Thursday, February 7, 2019

IDW vs Loving vs Virginia

To demonstrate how lazy - or mendacious - the IDW is, one need only read Razib Khan's Areo article in which he alleges that:
In the United States one hundred years ago, segregation was a fact of law, and there were black Americans and white Americans. Today, it is not a fact of law—and there are black Americans and white Americans. There was no scientific difference between then and now. There has been a historical and moral process of change and development.
 and then consider all he had to do was read Wikipedia's article on Loving v Virginia.

Khan compares the segregation system of a hundred years ago to now, which is odd considering that:
In 1967, 16 states, mainly Southern, still had anti-miscegenation laws.[6]
So fifty-two years ago sixteen states were so opposed to black and white people having children together they had laws against it, and as the Loving case demonstrated were fully prepared to enforce the law.

And you have to wonder what exactly Khan is trying to say with the statement that "there was no scientific difference between then and now" when, as Wikipedia reports:
After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States[39] and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.[40] At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,[41] 12% in 2013,[42] and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after Loving.[43]
So in other words, contrary to Khan's suggesting that the issue is "historical and moral process" in contrast to the persistence of racial categories, in fact the historical and moral process does lead to more sexual interactions - and presumably children - between people designated as "black" and those designated as "white."

And the fluidity of "race" identification is demonstrated by Mildred Loving herself:
During the trial, it seemed clear that she identified herself as black, especially as far as her own lawyer was concerned. However, upon her arrest, the police report identifies her as "Indian". She said in a 2004 interview, "I have no black ancestry. I am Indian-Rappahannock." A possible contributing factor is that it was seen at the time of her arrest as advantageous to be "anything but black". There was an ingrained history in the state of the denial of African ancestry.[8] 
How easy to counter Khan's implication that segregation was only an issue one hundred years ago.

Could Razib Khan really be that careless? Or is the article part of the IDW project to erase African American history?

No comments:

Post a Comment