America's History of Anti-miscegenation in Accordance with Jones' Dutchman

The play Dutchman by LeRoi Jones explores several political and social issues that still exist in America today. The play tells the tragic tale of an African American man lured by a Caucasian female on a subway. Once a basic relationship is established the White female becomes hysteric and eventually kills the African American man only to pray on yet another African American man shortly after with the same fatal intentions. The African American man is at first uneasy with the developing relationship due to America's general disapproval of interracial relationships, or anti-miscegenation, so the White woman is persistent. The most prevalent issue of interracial relationships and the participants' uneasiness to such relationships due to racism is still relevant today. Today, interracial relationships are more common than before the Civil Rights Era; however, Americans generally do not approve of such unions (Lewandowski, 288). America has demonstrated anti-miscegenation historically through legislature and societal norms due to a false sense of purity, tradition and fear.

The judiciary system played a large role in anti-miscegenation, making it legal to punish all those involved in interracial relationships throughout history. The first law created that outlawed miscegenation was in 1661 in Maryland. Marriages across races were prohibited in order to control property rights and social privileges (Significant Events Affecting Intermarriage and Interracial People, 1). The law reads:

All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race or between a negro and a member of the Malay race, or between a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race, are forever prohibited, and shall be void; and any person violating the provisions of this Section shall be deemed guilty of an infamous crime...(The Map: Accessible HTML Version, 7)

It was thought that if a White person were to marry a Black or Asian person, the minority partner would acquire the rights of their White spouse that would have previously been restricted. The law was extremely detailed and extensive as if to prevent any combination of interracial marriage between Blacks, Asians and Whites. These laws were not considered racist by the White majority in America at the time and when challenged in court, the Judge would not deem the law unconstitutional as long as the punishment for breaking the anti-miscegenation law was equal for both spouses.

In Alabama marriage, fornication and adultery between a White person and a person of African descent was prohibited until 1967. In the Pace v. Alabama case of 1883, a Black man, Tony Pace, and a White woman, Mary J. Cox, were sentenced each to two years in prison for violating the anti-miscegenation legislature of Alabama. When Pace's lawyer argued that the law did not comply with the 14^th amendment of the Constitution which states that no state shall 'deny to any person the equal protection of the laws' [106 U.S. 583, 584] the Judge decided that as long as the punishment for breaking the law was equal for both the White and Black participant the anti-miscegenation law was in compliance with the 14^th amendment (Pace v. Alabama, 2). The notion of the prohibition of interracial marriages being prejudice against African Americans was not of concern to the government. The government disapproved of interracial marriage to the extent that discrimination was never considered as a basis for amendment or appeal.

America has shown a history of legal prohibition of miscegenation and it has taken several years for said laws to be appealed. This is demonstrated in cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Perez v Sharp (1948), McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) and more importantly Loving v. Virginia (1967). The Loving v. Virginia case concludes:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (Loving v. Virginia, 5)

It was not until 1967 that the restriction of interracial relationships was illegal due to the ruling in the Loving v. Virginia landmark case. It took nearly a century for the anti-miscegenation law to be reversed in compliance with the constitution and even then it took several more years for existing anti-miscegenation laws to be removed in all the states (Courtroom History, 1).

Several states were hesitant to remove the anti-miscegenation laws and neglected to do so into the 21^st century. The last laws were removed from state constitutions as late as 1998 and 2000. In 1998, a law prohibiting interracial marriage was finally removed from the South Carolina State constitution as well as from the Alabama state constitution in 2000. Although it was illegal to enforce said laws after 1967, some states were hesitant to remove articles prohibiting miscegenation. In South Carolina and Alabama, 22% and 19% of their residents respectively opposed the removal of the articles from their constitutions. While a majority of each state's residents wished to remove the laws from the state constitutions, it was not unanimous (Courtroom History, 2). This demonstrates both the government and society's continued disapproval of interracial relationships in America.

In addition to a judiciary system that has historically opposed miscegenation, society has expressed similar disapproval. The White supremacist group, the Ku Klux Klan, first emerged in the 19^th century. They made it a point to terrorize African Americans and would commit hate crimes most often against interracial relationships both real and imagined (Horowitz, 71). Blacks in interracial relationships would be lynched and murdered in order to "protect the White woman" and often a cross would be burned in disapproval on the lawn of the interracial couple's home. These hate crimes were most prevalent during the Civil Rights Movement. However, they still occur even today. Most recently, a cross was burned affront the home of an interracial couple in New York in 2004 (Healy, 1). Both the North and the South show some disapproval of interracial relationships the general attitudes held before the Civil Rights Movement still exist. Even in the 21^st century hate crimes against miscegenation still occur.

While White supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Association for the Advancement of White People have explicitly stated and acted against interracial relationships often in the form of hate crimes, society as a whole has shown a general disapproval of interracial relationships. In Dutchman, Jones demonstrates this disapproval by illustrating uneasiness between the couple. Because interracial relationships are not traditional and go against the norms many are hesitant to participate if at all (Jones). A National Opinion Research Center survey found that 60% of Americans disapprove of interracial marriage (Lewandowski, 289). Lewandowski states that despite increases in interracial marriages society still expresses disapproval:

The existing evidence exists suggests that interracial marriages continue to be viewed unfavorably by members of all races, although less unfavorably in the past. For example, African Americans and European Americans have expressed objection to interracial marriage on the grounds that it destroys family traditions, causes problems for the couple and their children, and results in loss of racial purity. (Lewandowski, 289)

Most Americans view interracial relationships as untraditional and children of interracial marriages would suffer social slander due to their parent's union. Also, the majority of Americans feel the purity of their race will be jeopardized due to miscegenation (Ralph, 58). Race is man-made and the need for racial purity is a result of racism and unjustifiable by biological means. Racism is a result of fear of those physically different which has been the basis of anti-miscegenation in history ('Race', Racism and Anti-racism: Challenging Contemporary Classifications, 3). The myth that blatant racial crimes no longer occur and that due to the Civil Rights Movement society is more tolerant is false and said instances are in accordance with America's history of disapproval of miscegenation.

The United States has illustrated anti-miscegenation historically through legislature and societal norms due to a fabricated sense of racial integrity, convention and anxiety. Throughout history, Americans have witnessed laws against interracial relationships go unsuccessfully challenged for several years and in accordance held similar sentiments. Despite the Civil Rights Movement, the American people have not become significantly tolerant of interracial relationships. The general public feels that such relationships are not traditional and jeopardize racial purity. Such notions are rooted in racism and demonstrate America's lack of progress and Jones' relevance in Dutchman. Perhaps in a century's time America will truly gain tolerance of miscegenation, but until then interracial couples will be doomed to disapproval.

1. Lovingday.org

2. Healy, Patrick. "Burning Cross Left At Home of Interracial Couple on L.I." New York

Times 22 Nov. 2004. 03 Apr. 2007 .

3. Horowitz, David A. "The normality of extremism: The Ku Klux Klan revisited."

Society 35.6 ([YEAR]): 71-77.

4 .Lewandowski, D.A. "Perceptions of Interracial Couples: Prejudice at the Dyadic Level."

The Journal of Black Psychology. 27.3 (2001): 288-303.

5. "'Race', Racism and Anti-racism: Challenging Contemporary Classifications."

Social Identities 6.1 (2000): 91-106.

6. Ralph, George. "Jone's Dutchman." Explicator 43 (1985): 58.

.

7. "Significant Events Affecting Intermarriage and Interracial People." Other Colors:

Changing Times. 03 Apr. 2007