Interracial dating cultural differences
The courts utilized two primary rationales for delineating white and non-white: physical characteristics and publicly held common sense knowledge.
A 1913 South Carolina Federal District Court case, Ex Parte Shahid, for example, rejected the application for naturalization of a Syrian-born man based upon the court’s interpretation of physical European white characteristics.
The stated purpose for regulating inter-racial marriage was to prevent people of African American, Native American, Asiatic Indian, West Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Filipino ancestry from marrying whites, as a way to protect perceived white purity. For example, until 1931, a woman who was qualified in every respect to become a citizen, could not naturalize if she was married to a foreigner racially ineligible for citizenship.
Anti-miscegenation laws were officially enforced by imprisonment, hard labor, and monetary penalty, and by vigilante justice, including lynching. Laws barring interracial marriage extended to the process of naturalization into U. Moreover, even if a woman was already a citizen, she could be stripped of citizenship if she married a racially ineligible foreigner.
The problem, the historian Nell Irvin Painter explains, is that the history of slavery helped construct the idea of the white race in contradictory ways.
Cornel West has detailed how Western philosophers utilized pseudo-scientific physical and aesthetic ideals to conceive Europeans as “white, civilized, intellectual, gentle, inventive, [and] governed by law” versus Africans, who were constructed as “crafty, indolent, negligent, and governed by caprice.” This philosophical, pseudo-scientific creation of European genius over all other races influenced the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the U. Although Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, expressed some misgivings about slavery, he argued in Notes on the State of Virginia that racial differences were natural and organic and should be categorically applied to separate the races and protect the superior beauty of whiteness. This dualistic separation between white and non-white remains part of U. Forty-one states enacted such laws, which endured until 1967.The group is unable to correct itself through the insights of others. As Haney Lopez explains, in its construction of whiteness, not only did the court refuse to gain a critical perspective of whiteness through the experience of others, but it drew upon its own bias for whiteness as a way to denigrate non-whites.Not only is white different from non-white, it is, in the court’s view, the intellectual, moral, and socially superior opposite.Racial prejudice, in every form, the Roman Catholic Church states: denies equal dignity of all members of the human family and blasphemes the Creator, can only be eradicated by going to its roots, where it is formed: in the human heart. In the U. context, in which too many assume that racial justice has been achieved because of passage of Civil Rights legislation in 1965, the Roman Catholic Church rightly emphasizes that it is not enough that laws prohibit or punish all types of racial discrimination: these laws can be easily gotten around if the community for which they are intended does not fully accept them.To overcome discrimination, a community must interiorize the values that inspire just laws and live out, in day-to-day life, the conviction of equal dignity of all. The Church is clear that conversion of people’s hearts must be joined with denunciation of every form of exclusion, and that the State and society should promote “equitable behavior, legislative dispositions, and social structures.” Du Bois’ prescience regarding the persistence of racial injustice is no small part due to its historical rootedness.