Posts Tagged ‘prejudice’

A Day in the Life of Interracial Families

// November 16th, 2009 // 1 Comment » // Blended Living

I recently blogged about people staring at us and I kept saying, “What are they staring at???” My little girl told me to get over it because they do it all the time.

It’s true – in the south, it’s a huge issue. We get stared at everywhere … and yes when you’re eating, it’s the worst!

Here is an e-mail I recently received from a friend in Mississippi:

A couple years ago I worked at a liquor store owned by an Indian man. One day he had me run to wal-mart to pick up some things for the store. His daughter, who was about 7 years old, wanted to go with me.

So I’m walking through the store and I notice ppl giving me these looks. They’re looking at me like I’m licking a dirty diaper or something. I mean they look absolutely disgusted. I’m glancing at my clothes and stuff, wondering if maybe I got something in my teeth or hanging out my nose.

I’m going crazy wondering what is wrong with me. Then all the sudden it hit me like a ton of bricks. They thought that girl was my daughter!

It gave me a little insight into what families like yours go through. It was pretty amazing.”

Finally… someone who is able to corroborate what interracial families say all the time – since no one sees life the way we see it, people tend to believe we blow it out of proportion.

We don’t.

CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE ON OUR FORUM!

Interracial Children and Social Risks

// November 15th, 2009 // No Comments » // In the News

This article is copied in whole from The Student Operated Press.

After creating an imbroglio because he refused to perform a marriage ceremony for a White woman and a Black man, Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell resigned under pressure. However, his stated reason for denying the couple a marriage license is still perplexing: “There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” he told the Associated Press. “I think those children suffer, and I won`t help put them through it.”

Let’s see, interracial children could suffer so much that one might become mayor of Washington, D.C. Another multiracial child might grow up to become CEO of the NAACP. One poor kid could develop into another Tiger Woods. And one, heaven forbid, might even become president of the United States. Each person holding those positions is biracial and they have “suffered” all the way to the top.

What Bardwell did not say is that in the South in particular, White men have sexually exploited African-American women for years, dating back to the days of slavery. It`s the liaison between Black men and White women that troubles died-in-the wool racists such as Bardwell.

His home state of Louisiana passed Jim Crow laws requiring separate facilities for African Americans and Whites on railroads and streetcars, ordering racially segregated schools, banning interracial marriage and cohabitation, outlawing dancing between members of different races at social functions and making it illegal for Black and White families to live in the same dwellings. The 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation, originated in Louisiana.

In the landmark study “American Dilemma,” Gunnar Myrdal wrote in 1944 about the South`s “fixation on the purity of white womanhood.” Myrdal observed, “The South has an obsession with sex, which helps to make this region quite irrational in dealing with Negroes generally…”

That irrationality is still deep inside such diehards as Bardwell. He is the poster boy for those who argue that even with the election of a Black president, the U.S. is not close to being a post-racial country.
St. Louis License Collector Michael McMillan, a rising political star, learned about Bardwell while watching CNN.

“At first, I thought it was a hoax,” said McMillan, the product of a biracial union. “It was so ridiculous that I thought it couldn`t be true.”

But it was. McMillan added, “Unfortunately, a lot of people hold those views.”

Misgenation laws forbidding interracial unions were enforced in the 13 colonies. They were in effect in 16 states until the Supreme Court overturned them in 1967 as a result and of a White man and his Black wife challenging Virginia law. In Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled, “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Over the years, Americans have developed more tolerant attitudes toward interracial marriages. This may be, in part, because 22 percent of Americans report having a close relative who is married to someone of a different race, according to a 2006 Pew Research Center report titled, “Guess Who`s Coming to Dinner.” For African Americans, the figure is even higher – 37 percent.

In 1987, a Pew Research Center report showed that 48 percent of respondents agreed that it is “all right for blacks and whites to date each other.” By 2003, that figure had risen to 77 percent.

Many high-profile public figures have interracial mates, including Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Kobe Bryant, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Diana Ross, Julian Bond, Charles Barkley and Clarence Thomas.

African Americans and Hispanics are more accepting of interracial dating than Whites. Ninety-one percent of Blacks, 90 percent of Hispanics and 71 percent of Whites approve of interracial dating.
There is also a major generational divide on this issue. According to the study, 91 percent of those born after 1976 said such dating is acceptable; only 50 percent of those who reached adulthood during World War II agreed.

In 1970, fewer than 1 percent of all married couples were made up of spouses of a different race. By 2000, that figure had grown to 5 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The most common type of interracial couple in 2000 was the White husband and Asian wife, representing 14 percent of all interracial couples. Black husbands and White wives accounted for 8 percent of all interracial couples. In Black-White marriages, 73 percent of the husbands are Black. In 75 percent of Asian-White marriages, the husband is White.

Michael McMillan of St. Louis says because of his complexion, he is frequently mistaken for being White.

“I’ve had people say things to me that were racist and ignorant,” he said. “I’ve heard them call Black people the N-word and say how lazy and stupid they were. I’ve had to tell them that I`m African American and that I take issue with everything they’ve said. A lot of them turn from pale or pink to bright red in embarrassment.”

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com You can also follow him on Twitter.

CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC IN OUR FORUM!

Justice of the Peace Resigns Over Interracial Marriage Dispute

// November 4th, 2009 // 2 Comments » // Blended Living, In the News, Social Injustice

Justice Keith Bardwell was forced into the spotlight in Hammond, LA last month when his wife, Beth Bardwell, informed Beth Humphrey, a white woman in south Louisiana, that her husband would not perform her marriage ceremony because her fiance was black. Although Beth and her new husband, Terence McKay, did end up getting married by another Justice of the Peace three days later, the damage had been done – the couple’s eyes had been opened to a pain all to familiar to interracial couples: the pain of rejection and disapproval. However, in this case, despite the strength and class exhibited by the McKays, the Justice would soon find the damage he had done to himself to be irreparable. News of the case traveled at the speed of light as Twitter and Facebook buzzed about the issue and the outrage spread like wildfire.

Beth and Terence McKay have done countless interviews and have undoubtedly been through an enormous amount of undue stress simply as a result of seeking out a Justice to validate their marriage under the law. As Bardwell came to his own defense, not issuing an apology or a justifiable response to the accusations, he admitted recusing himself from the duty of performing their ceremony based on his own personal prejudices toward interracial couples which he claimed stem from what he considers to be the widely acknowledged belief that children born into interracial marriages suffer as a result of their multicultural heritage and the inability of society to accept them. He went on to say that in his experience, interracial couples do not last and for those two reasons, he “didn’t want to do that to the children” born to these couples in the future.

Since the story initially broke – having blown up the news and social media alike causing a windstorm of controversy which peaked around the 15th of October – the Justice has officially resigned his position. In speaking to CNN affiliate WBRZ, he stated, “I needed to step down because they was going to take me to court, and I was going to lose. I would probably do the same thing again [ ... ] I found out I can’t be a justice of the peace and have a conscience.” Let’s just take a moment to examine the word “conscience” which is defined as being the moral sense, or that capacity of our mental constitution, by which we irresistibly feel the difference between right and wrong. Conscience is a part of our personal mental constitution. Apparently, the Justice failed to realize that HIS constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution that protects us ALL as individuals. The constitution of the United States is very clear and does not allow open interpretation in regards to IT’S views on marriages like that of the McKays which involve more than one ethnic background. The Supreme court ruled on this in 1967, stating:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

I am ecstatic that he resigned. However, I am appalled at the comment he made about there being a war between his position as justice of the peace and his position as a morally sound, ethically conscious individual. Does he REALLY think he was acting out of integrity? I have to say that it’s scary to admit to myself there are still people in this world who are in such strong opposition of interracial families to go as far a to break the LAW to prevent themselves from having to partake in “doing” such a disservice to the children involved. That’s IF I choose to entertain the notion that he was genuinely concerned for ‘the children,’ which I do not.

That’s just sick.

And it shows that we have such a long way to go, still…