Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Register
User login
Poll
Recent comments
- Anonymous (not verified)
- WResonance (not verified)
- Eddie (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- RobbL
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
- We swear, we had NOTHING to do with this...
- Alexander Aan: 'God Does Not Exist'
- 'Should Californians be allowed to register and vote on election day?'
- 'Mad Men' and the infantilization of America
- D-Day
- Earl Scruggs Was The Coolest Man Ever
- Remember, Remember...
- Five Perfect Collections of Outtakes
- Jerry Brown for President
- Turns Out, Californians May Not Be the Craziest Voters in America
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 19 guests online.
Navigation
Credits, etc.
Monkey logos by Katherine Roe
(who had no part in the color design)
Hosting graciously provided by Oliver Fross.
Lesson From Proposition 8: Not All Segregationists Were Motivated by Hate
Wed, 01/13/2010 - 12:00 — Wry Mouth
One thing I have learned from watching the give-and-take on Proposition 8 as Californians and other interested onlookers wrangle with the issue of "defining 'marriage' " and each other:
On neither side is the primary motivation hatred of persons, homosexual or heterosexual, gay or straight.
So now, I'm flashing back in history, to just before I was born, and a few years after that, and I'm thinking, "Man; those people in the South and elsewhere that were segregationists during the 'Civil Rights Era' got short shrift, historically. Most people (myself included, until very recently) imagine them to be a large block of Negro-hating citizens."
The current poo-flinging in the Prop 8 public arena has convinced me that this is likely untrue. I am off to see if my hypothesis will hold water: that many segregationists were motivated primarily by other urges besides hatred of Black people. And that these were just lumped in with the angry haters for the convenience of "streamlining" the argument for public consumption.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7029
Segregationists and Hate
"many segregationists were motivated primarily by other urges besides hatred of Black people."
Hmm. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "segregationist" (or "hate" for that matter, I guess). To me (and I was born in 1975, so my idea of this era is purely second hand), the defining characteristic of the people who fought against the civil rights movement was basically that they wanted to deny the basic rights enjoyed by whites to non-whites. Does this count as "hate"? Perhaps not, but it's not really a defensible position. It's not even one I can really respect. It's rooted squarely in a position of discrimination, which more or less correlates with the feeling of superiority based on race. Are you sure you want to be lumping yourself in with segregationists?
I was born in the late 1950s in the South
And concur with your view, K. There are certain apologists for the segregation era who act as if racial animus was a minor part of the desire to maintain separation. They're either lying or deluded.
Are you sure you want to be lumping yourself in with...?
... segregationists? Lumping myself in -- ?
Wow. What? No! What?! How did I get there?!
I suppose I was wondering, about the "keep marriage narrowly-defined" crowd being painted as "segregationist" by the "expand the definition of marriage" crowd. The current fashion in the media and amongst the general public is to lump in the current "anti gay marriage" people with racial segregationists.
Generally, since about the 80's-90's, being conservative in the "keep things as they are" sense has been recast as being "discriminatory," strictly in the "bad" sense of the word. People forget there are good reasons to be "discriminatory," in a host of different ways.
But here it is, before us, with many stating that the gay marriage movement is the Civil Rights Movement of our time. So, I'm wondering: knowing people on both sides of the argument as I do, and knowing those people on the "pro marriage as traditionally defined" side to be in the main well-meaning folk who are not motivated by "animus" toward homosexuals individually nor as a group, well -- I wonder. Has our history been so lazy as to paint the anti-Civil Rights people of their era as all Governor Orville Faubus types?
"the defining characteristic of the people who fought against the civil rights movement was basically that they wanted to deny the basic rights enjoyed by whites to non-whites."
Basic rights, such as, for example, voting and education? Can we start with those two? The anti-Civil Rights movement was composed solely (or even mostly: >75%) of people who wanted to deny Negros voting, education, and such? We assume so, and I recall some of the television coverage, though in my first decade.
But I wonder about the "separate but equal" culture, how that was formed, and how it formed the people who were born and bred in it.
I am NOT SAYING (sheesh!) that there weren't well-funded and powerful persons and groups who were chock-full of racial animus, and power-grabbing and all that.
Rather, I wonder: what of the people who weren't profiled by the media? What was their reasoning? I find myself in the Belly of the Current Beast and I am now curious as to how the "regular guy" felt, in the South, back then. Was it more like the way I feel, or like the way I will be portrayed as having felt, in future retrospectives?
As for being an "apologist?" I ask a question, and I'm an "apologist?" Ouch. I suppose if I were being coy or cute or disingenuous, there might be some reason to jump to that conclusion.
.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009
RE How did I get there?
What? Are you saying I'm being too liberal in my reading of you post? :0
The way I see it, that was lip service. There was nothing equal about those watering fountains or schools. And even if there were, there is no justification for government sanctioned stigmatization of any segment of the population. Likewise, there is no justification for the government granting the right to marry to one group and not another. Churches or "marriage traditionalists" are free to not perform such ceremonies, but their views on the matter are not sufficient to justify the marginalization of a group by the government.
Therein Lay The Questions...
"separate but equal" was indeed, I think, governmental lip service, but what did the average person think of it? Did they want the races to be truly treated equally, but sans all that messy inter-racial relating stuff?
You know that many of the average Russkies under Stalin thought that if Joe only heard about the terrible goings on, he would fix it all.
How plentiful were the people who thought that "separate but equal" could actually have been made equal? Thought about it in a way, not as a sleight-of-hand to deny, but as an ideal to shoot for? It is not possible for us to put ourselves in the mindset of those who were raised in the south under segregationist mindsets; my father, from the Pittsburgh area, raised by a racist father in the 30's, emerged unscathed by that attitude, largely through experiences in the Army (!).
And how many people thought that there were other, less drastic and more incremental ways to accomplish true racial equality, apart from the Civil Rights legislation? Have those people had their say recorded in history? Frankly, I was not taught any such things.
This bit:
"Likewise, there is no justification for the government granting the right to marry to one group and not another..."
has been flogged to death by me elsewhere. "Marry" is defined as inter- or heterosexual. Since time-out-of-mind. To equate the push to "redefine marriage" with racial equality remains in several, subconscious ways, an error that seems to perpetuate bad blood. (a) to equate race (genes) with sex (chromosomes) and to expect others to blithely follow along is, um, presumptive. (b) marriage, as defined, predates (if we believe the best scientific evidence) governments and religions, and even concepts of race. It's not (to very many people) in the government's purview to define "marriage." Now, governments are within their right to reward (or punish) equally both homosexual and heterosexual unions. But it is not in their purview to call them "identical;" rather "equal." Blah blah blah. And blah.
I continue to wonder when "equal" came to take on the Harrison Bergeronian overtones, rather than "equal in inherent human dignity."
I thnk you're trying to read too much into this discussion
There was a division in the Old South between segregationists and integrationists. Integrationists (who were primarily Republicans, FWIW) were a distinct minority of the elites. Popular opinion, as it were, was difficult to judge because (yes) not much sampling took place at that time.
From my recollection of the era, majority elites justified segregation on largely racial grounds and used two justifications that were not overtly racial but relied on an implied racism:
1) That's the way things have always been done here. (How dare you Yankees tell us what to do?)
2) State's rights (meaning: the federal Bill of Rights does not supersede state constitutions, even though the 14th Amendment should have settled that argument).
Now, I'm a big fan of state's rights, when you're talking about issues that are not clearly articulated in the federal Constitution. I believe states and localities should have a lot of leeway to set policies that are not dictated by Washington -- so long as they're not violating our principal governing document.
As for the gay marriage debate, for the reasons K stated above, I do not see it as the primary civil rights battle of our age. No one is keeping gay people from attending public schools, or eating at lunch counters, or using public restrooms.
If you ask me, the primary civil rights struggle of our age is the way the government is denying an adequate education to low-income (mainly minority) kids by blocking parental choice. Right now, it's the teacher's unions who are standing in the doorway of parochial and charter schools, blocking poor kids from a decent education.
Sep but Eq; Traditional Marriage
I think you're missing the point. Separate cannot be equal. The simple act of separation stigmatizes the minority. Even if you have two identical water fountains, forcing one group to drink from one diminishes that group.
Those very many people are wrong as a matter of fact. We could have an interesting discussion as to whether or not the government should define (and reward/punish) marriage, but the fact of the matter is that it does. Given that it does, our Constitution obligates the government to apply that definition and the rewards/punishments equally.
What form does this evidence take? Are you saying that anthropologists have some proof (theory?) that pre-spiritual hominids instituted "marriage" in nearly the form we are familiar with today (or for the past 1000 years)? Actually, your statement is internally inconsistent to me, and perhaps that is part of our communication gap. The part that is inconsistent is the notion of marriage existing outside of "government." But in this case, by "government" I don't mean institutions codified by a constitution, but rather cultural norms agreed to by a group of people. It doesn't seem possible to have the concept of "marriage" without having some agreed upon framework of personal relationships (both individually and in groups). But you seem to be saying that "marriage" is a universal notion, like gravity. It is a law of nature, not a construct of Man. And I'm afraid I just can't buy that argument. The whole history of marriage has been about defining how people relate to each other, and thus is a construct of our culture.
Regarding "Traditional Marriage," if you go back far enough it wasn't solely about progeny, family or descendants, but included ideas about property and political/cultural power. If we are to take your argument seriously, then we would have to consider that a man owns his wife, or has the right to have more than one wife. There's a question: What is your position on polygamy? That is a traditional marriage that was only outlawed (in the US) relatively recently (1862). The vast majority of history says that polygamy is an acceptable form of marriage, so shouldn't we follow suit?
In any case, I think you are on the wrong track in seeking or seeing parallels between our current debate on same-sex marriage and the civil rights fights of the mid-20th century, for all the reasons Deregulator stated.
Scientific evidence for heterosexual marriage
not anthropologists, per se, but paleontologists, biologists, botanists -- those sorts of sciences. The best evidence is that life is 3 billion years old, with sexual reproduction being in the neighborhood of what, a billion years old?
That's not me talking, by the way. So, a statement like"if you go back far enough it wasn't solely about progeny, family or descendants, but included ideas about property and political/cultural power" seems to put the horse behind the cart. Progeny, family, descendants -- all that stuff -- preceded ideas of property and even society by hundreds of thousands of generations.
People keep trying to say I am *inflexibly opposed* to altering the definition of "marriage" as a uniquely heterosexual relationship. This is not so. What I am trying to keep on the front burner, though, is the ancient roots undergirding the idea with which we are tinkering.
Most moderns don't give a rat's ass about what those stupid people in the past thought, and everything's up for grabs, yippee!
But I tend to think, as I reflect more and more upon the flow of history and prehistory, that maybe those people in the past weren't really ALL stupid compared to us moderns. And that sometimes -- sometimes -- care and caution are called for.
As for "seeking or seeing parallels between our current debate on same-sex marriage and the civil rights fights of the mid-20th century," this was not the point of the post anyways, so I will stipulate to that. I wasn't trying to find equivalency b/t the two battles (as quite a few do, at least where I live). The point was, that as political battles are won or lost, and particularly (I think) recently, the "losers" are painted with broad strokes as mean-spirited, brutish, or worse. And I was just realizing when I wrote the post above, that -- for the most part -- those charicatures -- stereotypes, if you will -- are at least in part ill-applied.
Thanks to Khab and Dereg for taking the time to sharpen my wits a little, and help me think some things through -- even some stuff I hadn't planned on thinking through! ;o/
Sexual Reproduction and Marriage
So? Sexual reproduction != marriage. The vast majority of the animal kingdom doesn't enter into a relationship with their mate that remotely resembles marriage (you've got Emperor penguins, parrots, and black widows - that's about it. ;)
But like I said, that's not marriage. (If it is, then I've been married quite a few times, but less than I would have liked. ;) My understanding of your position is that marriage is (mostly) rooted in the idea that it is a vehicle for creating a family and nurturing genetic offspring. I agree that this is one of the facets of marriage. My point however, is that as recently as a couple hundred years ago in the West (and even today in some cultures), and probably for the rest of post-Agricultural Revolution human history, marriage was also a vehicle to secure power, position, and security for the current generation. It is not something Natural. It is a construct of our culture(s); because we are Natural beings, it's construction is in some ways informed by evolutionary forces, but that does not imply that marriages without a goal of genetic offspring are invalid.
construction is in some ways informed by evolutionary forces...
"it's construction is in some ways informed by evolutionary forces,"
There. That's the crux, that, in my opinion, is ignored at the peril of more direct pleas.
We educate people to firmly believe (on very strong evidence, I note) that Nature has trod these lines for some billion years. People are going to unconsciously find it difficult to alter concepts rooted in the mists of prehistory.
Marriage is NOT mating sexually, but it comes out of that. And, having been formed out of that clay, it is only (scientifically) logical to acknowledge that, and then present compelling reasons for modification of the model.
I only say "compelling" because, as any scientist knows, the more firmly established and efficacious a model or definition is, the stronger any contrary or novel evidence has to be to shift it.
Evolutionary construction of marriage
Let me elaborate a bit by saying that any and every "construct" of Man "is in some way informed by evolutionary forces." The development of all of our tools for example, is informed by evolutionary forces (i.e. the spear makes it easier for me to pass my genes along). So really, that line is a bit of a throwaway - it doesn't really help define marriage in a meaningful way. Everything Man does or makes is this way.
Hogwash. Marriage does not come out of mating sexually (primarily), otherwise more species would marry. Marriage comes out of human culture. Government definition of marriage is simply an advanced form of this. You are putting too much weight on the reproductive part of marriage. Marriage is much, much more than that. The reproductive part is but a minority player.
*I'm* Putting Too Much Weight on the Heterosexual Foundations..?
Don't put it on me. The foundation was laid long before I popped into being. I liked the black widow line above, btw, but now am left to ponder: how many species, esp. bird & mammalian (y'know -- higher order animals), "marry" -- that is, mate & raise a brood of kids? True; only a few species are programmed to "mate for life" but even G-d said He "gave us divorce owing to the hardness of our hearts."
I'm off to have a look-see!
Polygamy!
"The vast majority of history says that polygamy is an acceptable form of marriage, so shouldn't we follow suit?"
If this be so, I would have to argue that perhaps it should be allowed. I do not recoil from that prospect.
But as outlined somewhere else, and much more entertainingly, I would lobby for one-woman / male-harem polygamy first. Mostly due to the division of labor and increased opportunity for naps.
Amen
Amen, amen.