themselves. Its just what we do.

the gss has data on attitudes toward interracial marriage.

row - racmar
colunm - polviews
filters - race (only whites), year(1972-1975)

favor laws against interracial marriage by politics

EXTREMELY LIBERAL/LIBERAL /SLIGHTLY LIBERAL/MODERATE/SLGHTLY CONSERVATIVE/CONSERVATIVE/EXTRMLY CONSERVATIVE
25/21.3/26.4/39.0/31.9/42.9/55.1

change to 1996-2002

10.8/8.9/7.0/12.1/10.0/12.6/22.3
ie., 11% of self-identified white extreme liberals favor laws against interracial marriage. 22% of extreme conservatives do.

now, by region for 1996-2002

NEW ENGLAND/MIDDLE ATLANTIC/E. NOR. CENTRAL/W. NOR. CENTRAL/SOUTH ATLANTIC/E. SOU. CENTRAL/W. SOU. CENTRAL/MOUNTAIN/PACIFIC
8.7/9.9/10.2/11.4/14.3/32.0/14.6/4.9/5.5

now, for age by 1996-2002
18-35/36-50/50+
6.3/9.0/19.2

in other words, 6.3% of those in the 18-35 age groups favored laws against interracial marriage in the late 1990s.

since i've given you the variables above, and the link to the GSS, i assume people can look through the data themselves instead of getting into pointless arguments about whether california was more or less conservative in 1948 than ohio was in 1877 (look at the states which voted for herbert hoover and it is clear how pointless removing the variable of time is from these sorts of comparisons).

I don't know if you can really make blanket statements about anti-miscegenation laws and conservative vs. liberal.

It's not that hard to imagine someone saying it's not the government's business to tell people who they can marry while also thinking that people should, generally, try to keep to their own.

i'm assuming people are interested in using opposition to interracial marriage as a position they can leverage in their political debates, but a historical aside. in the early 19th century a host of states which allowed blacks to vote repealed those laws and limited the suffrage to white men only. the details here though are interesting: in the process of curtailing the vote for blacks, these laws also extended the franchise to all white men regardless of property. the push behind some of these laws, such as in new york, were "radical" democrats (e.g., the "bucktail" faction), who called themselves "the democracy." this populist faction aimed to overturn the oligarchy of the early republic and limit the powers of large institutions, gov. & corporate & financial. additionally, the democrats were generally less hostile to immigrants and assimilated working class catholics into their coalition. against them were the federalists, whigs and later the republicans. federalists, such as rufus king of new york, were generally conservative in a european sense, favoring the rule by men of learning, status and property (i.e., they opposed "king mob"), and they naturally opposed extending the franchise as it was throughout the first half of the 19th century to those without property or means. but their class bias also was balanced by an element of racial cosmopolitanism, and they accepted that if a black man attained property he should be given the franchise. additionally, black voting rights was a conservative position insofar as it had been the norm throughout the north during the early republic. in other words, modern left-right dichotomies don't map onto to "good and evil" in the same way in the past as they do today. (not only in race, the "conservative" party was arguably the one who favored activist government during this period as well as tariffs in the form of the whigs) much more in the book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.

blacks to vote repealed those laws

actually, i misspoke. what occurred was laws which stipulated property and sex qualifications for voting were overturned by laws which stipulated race and sex qualifications. the overall result was to extend the franchise since the number of blacks in the north was small.

Exactly my point. It just seemed like good, common sense to marry within "your own" group. For the most part, it still makes sense to most people around the world who are enmeshed in their non-post-modern cultures (just about everyone).

In all fairness, I don't think that was my point. I was only trying to point out that the standard conservative vs. liberal (or red state vs. blue state) view of this decade might not match up well with historical views on interracial marriage and politics. I think razib's poll data in his comment backs this up (even if his intent was actually to show me the error of my argument, lol). I concede that perhaps relying on polls from the 1950s to support arguments that "most Americans" were for or against something is a bit of a red herring, considering the polling sample was probably heavily skewed towards white respondents at the time. Aaargh, I'm not expressing this very well. Stupid Mondays.

Basically, I don't think anti-miscegenation statutes were meant to promote the common sense "virtue" of marrying "your own" kind. Rather, I think they were designed to discourage "upward" racial mobility, or what people quaintly referred to as "passing" back in the day.

Also, isn't marrying "your own" kind more of an economic construct than a racial one, especially in 2009? An upper middle class Indian-American is much more likely to have a great deal in common with an upper middle class Caucasian-American than with a recent Indian immigrant of similar religious/linguistic/ethnic background. Just my two cents.

Also, isn't marrying "your own" kind more of an economic construct than a racial one, especially in 2009? An upper middle class Indian-American is much more likely to have a great deal in common with an upper middle class Caucasian-American than with a recent Indian immigrant of similar religious/linguistic/ethnic background. Just my two cents.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But most upper middle class Indian-Americas marry other upper middle class Indian-Americans, is it not? That way they get all their bases covered.

Also, interesting how you used Caucasian-American rather than African-American in the example.

Razib - thanks for those facts :)

An upper middle class Indian-American is much more likely to have a great deal in common with an upper middle class Caucasian-American than with a recent Indian immigrant of similar religious/linguistic/ethnic background. Just my two cents.

While the above is broadly true, the fallacy is in assuming that the recent Indian immigrant is not/ cannot be upper middle class.
Many of the young desis who migrate to the west belong to middle and upper middle class families.
I learnt through trial and error that as far as dating/relationships are concerned, the significant predictors of compatibility are culture, race and class in that order (the first woman I dated in the UK was a classic Chav, if you'd excuse the term, and the scales fell from my eyes rather quickly). Caste and Religion are the confounding variables.

Also, interesting how you used Caucasian-American rather than African-American in the example.

I don't think that's particularly interesting in and of itself. I just used that as an example given that Caucasian-Americans make up two-thirds of the US population (whereas African-Americans make up less than 15% of the population).

While the above is broadly true, the fallacy is in assuming that the recent Indian immigrant is not/ cannot be upper middle class.

I don't recall making any assumption of the sort. Basically, I'm saying that even assuming similarities in class and religious backgrounds among Indians (regardless of their immigrant status), an Indian-American is likely to have more things in common with a Caucasian-American of similar class than with someone born and raised in India.

I'm not razib, so I don't have statistical backup. I'm working entirely on anecdotal information, such as it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage

In the Western world certain jurisdictions have had regulations banning or restricting interracial marriage in the past, including Germany during the Nazi period, South Africa under apartheid, and many states in the United States prior to the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia. In both Nazi Germany and certain American states, such laws have been linked to eugenics programs[1].

So America before the Civil Rights Movement was akin to Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa in its racial climate. Nice role model for the world.

I'm not razib, so I don't have statistical backup. I'm working entirely on anecdotal information, such as it is.

outmarriage rate from census survey:

% of indian american men who marriage indian american women where both are american born - 57%
% of indian american women who marriage indian american men where both are american born - 54%

So America before the Civil Rights Movement was akin to Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa in its racial climate. Nice role model for the world.

It just reflected the rest of the world, it didn't model for it. However NOW I think, at least in regards to mating game openness, it serves as a type of model, maybe.

I see more mixes of all kinds here than I have anywhere in the world, UK being the exception, and including even the Carribbean, where mixing has been going on for a long time, though now the mixes will mix with other mixes. (And there is heavy tension between Indo-Caribs and Afro-Caribs still now)

% of indian american men who marriage indian american women where both are american born - 57% % of indian american women who marriage indian american men where both are american born - 54%

So...what does it all mean, razib? ;)

So America before the Civil Rights Movement was akin to Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa in its racial climate.

the laws were state-by-state. additionally, as i allude to above the attitudes went back and forth. e.g., between 1836-1840 the vice president of the united states was someone who had had a common law wife who was black. and he was even a member of the more racist party (the democrats, as opposed to the whigs).

% of indian american men who marriage indian american women where both are american born - 57% % of indian american women who marriage indian american men where both are american born - 54%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage

Not all Asian ethnicities show similar intermarriage patterns; for instance, Indian Americans were overwhelmingly endogamous, with only a small amount of outmarriage to other ethnic groups. The interracial marriage disparity for Indian Americans was low, with outmarriage to White Americans slightly higher for Indian American males, whereas all other major Asian groups had more outmarriage for women.[24]

So, just like in the UK and most everywhere else in the south asian diaspora, desis are the least likely to marry outside their race.

Their last name's so apt as to defy belief.

So...what does it all mean, razib? ;)

that's up to you guys. but obviously indian americans exhibit high levels of endogamy in relation to what they "should" in a random mating population (3% X 3% = very small :-). if you are the type of person whose religion matters to you a great deal, you probably shouldn't marry someone of a different religion if you want to increase your probability of long term success. as a non-religious person who doesn't know many religious people, i know that many non-religious people feel the same way. i guess the same goes for race. i know of people who want their children to look like themselves. if you want that, you probably shouldn't marry someone of a different race, as they will look like you, but not as much as they would otherwise.

i do disagree with the assumption that it is hard to be an interracial couple outside of urban areas or academic towns. i speak from personal experience. it's not a big deal today. or if it is for someone, they keep their reservations to themselves.

So, just like in the UK and most everywhere else in the south asian diaspora, desis are the least likely to marry outside their race.

the difference between indian americans and japanese americans is mostly accounted for (but not all) by the fact indian americans are mostly an 1st gen immigrant community, and japanese americans are not. also, there are wide differences in the UK in intermarriage. the muzzie groups are way lower than hindus, especially the east african origin hindus, last i checked.

i do disagree with the assumption that it is hard to be an interracial couple outside of urban areas or academic towns. i speak from personal experience. it's not a big deal today. or if it is for someone, they keep their reservations to themselves.

So true. More than half of my friends are in inter-racial relationships and its. no. big. deal.

But then, we are talking about black and white couples here, not desi, non-desi. Amongst the desi I know who are dating/marrying out, family. makes. big. deal. long. time. for. them.

those out-marriage rates for us-born desis are off the charts. in fact, hard to believe based on my anecdoatal experience. can sepia mutiny even survive a generation?

How come no mutineers are stepping forward to give their personal accounts of inter-whatever dating?

Whether its inter-racial, inter-religious, inter-caste, inter-class, inter-north-south-divide, inter-lingual, or inter-licious.... I know you guys here must have had loads of experiences. What were they and would you do it all again?

But then, we are talking about black and white couples here, not desi, non-desi. Amongst the desi I know who are dating/marrying out, family. makes. big. deal. long. time. for. them.

when i said i speak from personal experience, i my own personal experience ;=) and i'm brown. fwiw, my parents just want me and my siblings to get married at this point. N = 1 so i won't generalize.

those out-marriage rates for us-born desis are off the charts. in fact, hard to believe based on my anecdoatal experience. can sepia mutiny even survive a generation?

there's an easy explanation for the discrepancy between exp. urban brownz might have much higher endogamy rates because your pool is larger. but non-urban brownz might have much lower ones.

broken hearted, On Being Down With Dating Brown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage

In the United States, rates of interracial cohabitation are significantly higher than those of marriage. Although only 7 percent of married African American men have Caucasian American wives, 13 percent of cohabitating African American men have Caucasian American partners. 25 percent of married Asian American women have Caucasian spouses, but 45 percent of cohabitating Asian American women are with Caucasian American men—higher than the percentage cohabitating with Asian men (44 percent)[22]. These numbers suggest that the prevalence of intimate interracial contact is greatly underestimated when one focuses only on marriage data.[22]

So, since south asian women have much lower "intimate interracial contact" with caucasian-americans than other asians this must mean that the majority of other asian women, chinese, japanese, filipina etc, must be living with white americans. That confirms what I see all the time. Similarly, the number of black americans with white living partners is also much higher than their intermarriage rate, which is also observed all the time. Even higher is the number of black american men who have slept or dated with white american women and higher still is the number of black american men who have done so with non-blacks in general. So black american men and asian (non-desi) american women are the most active proportionally in inter-racial relationships.

So, since south asian women have much lower "intimate interracial contact" with caucasian-americans than other asians this must mean that the majority of other asian women, chinese, japanese, filipina etc, must be living with white americans.

if you're going to speak in quantities, you should lay out your algebra.

Similarly, the number of black americans with white living partners is also much higher than their intermarriage rate,

But statistically black americans marry anyone, including other black americans, at a much lower rate than other people. That sentence probably doesn't make much sense. Black Americans get married at a low rate. Period. They are not marrying as much as other groups of people are marrying.

What do y'all think have a greater effect on a persons psyche with regards to inter-group marriage, legal laws (either state or federal) or cultural and societal conditioning and influence. My take is that laws are not needed where culture has a strong influence so as to prevent the activity that laws seek to prevent in persons who would otherwise engage in such activity because their cultural influence is small.

I don't think legal laws are neccessary to keep desis with their own, the culture does a good job of that.

Razib, I read that link. Mixed feelings. It makes sense but the post-modern "liberal" in me screams "racist!"

Re: "interracial dating," I once was at a club in Du . . . nahhhh, never mind. :-p

I learned about the Loving couple quite a while ago. In fact, one of their sons delivered materials at the job where I was about 10 years ago. Very nice guy who looked like a white person with a tan.

It is not surprising that their son looks white since she looks like a mulatto (actually I think she looks more like an african-chinese mix). There are an estimated 30-50 million americans with part african ancestry who pass for white.

Mildred Loving was was of African-American and Rappahannock Native American descent. By Virginia law, that made her black.

My take is that laws are not needed where culture has a strong influence so as to prevent the activity that laws seek to prevent in persons who would otherwise engage in such activity because their cultural influence is small.

the jewish outmarriage rate went from 10% around 1950 to closer to 50% by the mid-1970s.

Razib, I read that link. Mixed feelings. It makes sense but the post-modern "liberal" in me screams "racist!"

if you're colored you can't be racist from the post-modern liberal perspective ;-) or minorities in general. WASPs can't prefer WASPs, but jews can prefer jews.

It is not surprising that their son looks white since she looks like a mulatto (actually I think she looks more like an african-chinese mix). There are an estimated 30-50 million americans with part african ancestry who pass for white.

she was native american and black american. the 30-50 million number is made up. it has to be made up because the genetic data is really clear on this. really clear. the average black american is 20% european, though 10% of the black american population is 50% or more european in ancestry. the discernible amount of non-white ancestry in whites in the USA is very small (on the order of 1-2% when you use northwest european populations as references). as likely to be native american as black from what i have seen.

But statistically black americans marry anyone, including other black americans, at a much lower rate than other people. That sentence probably doesn't make much sense. Black Americans get married at a low rate. Period.

What part did you not understand? That the number of black american men living with white american women is significantly higher than their intermarriage rate? That is simple common sense regardless of the marriage rate of blacks. In America not every couple who has a sexual relationship ends up living together and not every couple who lives together ends up getting married. So just focusing on marriage rates grossly underestimates the rate of miscegenation and this is especially true for african american men, who have lower marriage rates than other races.

if you're colored you can't be racist from the post-modern liberal perspective ;-) or minorities in general. WASPs can't prefer WASPs, but jews can prefer jews.

OK then, I guess I'm post-post-modern. That means, no one is allowed to be racist!

Wasps and Jews in the USA are both non-"colored" as you say, so how's it ok for a Jew to prefer a Jew then?

if you're colored you can't be racist from the post-modern liberal perspective ;-) or minorities in general. WASPs can't prefer WASPs, but jews can prefer jews.

And aren't WASPs a minority in the USA right now? So then its PC for them to prefer "their own" now, right?

Mildred Loving was was of African-American and Rappahannock Native American descent. By Virginia law, that made her black.

So not part chinese as I guessed (like many Caribbean blacks. Example Colin Powell) but part native american mongoloid. Either way she is an attractive woman.

Either way she is an attractive woman.

wtf dude? lol.

if you're going to speak in quantities, you should lay out your algebra.

And aren't WASPs a minority in the USA right now? So then its PC for them to prefer "their own" now, right?

jews are a light unto the nations. why would they want their witness destroyed through amalgamation with the nations? :-)

a lot of ethnic groups think their own group is awesome and invented everything and stuff. makes sense people would want to be with their own kind.

if you're colored you can't be racist from the post-modern liberal perspective ;-) or minorities in general. WASPs can't prefer WASPs, but jews can prefer jews.

I don't know what "post-modern liberal" means but it sounds like the Free Republic version of "libtard" labeling so I will treat that part of the comment with the amused derision and patient eye-roll it deserves.

More to the point, why are you comparing WASPs with Jews? One is a color identification and the other is religious. Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc., do expressly marry within their faith, no differently than Jews. That has nothing to do with skin color or race. The former (color identification) can be racist, conceivably, while the latter (religion) has nothing or little to do with race. Jews are not a "race."

Hence, it isn't so much an issue of those "postmodern" (whatever that means) libruls arbitrarily defining racism so much as you (premodern conservative, I guess?) conflating two completely different issues.

One is a color identification and the other is religious. Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc., do expressly marry within their faith, no differently than Jews.

jews are a people as well as a religion. as an example, the syarian jews of new york ban intermarriage with converts. e.g.,:
With these words, Chief Rabbi Jacob Kassin effectively excommunicated any member of his flock who married a partner with gentile blood. (There have been exceptions for converts judged to be “sincere” — that is, those who converted without the intention to marry — but these have been extremely rare and always controversial.)

this is an extreme case, but illustrates the problem with viewing judaism through an american confessional lens. but i think this should be comprehensible to some readers here; i've been accused of being a muslim despite my atheism because of my ancestry ;-)

A geneticist would have to be called in to determine if Jewishness is a religion or a culture or an ethnic background, or all of the above. For goodness sake, there are "atheist Jews" so I'm on the side of it being more than just a "religion".

Hindus marry other Hindus, of the same caste, generally. So then, what is up with that?

We know many arab-muslims feel that they are the authentic "real" muslims because of their ethnic and cultural background. We need not get started on how desi muslims are treated in arab lands.

Bottom line, many people prefer to mate with their own group in some way, whether that group be religious, racial, caste, class, cultural or what-not.

Is it wrong? Is it right? And for what reasons?

Is it wrong for some and right for others? If so, WHY?

How does the statement, "I'm brown and only date brown" sit with you?

How does the statement, "I'm brown and will not date brown" sit with you?

A geneticist would have to be called in to determine if Jewishness is a religion or a culture or an ethnic background, or all of the above. For goodness sake, there are "atheist Jews" so I'm on the side of it being more than just a "religion".

been done.

a lot of ethnic groups think their own group is awesome and invented everything and stuff.

Then are also certain individuals who are ashamed of their ethnicity and dedicate their lives to ingratiating themselves to an alien ethnic group they wish they belonged to, by feeding their vanity of racial supremacism. If you know what I mean ;-)

jews are a people as well as a religion

A "people" is very different from race. All religions have "a people" of some kind in them. Jews are not a race unlike WASPS (White Anglo Saxon). Jews preferring Jews is not racist.

i've been accused of being a muslim despite my atheism because of my ancestry

Regardless, that is not relevant. Religious preference is very different from racial preference. These laws listed in the post are very much about race not religion.

I would be curious to know if these laws translated to Hindus not being allowed to marry Christians or Catholics not marrying Protestants, etc., by law.

Then are also certain individuals who are ashamed of their ethnicity and dedicate their lives to ingratiating themselves to an alien ethnic group they wish they belonged to, by feeding their vanity of racial supremacism. If you know what I mean ;-)

Nice.

Subtle yet sharp enough to draw blood.

A "people" is very different from race. All religions have "a people" of some kind in them. Jews are not a race unlike WASPS (White Anglo Saxon). Jews preferring Jews is not racist.

no, you're comparing oranges to grape fruit. yes, all religions do have some "people" aspect to them. but some religions more than others. jews conceive of themselves as a nation with a specific covenant. the reform jewish movement reject nationhood in the 19th century and asserted that their identity was purely religious. this was an innovation, as jewish identity always had a strong ethnic dimension. the reform movement reversed on this in the 20th century and reasserted jewish nationhood. this is why some "ultra-orthodox" groups have weird attitudes toward intermarriage with *descendants* of converts.

i agree that jews wanting to marry other jews isn't racist. but it isn't just like catholics wanting to marry catholics. there's an ethnic aspect to it.

I don't know who is accusing you of this and in what context, but the person might have been drawing on the fact that most Bangladeshis are Muslim and your name doesn't end with Das or Sengupta or any number of Bangladeshi Hindu names. Also, "ancestry" can mean any number of things.

no, no, they knew very well i'm an atheist. i've been around this weblog for a while (since 2004). their point was explicitly that no matter what i believed, a muslim is always a muslim.

Libtard is right that bias due to race and bias to due religion are two different biases, but they are both biases nonetheless.

Also, religion and "race" (either as a social construct or as a marker of ethnic background) are often intertwined.

Some Hindu converts are told they have to be "born into Hinduism" in order to be a "real" Hindu.

Who is "born into" Hinduism?

What about Desis who will only date/mate with other desis, regardless of religion. Where do they fit in? They are not staying within their own religion, which to you is perfectly fine to prefer, but rather, they are preferring to stay within their own ethnicity, regardless of the religion of the partner, just as long as they are "desi".

What do you make of that?

Are they any less or more than desis who prefer desis of the same religious background?

What about culturalists? People who prefer people of similar cultural backgrounds to the exclusion of people who are not from same cultural background (regardless of race or religion?)

Where does it end?

When does it become OK or not OK to indulge in whatever preference.

And what makes one bias OK and another not OK?

What about "I'm OK, you're OK"???

broken hearted, what does it matter if there are no laws about any of these things?

Then are also certain individuals who are ashamed of their ethnicity and dedicate their lives to ingratiating themselves to an alien ethnic group they wish they belonged to

So black american men and asian (non-desi) american women are the most active proportionally in inter-racial relationships.

sour kraut's anti-black and anti-non-desi-asian racism is out of control

Either way she is an attractive woman.

wtf dude? lol.

Yes, we all know that as a bangladeshi nordicist (lol) you have a fetish for blondes. You are not alone. There are many other desis who proudly and openly lust after white women and look down on non-white females, as if this preference somehow elevates their status. You can be certain of one thing though: this woman would be considered a catch in your native Bangladesh on account of her much lighter complexion compared to the native bengalis.

prema? lol.

broken hearted, what does it matter if there are no laws about any of these things?

Whether there are laws or not, social and cultural conditioning hold sway over the hearts and minds of human beings even in today's world.

So Libtard is conditioned to think holding a religious bias is OK in the dating/mating game, whereas holding a racial, or rather ethnic bias is not OK.

I'm just wondering why s/he thinks like that.

Yet we find more often than not, that for people with strong ethnic, cultural and religious ties, as you find amongst many South Asians, they often marry within the same of all of the above, and in addition to that - caste and class.

I'm willing to bet that they do not consider themselves racist in any way to boot. They chalk it all up to culture.

Is that OK? If so, why? If not, why not?

How does the statement, "I only date WASP" sit with you?

How does the statement, "I only date Hindu" sit with you?

What about "I only date desi (regardless of religion)"???

What color of skin comes to mind when you read, "my boyfriend is Hindu"???

Am I an asshole for finding Broken Hearted's stream of (rhetorical?) questions hilarious?

you're comparing oranges to grape fruit.

No. You were doing that originally by comparing WASPS with Jews. Later, by conflating "a people" with race, you were taking a bunch grapefruit and apples and some oranges and labeling them all oranges.

jews conceive of themselves as a nation with a specific covenant. the reform jewish movement reject nationhood in the 19th century and asserted that their identity was purely religious. this was an innovation, as jewish identity

You're making your argument for me. What Jews "conceive of themselves" as well as concepts of "nationhood" and identity are constructions -- political and otherwise. A South Asian with dark skin color might conceive of oneself, say, as a Dutch White rallying against Islamofascists, and it might be a conceit one can pull off as far as self identified constructions go, but it is still a construction and not a reality.

These LAWS discussed here are not about constructions of identity, which change with politics and need, just like modern concepts of nationhood. The laws presented above are about race. Although, of course, identity politics do feature into it, often the libruls call out racism when there is race involved.

So Libtard is conditioned to think holding a religious bias is OK

Caveat: Broken hearted, I have no idea what your comments here are all about, and I mean that with no disrespect. The questions you are asking seem to be more along the lines of "What is the meaning of life" and I have no desire to engage with those kinds of questions.

But this I can say -- I am not conditioned to think that holding a bias is OK (although we are ALL biased). I am conditioned to think that the "science" representative on this site should be more scientifically or ethnographically or sociologically precise with his language (labels of postmodern liberals included), analogies, and comparisons. I wanted clarification and wanted to offer some, for what it is worth.

No, Ananda, you're not an a**hole (unless your last name is Jon).

They are not entirely rhetorical questions but are directly connected to my personal life where I'm trying to understand where the mindset the parents of my boyfriend are coming from in relation to our relationship. I've not received any clarifying or satisfying answers from them, so I'm asking here. Hence the moniker "broken hearted".

Desi alert in the movie "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past". Just in case you haven't seen it yet.

Complete with fake accent.

These LAWS discussed here are not about constructions of identity, which change with politics and need, just like modern concepts of nationhood. The laws presented above are about race.

yes they are constructions. e.g., someone who is 1/8 black is defined as black in some of the laws.

Ennis,

Hats off to you for including this. I just wish I'd been able to post sooner ;0)

Interesting story, my desi dad came to the states for grad school in 1963 and met my mom in Cincinnati. They eventually ended up in North Carolina. When a job change brought my dad to California, they decided to drive cross-country in their VW bug. My dad planned ahead and made hotel reservations along the way. His accent was quite smooth and American sounding so when he got rooms over the phone, no one said anything. But when they showed up at one southern hotel to use their reservation, they were turned away because the hotel didn't allow interracial couples. See, my dad is sort of chocolatey and my mom has blonde hair and blue eyes.

Now I feel like mixed marriages are more accepted, and I appreciate the Loving couple for paving the way.

A South Asian with dark skin color might conceive of oneself, say, as a Dutch White rallying against Islamofascists, and it might be a conceit one can pull off as far as self identified constructions go, but it is still a construction and not a reality.

You wish. I am dark-skinned enough for my mommy to harp on it, but make no mistake--we Hindutva "fascists" are blood brothers with Vlaams Belang; weep if you want to.

This is an inherent limitation of a desi-oriented blog (so, no criticism intended)--but, damn! Go, Iranian kids, and overthrow that awful regime! I'm no fan of Mousavi, but, damn, seize power, kids--awesome!!

A South Asian with dark skin color might conceive of oneself, say, as a Dutch White rallying against Islamofascists, and it might be a conceit one can pull off as far as self identified constructions go, but it is still a construction and not a reality.

Please. Race in and of itself is now considered a construct, and still we see the world in terms of "desi" or brown, or black or white or Asian or Anglo-Saxon or Turko-Persian or whatever.

Let's be real here. Judaism is a lot like Hinduism - a religion, a culture and an ethnic background all rolled into one. Hence the relunctance for widespread acceptance of "converts" in both.

Sure, an orthodox Jew and a Hindu may (or may not) applaud an African American convert, but they don't want 'em to marry their kids!

clearly this post is a veiled attack on Prez Bam's apparent unwillingness to extend the Loving precedent to gay couples.

clearly, that sorry state of affairs will only last till the to-be-historic ruling in gloving v. south carolina.

we Hindutva "fascists" are blood brothers with Vlaams Belang; weep if you want to.

No rob, not weep. I laugh. At you. So would the members of Vlaams Belang.

Stick to your OWN kind.

As this video demonstrates, sometimes miscegenation (subjective that) is a GOOD thing. I couldnt but help echo--

And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

People of a different stripe just do not understand your world view and the community you live in - let alone LISTEN and UNDERSTAND your emotions. But then again, if you have a FETISH for the exotic, do as you please. just mark my words, waking up to a new weirdo each day isnt exactly a GOOD thing.

From wiki regarding Rob's blood brothers;

Vlaams Belang (Dutch for "Flemish Interest", pronounced Vlaams Belang (help·info)) is a political party in the Flemish Community of Belgium that advocates the independence of Flanders and strict limits on immigration, whereby immigrants would be obliged to adopt Flemish culture[1] and language. VB rejects multiculturalism, although it accepts a multiethnic society as long as people of non-Flemish backgrounds assimilate Flemish culture.

I'm totally onboard with multi-ethnicities adopting the languages of the countries they migrate too, and general aspects of the cultures, however, I wonder where religion would fit in?

I'm uneasy about expecting people to convert to any "state religion" or not being allowed full freedom to practice their various faiths openly. Saudi Arabia comes to mind and I don't think that model is successful.

Is it better to be multi-ethnic and mono-cultured or mono-ethnic and multi-cultured?

93 · john

No rob, not weep. I laugh. At you. So would the members of Vlaams Belang.

They weren't laughing when we were coordinating visits by K. Elst in Antwerp over Chimay beers. . . .

They weren't laughing when we were coordinating visits by K. Elst in Antwerp over Chimay beers. . . .

Blame the Chimay.

When a man or a woman find a spouse, they may marry thinking that they will live ‘happily ever after’. They may think that nothing can disturb their happiness and that their life together will be like sunshine every day without any clouds. They may also doubt whether there will be any serious problems in their relationship because everything has gone so well so far.

However, the fact is that we live in an imperfect and fallen world in which nothing is as it was when Adam and Eve lived together in Paradise. In practice, this imperfection means that when people get together, they also bring to the marriage their own difficult personalities and especially their selfishness, which is a result of the Fall of Man and certainly the biggest reason of homes breaking up these days. If we do not want to be freed from this selfishness, it can greatly harm the relationship.

In any case, below we are going to deal with this area especially in the light of the Bible. We are going to concentrate on those common mistakes and ways of doing things of which we might be guilty because we have not seen them in ourselves, nobody has ever told us about them, or because we have not understood them in the light of the Bible. If you notice any of the issues we are going to bring up in your own life, you can be freed from them; especially if you ask for God’s help.

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/help_to_marriage

"It is not surprising that their son looks white since she looks like a mulatto (actually I think she looks more like an african-chinese mix). There are an estimated 30-50 million americans with part african ancestry who pass for white."

As razib noted, her ancestry was native American and black. She generally considered herself Rappahannock Indian more than anything else. The case was odd for the 60s. Interracial couples had always been around in Virginia, legally or not. They were often socially marginalized but nobody arrested them. There is a Life Magazine spread from the 60s that I saw at somebody's house. This kid's parents had kept all the Life Magazines from the 50s on. The spread showed the couple and their 3 kids. Two looked white (one was blond even), and the oldest boy looked like the mom. They also showed the white grandmother (real country woman type) leaning at her doorway with the family. She said that at first she "didn't like it" but now it was fine. She had delivered all three of her son and daughter-in-laws kids.
You want to find out about life anywhere in the world, look at old magazines, especially those with a lot of pictures. Life as it happens.

This is from an article at the time of Mildred Loving's death:
"Mildred Delores Jeter’s family had lived in Caroline County, Va., for generations, as had the family of Richard Perry Loving. The area was known for friendly relations between races, even though marriages were forbidden. Many people were visibly of mixed race, with Ebony magazine reporting in 1967 that black “youngsters easily passed for white in neighboring towns.”

Mildred’s mother was part Rappahannock Indian, and her father was part Cherokee. She preferred to think of herself as Indian rather than black."

When a man or a woman find a spouse, they may marry thinking that they will live ‘happily ever after’. They may think that nothing can disturb their happiness and that their life together will be like sunshine every day without any clouds. They may also doubt whether there will be any serious problems in their relationship because everything has gone so well so far.

Telson, I don't know if you realize you're on a Desi site or not. Perhaps you don't even know what a "Desi" is. But your comment above does not apply to Desis. They don't go into marriage based on fantasy. They are much more realistic and practical. However you're advice might be needed amongst white and black Americans, I mean, if they are even getting married anymore. I know my friends are not.

As an adoptive mother of an Indian child this reminded me of the same arguments used agaisnt interracial adoption.

Masalamommy, many people of all background have issues with interracial and inter-cultural adoption. Some of the adopted kids, after they are old enough to form their own opinions, don't agree with it. Especially black kids who get adopt by non-black parents. They want to be "with their own" and in their own culture. They feel culturally confused, rootless even.

I haven't yet formed a for or against opinion, I see both sides.

Broken Hearted on June 14, 2009 09:58 PM

OK, now when are desi parents gonna step up to the plate in this regard?

I absolutely agree. I feel like Asians are all more close-minded than others when it comes to dating outside the race, but I feel like Desis are the worst. Both of my parents are Indian, but my mom still refers to them as an interracial couple. (I think it makes her feel cool and she claims it's why she accepts her daughters dating non-desis.) They are by no means interracial. They both grew up in Bombay, where 99% of my extended family lives. But their great-grandparents came from other states, Mysore for my mom, and Kutch for my dad. I have never noticed much a difference in their cultures other than language and the fact that my dad's a vegetarian who likes Bajra rotis. His family still looks down upon their marriage since she is not Kutchi (I think they also see it as interracial.) I've seen so many desi women in loving relationships who dump the guy SOLELY because he is not from their village, claiming they had "nothing in common." If the only way to your marital happiness is race, then you have a serious problem.

This to me says EVERYTHING that's wrong with the desi community. Everyone thinks their little village is better than the next and no outsider could possibly understand the nuances of their precious culture. Maybe I can't keep track of the correct word for "father's sister's husband," but calling him "uncle" is not the end of the world. You can have your Bajra, I'll take my Jerk Chicken any day.

Thanks for posting about Loving Day (I saw it on some other blogs, too).

Regarding marrying "your own kind" or "your own people" it all depends on how you define that group. So if "my people" are other software engineers then I did marry one of my own kind after all. :-)

On a more serious note, I think I saw some comments here that treated race as a biological fact rather than a social construct. I'm not an expert but I don't think this is correct. Here's a link with more information - Ten things everyone should know about race

See item number 9, "Race isn't biological, but racism is still real."

masalawalla wrote:

Both of my parents are Indian, but my mom still refers to them as an interracial couple... They are by no means interracial.

I find this attitude to be incredibly patronizing.
It's the equivalent of a white person saying, "all you brown people look the same."

Surely you know that the various ethnicities of the Indian subcontinent are separated by thousands of years of history, countless conflicts, and languages that aren't even remotely similar.
Do you really want these groups to forget all that, and embrace each other as if nothing ever happened, all because the master-race-du-jour can't tell them apart?
Do you really want to deny these people the right to define THEIR OWN identities?

masalawalla wrote:

Both of my parents are Indian, but my mom still refers to them as an interracial couple... They are by no means interracial.

I find this attitude to be incredibly patronizing.
It's the equivalent of a white person saying, "all you brown people look the same."

Surely you know that the various ethnicities of the Indian subcontinent are separated by thousands of years of history, countless conflicts, and languages that aren't even remotely similar.
Do you really want these groups to forget all that, and embrace each other as if nothing ever happened, all because the master-race-du-jour can't tell them apart?
Do you really want to deny these people the right to define THEIR OWN identities

So TTUSM, would you consider an Italian marrying a Greek to be "inter-racial" or a German marrying a Finlander?

Pardesi Gori,
What about a Sicilian and a Norwegian?

"..What about a Sicilian and a Norwegian?"

hey--you'd get Edie Falco (Carmela in the Sopranos.) she's a Sicilian - Swedish blend, i think i read.

Surely you know that the various ethnicities of the Indian subcontinent are separated by thousands of years of history, countless conflicts, and languages that aren't even remotely similar. Do you really want these groups to forget all that, and embrace each other as if nothing ever happened

do not rail against the ideology-that-shall-not-be-named.

Pardesi Gori, What about a Sicilian and a Norwegian?

Ask TTCSUM