Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think most people have a problem with inter racial marriage.
The fact than well after Loving V Virginia, Alabama still had a ban on the books, it was voted on in 2000 and the ban was overturned, but the fact that 40% still supported the ban was horrific.
That's just the ole' Confederate mentality still alive and kicking in Alabama...
You do realize that back during that time we had many more liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats then we have now. Both parties had very distinct wings.
I'm not sure the point of the comment.
The Liberal Republicans were a short flash in the pan back in the day and the term "liberal" has flip flopped in meaning over the years.
What, in your words, is a liberal republican?
What, in your words, is a today's republican...or in particular a "conservative" Republican?
To you, what does "Conservative" and "Liberal", relative to politics, mean?
The Liberal Republicans were a short flash in the pan back in the day and the term "liberal" has flip flopped in meaning over the years.
What, in your words, is a liberal republican?
What, in your words, is a today's republican...or in particular a "conservative" Republican?
Today's Republican Party is dominated by southern Evangelicals. That wasn't the case back then. First off just because a President nominated someone do the Supreme Court doesn't mean that person will be in the same mold. Stevens and Souter are recent examples, both nominated by Republican Presidents, both happen to be quite liberal. Stevens was nominated by Ford, Souter by Bush 41. Earl Warren is thought of as being one of the most, if not the most liberal Justices in the History of the Supreme Court.
I guess the majority of educated people don't mind those relationships at all. Anyone who thinks one should date or marry based on love, can hardly be against them. Older parents in places like India still have a hard time accepting such relationships, but even there more and more young people don't care about that race/caste crap anymore
Today's Republican Party is dominated by southern Evangelicals. That wasn't the case back then. First off just because a President nominated someone do the Supreme Court doesn't mean that person will be in the same mold. Stevens and Souter are recent examples, both nominated by Republican Presidents, both happen to be quite liberal. Stevens was nominated by Ford, Souter by Bush 41. Earl Warren is thought of as being one of the most, if not the most liberal Justices in the History of the Supreme Court.
You didn't answer my questions. I'm not interested in a flame war. I was trying to understand the reason for disputing facts.
Giving examples of the Democrats and Republicans that voted or ruled against their party ideals don't work to the benefit of explaining your point.
The reason I requested your answer to YOUR definition of Liberal and Conservative, is that I think you actually are working off of the definition used to describe personality. The political definition of a Liberal is not the same as a liberal-minded person.
Currently, most conservatives and liberals will define themselves the same. They will say they want small government and individual freedoms/liberties.
You didn't answer my questions. I'm not interested in a flame war. I was trying to understand the reason for disputing facts.
Giving examples of the Democrats and Republicans that voted or ruled against their party ideals don't work to the benefit of explaining your point.
The reason I requested your answer to YOUR definition of Liberal and Conservative, is that I think you actually are working off of the definition used to describe personality. The political definition of a Liberal is not the same as a liberal-minded person.
Currently, most conservatives and liberals will define themselves the same. They will say they want small government and individual freedoms/liberties.
These ideals are core "Republican" ideals.
I wasn't trying to get into a flame war. I was simply pointing out that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are quite a bit different now then they were back then. I was also stating the fact the Earl Warren (the Chief Justice in the Loving V Virginia case) was known for being very liberal. As far as my definition of liberal and conservative well it obviously depends on the issues. You have liberal and conservative on social issues as it relates to gays, abortion, etc, and on economic issues such as business, taxes, social programs etc.
Ok, statistics, I found it, for first marriage.
White rate of failure after 15 years, Northeast = 37%, Midwest = 36%, South = 42%, West = 43%
Black rate of failure after 15 years, Northeast = 52%, Midwest = 53%, South = 56%, West = 59%
The highest white rate of failure is 43%, the lowest is 36%, 7% differential. The highest Black rate of failure is 59% and the lowest is 52%, also a 7% differential. But the differences between the highest white rate of failure and the lowest black rate of failure is 9%, which is larger than the difference between white rates of failure.
It's important to not give too much weight to the race part of these statistics. The socio-economic factors of these statistics cannot be ignored.
If you reviewed the rates of divorce by personal economy and socio-economic status rather than race, you will find a more plausible answer to why the south has more divorce. They are the most poor and undereducated.
The reason why the black rate of failure is higher than the whites can be attributed to levels of poverty and not necessarily their color.
Statistics can be dangerous if you see them as the only basis for your beliefs. Statistics are tools and not the whole picture.
Last edited by Robinstyler; 01-22-2010 at 04:13 AM..
i wasn't trying to get into a flame war. I was simply pointing out that both the republican and democratic parties are quite a bit different now then they were back then. I was also stating the fact the earl warren (the chief justice in the loving v virginia case) was known for being very liberal. As far as my definition of liberal and conservative well it obviously depends on the issues. You have liberal and conservative on social issues as it relates to gays, abortion, etc, and on economic issues such as business, taxes, social programs etc.
I need to disagree on a previous point you made that Today's Republican Party is dominated by southern Evangelicals. This sounds more like media spin than actual fact. The politicians will pit people against people. Be careful.
Last edited by Robinstyler; 01-22-2010 at 04:20 AM..
You are avoiding the question. What benefits has interracial anything brought our society? Are there ANY benefits at all because a white man and black woman have a baby? No. There are also no benefits for white men and white women to have a baby.
But, what are the problems associated with a black man and a black woman having a baby? none. What are the problems associated with a black man and a white woman having a baby?
1) The loss of identity, am I white or am I black? Many whites know their lineage, Irish, Italian, German, etc. Blacks do not, and as you mix, all of this gets more and more skewed, especially since mixed-races in this country are not seen as whites. In Brazil they have tried to remedy this by making a racial grouping called "Brazilian". But it is really a failed attempt to force colorblindness on people. Kids are still teased, because they either aren't white enough or they aren't black enough.
2) Social stigmas, that are not going to go away in any of our lifetimes, sorry. But even in the great racial mixing pot(Brazil) there are the same or more problems than we have here. Blacks are the majority of the population there, but light-skinned people are treated much differently than blacks. Take a look at their presidents.
3) Family issues, I personally know several women who have mixed-race babies. I don't know a single one that is still with him 5 years later. Many times the grandparents object to this relationship, but the kids these days do not want to listen, and many of these relationships are only out of spite. In the end, many times the grandparents are the ones having to pick up the pieces. Which can become a sore issue about how the children should be raised(especially if the two families are very different).
4) The woman once she has her mixed kids has a much harder time finding a "replacement". There aren't too many white men that want to raise black babies with a white woman. So the woman, in many ways, is kind of throwing her life away because she makes a bad decision.
1. They are American! They are Human Beings. Maybe in the South and in your neck of the woods, racial identity matters but in most urban and large metropolitan areas outside of the South, it doesn't matter. Again, it's not a big deal except in areas where it is a social and cultural stigma such as the South but then again the South is backwards so it's not shocking that this is the case.
2. Refer to #1, social stigmas are largely regional. Yes, in the South and certain poor rural areas it is not accepted
3. How are they to be raised??? So because one is Black, he or she must be raised differently. It's amazing how backward and racist that thought is.
I guess number 4 refers to finding a new husband after divorce
Regarding number 3, that happens just the same in white only or black only families. The problem is society as a whole, the way things are changing due to economics etc.
I guess it is like with flying. Successful flights don't make headlines. If we want confirmation of our view that mixed-race relationships are no good, we focus on failed relationships and problems. But we don't see all the couples who lead lives with all their ups and downs just like white only couples. In the end what matters is that the couple is happy. Parents and grandparents telling their children not to marry someone from another race is certainly not helping them succeed as it plants the idea in their heads that what they do is wrong and maybe doomed.
Races (an outdated term anyway) and ethnic groups do not exist because there is any purpose to them, but simply because of geographical separation. So why would people who live in the very same places today not 'undo' the results of the old separation or have any interest in keeping the results alive when what lead to them is already gone? It seems only natural to me. If nature wanted us not to mix, we would be different species and unable to reproduce in the first place.
Last edited by Neuling; 01-22-2010 at 04:21 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You didn't answer my questions. I'm not interested in a flame war. I was trying to understand the reason for disputing facts.
