Patrik Jonsson, Christian Science Monitor, October 16, 2009
Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell’s refused to marry a white woman and a black man reportedly because he believed that children of an interracial marriage would suffer socially.
That view was once common in the United States, and might have had some basis decades ago when such marriages were taboo and multiracial families were sometimes ostracized. But today, not only are mixed-race children widely accepted but some research suggests they might even have some social advantages.
Researchers are finding that multiracial kids can sometimes be better socially adjusted than single-race offspring. And with the high-profile success of multiracial progeny such as Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, and President Obama (who at his first press conference as president described himself as a “mutt”), stereotypes about the split world of the “tragic mulatto” have long fallen by the wayside.
The American Civil Liberties Union is now threatening a lawsuit if Mr. Bardwell, veteran justice of the peace at Tangipahoa Parish, doesn’t step down. The group calls Bardwell’s refusal to issue a marriage licence to Beth Humphrey (who is white) and Terence McKay (who is black) both “tragic and illegal.”
“I’m not a racist,” Bardwell told a local newspaper. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.”
The ‘tragic mulatto’
{snip}
Research on mixed-race children once focused on the social and psychological problems that can arise from not feeling like a full member of any racial group. That notion permeated early 20th century American literature through the figure of the “tragic mulatto,” who did not fit in with either the black or white world.
{snip}
The idea that mixed-race children were biologically inferior to white or black kids was also widespread in the South, and often formed the basis of anti-miscegenation laws during Jim Crow years. (Researchers have found that not only is that not true, but that mixed-race offspring tend to be overall more physically attractive than their peers.)
Changing views
But loosening of marriage laws and more-accepting social mores have transformed perceptions of multiracial families. For one thing, there are now 7 million mixed-race kids in the US, up from 500,000 in the 1970s.
A 2008 study of 182 mixed-race high school kids in California found that these kids didn’t focus on exclusionary features like skin color or hair texture when thinking about themselves, but instead, they appeared to feel that their heritage made them “unique.”
The kids are able to “place one foot in the majority and one in the minority group, and in this way might be buffered against the negative consequences of feeling tokenized,” the study authors wrote in the Journal of Social Issues. The students surveyed included those with mixed Asian, Hispanic heritage.
Other studies suggest that while mixed-race kids may no longer feel the burden of discrimination, they still face unique challenges. A 2008 study led by Harvard researchers found that mixed-race adolescents tend to engage in risky behavior outside of school at higher rates than average and also fare “somewhat worse on measures of psychological wellbeing.”
{snip}
[Editor’s Note: The original story about Judge Bardwell can be read here.
Original article
(Posted on October 22, 2009)
Comments
“Researchers have found that not only is that not true, but that mixed-race offspring tend to be overall more physically attractive than their peers.”
What kind of position are ‘researchers’ in to judge who is physically attractive? That statement may be true if all the peers are black but it is absolutely absurd if the peers are white. My own opinion is that black-white mixes are less attractive than either full black or full white.
One thing that bothers me is the fixation of advertising on mulatto males. What on earth is attractive about huge beige afros they all seem to sport?
I am confused as to why this was written. It states that studies show mixed kids are doing great. Then it states that studies show they have problems. I am confused.
I’ve seldom read a more scurrilously biased piece of “reporting” than this story. Who are these so-called “experts” who have done “studies” that show, surprise, surprise, mixed-race kids are oh, so wonderful? And do you suppose they viewed them that way to start with, then “found” in their studies just what they wanted to find?
My experience with black-white half-breeds is that they seem to have a chip on their shoulders about their racial identity, and no, they’re NOT more “physically attractive than their peers.” They look just like what they are — mongrels.
“(Researchers have found that not only is that not true, but that mixed-race offspring tend to be overall more physically attractive than their peers.)”
mixed-race offspring tend to be overall more physically attractive than their peers
Researchers “determined” this? How? Isn’t “beauty in the eye of the beholder” (or is that type of subjectivity “racist” now also)?
Apparently, the dogma of “diversity” now prescribes standards of beauty as well, clearly designed to promote miscegenation. In my own experience, black-white unions only seldom produce even arguably attractive offspring, and more often produce children that are ugly to the point of grotesque. What’s worse, is that these children are very often conscious of and resentful of their appearance, and all the politically correct assurances about “physical attractiveness” in the world can’t convince them otherwise.
Oh, and to add a nifty informational tidbit that I forget to mention in my previous post - that part about there being 7 million interracial children in the US? That’s a lie.
There are 7 million interracial people in the US, as of the 2000 census. Not children alone.
Using examples like such as Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, President Obama or Formula race car driver Lewis Hamilton is deceiving.
Directly to the south of the United States is the biggest concentration of mulattos on earth, in Central America and the Caribbean, from Mexico and Cuba on down to Brazil.
Being mulatto imparts no advantages, except when you are taken into the white world and given exceptional mentoring by doting whites.
I still have to ask, is a Justice of the Peace FORCED to marry ANYONE! Is there a law stating if someone comes to get married a JP HAS to marry them, or CANNOT REFUSE? I’m sure Keith Bardwell knows the answer to that and, by his calm demeanor and shoulder-shrugging of the entire stupid debacle,knows he’s within his right. If so, what is the ACLU going to do to “punish” him? How would they “FORCE” him to resign if he did not choose to and has broken no law? I hope Mr. Bardwell hold his ground and thumbs his nose at all this hypocritical hype.
“The idea that mixed-race children were biologically inferior to white or black kids was also widespread in the South, and often formed the basis of anti-miscegenation laws during Jim Crow years. (Researchers have found that not only is that not true, but that mixed-race offspring tend to be overall more physically attractive than their peers.)”
The real world is much different than the one you have created in your own mind.
Let’s hope this guy stands strong. There is nothing wrong with an interracial couple having to jump through a few extra hoops to get married. 9 times out of 10, it DOESN’T work out. This guy has put a lot on the line, and deserves to be commended. (actually, while dreaming about utopian schemes like a white homeland, it would be good if pro-white activists worked to get themselves elected to local offices like this, it would give them a potential platform.)
Regardless of whether we might agree with the JP’s reasoning, I don’t think this is a good issue for us. We should support the right of people to choose who they do and don’t want to live around. And oppose the right of government officials to make that decision for individual citizens.
Justice Bardwell is very courageous for standing up for his beliefs in the face of great evil. His explanation, however, is a politically correct one and tainted. It implies that if mulatto children faced no social stigma, then it would be perfectly alright to race mix in this fashion. The fact that the overwhelming proportion of such couples involves a white woman and a black man shows that more is at work here than just “love”. Those women are being propagandized from cradle to grave in every insidious way imaginable. Given this fact, it can reasonably be argued that many white women who choose black men are not even exercising free will. Indeed, they are like members of a cult who have been brainwashed.
A US survey on the victims of crime shows that biracial persons are at much greater risk of violence than single race persons.
This violence occurs at the hands of relatives, acquaintances and strangers:
Victimization rate by victim-offender relationship, by type of crime and selected victim characteristics - Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 and over:
Victims of crimes of violence by relatives:
Victims of crimes of violence by persons well known to the victim:
Victims of crimes of violence by casual acquaintances:
Victims of crimes of violence by strangers:
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tableshttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf
There seem to be a lot of problems with mixed race (black/white) children compared with single race children:
“Strikingly, on fifteen out of the twentyone variables relating to bad behavior mixed race adolescents exhibit worse behavior than both of their single race counterparts. Behavior at school by mixed race adolescents generally mirrors that of blacks, except with regard to exerting effort and skipping school – two dimensions on which mixed race children are significantly worse than blacks. The bad behavior of mixed race children stands out even more clearly outside of school. With the exception of watching television (which blacks do more of), mixed race adolescents are the worst or essentially tied for worst on every other behavior considered. This is true whether the risky behaviors are those more common to whites (e.g. drinking and smoking) or to blacks (e.g. sex and violence). Mixed race adolescents roughly occupy the lower envelope of good behaviors of blacks and whites. In a similar manner Choi et al (2006), using data from four middle schools in Seattle, WA, find that multi-racial adolescents are at greater risk for substance abuse.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/MR%20KIDS%207.1.08.pdf
Some mixed race children do even better than single race children but when it comes to the children of black/white couples they seem to be at a disadvantage:
“Powell and his colleague Simon Cheng at the University of Connecticut found one exception to the “biracial advantage.” Black father/white mother families tend to invest fewer resources into kids than do black monoracial couples and white monoracial couples.” http://www.livescience.com/health/070423_biracial_parents.html
The author defends miscegenation with a spurious, absurd study ‘proving’ that mixed race children are better looking.
The truth is buried near the end of the article: a recent study showing that mixed kids are more likely to have psychological problems and engage in reckless behavior. The study was conducted by p.c. Harvard so it’s likely they watered down the damning findings.
To hell with the children argument. The real reason intelligent whites don’t marry non-whites is because it causes genocide of the white genotype. The false and harmful belief that miscegenation is not harmful is the modern version of the belief in a flat Earth.
God—the real God, not the phony do your own thing god invented by humans—is against miscegenation because it stops evolution and creates devolution.
Actually, there is a biracial advantage: It’s called affirmative action. Universities and employers love mulattos: they’re black enough to count in diversity statistics, yet more intelligent and adept at interacting with whites than their full-black peers. The truth is, there aren’t many intelligent blacks to go around; colleges and corporations have to fight it out over the small pool of minimally qualified blacks. If you’re an intelligent, law abiding mullatto you have a huge advantage in obtaining admission at an elite university or obtaining a position at a high-profile employer over better qualified whites.
Miscegenation has had some good outcomes and some which are less so. Good outcomes include Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Halle Berry and Philippa Schuyler. Less positive outcomes include India, Egypt, Brazil, Haiti and most of the rest of Latin America.
From reading through this Harvard report myself, I see that it’s a growing demographic who seem very troubled, are academically in between Blacks and Whites but in terms of anti social behavior worse than Blacks.
As Waspy has also done, snippets from the report… http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/MR%20KIDS%207.1.08.pdf
Page 5.
Page 13.
Page 14.
Page 15.
Page 22.
……on the subject of mixed race people being more attractive, to you the jury I present exhibit A.http://tinyurl.com/6jtguf (Mulatto Picture Gallery)
I have knwon quite a few black white mixes, and yes, they are often strikingly attractive - i.e., more so than either parent.
If this is news as AMREN; then all I can say is, you people need to get out a lot more.
My mixed race friends had no problems in white middle class neighborhoods, but lots of problems in black hoods - and I wouldn’t recommend working class Irish hoods either.
The blacks hated them because they tended to be more attractive and smarter than their black peers.
Actually, biracial individuals are more attractive than monoracial individuals. The main reason why biracial individuals are more attract is that they are more symmetrical, and symmetry is one of the most important determinants of attractiveness. When you guys deny the higher average attractiveness of biracial individuals, you act like the liberals who deny the evidence for racial differences in intelligence.
With that said, black-white biracial individuals are significantly less intelligent than pure whites or pure Asians, but significantly more intelligent than blacks (pretty good evidence for genetic differences in intelligence, eh?). In our world, intelligence is far more important than attractiveness, so mulattoes do not have any net advantages over pure whites.
Well, I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that the black male in this situation is actually “buying the cow” so to speak. The usual series of events in a BM/WF relationship is for the BM to knock the WF up without first marrying her, then abandon her shortly after the birth of the child, leaving her and her parents to care for it.
7 — Anonymous wrote at 7:33 PM on October 22:
Just because they’ve been made rich and famous doesn’t change anything.
I’ve seen fawning reporters call Obama a “handsome hunk”. What silly fools! Can they genuinely believe that stuff? Would they be saying it if he were not the president? No way could I ever agree with that. He has a genial personality with a good speaking voice, that’s the most I can say. But good looks? Never!
“The American Civil Liberties Union is now threatening a lawsuit if Mr. Bardwell, veteran justice of the peace at Tangipahoa Parish, doesn’t step down”
Here is the wikipedia bio for the founder of the ACLU Roger Baldwin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose—the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.”
Why should this acknowledged, communist enemy of the United States intimidate anyone. No self-respecting white man should bow down to these infiltrators.
Gee Tiger Woods, Obama etc. are good looking? Give me a break! Take Heidi Klum for instance. She is married to a black man, Seal…now tell me her mulatto kids are better looking because of it! Mixed race children all favor the darker parent, so how can that make for a better looking/brighter person? But we all know WHO does these types of “studies” and why…..
“(Researchers have found that not only is that not true, but that mixed-race offspring tend to be overall more physically attractive than their peers.)”
That’s a completely subjective statement, nothing more. And unsupported by anything!
How does this nonsense pass for journalism? This isn’t reporting; this is propaganda and special pleading.
Well, one thing is clear though — the reporter is obviously “mixed-race”.
The only people that even look twice at bi-racial children anymore are those of us over 50. The subsequent generations are so brainwashed that they think it’s absolutely fine.
“His explanation, however, is a politically correct one and tainted. It implies that if mulatto children faced no social stigma, then it would be perfectly alright to race mix in this fashion.” j.a.y.
I like your analysis of this, and you’re right. He doesn’t take any moral position of his own. He just claims to be concerned for the kids. And why? —- Because society is racist and hasn’t learned to accept this sort of thing. Yet. It’s not that HE disapproves. Oh, heavens no!
Poster #11 RandyB gets it right. This is about freedom of association, which we all want, and about a government agent who wants to interfere in private relationships. We don’t want the government telling us who we can live sell our house to, or force us to bus our children for the sake of integration. Interracial marriage and children, unwise as they are, is not the issue. It’s hard to believe that AR posters who rightly resent affirmative action and the like, suddenly favor high-handed interference in private lives from this JP.
18 — elitist wrote:
If this is news as AMREN; then all I can say is, you people need to get out a lot more.
I get out A LOT. I have seen plenty of mixes. And I have never seen whatever examples you have in mind.
Just go to to Brazil or the Dominican Republic; you’ll see all the mixed-breeds you want — but hardly ever a good-looking one. Of course, that depends on what is your concept of good-looks. (I don’t deny that a very rare exception can occur. But they are the anomalies, not the rule.)
And yes, elitist, we “rabid racists” have heard of hybrid vigor, but that applies between SPECIES, and it dwindles after the first generation. It’s used by geneticists in purposeful crosses between purebred parents, intentionally bred to create or enhance certain characteristics, not in random matings of an already hodgepodge population.
(I recall a Puerto Rican woman in knew in New York, who had lived there for many years. She went to P.R. on vacation, and on returning she made the disparaging remark that she “never saw a single good-looker, not even one”. I would never have made a comment like that, but that struck me as significant because it was coming from HER!)
15 — Anonymous wrote at 1:04 AM on October 23:
I have written here before, speculating on a future world where race-mixing will be promoted or mandated in some way by government, either through laws or by more subtle inducements and temptations, such as tax reductions, child allowances, housing preferences, scholarships, promotions, etc. The carrot or the stick, in other words.
I see now that I was mistaken and naive in assigning those speculations to the future. We already have it right now, at least the start of it.
White people contemplating marriage will think twice whether their future children (if pure white) will be shunted aside in all walks of life and will end up as janitors behind a broom. On the other hand, if they opt to marry colored, their children will be given all the best and will enjoy all the preferences that society can confer, eventually holding high-paid jobs and prestigious social positions. Many whites will stop and think twice and will find this option tempting.
In the meantime, we can be sure that mixed-breeds such as Obama and Holder will do everything in their power to encourage it. In fact, their example alone will be sufficient to convince many gullible whites that colored kids is the way to go.
“I have known quite a few black white mixes, and yes, they are often strikingly attractive - i.e., more so than either parent. If this is news as AMREN; then all I can say is, you people need to get out a lot more”.
I heard it said once, and I hadn’t noticed it before, that female offspring of the white/black marriage are usually very attractive, but male offspring are usually unattractive. My own son is quite attractive, thank you.
I’ve seen two mixed-race people in my life that could be considered reasonably attractive. Both were half-Northern Asian, both with very fair parents. Both children were very light skinned with the red glow of Europeans. But every single other case of half-Asians turn out producing very bizarre and upsetting looking children.
Elitist: Perhaps you rabid egalitarians should get out and look at the world. I haven’t noticed much hybrid vigor in Mexico. As for beauty, it’s certainly in the eye of the beholder. Yet it seems that beholders worldwide view light hair, eyes and complexions as attractive. Mixing will destroy that beauty. Genocide isn’t pretty.
Some biracial children grow up to look like supermodels, or they look at least ok. Some look really unusual and will always be ostracized by both races. It could go either way. Why take a chance? There are many blacks and other races who agree…why is that never mentioned?
This is a no win situation now for this Judge. He should just retire. He will never win against the ACLU.
And if he is sued civily, then just file bankruptcy and they get nothing.
The fact that he has refused to marry interracial couples in the past and hasn’t been attacked, is amazing.
I agree with poster # 27. The JOTP is a moron to be exact. He is only “concerned” about the children? Of course. He has to prove he is not racist, you see.
Yet he also claims he has many black friends who come over to his home and he socializes with them often. Of course he is not racist. He has the racial PC mentality that so many Whites do nowadays. They see nothing wrong with desegregation, civil rights, the repeal of the miscegenation law, mixing with blacks etc.
I will bet my bottom dollar that this was a set-up as to sue and bring attention to this issue and to condemn any White that has a problem with this. This “couple” knew of this guys stance on not marrying bi-racial couples “for the sake of the children” and this is WHY they went to him in the first place. Quit buying into the devils handbook.
Thank you GenX for the photo gallery of mulatto’s.
It only proves that the mixed race children ALWAYS picks up the darker parents genetics and looks.. The only thing I can see that is a plus is that very FEW seem to have a “White” nose. That is it. Is it worth it to throw away thousands of years of preserving White genes for that? Hardly. I believe Amren has a few articles in it’s archives that one should check out.
Not so, Shawn (#26)! I’m an early-twenties woman of Germanic descent, and I am always uncomfortable in the presence of half-breeds. Every time I see one of my peers (white women) with a non-white man, I shudder inwardly. It almost feels as though a part of myself has been violated.
This is not to say that miscegenation isn’t more commonly accepted today — I don’t know many other people of my age group who feel as I do. However, don’t give up on us entirely. If I could become racially conscious before hitting 30 (born to liberal parents and educated in a liberal college — need I say more?), I’m sure there are many others who are doing the same.
“Actually, biracial individuals are more attractive than monoracial individuals. The main reason why biracial individuals are more attract is that they are more symmetrical, and symmetry is one of the most important determinants of attractiveness. When you guys deny the higher average attractiveness of biracial individuals, you act like the liberals who deny the evidence for racial differences in intelligence.”
I agree there are some attractive biracial people in the media and on the street but overall I find most of them to be average to alien in looks. Halle Berry is considered beautiful but she had a nose job, she has type 2 diabetes and her hair is fake. I don’t consider unhealthy and fake to be beautiful. Her octaroon child is alien in appearance as I find most octaroons to be. I have seen many unattractive amerasians too. Another thing I have noticed is kids who have light skin but dark teeth because one parent is white and the other parent is a dark caucasian.
Actually, biracial individuals are more attractive than monoracial individuals. The main reason why biracial individuals are more attract is that they are more symmetrical, and symmetry is one of the most important determinants of attractiveness. —Posted by “John” at 4:57 AM on October 23
This “factoid” is apparently based on a grand total of one purported study, published, or more accurately “publicized,” by one Jay Phelan of UCLA in 2002: “Study indicates mixed race, physical symmetry correlate” http://tinyurl.com/yks9vt2. The premise of Prof. Phelan’s “study,” however -that facial symmetry is a strong determiner of physical attractiveness, let alone his claim that so-called “biracial” individuals in fact have more “facial symmetry” than monoracial individuals-, appears unfounded:
“The results of our symmetry experiments show a clear but only weak relationship between facial attractiveness and symmetry: very asymmetrical faces are rated unattractive, but unattractive faces don’t need to be asymmetrical. Vice versa, very symmetrical faces don’t need to be very attractive, and very attractive faces may show remarkable deviations from ideally symmetrical proportions. In summary, symmetry seems only to be a weak factor to explain facial attractiveness. “ http://tinyurl.com/yhuaxvv
I have knwon quite a few black white mixes, and yes, they are often strikingly attractive - i.e., more so than either parent. If this is news as AMREN; then all I can say is, you people need to get out a lot more.hybrid vigor. —Posted by “elitist” at 3:31 AM on October 23
If you are trying to invoke the biological hypothesis of “heterozygote advantage,” assuming you are truly familiar with the concept, you would know (and people here should know) that such “advantage” has been demonstrated only in specific cases, such as sickle cell anemia, for example, not as an over-arching and universal biological principle.
Regardless of what “hybrid vigor” means though, such “vigor” is manifestly not synonymous with “physical attractiveness,” and you have shown no necessary correlation between the two. Even if you think mixed race people attractive, you needn’t pretend there is some objective scientific principle underpinning your personal preference.
I wonder what criteria they used to determine that mixed race children were more attractive than either parent? Did a group of liberals get to together and decide this because it suits their agenda? I can remember when Hollywood designated Halle Berry the most beautiful actress even though there were far more prettier White women than her. It didn’t stop there either. They had to constantly keep reinforcing it in the media over a period of months. If someone really is beautiful you don’t have to constantly remind people of it, they’ll just know it. I firmly believe that if they had put another actress with more sex appeal in that movie “Catwoman” it never would have flopped. Michelle Pfeiffer played an incredible looking Catwoman in “Batman Returns” and would have been amply suited for the role, although she was probably too old by the time the movie went into production. The same fawning occurred over our resident mulatto in the White House. I was nauseated at all the people in the media talking about how good looking he is even though he could have played the lead vampire in that old “Salem’s Lot” movie.
My thoughts:
The marriage should have been permitted. Any northwest European woman who would willingly bed down with a black deserves nothing but the sharply negative consequences she will certainly feel as a result in the long-run. Plus, why would a race want to keep an individual who would do such a disgusting thing anyway? Let her leave and suffer the consequences…
On the idea of ‘biracial advantage’: Extreme outbreeding is just as negative as extreme inbreeding. The ideal mate is someone who is geneticall close, but not a relative. The whole notion that these crosses are somehow ‘superior’ is complete nonsense. Even though I am totally unconvinced that these crosses are somehow ‘more attractive,’ on average, that would be a very poor argument even if it were true; the most important trait today for getting ahead is not ‘attractiveness’, it is intelligence. And on that critical trait, these crosses will, of course, display an ‘in-between’ average intelligence, lower than the average for the high-scoring race, and higher than the average for the low-scoring race. A few exceptions to the contrary do not contradict the observed RULE that these mixes display lower average intelligence than average for the higher-scoring race. How can that possibly be a ‘superior’ result?
“I heard it said once, and I hadn’t noticed it before, that female offspring of the white/black marriage are usually very attractive, but male offspring are usually unattractive.
“I will bet my bottom dollar that this was a set-up as to sue and bring attention to this issue and to condemn any White that has a problem with this. This “couple” knew of this guys stance on not marrying bi-racial couples “for the sake of the children” and this is WHY they went to him in the first place.”
It reminds me also of that recent incident at the private pool in Philadelphia, where the club manager turned out to be in fact a big supporter of Obama and a promoter of racial integration.
“The premise of Prof. Phelan’s “study,” however -that facial symmetry is a strong determiner of physical attractiveness, let alone his claim that so-called “biracial” individuals in fact have more “facial symmetry” than monoracial individuals-, appears unfounded.”
Sorry, I think I’ll believe my own eyes rather than them.
34 — Anonymous wrote at 12:46 PM on October 23:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those very rare ones who do look good are grabbed up and made into movie stars and supermodels. Those are the ones we see shoved before us. But in real life, you see very few Halle Berrys or Harry Belafontes out there on the street.
The exception to the rule does not prove anything
For those still interested in the question of so-called “hybrid vigor” as applied to humans, my research has turned up a 1967 study out of Hawaii by Newton E. Morton, Chin S. Chung and Ming-Pi Mi entitled “Genetics of interracial crosses in Hawaii,” described as “a large, well-designed study of interracial crosses in Hawaii, [which] found no significant beneficial effects among the offspring of an inter-racial cross when compared to offspring whose parents were from the same racial group .” http://tinyurl.com/ykqgsef There is no study which I could find that meaningfully contradicted this study’s conclusions, except for a small number of cases - such as the relationship of homozygotes vs. heterozygotes to sickle cell disease-, and certainly no study concluding from data that human mixed race individuals display overall “hybrid vigor.”
Given the persistence and indeed conscious promotion of myths that mixed race individuals are better adapted genetically or more physically attractive (with the transparent goal of encouraging miscegenation among well-meaning whites), it is all the more important to emphasize that a reputedly well designed scientific study which specifically tested this hypothesis not only failed to confirm it, but specifically concluded that on the contrary there were “no significant benefits” genetically from such race-mixing.
Historama says: “the most important trait today for getting ahead is not ‘attractiveness’, it is intelligence.”
The judge claims mulatto kids suffer… Probably true but as I see it not nearly as much as the manifold amount of white people in a white area that now (must) accept Susy’s “o so cute little mullatto boy” she came home from college with. And the previously white elementary school that will now be introduced to the little dark ‘prince’ that will have his pick of higher evolved white girls to chose from.”to their fathers horror”.. in parallel with the anti white propaganda taught these little kids in the name of justice. Genetic competition has subtle forms…When white people openly prefer the intimate company of other whites its now called Hitlerish and anti Christian racism.. But when A black man removes himself completely from other blacks including a mate he’s considered open minded and tolerant. Funny …why isn’t it racism when a black prefers intimate company with whites? This judge is trying to up hold natural order in a world that has temporarily forsaken it.
Two points. One, all mixed race persons are not alike. There’s a huge difference between White and one of the Asian races, and black and anything else. Two, and more importantly, any mixed race person is not White, and will, in our society, work against the continuation and betterment of the White race.
50 — Petrarch wrote —- “The judge claims mulatto kids suffer… Probably true, but
This casual and unquestioning acceptance of race-mixing and its side products ties in with the general decline of morality that we have seen over the post 40 years since the “civil rights” era. It’s no coincidence that acceptance of immoral behavior has accompanied acceptance of integration. They go hand in hand.
I am speaking of “single mothers”, “one parent families”, and all the other careful euphemisms that have been invented to avoid confronting harsh reality with blunt terms. The English language has old, old terminology that covers the topic of children conceived out of wedlock (even aside from the racial aspect) and the language was candid in its condemnation. But words such as bastard and trollop are no longer used in this “kinder, gentler” age. No, not all “bastards” are mulattoes, but it seems that most mulattos are “bastards”. Why is that? So, to accept one, we have to be conditioned to accept the other.
In another time, not so long ago, Suzy would have gone off quietly somewhere for a “vacation”; then she would have given up her little half-breed for adoption and the matter would never have been mentioned again. Now, she proundly brings her little Obama home to mommy and daddy (who will end up raising it, while she runs off with another non-white), and the whole community is supposed to applaud and coo over how cute and talented the little fellow is. Any slightest word or sign of disappoval would be considered “racisss”. Horrors! Shame on YOU, not on HER.
Ah, how far we’ve fallen!
Anonymous:
Along with what you say about “bastard,” (though I think we’ve buried the term b/c it blames the child for the behavior of his or her parents, though “bastardy,” another passe word, has the same sting for the parents, but does not blame the offspring), I have noticed that the words “bachelor” and “divorcee” have similarly disappeared (save a few TV show titles). I think the reason why words like that were used once upon a time was to heap subtle shame on those adults who were either not yet married or divorced, to enshrine marriage as the normal state of being. Now, in both cases, “single” is the word we’re supposed to use. I think it goes hand in hand with the decline of marriage.
I have noticed that the words “bachelor” and “divorcee” have similarly disappeared (save a few TV show titles).
Our whole language is being re-written for us. How kind of them! Were we ever consulted about this? And who are “they”?
I thought ACLU was supposed to protect civil rights. If a judge doesn’t want to grant a marriage license, then they can somewhere else. A judge doesn’t have to grant a marriage license anymore than a lawyer has to take on a case that he finds morally reprehensible.
Keith Bardwell is an elected official and can’t be forced out by anyone. If he doesn’t wish to marry interracial couples, that’s his perogative and his actions will be judged by the voters in his re-election bid. This is along the same lines as a doctor refusing to perform an abortion because he finds it morally repulsive.
I saw a black man on Jerry Springer married to a psychotic white woman who was basically a baby machine. He for some reason loved her, but refused to have sex because she was trying to get pregnant. He stated that he didn’t want to bring any mixed-race children into the world. He sounded sensible and no one argued with him. Why is it wrong for a white person to make the same statement?
