Find Insurance Online

In October, 2009, it was widely publicized in the press that a justice of the peace in Lousiana had been refusing to marry interracial couples (what if both people are multiracial?). He was subsequently fired. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, said it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long. "I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children." As astounding as this sounds in the twenty-first century in a modern society, the case demonstrates the thesis that an empire, or Union of many States, is inherently diverse--incredibly diverse in fact. Europeans tend to view the United States as though it were itself akin to a state (i.e., homogenious). In truth, the United States are indeed as diverse as is the European Union (language is not the only basis of diversity).  A person in Boston reading a newspaper about the justice in the peace in Lousiana could be excused for thinking for a moment that Lousiana is another country. To be sure, the large states in the U.S. are equivalent in size to the large member-states in the E.U. Territory does matter in terms of cultural diversity.

While the diversity befitting an empire-scale political union must be given breathing room, it is also not the case that a Union can or should tolerate absolutely everything in an “anything goes” relativism if a practice violates the fundamental ideational or volitional tenets of the Union. For otherwise there would be no foundation to the union; the parchment would be a farce.  Yet at the same time, stifling the inherent diversity is a recipe to disunion.  There is a balance to be struck, and ironically even in calling for limits to the diversity, I am pointing to the need for diversity legislatively precisely because the U.S. is on the empire-scale.

Both  the U.S. and E.U., being on the scale of empire (e.g., containing republics), must allow for a certain degree of tolerance because one size can’t fit all where diversity is natural.   The difficult question is of course where to draw the line, and this is why I have raised the case of interracial marriage.  If we draw the line too close to our own values at the expense of those of others in another region of the continent, we risk the Union exploding from the pressure of “one size fits all.”    That is, if we require every official to marry interracial couples, the Union will feel oppressive to those who oppose the practice. An ongoing habit of imposing a “progressive” agenda on the entire Union is apt to push the more conservative regions out and therefore compromise the Union.  However, some may argue that there really is too much difference between Maine and Arkansas for them to be in the same political Union. One could argue that there should be a lowest common denominator that must be met in any given State for it to be in the Union.  To take two hyperbolic examples, a lot of people would object today to being in a Union that includes a State where slavery based on race is legal.  Yet for a long time, the practice was not a motive sufficient to kick out the slave States—actually it was some of them that decided to leave the Union.  In a way, we can be too accommodating.

In short, there is a balance involved in a federal empire remaining viable owing to the nature of the thing.  In my view, prohibiting interracial marriage is extrinsic to what our Union stands for. At the same time, I see the slippery slope because everyone has his or her own insufferable that could be added to the list—and pretty soon we are left with one size fits all and the natural diversity stifled and pressurized for future expressions.  Overall, I believe far too much “one size fits all” exists through the agency of the U.S. Government.  Congress, one might say, is acting like a State legislature.  Sandra Day O’Conner, who served on the US Supreme Court, made that remark several years ago to a small group where I was present.  I think it would behoove us to look at the EU in terms of the governance system enabling both uniformity and cultural diversity via a balanced approach to multi-level governance. The trick for us will be devising institutional or governmental safeguards that would keep one level—that of the Union—from dominating the levels that are more protective of the innate diversity.  That is to say, the State governments can play a greater role in domestic (and foreign!) policy such that they could be a check on a runaway US Government—while the latter should not be eviscerated so it can provide a check on the excessive democracy, or diversity, at the State level.  So this is not “States’ Rights”; rather, I am pointing to the need to balance institutionally and governmentally the common principles and natural diversity that form any empire.

See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33332436/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

The 2010, the U.S. census reignited the question of racial identity among multi-racial residents.  “I can’t fit in a single box on the census form” was the typical refrain among the fastest growing segment of the US population.  According to The New York Times in February, 2011, "when it comes to keeping racial statistics, the nation is in transition, moving, often without uniformity, from the old “mark one box” limit to allowing citizens to check as many boxes as their backgrounds demand." The number of mixed-race Americans was at the time rising rapidly, largely on account of increases in immigration and intermarriage. In 2010, for example, one in seven new marriages was interracial. Yet it is not as simple as counting people as "multi-racial." Politically, the use of a catch-all category was believed by some racial interest groups to marginalize particular minority races. As a result, the Census Bureau created 63 categories of possible racial combinations (a typical bureaucratic solution to a political problem). Regardless of how the U.S. Goverment slices the deck, the reality on the ground is that the United States was finally turning the corner in the beginning of the twenty-first century--having gone from states outlawing miscegenation (the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations) as late as the 1960s to the multiracial segment being the fastest growing, such that America would undoubtedly look rather different in even a few generations.  Life is a fluid thing, and the world today will undoubtedly be morphed by life's forces into another world tomorrow. Governmental restrictions in the face of natural forces are ultimately like sandcastles facing a rising tide.

That the multiracial “category” is the fastest growing is, I believe, the natural solution to the racial problems that have plagued North America since the time of the colonies.  Whereas New Spain quickly mixed the Indian, black and caucasian races, the British colonies kept the three distinct.  The United States followed the British tradition until into the second half of the twentieth century. That tradition has resulted in some mistakes in how race is labeled because the tradition held that some races are better than others.
Cheryl Contee, for example, writes in a CNN opinion piece, “When I look in the mirror each morning, my face epitomizes the American melting pot. I can’t ignore the pale skin of my white forebears, the slanted eyes of my Indian relatives nor the full lips and curly hair of my African blood.”  However, because there are many white Africans (e.g., in South Africa), her distinction of “white” and “African” is a false dichotomy.  She is treating two different categories as though they were one.  Better stated, Cheryl has white, black and Indian ancestors, hence she is multi-racial.  Better stated still, “caucasian” should be substited for “white” and “negroid” would be used for “black,” but Americans are not fond of technical terms even in polite conversation.  “White” and “Black” are at least of the same category, namely race, even if the explosion in interracial births will render "white" and "black" obsolete as primary descriptors. Instead, there will be a bell curve with "white" and "black" fading out to the ends. As Cheryl writes, “When I look in the mirror each morning, my face epitomizes the American melting pot.”  Her melting pot constitution is something for her to be proud of, as instantiates the natural (rather than governmental) solution to what has been an intractable  problem.  Her great grandchildren will likely look at old pictures of Blacks and Whites as strange book-ends.
Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/30/contee.who.am.i/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/us/10count.html?pagewanted=2&hpw