A few weeks ago, as I was teaching East of Eden, I ended up explaining why one of the characters, a Chinese American man who goes by the name "Lee" never married. And one of the things I contextualized for my students was in the time of the novel, the first two decades of the 20th Century, Lee's marriage choices would have been severely curtailed because of two legal restrictions: the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which effectively barred Chinese immigration to the U.S., and anti-miscegenation (anti-inter-racial marriage laws), which effectively prevented Chinese men from marrying outside of their ethnic group.
My students had not heard the word miscegenation, so I had to explain what that meant, and then began the line of questioning: which states had these laws and when were they repealed. They seemed genuinely surprised when I told them that Loving v. Virginia finally abolished all such laws in the nation in 1967, and I reminded them that just because it was now legal for two people of two different races to marry, that it wasn't socially acceptable among some communities and families. For example in Alabama and Mississippi, there are some high schools that have two proms, a white prom and a black prom (and a few years ago a High School principal made national news for barring an inter-racial couple from attending one of these proms--although I can't remember whether it was the white or black prom they were barred from).
And I mention all this because my students were just shocked and surprised. I suppose some could say that they are naive. But at 18 and 19, what college student isn't? My own spin is that they have grown up in a world where they take certain things for granted, and inter-racial relationships seems to be one of these things that they just don't think about (or at least didn't seem to bat an eye at in class).
And it's times like these that I wish I lived in California--and I'm not trying to wax rhapsodic about my former home, only that the opportunities to learn about and celebrate and discuss mixed-race issues seem to be more prevalent in this state than in any others I've lived in (maybe with the exception of NYC, but NYC has EVERYTHING, right?--I'm throwing that out there for all my NYC friends who think it's the center of the universe).
Anyway, this is where I put in my plug for the SECOND MIXED-ROOTS FILM AND LITERARY FESTIVAL in Los Angeles (click here for the link). The festival is taking place June 12-13, 2009 at the Japanese American National Museum. I was invited to participate, but unfortunately I'm committed to going to another conference. But I'm *hoping* to make it there next summer for the third festival. Because from what I've heard and read about this group, a third (and fourth, and tenth, and thirtieth) festival is much needed and much desired.
Finally, let me close with a YouTube Clip of Kip Fulbeck, the recipient of the Loving prize at last year's festival. This is a series of 3 different media clips put together about Fulbeck and his work--it's about 10 minutes long, but it's worth watching, especially the last two minutes where Fulbeck does his spoken word piece "Speaking Up."
Showing posts with label anti-miscegenation laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-miscegenation laws. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Friday, May 16, 2008
Doing the right thing: a history of California's marriage laws
I was all set to write a post about the Cable Act (will return to this in a moment) when I heard the great news last night that the California Supreme Court overruled a previous ban prohibiting gay marriage.
[This is Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who were joined as "spouses for life" at SF City Hall on February 12, 2004. Unfortunately, their union was nullified in August 2004 by the California Supreme Court. But thanks to yesterday's ruling, their marriage will once again be validated by the State of California.]
When Gavin Newsom was interviewed on CNN and asked why the Supreme Court could do this when the majority of voters in California had approved a state law in 2000 codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman, Newsom invoked California's anti-miscegenation laws of the 19th and early 20th C. and quite astutely noted that if Californians were polled in 1948 about whether they approved of marriage between people of two different races, a majority would have voted in favor of prohibiting miscegenation/inter-racial marriage. Yet clearly history has shown that the will of the majority does not always make things right, and that legally the RIGHT thing to do was to abolish such laws--to allow people to marry whoever they want.
And this is SO TRUE.
Once upon a time, there were anti-miscegenations laws that prohibited marriage between people of different races. Actually, it was more specific than that. Most anti-miscegenation laws didn't really care if African Americans married Latinos or if American Indians married Asian Americans (or, if we are going to keep to the language of the 19th and early 20th C., they didn't care if blacks married Mexicans or if Navajos married Chinese). Instead, the majority of laws were specifically designed to ensure white purity and to punish any transgressions of white Americans crossing the color line.
One of the most shocking results of this adherence to the color line was in the Cable Act (1922-1936):
The important point to note in this quote is that the ONLY race and hence only aliens "ineligible for citizenship" were Asian immigrants--which in this time period meant predominantly Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indian people. Thus, our country's earliest anti-miscegenation laws specifically targeted Asians--using not just the Cable Act but anti-miscegenation laws to prevent Asians and whites from marrying.
Thankfully, as Mayor Newsom pointed out, the Supreme Court of California was wise enough in 1948 to realize how unlawful anti-miscegenation laws are:
[For more on a timeline of events that influenced inter-racial marriages, click on this link, which is the same site that I found the quotations above.]
And if it hadn't been for the repeal of The Cable Act in 1936 and California's anti-miscegenation laws in 1948 (and the repeal of the nation's anti-miscegenation laws in 1967), we never would have a family like Jon and Kate plus eight (you have to imagine that in the mid-1930s this image would have scared the hell out of some folks. Actually, I'm sure this image scares the hell out of some folks now).
Most rational folk take for granted inter-racial marriages. Even people who wouldn't necessarily want their son/daughter to marry across the racial divide would be hesitant to turn back Loving vs. Virginia, understanding marriage to be a private affair between two consenting adults.
And I hope that one day in the not so distant future, this is the attitude our society will have about same-sex marriage. That the whole idea that once-upon-a-time people actually tried to pass laws restricting marriage on the basis of sexual orientation or gender was LUDICROUS and THANK GOODNESS we no longer live in the late 20th C. when such draconian and antiquated ideas about love and marriage were in place.
[This is Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who were joined as "spouses for life" at SF City Hall on February 12, 2004. Unfortunately, their union was nullified in August 2004 by the California Supreme Court. But thanks to yesterday's ruling, their marriage will once again be validated by the State of California.]
When Gavin Newsom was interviewed on CNN and asked why the Supreme Court could do this when the majority of voters in California had approved a state law in 2000 codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman, Newsom invoked California's anti-miscegenation laws of the 19th and early 20th C. and quite astutely noted that if Californians were polled in 1948 about whether they approved of marriage between people of two different races, a majority would have voted in favor of prohibiting miscegenation/inter-racial marriage. Yet clearly history has shown that the will of the majority does not always make things right, and that legally the RIGHT thing to do was to abolish such laws--to allow people to marry whoever they want.
And this is SO TRUE.
Once upon a time, there were anti-miscegenations laws that prohibited marriage between people of different races. Actually, it was more specific than that. Most anti-miscegenation laws didn't really care if African Americans married Latinos or if American Indians married Asian Americans (or, if we are going to keep to the language of the 19th and early 20th C., they didn't care if blacks married Mexicans or if Navajos married Chinese). Instead, the majority of laws were specifically designed to ensure white purity and to punish any transgressions of white Americans crossing the color line.
One of the most shocking results of this adherence to the color line was in the Cable Act (1922-1936):
The Cable Act specifies that any U.S.-born woman marrying a "person ineligible for citizenship" would automatically lose her U.S. citizenship. In a marriage terminated by divorce or death, a Caucasian woman could regain her citizenship, but a Nisei woman could not, because she was "of a race ineligible for citizenship."
The important point to note in this quote is that the ONLY race and hence only aliens "ineligible for citizenship" were Asian immigrants--which in this time period meant predominantly Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indian people. Thus, our country's earliest anti-miscegenation laws specifically targeted Asians--using not just the Cable Act but anti-miscegenation laws to prevent Asians and whites from marrying.
Thankfully, as Mayor Newsom pointed out, the Supreme Court of California was wise enough in 1948 to realize how unlawful anti-miscegenation laws are:
In Perez vs. Sharp, the California Supreme Court rules against anti-miscegenation laws, stating that they were based on racial distinctions that were "by their very nature, odious to a free people."
[For more on a timeline of events that influenced inter-racial marriages, click on this link, which is the same site that I found the quotations above.]
And if it hadn't been for the repeal of The Cable Act in 1936 and California's anti-miscegenation laws in 1948 (and the repeal of the nation's anti-miscegenation laws in 1967), we never would have a family like Jon and Kate plus eight (you have to imagine that in the mid-1930s this image would have scared the hell out of some folks. Actually, I'm sure this image scares the hell out of some folks now).
Most rational folk take for granted inter-racial marriages. Even people who wouldn't necessarily want their son/daughter to marry across the racial divide would be hesitant to turn back Loving vs. Virginia, understanding marriage to be a private affair between two consenting adults.
And I hope that one day in the not so distant future, this is the attitude our society will have about same-sex marriage. That the whole idea that once-upon-a-time people actually tried to pass laws restricting marriage on the basis of sexual orientation or gender was LUDICROUS and THANK GOODNESS we no longer live in the late 20th C. when such draconian and antiquated ideas about love and marriage were in place.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Rest in Peace Mildred Loving
Yesterday Mildred Loving, born Mildred Jeter, died at the age of 68. She and her husband, Richard Loving, made history in the 1960s when they challenged Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1967 the Court decided that anti-miscegenation laws nationwide violated the Constitution's equal protection clause, and so with Loving v. Virginia, laws banning inter-racial marriages were nullified across the U.S.
Mildred and Richard Loving did not set out to make history or become civil rights activists. They simply wanted something very basic: to love one another, to marry, and to live together. Last June, during the 40th anniversary marking Loving v. Virginia, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement (she stopped granting interviews in the last years of her life)--in the last paragraph, Loving links the Supreme Court decision not only to anti-miscegenation or anti-inter-racial unions, but to a legacy that also includes or should include supporting queer unions:
For more on Mildred Loving's 40th anniversary statement and some astute analysis about the legacy of Loving v. Virginia, both in terms of the long history of inter-racial unions and anti-miscegenation laws as well as the links to current queer rights struggles for gay marriage, go to this excellent blog post from a year ago at "Slaves of Academe." For the New York Times obituary, click here.
Mildred and Richard Loving did not set out to make history or become civil rights activists. They simply wanted something very basic: to love one another, to marry, and to live together. Last June, during the 40th anniversary marking Loving v. Virginia, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement (she stopped granting interviews in the last years of her life)--in the last paragraph, Loving links the Supreme Court decision not only to anti-miscegenation or anti-inter-racial unions, but to a legacy that also includes or should include supporting queer unions:
"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
For more on Mildred Loving's 40th anniversary statement and some astute analysis about the legacy of Loving v. Virginia, both in terms of the long history of inter-racial unions and anti-miscegenation laws as well as the links to current queer rights struggles for gay marriage, go to this excellent blog post from a year ago at "Slaves of Academe." For the New York Times obituary, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
