Should interracial marriages be promoted?

Post Reply New Topic

There are very few people, even in Europe, who have a one-nationality ancestry. History just hasn't allowed anyone to. My father's family had been on the move through Europe for centuries before settling here in the 1870s, and my mother's family came here after they inherited some land in what was then practically wilderness with one village, and decided to stay. My ancestry, presumably, is Danish, Prussian, Belgian and possibly French and English. That's as far as my family history goes - for just two hundred years. If we go back further, I'm Francian, Roman and I presumably have a distant Ostrogothi, Mongolian or Ottoman ancestor judging from my brown hair and brown eyes.

What I should say, though, is that at least back to the sixth century (presumably Baudegisel of Aquitaine), all known ancestry I have is European. And Europeans, although they have plenty of different genetic markers and smaller internal differences, have nothing to complain about in genetic terms. They remain genetically very strong and even quite diverse, and it is known that many non-European immigrant groups actually have significantly-higher levels of genetic defects and medical problems. At the moment, with the current levels of known defects and genetic oddities in our largest immigrant groups, I'd say 'mixed-race marriages', apart from the worthless ethics of such an operation, would produce offspring with vastly-increased chances of severe genetic defects on a larger scale than the current situation does.

Generally they used to say this because they believed it would "whiten" and "europeanize" the population. It was thought of as a good thing in the beginning (at the founding of the nation), as most of the indians refused to work since they had no incentive to, and therefore were enslaved. However, mestizos could be raised with european cultural values, even if they were not seen as equal to europeans but would be more likely to be involved in the "civilised" society, also more likely to work for a wage abet a substanically less one than would be given to a creole.

The idea has been revived multiple times since then for various reasons. I think I can safely state however, that it will never work the way they want it to.

Please note that the idea of what constitues "white" in Brazil is quite different than what counts as "white" in the anglo world.

Class and race in Brazil is a very complex issue. Although classism rules, racism is inherent in the structure of class to begin with. I'm not sure I could state that racism in Brazil is subtle. It works differently than it does in anglo societies, but it is very much there under and embedded in the veneer of classism. Even now, although much of the country is mixed, they are still racist about the degree that they are mixed to. Although socially the races mix, they mix based on being part of, or near the same class, and class still carries distinct racial majorities and minorities in each class.

You will still find job ads asking for "good appearance" - a social code for european features and straight hair. Senators have been refused entry to political dinners because they were mistaken for bodyguards and told to go in the back enterance with proof of who employs them, and had to have white colleagues vouch for them in order to enter (something that would not happen to a white). Blacks are still markedly more likely to be homicide victims, even when education is accounted for (although many reasons have been proposed for this).

Some time ago, Lula attempted to institute a black quota for the universities. After a case where a set of identical twin brothers were assessed, one was decided to be "black" and qualified and the other was decided to not qualify as "black". They had to change it from a balck quota to a poor quota - which is essentially very similar as the majority of the poor are still those of african descent or non-white descent.



Yeaup. One foot in both worlds but belonging to partially both and at the same time fully neither, always only partially accepted as an outsider in both and mistrusted for it no matter what you do. Not a particularly fun way to live, I must admit. The upside is you can make and set your own rules and expectations more.

it should not be interfered with. People should be able to marry whomever they please and to those who are willing.

ruveyn

Hot Latinas should be encouraged to marry geeky anglo american guys with asperger's.

This should be a presidential decree

@ Ancalagon

I know you said that not diminishing racism is a limitation and not a drawback. However, I think one drawback of promoting mixing is that it masks racism. As Kjas pointed out, Brazil is still a racist society, but it is masked because it's hard to distinguish racism from classism. I remember reading a book about the history of Brazil and Afro-Brazilians living in poverty will see their problems arising from class more than race (although the two are linked).

An interesting thing I've noticed is that mixed-race people from English speaking countries are more likely to identify as 'black' and in the USA they had the one drop rule, which reinforced this. In Brazil they have lots of words to describe skin tone. I once watched a documentary where they asked Brazilians to describe their skin tone and they said things like 'cafe mocha' and 'caramel'. I remember telling a mixed race colleague from Zambia about this (she identifies as black) and she actually found that kind of sad because she sees a lot of value in having a 'black' identity, even if you were mixed. Even in mixed societies, certain racial mixtures will be less prestigious than others, and in Latin America, that's people with a large amount of black. In the Dominican Republic, you put your race on your passport, and no-one except people of Haitian heritage puts 'black', even if they are very dark. They put 'dark Indian' instead. It's an overwhelmingly mulatto country, but they don't identify with their African heritage. If you're mixed race, but quite light skinned, you pass as white. Barack Obama would possibly pass as white there. Passing as white is important for social mobility, even though everyone is mixed. It's very different to the European perspective on race. I read an interview with one light-skinned mulatto from the Dom Rep and he said that Americans are very racist compared to his countrymen, because he 'was treated like a black' in the USA. Both societies are as racist as each other, though, for treating races differently.

So I think the way that encouraged mixing can lull people into a false sense of anti-racism is a drawback more than simply a limitation. I know I didn't make it clear why in my OP.

@Kjas, I heard about the idea of 'whitening' Brazilian society, which was practised from the very early days. Gilberto Freyre did come up with the idea of Lusotropicalism though, which was the idea that Brazil was well on the way to creating a mixed master race using it's wealth of genetic material. This was about all-out mixing, rather than 'whitening' the natives and blacks. This is what I found interesting. Though the idea has a Portuguese nationalist element in claiming that the Portuguese were naturally less racist than northern Europeans, and that's why they encouraged mixing in Brazil. This is false, as the reasons the early Portuguese colonisers had for mixing were nearly as racist as the British and Dutch motivation behind segregation.

On another note, I once discussed with a Muslim who claimed that Muhammad encouraged mixed-race marriages as a way of limiting the effects of racism in society. I don't know if that's true. It would mean he was well ahead of his time on that one particular subject. I wonder if it's partly where the Baha'i get the idea from. The oneness of God mirroring the oneness of humanity, or something.

So for purely scientific reasons, it's a good idea (even if socially it's not all roses)?

I'd say, and this is outright racism but also outright truth, that these things depend very much on the ethnic groups you select. It is a measurable fact, unfortunately, that some ethnic groups have several times as much risk of debilitating or even lethal medical and psychological conditions, sometimes latent and sometimes active, and are on average significantly less intelligent. It was said even by respected medical authorities, between the lines, that mixing that material into any other ethnicity would simply damage the other ethnicity because their risk of mental retardation, schizophrenia and even some lethal medical conditions is simply much, much higher and their average intelligence is known to be lower due to the extreme prevalence of mental retardation and inbreeding.

Basically, many ethnicities just have a lot of genetic material that's been damaged or ruined.

Other than the IQ population studies we've discussed in the past, do you have any sources? Also, schizophrenia is partly caused by environmental factors. It's much higher in poor whites than it is in more wealthy ones, for example.

Where are these respected medical authorities you refer to?

The only solution to the problems caused by inbreeding is erm, outbreeding? Surely it's better for someone who comes from an ethnic group prone to a certain medical problem to have a baby with someone from another group not prone to it, than to choose someone related to them and have a much higher chance of having offspring with the problem. The net result of outbreeding would always be less recessive gene disorders in the world than simply following inbreeding patterns, up to the point where the babies have 15 fingers and two heads?

I'm no expert, but I think your sources are suspect, if you're not just making up your own theories about genetics. I'll admit that's what I'm doing.

I think LKL needs to step in at this point.

According to what standards? Or is this based on personal preference?



Which any good breeder will tell you does not last.

I was being flippant. The sexual ideal in Brazil is mixed race, though.



Are unpredictable genetic problems any worse than the predictable ones caused by inbreeding? The problems are unpredictable, yes, but there's more chance of avoiding them if you have genetic counselling. You can do that with inbred groups as well, but you can only inbreed so far until the recessive genes become ubiquitous. I live in a country where more (native) people have blue eyes than have brown eyes. This is pure inbreeding because blue eyes are a recessive gene. Blue eyes aren't disadvantageous, but I was just using them as an example of how a recessive gene can be carried by the majority of a group.

With a mixed group, there's less of chance of genetic problems occurring (I think), but it is more unpredictable.

Schizophrenia, in Moroccans, is several times higher than in any other ethnic group. Picture the rate of schizophrenia steadily going up as wealth goes down, and picture a sudden spike four to six times as high for Moroccans in general regardless of income. Moroccans and Turks also form 80% of officially mentally-retarded children in Amsterdam, despite constituting only approximately 15% of the total population. There are even suggestions that the actual number, due to their families sending them back to their countries of origin and due to hiding them from authorities or not acknowledging mental handicaps, could be even higher. Of all criminal youths, which is 65% of Moroccan men between the ages of 12 and 22, 'at least half' were at least slightly mentally ret*d following Marigo Teeuwen of the University of Amsterdam. If both figures are correct, that would amount to at least 32.5% of Moroccan men being at least slightly mentally ret*d.



Or you could take the easy route, the one I'd pick with dogs and cattle, just let them go, and breed on with the majority of the total population not affected by these severe medical conditions. You can start outbreeding, but for the first - at least - two or three generations, you'll simply have people with a significantly-elevated risk where you could have had people with a normal risk. Is racial mixing really worth three generations with much larger numbers of ret*d, schizophrenic and paralysed children? That's a lot of human suffering just because some people don't like the idea of black and white people existing.

And there isn't actually a problem with inbreeding in most of the world. In Europeans, inbreeding is rare. In Asians, inbreeding is rare. Even in the most remote African tribes, inbreeding is rare. There is absolutely no reason to endorse this from the 'stopping inbreeding' point of view. If mixed-race breeding was endorsed or encouraged, it would be purely political and social.



These sources are often hard to get by, because it's a heavy political taboo. Marriages between cousins were actually kept legal to suit the Moroccan and Turkish part of the population.

How would it increase the number of people with genetic problems? If they bred inside the group instead, you would have the same number, if not higher, because both parents would carry the recessive gene.

I think 'don't inbreed' is an important medical message that needs to go out, more than 'please outbreed'.

government should say nothing about race, in this day and age, other than to pass laws and enable enforcement mechanisms to make people behave in a civil manner with one another no matter one's exterior features.

This bit here is just straight-up fear mongering. I still want to hear what you have to say, because I think you may have a point, but saying stuff like this isn't going to help you make your point.


This could be explained by that racial group having a flatter bell curve for intelligence, meaning that they would also have more of the smarter people. It could also be explained by a flaw in the official process for labeling children mentally ret*d in Amsterdam.

It also doesn't tell us about the general value of their genetic material, since there could be compensating benefits to being from that gene pool.


This doesn't make sense. Why would they go out of their way to hide this?


Do you have anything to back this up?


I think you've misunderstood what people have been supporting here. I'm against any kind of forced mixing, and without that there's no way black and white people (or other ethnic distinctions) are going to disappear. I don't think anyone else has supported forced mixing either.


I think you're right about this. I'm not an expert by any means, but I believe inbreeding is a problem that arises when there isn't a large enough genetic pool. I'm not sure exactly how big a genetic pool needs to be, but from what I can remember about animals that are close to being extinct, several thousand individuals would be plenty, and ethnic groups are generally much bigger than this.

The British were rather mean after World War II

http://www.chinatownology.com/liverpool ... orial.html