Um…This is not endorsed by the NFL, it’s what Johnny wants to be instated. Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea because IMHO lawyers do not make good football coaches. I think the situation should be investigated (that is the highering practices of the NFL), but from what I’ve read (which includes another news article) it seems to me like Johnny Cochran is trying to make it into the news again. I don’t know, my opinion of him is tainted, so that even if he had perfectly good intentions I don’t think I would consider him credible.
Ya know, there are terrible problems with inbreeding in some breeds of dogs. My pap always said that the best hunting beagle had a little terrier in it.
I don’t have a “problem” with such people either, although I think that they’re dopes. However, the OP was about a father instructing his children who to marry, not about the daughter herself choosing only to marry within her race. I certainly do have a problem with a parent who purports to forbid his daughter certain suitors based on nothing but race, as (if she listens) he’s decreasing her chances of finding a compatible mate for completely insufficient reasons.
–Cliffy
Are you sure they’re yours? 
–Cliffy
verybdog -I was wondering, are you just going to ask questions until someone agrees with you that your father isn’t acting in a racist fashion?
It’s all about intent. Whether the dad in question be white or black, if he has a problem with having grandkids of a different race than him * specifically * because they are of a different race than him, then he’s a racist.
If the idea of “I don’t want you to marry him because I don’t want no little ugly, stupid, criminal, watermelon-eating black kids running 'round here” has anything to do with the white dad’s objection to his daughter marrying interracially, then he’s a racist.
If the idea of “I don’t want you to marry him because I don’t want no little ugly, mayonnaise-sandwich eating, no-rythmm having, corny white kids running 'round here” has anything to do with the black dad’s objection to his daughter marrying interracially, then he’s a racist.
If the idea of “I don’t want you to marry him because society puts extra pressures on biracial kids and interracial relationships and I want to spare you that pain, baby girl” is behind either dad’s objection, then he is NOT racist.
If the idea of “I don’t want you to marry him because I want grandkids with light skin and blue eyes” is the centerpiece of the objection, then that dad better make damn sure that he also disapproves of brunette white men with brown eyes as well as black men (who BTW can have blue eyes and light skin; those features are not exclusive to whites), or else…you guessed it… he will be racist.
Yo, so what’s wrong with a mayonnaise samich? 
You can’t just automatically call a black/white father racist simply he wishes his daughter to not marry a white/black. You have to ask why. You have to determine if the father’s wish is based on a belief such that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. If the father does not hold that belief then he is NOT a racist; even he wishes his daughter marry within the race of his. We can never never second guess what the father’s true intent is - because that’s impossible. So the best answer to OP’s question (B) is indeterministic.
You can automatically call the father racist, if it’s a provacative assertion that he makes (don’t marry an african-american). It’s up to the father to explain why. I don’t know what his excuse would be, that wouldn’t equate to racism.
What reason could the father give that isn’t in some form or another, racist or prejudice?
By the way, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? You were the OP.
You forgot to add the phrase
With that added, do you still think it is indeterministic?
This is simply not true. Or, to be more precise, not possible. Ideas of “racial purity” are inherently racist; they are also inherently based on a belief that one race is superior to another, at least in certain circumstances. What other possible motivation could there be for an desire for racial purity? The only motivator for purity that I can think of other than one based on feelings of racial superiority is the desire to maintain genetic diversity in the population. However, such an idea doesn’t seem important enough to vastly limit the population of potential suitors and, therefore, the chances of happiness for the OP’s daughter. Furthermore, to the extent that races intermingle, the diversity will actually be retained in our genes and therefore more accessible to everyone; therefore, interracial offspring are actually a more efficient strategy for promoting genetic diversity than racial purity is.
Of course, the real reason the OP’s father cares about racial purity is not genetic diversity, but rather that he doesn’t want his little girl marrying a nigger. There is no way in which this is a non-racist attitude unless it is motivated wholly by a desire to spare her (and her children) the pressure that comes with being in an interracial couple or the offspring thereof. And even if such a viewpoint is not racist, issuing such an order is bad parenting. It should be up to the daughter, once she reaches adulthood, to decide herself if she’s willing to brave such pressures for the man she loves, of if she’d rather be safe and less happy.
–Cliffy
P.S. Speaking as both the product and a member of an interracial marrige, they really ain’t all that tough.
This comes a little late but the Essence magazine that buffybeast referred to does indeed exist. Here’s a summary of the article:
I’ve read the full article and think that it paints a sad picture of the state of race relations today.
As a member of an interracial marriage, I can’t imagine what I’d say if my father had said something like the OP to me. Probably he wouldn’t listen anyway, he was always too busy trying to keep the zebras from mounting our horses.
From that Essence article:
Rightly or wrongly, the perception out there for a lot of black women is that the odds are stacked against them when it comes to finding a mate. The list of reasons behind this perception constitutes a whole thread in and of itself. But because of these reasons, a lot of black women feel slighted when black men hook up with non-black women because they feel that that “defection” represents one less man out there who would want to hook up with them. These women often don’t realize that men of other races find them desirable, too (if they did, there would be no reason for them to feel insecure); they think only black men have the potential to love them. So when black men love non-black women, there is a sense of abandoment and rejection that may or may not be based on rationality. (See Angela Basset in “Waiting to Exhale”.)
Until black women start opening their options to other races and until men of other races stop being afraid to knock on their doors, articles like the one in Essence will continue to be written.
Like I hinted at earlier, before labels are ascribed to any situation, one must consider the background setting. It’s easier to say “That’s racist!” than it is to ask “Well, what’s really going on here?” Comparing black folks’ responses to interracial relationships with those of whites is like comparing apple and oranges. The two groups have two different perspectives, two different histories. The fears of one group may not be applicable to the other group.
Biologically there is no race, we are all homo sapiens. If there were no race, there wouldn’t be racism naturally. --> very deterministic in that the father is not guilty.
Race is a social construct, not a biological one. I can be prejudiced against something that is not of biological origin, such as religion. We (society) have definitions for race and racism not based on biology. By those definitions, the father in question is racist.
The problem here is that you are giving your hypothetical father a completely illogical supporting argument for his racism. If he uses that line of reasoning, he is spouting obvious falsehoods. He’s trying to use biology to support a social construct, and the facts simply contradict him.
I couldnt agree more. The implication I hear repeatedly in this thread is that it is racist (and therefore bad) to even consider certain aspects of a breeding partner (such as skin color).
Since “racist” is such a socially charged yet ill-defined adjective, I’ll just say there is nothing wrong with expressing preferences about whom you child marries.
Telemark nailed this one. It’s a social construct. Your father is guilty and no matter what spin you put on it, you can’t change it.
Oh, come on now. Just stop overreacting, everybody. The man is clearly not a racist, he’s simply not that crazy about negroes.
No, Meatros. I would say Rogg nailed this one. From biological stand point, the father definitely is not racist because the concept of race as we know it is not defined in biology. From sociology’s stand point, it’s indeterministic based on the information item (B) provided.
Dopers’ rushing to a ‘racist’ conclusion soon as they saw the word ‘black’ only proves that America is a racial over-sensitive society, which is quite ridiculous.
Labeling racism racist is good. But abusing it by labeling everything in the grey area is bad; it’s bad for liberals’ progressive cause.
Racist is not an “ill-defined adjective”.
"1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race. "
I fail to see what’s ambigious about it. How is he “definitely” not a racist if, as you say, the information “why” he didn’t want her to marry an african american isn’t provided???
We are not talking about dogs, cats, or whatever. We are talking about human beings. My opinion is, if you love your grandchild, it shouldn’t matter what color his/her skin is. You “preference” shouldn’t come into play at all.
Also biology comes into play if the father believes it does-which doesn’t make him right, BTW.