One of the interesting themes I noticed in Romano's "Race Mixing" is her analysis of interracial marriage as a political act. It seems that in the earlier period of her book (1940s and 1950s), whites considered interracial marriage political, but by the late 1960s, it was the Black Power supporters who saw such marriages as inherently political.
How do you think Romano's subject matter (and time period?) gives her a different understanding of the political framework of marriage from the more metaphorical politicization of marriage that we've talked about in relation to Republican wives, monogamy, consent laws, etc.?
Related: Where do you think American ideas about the right to privacy come from?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
One thing I thought interesting in the book Race Mixing were the films mentioned that were meant to be sympathetic if not to interracial marriage, at least to racial desegregation. These films all came about after World War II, which seems to indicate that despite wartime attempts to prevent African-Americans from seeing battle and thus seeing glory, people still began to recognize that their contributions to the wartime effort were important to the war effort.
To me, the brief mention of the musical South Pacific was striking. It was written in 1949, and yet it remains popular today in the form of national theatrical tours and two films. When I saw the 1958 film for the first time, I was impressed that such a "modern" issue of prejudice was being addressed in a time period notorious for its conservative, backward-looking efforts. As the book mentions, it includes a relationship between a white lieutenant and a Polynesian woman during WWII. However the book doesn't mention that there was also a relationship between Emile, a widowed Frenchman, and Nellie, a southern member of the Women's Army Corps. There is an issue of race addressed in their relationship as well. The Frenchman had been previously married to a Polynesian woman and had two children with her. Nellie has no problem with the children themselves when she first encounters them, until she realizes that they were actually Emile's children by interracial marriage. This realization causes her to draw away from her relationship for quite some time out of fear and confusion caused by her southern upbringing. These feelings of prejudice, overcome at the end of the musical, were addressed in the song "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" by Rodgers and Hammerstein:
"You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—
You’ve got to be carefully taught
You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade—
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late—
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate—
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
You’ve got to be carefully taught!"
These biting words of criticism were included in a musical written a mere ten years after the classic film Gone with the Wind, which romanticized class and race differences. This indicates to me that Race Mixing's theory of the War's effect on race relations was correct in the respect that media, if not politicians, embraced a new point of view towards minorities. Their depictions had become more like people and less like the caricatures of the past.
On another note, though, I thought it interesting that this push for desegregation and equal rights for black men did not occur similarly for women after the war, in spite of their efforts. Though women were not engaged in combat during WWII, many women were involved in the war effort at home, and more immediately, involved in the Women's Army Corps on the front lines.
I thought an interesting essence of the politicized nature of interracial marriage was that the more leftist the persons were, the more accepting the people were of the marriage. It seems as though the farther individuals got from a political norm, the more polarized their views were. I think though that Romano spends too much time trying to validate the marriages beyond political reasons. I'm sure that the majority of marriages that took place weren't for political reasons, but Romano tends to paint ones that did occur for political reasons in a harsher tone.
On the related note, I think that the right to privacy came out of the individual nature of Americans. Instead of a traditional system of hierarchy from peasant to ruler, the "free" man had economic and political control of himself and his family. Through this control and rugged independence, Americans became much more private individuals.
What I found most striking was that the arguments used during both of these periods of politicization, first by whites and then by blacks, were quite similar. Both pointed to the deterioration of their racial purity and the loss of their distinctive culture and way of life. Whites said that the pure and superior race would be dirtied and diluted by the interference of blacks. They used intermarriage as a way of scaring other whites into opposing other forms of social integration such as the end of school segregation. Intermarriage was the most tragic and deleterious fate that could befall the white race. Similarly, in the black power period blacks began to fervently separate themselves from white culture through self-segregation and strong rhetoric. They also framed interracial marriage as the worst fate for their race arguing that it was a submission to the oppressive white forces and it would cause black culture top be lost and homogenized. Those who chose to marry across race lines during these periods of politicization were race traitors and thus left without any form of social support. I find it extremely interesting that the argument went both was and was used just as effectively by the opposing forces.
As for Romano's more explicitly politicized rendering of the situation in contrast to some of the other marraige texts we've read, it seems that the degree of social and chronological difference is very significant. When forced to live in the politicized sphere it is something that is more concrete and causes the text to rely and draw more strongly on political arguments. I think this also leads to Romano's more biased arguments that many in class found annoying. Because the issue is not removed from her life, her point of view becomes more pronounced.
Romano talks about the ideas of interracial marriage as something that was done in a very political way, whether it was during the 40’s and 50’s or later on in the 60’s and 70’s. However I feel that this isn’t accounting for the overall group of interracial couples. While some may have understood the political implications of their marriages, I don’t feel that every interracial couple married with a political mindset. That being said, it appears that each individual couple was confronted with very politicized issues once they did marry because there were strongly opposing positions on both sides of the racial divide that were telling them that their marriage was wrong. I think that the issue of interracial marriage was more politicized than that of previous issues concerning marriage, i.e. consent laws, Republican wives, monogamy and such. This is because the issue of interracial marriage forces the society to deal with not only the deterioration of the racial divides set in place but also a crucial alteration of the marriage system. These are two of the most important social structures in American society at this time and interracial marriage challenges both of them. Which is why I feel that the issue of interracial marriage is so highly politicized.
Thanks, Beth, for the interesting parallel. I think you can chalk it up to yet another attempt by Hollywood to usher in a more gentle and harmonious resolution to social (or in this case, racial) tensions.
Only Claire took a stab at privacy! I think the frontier-thesis explanation of rugged individualism is certainly a part of the right to privacy. My impression is that there are no laws, at least in terms of statute law, actually governing privacy, but that this has been a matter carved out by the judiciary. For example, the recent Supreme Court case on the illegality of sodomy in Texas (Lawrence v. Texas) ruled not on the legality of homosexuality, but the right to privacy within one's own home.
This was also a reason given by many interracial couples in response to laws governing marriage - they argue that marriage is a private choice, outside of the realm of the government. Yet as we saw in the nineteenth century, marriage - who was doing it and whether or not they could divorce - was seen as directly connected to the stability of the nation. Polygamy, argued its opponents, could bring down democracy.
By the 1950s, that argument no longer held water . . . until gay marriage revives it.
I think that is interesting how Romano showed interracial marriage as a mostly political act, mainly because those who were actually engaging in such marriages were not shown as getting married in order to make a statement or prove a political point, but because they wanted to. The subject matter most likely gives Romano a different understanding of the political framework of marriage than what we've talked about before because much of the movements for/against black/white marriage came during the broader time period of the push for civil rights in general, which was highly connected to the political sphere.
By connecting the ideas of marriage to the broader political spectrum, Romano is able to portray an effect of interracial marriages on political messages while connecting them to privacy. I think a lot of American ideas about the right to privacy stemmed from the American Revolution and how the British soldiers were given basically free reign over the colonists' homes and property. You can see evidence of how the American forefathers wanted to protect the citizen's privacy and property in the Bill of Rights, and these ideas are continued through the separation of the home from the public spaces during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
I want to adress our understanding of privacy which has risen as we have turned away from the idea of a "community" in the pursuit of constitutionaly gaurunteed happiness and the individuals pursuit. I would atribut the individualism to the rise of private corperation and civil rights.
Most imediately Roe comes to mind when consulting the modern americans understanding to where the state can and cannot go into a persons personal health, family, and religious systems.
In this sense the depoliticizing of multiracial couples is related to the american demand that government deinvest themselves in the private lives of americans (read reagan's "anti big government campaign).
Post a Comment