Interracial dating is bold choice
The couple next to them direct
a furtive glance of surprise
and disgust. A black man and
white woman sit in the center of the
restaurant, as if in an arena. He’s kind
of stout. She’s blond. Must be a foot
ball player and a sorority girl?
There are many Mexican-Ameri
can and white, Asian-American and
white, Mexican-American and black
couples. But for some reason, Ameri
cans see something curiously degrad
ing about the thought of black and
white people mixing intimately.
Race and dating. Why should it
matter since beneath the thin layer of
color exist two people? But add their
contrasting colors and they find them
selves alone. Scorned by whites and
blacks as well.
Interesting, though, when a white
woman has a black male friend as a
co-worker. Pure friends, eh. Her fam
ily hails her as a humane person able
to transcend society’s racial injus
tices. An open mind.
They say: “We the family are the
same way. See, we invite him over for
dinner.” When he calls for her: “Oh!
It’s you. Glad to hear from you. She’ll
be right with you. How are things with
you?”
But one day that platonic relation
ship melts into intimacy and other
tender feelings. At the same time the
family’s perceived openness erupts
into fear and shame. Ironic. He was
good enough to be a friend. Now that
they want to be more than that, he’s
sub-human.
“Maybe she’s a victim of some
powerful, carnal black voodoo curse?”
No. That’s not it at all. They’re in
love. Above race. Above history and
societal mores. Love transcends all.
’’It's just a phase she’s going
through. Rebelling. That’s it. It’s her
hormones. Once the flame of lustdies
out, she’ll realize her mistake and the
shame.”
1
Race and dating.
Why should it matter
since beneath the
. thin layer of color
exist two people?
Bui, no. Again, love. It even tran
scends lust and sex. They want to get
married. Have babies!
“Oh! Now that’s going a little loo
far. Slop this charade at once! Be
sides, what kind of life will those kids
have. I mean, they will be confused.
Lost souls. Freaks of nature. No one
will accept them. Poor kids. How can
you both so selfishly do this to them?
How can you do this to us? They’d be
our grandchildren, after all!”
They marry. Wrapped in their dif
ference, they believe in what they’re
doing. Two people in love, that’s all.
“I’ll never speak to her again. She’s
shamed me and this family.”
For years family and castaways
exist on their respective sides of the
familial fence. Separate Christmases.
Separate Thanksgivings. A distinct
blank spot in the family reunion pic
tures.
Eventually, after symbolic hatebas
eaten away their anger, the parents
give in. They want to see their grand
children. But must the contrasting
couple accept? Independent now.
Strong and proud of their stance so
many years ago. Can love transcend
ignorance?
All the family’s hot words said in
protest long ago still cut them both.
“How can you marry a nigger?!
We didn’t raise you to be white trash!
We don’t want black grandchildren!
You’re a disgrace to this family!”
The couple dec ides: We must stand
by the rule you made. We can only
love and respect those who love and
respect us.
That’s Fiction, folks say. It’s not
like that anyrhore many people be
lieve. Interracial dating must be OK.
In 1989, census numbers showed
that of the 52.9 million total married
couples in America, 219,000 — .4
percent— were m i xcd black and wh i tc
couples.
Society constructs such high, righ
teous walls to say it’s immoral to date
between races. Consequently, mixed
couples arc sneered at. Stared at. They
are perceived as two people who have
turned their backs on their respective
cultures.
I’ve tried interracial dating. For
many of the reasons mentioned in this
column, it didn’t work. No regrets. I
learned a huge lesson, however.
Couplcsdon’tcxisl in a vacuum. Fam
ily, friends, society all take their jabs
at you.
"However, because of my woeful
experience, I’m not about to say
brothas should only dale sistas, and
white folks only white folks. That’s
absurd. Date who you want, but be
aware. Because to date in black and
white is to look society straight in its
evasive, hollow eyes and say:
“I don’t care what you think you
cowardly bastard,” because it is soci
ety in alt of its forms that is the
ultimate nemesrs.
Moss is a graduate student in anthropol
ogy and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
Generic prayer is minor loss
An uninterested observer of the
current squabble over prayer
at graduation might think the
national debate over church and stale
was of little consequence. At issue is
whether we should pray to a non
sectarian, unnamed, faceless spiritual
thing out there, a divine being. Sim
pler, the debate is whether or not we
should nod in respect to a god who
would not require any exclusive de
votion, an ultimately silly god.
On one side of the debate is a slew
of academic bureaucrats overcome
by the spirit of this age, moralizing
that enlightened tolerance means we
should obliterate every vestige of
America’s clearly Christian heritage.
The gods of their faith are the fads of
“diversity” and “tolerance.” These
gods insist on the dubious claim that
being tolerant of people who may
have different gods requires abandon
ing all claims that any particular god
is truly worthy of prayer.
But the prayer advocates should
not fret if these barbarians force their
diversity religion on them. Losing
prayers to an unjealous god is a low
cost casually in this cultural onslaught.
One might be more nervous when the
cultural barbarians make it personal,
when they target individuals who
would pray to a God with a Name.
One such target is Jimmy Zobrest,
a plaintiff in a lawsuit currently be
fore the U.S. Supreme Court. Zobrest
is a deaf Arizona boy who requires a
sign-language interpreter in school.
He attends a private school, and Ari
zona state law requires that the public
school district where he lives provide
him with an interpreter.
The only problem is: Zobrest is
Roman Catholic.
Thus, the high-minded school dis
trict refused to supply the interpreter.
Apparently helping a deaf kid under
Simpler, the debate
is whether or not we
should nod in
respect to a god who
would not require
any exclusive
devotion, an
ultimately silly god.
stand what his teachers say would be
to violate the establishment clause ol
the First Amendment to the Constitu
tion. The Zobrests filed suit and the
trial court agreed with the school dis
trict.
The trial court’s holding was a
surprise to most. Courts have long
held that the establishment clause does
not mean, for example, that fire sta
tions should not provide the basic
public service of putting out fires,
simply because it is a church that is
burning. Apparently for the court how
ever, the basic public service of a
sign-language interpreter is another
mailer.
Eminent Yale law professor Akhil
Amar has pointed out that an honest
reading of the establishment clause
suggests that the past 40 years of
constitutional jurisprudence on church
and state is historically dishonest.
“Congress shall make no law re
specting the establishment of any re
ligion. The stress is properly on re
specting,” not “establishment.” That
is to say , Congress was restricted from
respecting one state’s established re
ligion over another stale’s. Connecti
cut or New Hampshire — each of
which had official slate religions well
into the 19th century — could relax,
assured that the federal government
would not force the religion of the
other onto it.
At its root, the establishment clause
is a protection of state’s rights. As .
such, it should never have been incor
porated; states should be free from its
restraints.
The courts departed from this origi -
nal intent long ago. In itself this is no
wrong; the Constitution is a living
document, and the American project
is a living tradition. The challenge to
any living tradition is to respond to
social change by wisely co-opting it
into its original presuppositions.
Change can bring new life to the
project Mishandled, change can make
it sick.
Re-examining the history of the
clause suggests that those who would
attack all vestiges of religion in our
culture — to be forthright, those who
would attack its Christian aspects —
do not live within the assumptions of
the American project. Rather, to meet
their goals, they must stand against
the project, they must distort it.
Their revision of history is pain
less to them because they do not yet
bare the costs of it. This month the
Supreme Court, however, will wit
ness one who does: A poor deaf boy
whose only fault is that unlike the
interfaith prayers we quibble over, he
prays to a God with a Name. A dan
gerous thing to do in these “tolerant”
times.
Young is a first-year law student and a
Daily Nebraskan columnist.
IMPROVE YOUR NIGHT LIFE. |
Too many accidents are caused by car drivers who didn’t see the motorcyclists.
That’s why reflective vests, bright clothing, and reflectorized tape are so Coy
important. They help you be seen. And standing out on a dark, crowded\tx/
road can keep your evening from being ruined. MOTORCYCLE SAFETY FOUNDATION^
Application is Due
;11993
jat 107 Administration
ROBERT MAX
OPTICIANS
utUftte, cqetoeeui
UNCOLN
330 No. Corner Blvd
Suite 5
467-4300
OMAHA
120 Regency Pkwy
397-0930
A Face is Like a Work of Art.
It Deserves a Great Frame. |
UNL TAE KW0N DO- I
KARATE CLUB I
a.
•Self Defense
•Self Confidense
•Reduce stress
and tension
•Get in shape
Beginners Class
Tues. & Thurs.
8:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Contact: Campus Rec. 472-3467 or
Chris 463-6174|
THE CHOICE IS YOURS
LEADERSHIP, EXPERIENCE
ENTERTAINMENT, EXCITEMENT
APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE AT
117 NEBRASKA UNION
300 NEBRASKA EAST UNION
APPLICATIONS ARE
DUE FEBRUARY 15!
