lifestream of an invisible man

The complexity of race and politics in the early 19th Century

Terence McKay claims a justice of the peace refused to give him and his white girlfriend a marriage license.

Twitter, Facebook, and the inter-webs are buzzing about a Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. A number of people who have linked or blogged about this story express “shock” that something like this could happen in 2009. I’m mildly surprised that Keith Bardwell, the justice of the peace for Tangipahoa’s 8th Ward, thought that he could make this decision and not become the center of media scrutiny. But, if the above CNN report is correct, then Bardwell has a habit of not signing off on interracial marriages.

What is particularly interesting in this case is the rationale that Bardwell uses to explain his decision. He insists that he is not a racist; he regularly performs marriage ceremonies for black couples “right here in my house.” His denial of a marriage license to this interracial couple is the result of a) his experience that “most interracial marriages don’t last” and b) his concern for the children who might be born of that relationship. I’m personally familiar with of these arguments. More than once the well-meaning parents of someone I was dating used one or the other (or both) to explain why I could no longer go out with their daughter. (If personal disclosure makes you uncomfortable, stop reading now and click on the CNN link above).

Understand that during my Jr. High and High School years I lived in the overwhelmingly white suburbs of Grand Rapids, MI. I attended a private high-school that was almost entirely white. Dating opportunities were few and far between, especially for a young boy who stood on the short side of 5 feet, 5 inches. Interracial couples were extremely rare in Grand Rapids and, on one occasion, I experienced a public scolding for even being in the company of several white girls. We weren’t on a date, but the very sight of two white girls, one white boy, and me was sufficient to warrant a confrontation from a restaurant patron who sat three tables away from us. But I digress.

The arguments used to explain why I could no longer date someone’s daughter were always expressed with regret and feeling. They were typically preceded by phrases such as, “You know, we like you a great deal” and “We think that you are a perfect gentleman, a great guy, BUT . . .” The claims that followed the conjunction “but” were always about the parents’ concern for their daughter, our potential relationship (as if dating in high-school meant that marriage was right around the corner), and “the kids.”

I think that it was “the kids” excuse that bothered me the most. I could almost buy the fact that these parents were concerned about their daughter’s future and the viability of our relationship. In fact, I prepared and sometimes used a series of counter-arguments that explained how relationship longevity was determined by multiple factors including commitment, support of family and friends, cultural and intellectual similarities, shared spiritual or religious convictions, etc. These arguments never worked, but I had them ready to go and they made me feel better.

But when the “we’re worried about the kids you might have if this relationship got serious” argument came out of the verbal trove of common places, I knew I was screwed. It was not simply that the parents were putting unrealistic expectations on our young relationship. This argument was how the parents said, “I have a vision for what my grandchildren are going to be and your offspring do not fit that vision. You will not be allowed to hurt our daughter or poison our idealized dreams of the future.”

Now it is understandable that parents would envision a particular future for their children; I get that. What was concerning was that these parents, in the guise of looking out for their daughter’s best interests, were really looking out for themselves. This may seem a harsh statement, but I believe it true.

You see, when parents said that they were concerned about how my potential kids would face discrimination and oppression, what they were also saying is, “*I* don’t want to fight against discrimination and oppression. I don’t want to have to join that struggle as a grandparent; I would prefer to avoid the stares of my friends and not have to confront the occasional comment of a stranger who might say something to my grandchild.” These parents and justice of peace Keith Bardwell would prefer to let an immoral cultural prejudice against biracial children remain intact rather than work against it and/or allow others to make a difference through their own expressions of love, devotion, and commitment. They take this stand out of misplaced concern for “the kids.”

Of course, I cannot deny that there was also a very personal dimension to these arguments. When parents expressed their concern about “the kids” what they were also communicating to me was, “I don’t want a grandchild that is like you.” I was biracial. I had experienced discrimination. I had been shaped, for good and for ill, by those experiences. I was precisely the human-being that in their misplaced sympathy they did not want to see born.

So much for “. . . but really, we think you’re a great guy and love having you in our home.”

The prize committee cited Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons,” and Oliver E. Williamson of the University of California, Berkeley, “for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm.”

Ms. Ostrom becomes the first woman to win the prize for economics. Her background is in political science, not economics.

Congratulations to Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University, the first woman to win the Nobel in Economics. Great news!

The assailants are accused of beating, robbing and stripping naked 18-year-old Derrick Thomas, who is autistic, on a street in Brooklyn Park early Thursday morning, then roughing up Johnney Robinson, 40, four blocks away before they were interrupted by police.

Both victims are black, the suspects are white, and authorities say both crimes appear to be motivated by racial bias. The U.S. Secret Service is also investigating the men for allegedly threatening to kill the Obamas.

Many people I know are proud that the Twin Cities does not have the sorts of racial conflicts that one can find in other parts of the U.S. That said, news like this from an incident in Brooklyn Park is important; it suggests that sometimes the problems are present, just invisible.