Definitions are warranted to offer a fundamental framework for this article, with a few substantive (yet certainly not all-inclusive) entries about some of the more salient developments in American history. I would be remiss if I did not point out, initially, throughout this article, and throughout the most significant portion of American history, that America is the only country that has – and remains – focused on Miscegenation and the One-Drop Rule! Let me reiterate: “…the ONLY country”! How, then, did the train wreck while everyone was watching it maneuver its course? Read on!
[To maximize the hidden takeaways underlying this article, readers are encouraged to invest themselves in reading the full content of the referenced endnotes (for better context around the noted entries)].
LAWS are defined as a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action…formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority[i].
[i] Laws Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster
As early as 1661, the state of Virginia was the first to pass legislation banning interracial marriages[i]. South Carolina followed in 1717; Tennessee in 1741; and Texas in 1837[ii].
[i] Laws that Banned Mixed Marriages – 2010 – Question of the Month – Jim Crow Museum (ferris.edu)
[ii] which states had laws banning interracial marriage in 1700s – Google Search
From the late 1860s through the late 1960s, the American legal system supported the belief that interracial marriages were illegitimate[i].
[i] Mixing: A History of Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States (csusb.edu)
Many American states implemented anti-miscegenation legislation…laws, classified as felonies, which made it illegal to solemnize weddings between people of different ethnic groups[i].
[i] Ibid.
In the 1883 verdict in the case of Pace versus Alabama, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the validity of anti-miscegenation legislation[i].
[i] “Pace versus State of Alabama,” Legal Information Institute (Legal Information Institute), accessed June 8, 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/106/583 Section 4189 declares that ‘if any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than two nor more than seven years.”
In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the “Racial Integrity Act” which reinforced racial segregation by prohibiting interracial marriage and classified a “white” person as one “who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian” and barred whites from marrying non-whites[i].
[i] The Racial Integrity Act, 1924: An Attack on Indigenous Identity (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
In the 1952 – 1954 case of Brown versus Board of Education trial, segregation was deemed unconstitutional which legalized public school integration. However, America would discover that segregation’s unconstitutionality did not infer states would willingly comply[i]!
[i] Google (and immerse yourself in) the desegregation histories of: Ruby Bridges; The Clinton 12; The New Orleans 4 and the Little Rock 9 for additional insights.
In 1967, the Loving versus Virginia case went before the Supreme Court, wherein anti-miscegenation laws were finally overturned, making it legal for interracial marriages.
BELIEFS are defined as something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believed; especially a tenent or body of tenents held by a group[i].
[i] Beliefs Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster
For white segregationists in the South, removing the racial barriers provided by and through segregation [they believed] would harm the preservation of white racial purity…In the South, the increased production of mixed-race children threatened to destabilize a system[i] [think: “systemic racism”] of racial segregation rooted in keeping social relations between Blacks and whites separate and distinct. An increased population of mixed-race individuals would make it harder to preserve such racial boundaries. This fear alone fueled resistance and backlash to mixing Blacks and whites[ii].
[i] Asians who migrated to California during the Gold Rush [1848-1855] were also considered an “inferior race”. Many remained in CA after the Rush and were treated poorly.
[ii] Provost, Nyla (2023) “Mixing: A History of Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States,” History in the Making: Vol. 16, Article 7.
If interracial marriages were illegal, then the illegality of such interracial marriages would, by extrapolation, preserve and keep white blood “pure” – or so whites believed.
CASTE is defined as a division of society based on differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, occupation, or race[i].
[i] Caste Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster
An 1860 California case forbade members of ethnic minorities from going to school with white children. A California newspaper printed an editorial supporting the segregation law, praising the law’s capacity to “keep our public schools free from the intrusion of the inferior races”[i].
[i] Reginald Oh, “Interracial Marriage in the Shadows of Jim Crow.
To all persons acquainted with the social conditions of this state and of the Southern states generally, it is well known that it is (and was) the earnest desire of the white race to preserve its racial integrity and purity, and to maintain the purity of social relations as far as can be done by law. It is known that the dominant purpose of the two sections of the Constitution of our state were to preserve the integrity and purity of the white race. When the public school system was being created, it was intended that the white race should be separated from all other races[i].
[i] “Gong Lum versus Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927),” Justia Law, n.d.
CULTURE is defined as the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group[i].
[i] Culture Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster
For example, not only Corly’s Miscegenation publication (printed and distributed to denounce and scandalize mixed-race unions), but more recently (from a historical perspective) the Motion Picture Production Code, often known as the Hays Code, was an extensive set of rules that regulated the content of American movies from the late 1930s through the late 1960s. [Note: This was propaganda / brainwashing on a massive scale, as thousands and thousands of white families attended movies during these decades.] It [the “Hays Code”] was given the name in honor of Will H. Hays, the MPPDA’s (Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America) then-president. The Hays Code covered a wide range of topics, including depictions of sexuality, violence, and race. The Hays Code significantly contributed to racial segregation and the propagation of racial stereotypes in terms of anti-miscegenation. Any portrayal of interracial relationships or unions was outlawed by the Hays Code. The Hays Code prohibited any favorable depiction or normalization of interracial relationships in movies in order to promote racial segregation and uphold white supremacy. The Hays Code not only outlawed the portrayal of interracial relationships but also promoted racial stereotypes by misrepresenting non-white characters. African Americans, in particular, were often depicted as subservient…and intellectually inferior to white characters.
The Code was aggressively enforced from 1934 until the late 1940s, and films that broke it were prevented from being released. This occurred with the 1935 film Princess Tam Tam, directed by Josephine Baker and starring the entertainer Black Venus as a mysterious Tunisian woman who becomes a French novelist’s muse. The French-made film could not run in most prominent theaters in the United States because it did not receive a Production Code Administration certificate of approval.[i]
[i] Provost, Nyla (2023) “Mixing: A History of Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States,” History in the Making: Vol. 16, Article 7.
FEAR is defined (as a Noun:) an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger; (as a Verb:) frightened[i].
[i] Fears Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster
The biggest threat to the Jim Crow South was the fear of Blacks and whites mixing socially and intimately[i].
[i] Mixing: A History of Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States (csusb.edu)
“… the Virginia Supreme Court explained the purpose behind the anti-miscegenation law: preserving white racial purity[i].
[i] Reginald Oh, “Interracial Marriage in the Shadows of Jim Crow.”
Eugenicists, who believed in selective breeding and preserving the purity of the white race, used census results to lobby for social policies restricting groups’ rights. Sometimes the census played a very direct role in social policy[i].
[i] RACE – The Power of an Illusion. Background Readings | PBS
The word miscegenation itself is considered a pejorative noun, meaning miscegenation is a “contemptuous” word of “disapproved” behavior! The word, is derived from the Latin word, miscere which means ‘to mix’ and genus which means ‘race’ or ‘kind’. These are roots of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European parts of language that carry a lexical meaning (for more information on Pro-Indo-European parts of language, please visit Indo-European vocabulary – Wikipedia. I assure you, reviewing the info is an education that may be helpful for anyone who suffers from Colonial traumas onset by the fragility of America’s early and validly mistrusted white Colonizers. In the meantime, the Proto-Indo-European root word is: “meik” or “meig” which means “to mix”[i]. This begs the (rhetorical) question, “why the perpetuated fixation upon such a defamatory word?”
[i] miscegenation | Words related to miscegenation | Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com)
However, the answer mostly boils down to the inherent power of fear, specifically the fear of losing one’s (caste) wealth or status…and, of course, the systems or networks of wealth-creation that were implemented and worked to favor one’s abilities to amass wealth, which can be summarized in two timely, yet salient words: (1) politics; and (2) economics! Timely because, as a nation, we are on the threshold of another political (presidential) election in just a couple of months, and salient because of the inherent manipulative power to keep “the masses” [that’s us, all U.S. citizens] fear-focused. Politics and economics are the underlying motivators that are well-employed via each party’s respective campaign strategists’ for the 2024 election and beyond.
Let me be clear when I use the phrase “the masses,” that is society at large and also includes the heretofore white Colonizers of White, Anglo, Saxon, Protestant Americans (also known as “WASP”) or – the now descendants of early Germanic European settlers who have used/leveraged specific systems of oppression and inequality – since the beginning of this country’s founding – to elevate and separate themselves from others who are just as much citizens of this nation as they are, but upon whose backs this nation was built-up and improved (need it be said: by or through “systemic racism”). All the while, that same “class” of WASP Germanic European settlers controlled, minimized, and oppressed the latter’s daily existence, as well as their later-acquired constitutionally protected rights…and tragically, they – what’s left of them – continue to do so to this day!
One of the most oppressive and inequitable ways the masses have fueled fear is through the early adoption of the ominous “One-Drop Rule.” The One-Drop Rule is the political- and economic-foisted misbelief that any person born as a result of a “sexual union between Black and white individuals[i] (bi-racial or multi-racial reproduction) – even if the offspring’s external physiognomic[ii] features show no ethnic traits whatsoever (as is not uncommon) ‑ makes a person unquestionably and undeniably Black. Period. A hundred-plus years ago, this was a white supremacist-rooted strategy that was put into play allegedly to keep census records accurate. Although, any adept prognosticator worth his salt should have seen and foretold the train wreck that the One-Drop Rule would manifest well before that wreck actually derailed!
[i] miscegenation | Etymology of miscegenation by etymonline
[ii] Physiognomy Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster; (1) the art of discovering temperament and character from outward appearance; (2) the facial features held to show qualities of mind or character by their configuration; (3) external appearance.
Somewhere a hundred or so years ago, someone believed the word miscegenation “sounded” way more scientific (than the previous word used to describe such relationships, which was amalgamation). This new word is how so many problems of today were created decades ago and how those problems continue to create physical, emotional, and psychological harm by othering individuals who have different hues of skin (melanin). That word’s creator was Irish, by the way, and reddish-white in physiognomic appearance. His name was David Goodman Croly.
Croly was a journalist of what should have been modest acclaim but for an anti-Abolitionist publication he and others anonymously propagandized before the 1864 Presidential election—for which he now has an unerasable, and mostly unflattering, notoriety.
Flash back in time: Scant months before President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in the Civil War rebellion “area” – who himself was aware of the public’s growing unrest around and support for the abolition of slavery – and to be precise, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Civil War rebellion “area”, but it did not free all who were enslaved, as is frequently mistakenly believed), Croly and his cronies published this 70-something-page pamphlet entitled: “Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro”. [This publication, by the way, was the first “drop” in the unintended Ripple Effect.]
This publication was alleged to promote antagonism to Civil Rights but was dubbed a literary forgery that prompted additional racial inequalities. Some finger-pointers blamed the Lincoln administration for supporting the publication, although there are no substantive reports that Lincoln ever endorsed the propaganda nor even responded to the copy that was sent to him for potential inclusion on his re-election platform.
Croly’s Miscegenation publication was ultimately determined to be a hoax[i]. If the publication were not such a trouble-stirring document (not the “good trouble” of the noble fight for equal rights or the end to slavery, but the “bad trouble” of being discovered and exposed for the undermining threats it foretold of white supremacists – fueling their then and current fragilities and insecurities; that the mixing of the races would lead to the “disappearance of the differences between the races[ii] or to the “purging[iii]” of unwanted/unacceptable individuals from the general population of the United States. In fact, Croly’s publication was intended to deter (and outlaw) mixed-ethnic marriages and any resulting mixed-race offspring. [This troublesome behavior is the “ripple effect” – the waves of water unstoppably spreading outward.]
[i] The Miscegenation Hoax (1863) (hoaxes.org)
[ii] The “Miscegenation” Troll – JSTOR Daily
[iii] Mass Purges Are the New Voter Suppression | Brennan Center for Justice
Fast forward back to today: More recently, the replacement scientific word became entrenched in America’s language and lexicon much more recently, like in the early 2000’s[i]. Lurking under the pejorative negativity of the word miscegenation is the new explanatory word; hyperdescent.
[i] when was the word hyperdescent invented – Google Search
Hyperdescent is the practice of classifying an individual of mixed-race descent in the more socially dominant of the parents’ races. I posit that hyperdescent is more accurately defined as: the practice of classifying an individual of mixed-race ethnicities by the most visibly dominant traits of the parents’ races. Maybe “social dominant traits” and “visibly dominant traits” is splitting hairs, nevertheless, the word hyperdescent has come to be known more widely as the One-Drop Rule. […and, again, the ripples of that One-Drop widen and spread, unstoppably, outward…]
It really doesn’t matter what word is used to describe mixed-race marriages; the truth is that the United States is the only place on the planet where it’s a thing – a thing that we allow to continue in our society without question or rebuke. A thing that we, the collective (that is “all of us” who live in the USA), empower by turning a blind eye to its effects. Lastly, it is a thing that describes and classifies individuals and erroneously separates them from the remainder of mainstream society – with an invisible line that is unconscionably ignorant, wrong, undeserved, toxic, and intentionally hurtful!
As such, this unchallenged, unquestioned One-Drop Rule has effectively worked to unnecessarily nourish and perpetuate division and discord within and throughout this country – politically and economically. Need we acknowledge that the United States of America is a country that was established and built upon the premise of welcoming all who wanted to flee persecution; a country established and built upon the migrations of various ethnicities, races, languages, cultures, beliefs…and skin hues…who came from all over the world?!
[PLEASE, CONTINUE TO PART 2 TO READ THE REMAINDER OF THIS ARTICLE.]
Discover more from Three-Fifths
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Three-Fifths 