← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 17937 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2005-04-24
2005-04-24 09:47 | User Profile
April 24, 2005 [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/opinion/24kristof.html?th&emc=th]New York Times [/URL] Blacks, Whites and Love By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
One gauge of the progress we've made in American race relations in recent decades is the growing number of blacks and whites who have integrated their hearts and ended up marrying each other.
As of the 2000 census, 6 percent of married black men had a white wife, and 3 percent of married black women had a white husband - and the share is much higher among young couples. Huge majorities of both blacks and whites say they approve of interracial marriages, and the number of interracial marriages is doubling each decade. One survey found that 40 percent of Americans had dated someone of a different race.
But it's hard to argue that America is becoming more colorblind when we're still missing one benchmark: When will Hollywood dare release a major movie in which Denzel Washington and Reese Witherspoon fall passionately in love?
For all the gains in race relations, romance on the big screen between a black man and a white woman remains largely a taboo. Americans themselves may be falling in love with each other without regard to color, but the movie industry is still too craven to imitate life.
Or perhaps the studios are too busy pushing the limits on sex, nudity and violence to portray something really kinky, like colorblind love.
Back in 1967, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" helped chip away at taboos by showing a black man and white woman scandalizing their parents with their - chaste - love. In 2005 we have a new version of "Guess Who," but it only underscores how little progress we've made.
The latest "Guess Who" is about a white man in love with a black woman, and that's a comfortable old archetype from days when slave owners inflicted themselves on slave women. Hollywood has portrayed romances between white men and (usually light-complexioned) black women, probably calculating that any good ol' boy seeing Billy Bob Thornton embracing Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball" is filled not with disgust but with envy.
Off screen, the change has been dizzying. At least 41 states at one time had laws banning interracial marriage. A 1958 poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites.
That same year, in North Carolina, two black boys, a 7-year-old named Fuzzy Simpson and a 9-year-old named Hanover Thompson, were arrested after a white girl kissed Hanover. The two boys were convicted of attempted rape. As Randall Kennedy notes in his book "Interracial Intimacies," Fuzzy was sentenced to 12 years, and Hanover to 14 years. Pressure from President Dwight Eisenhower eventually secured the boys' release.
Then the mood began to change, and 1967 was the turning point. That was the year that the daughter of Dean Rusk, then secretary of state, married a black man. Secretary Rusk proudly walked his daughter down the aisle (after warning President Lyndon Johnson of the political risks), and Time magazine put the couple on its cover. That was also the year of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and of a Supreme Court ruling striking down miscegenation laws.
Yet right from the beginning, the entertainment industry has lagged society in its racial mores. Films and television have always been squeamish about race: in 1957, on Alan Freed's ABC show, the black singer Frankie Lymon was seen dancing with a white woman. ABC promptly canceled the show.
There have been just a few mainstream movies with black men romancing white women, lower-profile films like "One Night Stand." More typically, you get a film like "Hitch," where the studio pairs a black man with a Latina.
Popular entertainment shapes our culture as well as reflects it, and one breakthrough might come late next year with the possible release of "Emma's War." That's a movie that 20th Century Fox is considering, in which a white woman - Nicole Kidman is being discussed - marries an African. It's great that Hollywood is close to catching up to Shakespeare's "Othello."
Let's hope that Hollywood will finally dare to be as iconoclastic as its audiences. It's been half a century since Brown v. Board of Education led to the integration of American schools, but the breakdown of the barriers of love will be a far more consequential and transformative kind of integration - not least because it's spontaneous and hormonal rather than imposed and legal.
E-mail: [email]nicholas@nytimes.com[/email]
2005-04-24 15:37 | User Profile
Big deal. I predict that the more the Race Replacers & Mixers push mixed marriages, the more obvious they become about it, the more White Americans will push back. By way of anecdote, I have noticed in my own circle more negative comments about mixed marriages from white men and women. I think for a lot of people, the Heidi Klum/Seal freakshow was the final straw. :thumbsup:
2005-04-24 16:14 | User Profile
The article claims 6% of black men married white women. But what kind of sample is that? Most black men DON'T MARRY! Ergo, the absolute numbers are far lower.
6% of married black men probably = 1% of black men. So let's not overstate it, you weasily little Israeli.
That said, I am very disturbed how people shout you down with their morality on this issue. They always say, "Of course I'd be o.k. with my daughter marrying Colin Powell" - you know, the best of a bad lot. I always say, "But what about Mike Tyson?" That gets a response.
At a MLB game last year, "Kiss cam" caught a black and white kissing. THe cheers and laugher went dead silent for those 5 seconds. WE still don't like it, Kristof, no matter what you pontificate.
2005-04-24 17:12 | User Profile
One wonders when the Israeli film industry will catch up with this "progressive" trend and screen torrid romances between little Askenazic Jewess Rifka and the dark Palestinian love interest Abdul...
Provided they can keep Likudnik mobs from burning down the theaters.
2005-04-24 19:30 | User Profile
When will Hollywood dare release a major movie in which Denzel Washington and Reese Witherspoon fall passionately in love? Not Reese! :wub:
Keep that ape away from her!
2005-04-24 19:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]One wonders when the Israeli film industry will catch up with this "progressive" trend and screen torrid romances between little Askenazic Jewess Rifka and the dark Palestinian love interest Abdul...
Provided they can keep Likudnik mobs from burning down the theaters.[/QUOTE] I like your idea. Let's have more movies about Negroids (or Arabs) and Jews marrying each other, and let's also see "life imitating art" in that regard.
How about a drama where an Orthodox Jewess elopes with a great big ape to the horror of her parents? I'd pay good money to watch that! :lol:
2005-04-25 00:18 | User Profile
For the love of a 10-pound matzoh ball, is this duck sauce-dipper Kristof character a kike? I cannot for the life of me figure it out it, including through the direct route of simply asking him (e-mails are not read by him, but by an assistant's assistant). "Kristof" sounds Jewy, but "Nicholas" does not. He's raised out west on a tree farm or something, which doesn't sound yiddy, but if you've ever seen or heard him, he's pretty nebbishly Jewish looking and sounding. Maybe a halfsie?
2005-04-25 06:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]For the love of a 10-pound matzoh ball, is this duck sauce-dipper Kristof character a kike? I cannot for the life of me figure it out it, including through the direct route of simply asking him (e-mails are not read by him, but by an assistant's assistant). "Kristof" sounds Jewy, but "Nicholas" does not. He's raised out west on a tree farm or something, which doesn't sound yiddy, but if you've ever seen or heard him, he's pretty nebbishly Jewish looking and sounding. Maybe a halfsie?[/QUOTE] Oh, there's no doubt in my mind he's a Yahoodi. Odd surname for a foreskinner, though - the root being "Christ." I assume it's a Russian-derived name.
I must say that generally I like Kristoff. He's very upfront about things. For example, he wrote a recent op-ed piece posted here about how the Nogs of Zimbabwe want Buana back. Of course, he lamented the fact and blamed it all on Mugabe instead of extremely low African IQ as any sane person would, but at least Kristof notices and has the moxy to report stuff like that.
2005-04-25 07:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]By way of anecdote, I have noticed in my own circle more negative comments about mixed marriages from white men and women. I think for a lot of people, the Heidi Klum/Seal freakshow was the final straw. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE] I've noticed over the past 3-4 years that an actual majority of my friends (of several age groups, too) have become, if not outright racist, at least plainly aware of racial differences. And not solely from my influence. :) If these trends continue... 'eyyyy!
2005-04-25 16:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Yet right from the beginning, the entertainment industry has lagged society in its racial mores. Films and television have always been squeamish about race: in 1957, on Alan Freed's ABC show, the black singer Frankie Lymon was seen dancing with a white woman. ABC promptly canceled the show.[/QUOTE] But:[QUOTE]A 1958 poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites.[/QUOTE] That's chutzpah for you....
2005-04-25 16:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]That said, I am very disturbed how people shout you down with their morality on this issue. They always say, "Of course I'd be o.k. with my daughter marrying Colin Powell" - you know, the best of a bad lot. I always say, "But what about Mike Tyson?" That gets a response.[/QUOTE] One interracial couple makes little difference, but if broadly adopted the encouragement of miscegenation will in fact result in something that even Khristof would purport to oppose: genocide. That is ultimately what we're talking about.
2005-04-25 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I like your idea. Let's have more movies about Negroids (or Arabs) and Jews marrying each other, and let's also see "life imitating art" in that regard.[/QUOTE] I chuckled last night during the San Antonio Spurs game when TNT focused on Eva Longoria, the marrana girlfriend of mulatto point guard Tony Parker. Of course, most people would not identify her as Jewish.
2005-04-25 17:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I must say that generally I like Kristoff. He's very upfront about things. For example, he wrote a recent op-ed piece posted here about how the Nogs of Zimbabwe want Buana back. Of course, he lamented the fact and blamed it all on Mugabe instead of extremely low African IQ as any sane person would, but at least Kristof notices and has the moxy to report stuff like that.[/QUOTE]
Walter, I've noticed that, too. You can actually see him talking online if you have a cable Internet connection --- he filmed himself doing live reporting from Zimby, where he apparently snuck in. He quoted the blacks saying they preferred the "white racist" government. It's on the Times website (or was).
He also has done writing on race and genetics, with a liberal twist, natch.
2005-04-25 21:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]One interracial couple makes little difference, but if broadly adopted the encouragement of miscegenation will in fact result in something that even Khristof would purport to oppose: genocide. That is ultimately what we're talking about.[/QUOTE] Promotion of miscegenation is not necessary for the racial diminishment and eventual extinction of a people to take place in a multiracial society. Promotion of miscegenation may speed the process, but, ultimately and inevitably, a multiracial society will result in a totally hybridized population.
Suppose that a population of whites were transplanted into a territory or society where an alien people resides. Do you expect that, after a few generations, the whites will remain distinct? I don't. I expect exactly the opposite: that the whites will be racially assimilated and that they will begin to resemble (and finally totally resemble) the population in which they reisde.
Consider the destiny of Red Indians in the United States. In Kentucky, for example, there are no longer any Red Indians, though, several generations ago, there were. Where are they? They've been racially assimilated. They no longer exist.
Consider the fate of the Sami of Scandinavia. Hundreds of years ago, they were a racially distinct people. In the intervening period of time, Scandinavians migrated northward. The result is that the Sami have been Europeanized. The Sami and the Norwegian may still be moderately distinct from one another, but, really, the Sami are basically extinct. Whatever racial distinctions exist will be further diminished till a Lapplander is indintinguishable from the population in which he resides.
How about Brazil?
Here and on the Phora, I've found that many exult over the fact that Jews (who are regarded as the principal agents of "multiculturalism") will soon be bred out of existence, much as Red Indians have been. Unfortunately, this is myopic because it overlooks that whites themselves are being assimilated and that whites have a finite assimilative capacity. Consider how many mulattos, octoroons and quadroons exist in the United States, other former European colonies and Europe itself. What about hybrids of East Asians and whites?
The truth is that the destiny of whites in the United States is already certain, and it will remain certain so long as whites reside in a multiracial society. The prospect for whites, then, may seem dismal, but this isn't so.
Our enemies promote multiracialism without revealing the ultimate result (and intention) of multiracialism, and they avoid the revelation for good reason. This revelation, in my experience, wakes slumbering whites from the real dangers of a multiracial society and violates their sense of security. It's this sense of security causes our general inaction, I believe.
The realization that whites cannot and will not survive in a multiracial society is like a punch in the gut. Several members of my family, for example, bitterly accused me of racism and bigotry when I opposed my brother's marriage to a non-white. One parroted all the platitudes about the equality of race, but, when I explained that whites are basically doomed to extinction under such conditions as exist now, she exclaimed in horror, "No more 'Germans'? I don't know what to think now."
The second member of my family now encourages me to have so many white children as I can.
2005-04-26 00:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Knekkeben]...but, ultimately and inevitably, a multiracial society will result in a totally hybridized population...How about Brazil? [/QUOTE]Brazil? Really? I'm not so sure. Even after 500 years of multiracialism and race-mixing, Brazil is still a majority-white country (approx. 50-55% white).
It's highly doubtful that 200+ MILLION white Americans are going to be swallowed up any time soon. If anything, the importation of race-conscious white Latin Americans may even have a "whitening" effect in certain areas.
Making extreme predictions about the impending disappearance of white Americans is counter-productive and serves only to "paralyze" whites from taking action.
2005-04-26 02:27 | User Profile
How about a drama where an Orthodox Jewess elopes with a great big ape to the horror of her parents?
A movie that's simultaneously the sequel to KING KONG and the prequel to MEET THE FOCKERS? I like it!
A white man in love with a black woman ..[is]... a comfortable old archetype from days when slave owners inflicted themselves on slave women. For all the gains in race relations, romance on the big screen between a black man and a white woman remains largely a taboo.
Here's the bit that enraged me - the Hymie-dark heart of Kristof's commentary. As society changes with the times, or liberalizes (or however you wish to phrase it), the challenge to Jews is to ratchet up their demands so that - 50, 100, 500 years from now - they'll perpetually be able to mail in platitudes like "as far as we've come, we still have much further to go".
Suddenly, interracial love isn't even interracial any longer [I]so long as it involves a white man[/I]. (Read the article again, kids.) According to Kristof, in order to qualify as "interracial", [u]it must entail a black man on a white woman[/u]....or it's simply Jim Crow, doin' it plantation style to a bedwench. This goes wayyy beyond issues of free association, or even the course of true love...this is a political agenda - break the white man utterly and you break the white 'system'.
Ask yourself at what point will 'progress' be 'enough' to the likes of people like this? The same point at which the world will have heard 'enough' about the Holocaust...never. One wonders why Kristof doesn't take the [I]next [/I] logical step and declare forcible rape justified, if perpetrated by black men against white women.....
2005-04-26 03:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]Brazil? Really? I'm not so sure. Even after 500 years of multiracialism and race-mixing, Brazil is still a majority-white country (approx. 50-55% white).
It's highly doubtful that 200+ MILLION white Americans are going to be swallowed up any time soon. If anything, the importation of race-conscious white Latin Americans may even have a "whitening" effect in certain areas.
Making extreme predictions about the impending disappearance of white Americans is counter-productive and serves only to "paralyze" whites from taking action.[/QUOTE] Of course Europeans remain in Brazil, but if they've resided there long, then they've survived ONLY because they're segregated from other populations. But have you ever seen a typical Brazilian? Brazilians who describe themselves as "white" often and probably usually aren't. They're typically a composite of white, black and South American Red Indian, sometimes tending toward a European racial type. Brazil is described as a mulatto country for a good reason.
And I didn't say that the extinction of 200 million white Americans is imminent. I said that it's an inevitability that whites cannot survive as a distinct population in a multiracial society. This may take many generations, but you ought to consider that even black genes are beginning to pass into the white American gene-pool. As time passes, a greater volume will pass into the white American gene-pool till it ceases to be distinctly white. But not only black genes are passing into the white American gene-pool. Certainly East Asian genes are passing into it at a much faster rate. Do you deny this? If this is so, then isn't a mathematical certainty that American whites will cease to be distinctly white through intermixture?
There's nothing extreme about the prediction at all. It's more or less assured. Can you name two distinct populations who have resided together for long? I can't. I don't know of one.
I disagree that whites would be paralyzed into inaction if they were aware that, within a multiracial society, their extinction through genetic submergence is a certainty. Whites don't yet act in their own interest because most still possess a sense of security, and they won't begin to act in the own interest unless that sense of security is broken.
2005-04-26 16:21 | User Profile
Brazil? Really? I'm not so sure. Even after 500 years of multiracialism and race-mixing, Brazil is still a majority-white country (approx. 50-55% white).
I ain't buying it.
[QUOTE]Jose Neinstein, a native white [sic] Brazilian and executive director of the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute in Washington, boiled down to the simplest terms how his people are viewed. "In this country," he said, "if you are not quite white, then you are black." But in Brazil, he said, "If you are not quite black, then you are white."
The elite in Brazil, as in most Latin American nations, are educated and white. But many brown and black people also belong in that class. Generally, brown Brazilians, such as Martins, enjoy many privileges of the elite, but are disproportionately represented in Brazilian slums.
Someone with Sidney Poitier's deep chocolate complexion would be considered white if his hair were straight and he made a living in a profession. That might not seem so odd, Brazilians say, when you consider that the fair-complexioned actresses Rashida Jones of the television show "Boston Public" and Lena Horne are identified as black in the United States.
Neinstein remembered talking with a man of Poitier's complexion during a visit to Brazil. "We were discussing ethnicity," Neinstein said, "and I asked him, 'What do you think about this from your perspective as a black man?' He turned his head to me and said, 'I'm not black,' " Neinstein recalled. " . . . It simply paralyzed me. I couldn't ask another question."
By the same token, Neinstein said, he never perceived brown-complexioned people such as Maria Martins, who works at the cultural institute, as black. One day, when an African American custodian in his building referred to one of his brown-skinned secretaries as "the black lady," Neinstein was confused. "I never looked at that woman as black," he said. "It was quite a revelation to me."
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38089-2002Dec25?language=printer[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It's highly doubtful that 200+ MILLION white Americans are going to be swallowed up any time soon. If anything, the importation of race-conscious white Latin Americans may even have a "whitening" effect in certain areas. [/QUOTE] They don't have to be swallowed up in toto. Intermarriage creates division and destroys racial identity within the family itself. We're rapidly approaching the loss of a critical mass. Knekkeben is wrong to portray the extinction as inevitable.
2005-04-26 16:44 | User Profile
Mathematically speaking, whites are dissapearing if the number of "pure" whites is declining. Race-mixing isn't doom unless the above is true. I'd say, it's very important to separate "Brazilian whites" from real whites, so that race-mixers don't mix with pure white stock. Once feeding those monkey genes starts like in Brazil at a rate higher than breeding them out, it's highway to Brazilization (or is it brilloization?)
Russians say "a spoonful of tar spoils a barrel of honey".
2005-04-27 02:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]One wonders when the Israeli film industry will catch up with this "progressive" trend and screen torrid romances between little Askenazic Jewess Rifka and the dark Palestinian love interest Abdul...
Provided they can keep Likudnik mobs from burning down the theaters.[/QUOTE]
Howard, confession: I liked this line so much, I blatantly stole it and posted it on another board.
You NAILED it!!!!!
2005-04-30 07:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Brazil? Really? I'm not so sure. Even after 500 years of multiracialism and race-mixing, Brazil is still a majority-white country (approx. 50-55% white).
I ain't buying it.
They don't have to be swallowed up in toto. Intermarriage creates division and destroys racial identity within the family itself. We're rapidly approaching the loss of a critical mass. Knekkeben is wrong to portray the extinction as inevitable.[/QUOTE] Here's a good article about the subject:
[url]http://www.racialcompact.com/preservationimperative.html[/url]
2005-04-30 19:08 | User Profile
When sufficient miscegenation has taken place, even people opposed to it can perpetuate it by marrying people who look white but in fact are racially mixed. Pretty soon you get families where some of the children look white, and some of them don't, even though they share the same mother and same father. Over many generations you get something like Brazil, where almost everyone claims to be "white" but where only a small minority actually are.
Only a radicalized, revolutionary situation can get whites out of their "comfort zone" enough to do something about this. As long as whites feel safe and still feel that this is "their" country, they will do nothing.
Once things change though simple things like genetic screenings could easily allow anyone to narrow down his marriage choices to those he or she considers racially compatible - and thus prevent miscegenation by stealth, and genocide by degrees. But you have to have a white nation-state dedicated to inculcating the appropriate cultural values, or the whole mess we are currently in simply perpetuates itself.
We are this close to a situation where Jews declare white racial preference for marrying other whites to be a "hate crime"; it sounds absurd, but many of the things we consider "normal" now were considered fantastic and absurd when alleged as the future we were headed towards 50 years ago or. Gay marrriage? Inter-racial marriage? Discrimination against whites in favor of non-whites? Banning Christianity from the public sphere? Massive illegal immigration? Open acceptance of hard core pornography? Abortion on demand? Absurd! It will never happen! People would never allow it!
2005-04-30 20:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Once things change though simple things like genetic screenings could easily allow anyone to narrow down his marriage choices to those he or she considers racially compatible - and thus prevent miscegenation by stealth, and genocide by degrees. But you have to have a white nation-state dedicated to inculcating the appropriate cultural values, or the whole mess we are currently in simply perpetuates itself.[/QUOTE] This is indeed the fatal fantasy. Such measures certainly won't spare whites from extinction through miscegenation. Richard McCulloch, the author of the article, argues that species which have the same requirements for survival will inevitably compete with each other with the objective of replacing their competition (Gause's law of competitive exclusion). He involves human races in the affair, and further argues that one of the means of the human races for replacing their competition is racial assimilation. This is only possible when the members of the foreign race to be assimilated are few or when the foreign races are relatively mutually similar. Europeans (and foreign races within European territory) are already going about the process of replacing their competition through racial assimilation.
The trouble is that Europeans will not actually assimilate these foreign races. They will try, and they will destroy themselves. The only solution, of course, is geographic separation.
I agree with his general argument. It explains perfectly why, whenever foreign races occupy territory together, they mix. I don't know of one exception to this. Puerto Rico? Mexico? Brazil? North American Red Indians? Japanese Ainu? South America generally?
Furthermore, though he's partial to whites who are of western, central and northern European descent, Richard McCulloch presents a sound, unique and mature philosophy that has great potential for eventual political viability in the United States and European countries. This is so for several reasons. First and probably principally, it entirely rejects all exaltation of Nazism. Equally important is that his philosophy and its political solutions apply to all human races. Also, criticism of Negroes, mestizos or anyone else is totally absent. The concept of "racial superiority" is too. There are no arguments that one race has, on average, a greater IQ than another. These arguments are easily discredited as motivated by "racism." His philosophy concentrates undeviatingly on the subject of European racial survival. In brief, it rejects all that has fettered "white nationalism" (and will continue to fetter it). In addition to this, it is NOT anti-Semitic. In fact, it could be said to be philo-Semitic because it treats an exclusively Jewish nation as moral and righteous.
It was an article of his that I chanced on that radically transformed my own political perspective. I suspect that it would affect others just the same.