Jump to content

Talk:Anti-miscegenation laws

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.121.23.15 (talk) at 22:53, 29 April 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contradictory information on India

The page on Anglo-Indians cites two sources claiming that anti-miscegenation laws were formed in India which contradicts what is claimed in this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Indian#India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.16.48 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete and misleading

One of the refs [1] called "Source of information" says 30 (out of 48) states in the 1940's and 1950's had such laws. The article would benefit from a listing, since only a few are now included and it gives the false impression that only a few states banned interracial marriages. Did they ban, say, negros marrying Asians, or did they only ban whites marrying non-whites? There might be a tabulation in the Supreme Court ruling which finally struck them all down. Edison 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a cool graphic here: [2] You can click through year by year from 1662 through 1967 to see which states had anti-miscegination laws in effect in the particular year. Hover your mouse over a state, and the years that the law was in effect in that state is shown. Click on a state and you get an exerpt from that state's anti-miscegination law, which should give an idea of who was prohibited from who in that particular state. --Ramsey2006 23:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The repeal of Anti-miscegenation laws, 1948-1967

Interracial marriage bans in the southern United States is an orphan article about the same subject matter as this section. Maybe there's some material there that can be merged into this section? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. However, be careful. That page suggests that these laws were still in effect. In fact, they have been unconstitutional since 1967. It took these states thirty years to scrap these laws from the books, even though they were already defunct.Fairlane75 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In fact, sometime between 1984 and 1985, a Washington County, Oregon Associate Clerk, in the process of issuing a marriage license to an African American and white couple, was quietly interrupted by her supervisor. Her supervisor then took her aside and with substantial embarrassment informed her that it was unlawful to issue such a license. The stunned associate had no options other than to obey the law, however obtuse and unconstitutional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.192.251 (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabian world and the rights of women marrying non-Muslims

Is there any reason why this article makes no mention whatsoever of the laws existing in many Arabic countries which revoke all the citizenship rights of women who marry either a man not native to the woman's country of birth, or to a man who is non-Muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.79.76 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, this article deals exclusively with the subject of anti-miscegenation as it exists (or has existed) in the Western world, and lacks any form of world-wide context. I've added a tag to request that information be added about the subject as it still exists/thrives in many other parts of the world, today anno 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.79.76 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about honor killing... Its not a law , But the arab world law forgive the killer if his sister was going to marry a non-muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.98.118 (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.

With the U.S. sections of this article making up over 2/3 of article, I suggest that this material should be placed in a separate US-only article that is then referenced from this article. This article would then not be overwhelmed by the US sections. Hmains (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hope no one is bothered if I create a new article.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

"anti-miscegenation laws were implemented in Spain, which prevented miscegenation between those with pure European blood and those with Moorish or Jewish blood". I believe this is incorrect and needs to be verified and supported with authoritative citations. What is the exact wording of the link provided? Is it supported by other sources? GS3 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The China section is full of misinforrmation

The section under China is full of misinformation. First of all, the migration of non-Chinese into China began during the Western Jin dynasty (280 – 316 C.E.) not the 7th century. At the beginning of the Western Jin dynasty the emperor opened the border allowing non-Chinese to settle in China in the hope of replenishing the population. The Western Jin dynasty was founded after decades of war which led to the severe decline of population. Many tribal people moved into China, mainly from five groups: the Hsiung-nu, the Chieh, the Hsien-pei, and two groups from Tibet the Ti and Ch’iang people. Soon after they moved into China they took advantage of the weakness of the government by raising their own armies and forming their own kingdoms. They succeed in destroying the Western Jin government and seizing the land in the North of Yangtze River. The Chinese government and the majority of its people fled to the South side of Yangtze River and from there they established the Eastern Jin Dynasty.

The five non-Chinese groups, after driving the Chinese out of northern China, build their own kingdoms and fought each other for land and supremacy. In about three centuries two dozen kingdoms were found and the land and people suffered many wars. This long period of chaos is called “Wu Hu (Five non-Chinese) Ravaged China” in the Chinese history. During this time Chinese people suffered under the ruling of these people. Although there were racial hatred, massacred of huge number of people based on race occurred, interracial marriage took place and became common over time. It is uncertain whether commoners married outside of their races but historical record shows many in the ruling class came from interracial families.

This following statement is ridiculous. “There were laws and policies which discouraged miscegenation during the Tang Dynasty, 836 AD, a decree forbidding Chinese to have relations with peoples of color, such as Iranians, Arabs, Indians, Malays, Sumatrans, and so on.” The first emperor of the Tang dynasty himself married a non-Chinese woman who came from an eastern Mongolian tribe, and his son Emperor Tai-tsung had a policy of giving non-Chinese people the equal treatment. Many non-Chinese took high government posts in the Tang dynasty including the infamous general An Lushan whose rebellion led to the decline of Tang dynasty. These non-Chinese were allowed to be high officials and generals surely they were allowed to marry Chinese women and they did.

Under the Mongolian rule in the Yuen dynasty the Chinese were discriminated, they were barred from high level government posts. The Mongolian conquerors did not trust the Chinese. In the Qing dynasty the Manchurian conquerors practiced similar policies and interracial marriage between the Manchurians and Han Chinese were barred among nobilities and discouraged in lower levels.

I am new to Wiki so I don’t want to edit this article yet. It bothers me to see such misinformation. TDL79 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

The Pakistan section is about exogamy not miscegnation. It is about relations between tribes, not those between races. And it is about a custom, not a law. It doesn't belong here. Newman Luke (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish law

Surprised to see nothing about Deuteronomy 7:3. It's the oldest anti-miscegenation law and is still being practised. mikemikev (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not religious enough to know much about this, so I dug around a bit. Deuteronomy 7:1–3 (King James version) reads:

1When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

The Canaan article identifies Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and Hamathites as Biblical Canaanites. The Perizzites article identifies them as Girgashite Canaanite. This source says, "Hebrews were not a separate nation - they were merely peasant Canaanites who were left homeless. [...] "Joshua and the Hebrews were not conquerors of Canaanites. They were Canaanites," according to "Ancient Evidence: Joshua and the Walls of Jericho." What separated Hebrews from Canaanites was theology, not genetics: [...]". The lead sentence of this article says, "Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes sex between members of two different races." This biblical prohibition doesn't seem to be racially based, and so this would not seem to be an anti-miscegenation law as such laws are defined in this article. At least, that's how I read things. Perhaps I misunderstand, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miscegenation refers to genetic mixing. How are you defining race? The Israelites were a different family to the other Canaanites. This appears to be a case of 'super' anti-miscegenation and clearly qualifies. Since Israelites are ethnically homogenous, and since this law by extension prevents marriage among other races, this is de facto anti miscegenation by any definition. mikemikev 155.198.22.29 (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such an assertion would need supporting sources. I was commenting that Deuteronomy 7:1–3 didn't look to me like a good supporting source for that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll try to put something together. mikemikev (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Grammar / history question

The article states: "This was the first time since Reconstruction that a state court had declared an anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional. California was the first state since Ohio in 1887 to repeal its anti-miscegenation law." But Reconstruction was over in 1877, right? So wasn't Ohio the first state to do so since Reconstruction, not California? I've always been confused by the meaning of these "first X since Y" clauses anyway. 83.79.87.10 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Countries

Nothing at all about the Gulf Countries???? In Oman, your citizenship will be revoked and you're banned from ever being employed in Oman if you marry an Omani woman. And that's if you're Muslim! Similar in Saudi Arabia: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_931.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.30.177 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas status

This article previously stated that the Texas statutes barred whites from marrying all non-whites. Within the historical Texas law, I could only find references here at Art. 2843 in the civil code and here at Art. 326 of the penal code (the same provisions being retained under different numbers until at least 1925). Both refer only to marriages between whites and blacks (other races not being referenced as forbidden). Furthermore, the penal code punishes interracial marriage by 2-5 years in prison, so I'm not sure how people would be imprisoned for life as stated (not that it couldn't happen, but I've found no law that would allow it; are there any examples of this happening? In what cases/under what codes?). I've changed the non-white tag to black and stuck a tag on the life sentence statement; lemme know if anyone has more info. --Quantheory 11:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantheory (talk • contribs)

Israel

People need to stop trying to add Israel to this article. There are no anti-miscegenation laws in Israel as much as any Israel-haters would like to be able to pin that on Israel. How about users simply use the page to write factual information about the subject at hand? Instead of obsessing themselves with using it for propaganda. It's dishonest to try and exaggerate or invent ways that Israel is racist. It's so obvious you will just go to any page having anything to do with racism and write something about Israel with no concern for the validity of it, which is racist itself. There's nothing logical or honest about your editing. You start from the presumption Israel is racist based on your own racist hatred of Israel and obsession with vilifying Israel. Then you precede to grasp at straws to look for things to spin into racism to meet your agenda. Your singling out of Israelis for personal religious objections to interfaith marriage is ridiculous and has nothing to do with anti-miscegenation laws. Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.111.25 (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to assume good faith on the part of other editors. I agree that the section you removed shouldn't be included in this article as it deals with religious, not racial, segregation. It also ignores the fact that the other major religions in Israel are supervised by their own official religious establishments. JRheic (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Israel is a racist state. In fact, Israel is the last remaining racist state in the world today where racism is law. Regarding anti-miscegenation laws, it is fact not fiction (check the reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/racist-marriage-law-upheld-by-israel-478291.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abutayeh1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about the legal right of Palestinians who are married to Israelis to live in Israel. It's not about miscegenation laws. - JRheic (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article is about Israel upholding a anti-miscegenation law as evident in its title. Regardless of its topic, the article refrences the Israeli anti-miscegenation law> Here are a couple more:
http://anti-miscegenation-laws.co.tv/#cite_note-31 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NBO8E_CK18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abutayeh1 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the Independent article does it refer to an anti-miscegenation law? Use quotes please. Of the other links you provide: The first is just a version of this wikipedia article pasted into a webpage and obviously cannot be used as a source. The second discusses a cultural taboo, and then goes on to discuss a specific case of 'rape by deception', both of which may be worth including somewhere in an encyclopedia, but neither of which describe an anti-miscegenation law. See WP:RS and WP:REF if you'd like help in identifying and adding reliable sources. - JRheic (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is about anti-miscegenation law. Your admiration for the racist zionist entity is inhibiting your judgement. Here is a passage from the US State Department 2010 Report on Human Rights in Israel (keep in mind that the US State Department is blindly pro-Isael): "The authority to grant status (citizenship and residency) to a non-Israeli spouse, including Palestinian and other non-Jewish foreign spouses, resides with the Ministry of Interior. On July 27, the Knesset extended for another year the temporary 2003 Citizenship and Entry Law, which prohibits a citizen's Palestinian spouse from the occupied territories not only from acquiring citizenship by marriage, but also from residing in the country. Palestinian male spouses who are 35 or older and female spouses who are 25 or older may apply for temporary visit permits. The Mossawa Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel (Mossawa) claimed the law affected more than 21,000 families, including couples with long-standing marriages. The government originally enacted the law following 23 terrorist attacks involving suicide bombers from the occupied territories who had gained access to Israeli identification through family unification." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abutayeh1 (talk • contribs) 9:58 am, Today (UTC−4)
Despite your name-calling, the laws you describe don't forbid marriage or sexual relations between people of different races, that is, they aren't anti-miscegenation laws. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A law about granting citizenship to non-citizens has nothing to do with anti-miscegenation. Palestinians from the disputed territories aren't Israeli citizens and Israel is not obligated to grant them citizenship by marriage or let them live in Israel. Most Muslim nations don't grant citizenship to Palestinians who marry citizens either. I believe Jordan is the only Muslim nation that will gives Palestinians citizenship. Some Muslim nations will not even give citizenship to the child of a Palestinian and a citizen. Muslim nations have the same types of laws you're claiming make Israel "racist". http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/Jan/28/Study-debunks-justification-for-maintaining-nationality-law.ashx#ixzz1QzVyVy21 "Those who oppose granting women nationality rights often argue that the law is aimed at resettling Palestinian refugees and that the naturalization of thousands of Palestinian men and children would tip Lebanon’s delicate sectarian balance in favor of Sunni Muslims, the religion of the majority of the country’s 400,000 Palestinian refugees."24.155.111.25 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First: I did not name-call anything. Second: the "disputed territories" are not disputed, they are illegally occupied by Israel according to the UN, US, and the rest of the world. Back to the anti-miscegenation law subject, Israel is subjecting its own citizens (the indiginous Palestinians = Palestinians who managed to avoid ethnic cleansing, killing and deportation, in 1948) to its racist anti-miscegenation law. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens (even though Israel militarily occupies them and routinly confiscates their property for "security reasons"), so discussing anti-miscegenation law regarding them is meaningless. Third: I don't understand your attack on Muslim nations. They are not part of this discussion and I have never defended their anti-miscegenation law. People should be informed about all anti-miscegenation law: in Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, or wherever it may be happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abutayeh1 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any reliable sources that describe the Israeli laws as "anti-miscegenation laws" or as "racist". If you keep adding this to the article, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided many "reliable sources", one of which is the US Department of State, but your obvious bias towards Israel prevents you from accepting any of them as a "reliable source". Threatening to block me is not going to stop me, I can simply create another account and add my input. People have the right to know. Here is the exact law: http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/citizenship_law.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abutayeh1 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where any reliable source uses the words "anti-miscegenation laws" or "racist" with respect to the law. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is in the eye of the beholder. No country calls its laws "racist" or "anti-miscegenation", but the law is there for people to read and decide for themselves if it is racist or not. Was the same "scrutiny" applied to all countries listed in this article? Or, is your Israel a "special case"? Talking to you is a waste of time, because you are very biased and lack objectivity. Your arguments are not based on logic; they are based on deeply-held beliefs that are not likely to change. Adios Amigo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abutayeh1 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When writing a Wikipedia article we do not "decide for [our]selves": Please see WP:NOR. The law you are referring to appears to deal with nationality and citizenship and not race. If you can find a reliable source that argues that this is an anti-miscegenation law then we may be able to incorporate that into the article, but we can't add it just because you have decided that it is. Incidentally, please stick to arguing your point instead of making personal comments about other editors; see WP:NPA. - JRheic (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any anti-mecegenation law used the term "racist"! Racism is in the context. Is it racist to prohibit ones nationals marrying foreigners - or to give their children lower status? Many countries still have laws with this effect.
No it isn't. Racism is discrimination based on race, not nationality. Anyway, we're not asking for the law itself to use the term 'racist', we're asking for reliable sources that describe the law as racist. - JRheic (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so what is the word for discrimination based on nationality? (Even though I believe it to be rather irrelevant whether discrimination occurs because of race, nationality, religion or eye colour, it is all unfair to those being discriminated against.)--Soylentyellow (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"discrimination by" [or 'on the basis of'] religion" seems to be fairly common based on the results of google books searches, as does "discrimination by" [or 'on the basis of'] race". Also, using the word "miscegenation" to describe discrimination on the basis of Jew vs. non-Jew as practiced in israel seems to be fairly common. Lots of sources out there -- see e.g. [3], [4], [5], results from [6]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that because it's common to ignore the actual definition of words in an effort to bash Israel we should include it here? I agree it's common to misapply words towards Israel (ie. apartheid, genocide, nazis, etc). Unfortunately for you while those words apply under the (non-)standards of Israel-haters and propagandists, they don't pass any type of encyclopedic standards. And furthermore if we did allow it we'd have to include a very large section for all of the Arab discrimination against Israelis. Israelis of course aren't even allowed to visit most Arab nations so there is no need for anti-miscegenation laws, as a more severe type of religious segregation is already in place in Arab nations. 24.155.111.25 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality

This is clearly written from a western point of view. It is mostly europeans, who give their daughters to other peoples and accept that they practice sex before marriage. However, in most parts of the world, this is not tolerated and considered shameful. Multiracial Europe/USA is not the norm, but the exception. This article assumes the opposite. [PS: This is not about Islam. In Christianity it is forbidden to marry non-Christians, so Islam is more tolerant (where men are allowed to marry non-muslim women, since the children will be muslim), but the Europeans/Americans do not care about their religion]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-miscegenation_laws&oldid=489861400"