PD5

Whatever Happened to the Term Miscegenation?
In a campaign of linguistic sterilization that is reminiscent of the de-Stalinization program in the former Soviet Union, the term "miscegenation" has been effectively erased from the popular lexicon by our language police. There are several reasons why the language police have been so concerned with eliminating this term from our collective consciousness. First of all, in their estimation, the term miscegenation has an "unfortunate" past by virtue of its close association with anti-miscegenation laws which prohibited the practice of interracial marriage. To our social engineers and language police, one's choice of a marital partner is exclusively a personal matter. Secondly, use of the term miscegenation threatens to create a distinction between forms of marriage on the basis of the race, which is inconsistent with the social engineers' agenda.

Technically, the term miscegenation merely refers to the acts of interracial marriage, intercourse and interbreeding. This is the standard definition that one can still find in all but the most politically correct dictionaries. But, because of its past association with certain laws (particularly anti-miscegenation laws in the South) that are seen as a symbol of past racial intolerance, the language police (and others at the forefront of the political correctness movement) have marked the term for death. To the language police, to refer to interracial marriage by any term that could be used to distinguish it from more conventional forms of marriage suggests that one is "evaluating or distinguishing" a practice towards which one should be neutral.

The prefix "misc" in miscegenation also implies that one is assigning a negative value to the practice of interracial marriage. Consequently, most politically correct people avoid using the term out of fear of being perceived as being judgmental. Rather, if anyone chooses to make a distinction between marriage that occurs between members of the same race and marriage between members of different races, they should simply use the more politically correct term "interracial marriage." This term does not carry any of the "negative" connotations of the term miscegenation. It does not suggest that one is making a value judgment about a practice towards which one should be neutral. By contrast, use of the term miscegenation suggests that one has formed a judgment about the practice of interracial marriage. From this point, it is a short step for the language police to brand one who uses the term as being a racist.

Use of the term miscegenation means that one has made a distinction between conventional forms of marriage and interracial marriage when, according to norms of political correctness, no distinction should be made. Use of the term also means that one has focused attention on the subject of interracial marriage when, in polite politically correct company, the subject should not be the focus of attention, or the subject of conversation. Once again, according to prevailing norms, the decision to enter into an interracial marriage is entirely a personal matter, and no terminological distinction should be made between monoracial and interracial marriage. The term miscegenation is "banned" on the presumption than anyone who would use the term has a negative view of interracial marriage, and that they must be prejudiced. At the very least, anyone who has a negative view of interracial marriage must be guilty of having a level of racial pride that is "unhealthy" in a multiracial society.

The mainstream press diligently avoids discussing the subject of interracial marriage, and it certainly does not use the term miscegenation. The discussion of the subject or the use of the term would serves to focus attention on an issue that our social engineers and language police would prefer for us to ignore. The act of focussing attention on interracial marriage or interracial conjugal relationships suggests that one has an opinion about something towards which one should have no opinion. Again, one's choice of marital partner is presumed to be exclusively a personal matter and should not be the object of public scrutiny, or even private evaluation.

To our social engineers and our language police, no term should be used to draw a distinction between interracial marriage and the more common pattern of monoracial marriage. According to the politically correct view of the world, these are matters of personal choice about which we should color blind. There is also another aspect to the social engineers' agenda. The press, academia, the entertainment industry and other powerful interests in society actually have an interest in promoting miscegenation as a means of enhancing stability in the greater social environment in which they operate, and on which they depend for economic benefits. In effect, these interests want to normalize the practice of miscegenation, because, like the state, they recognize its stabilization functions in a multiracial society.

The best way to normalize the practice of miscegenation and the best way to reduce social inhibitions against it, is to ignore it or, at least, not to draw attention to it by giving it a name. Referring to it by name (and especially by use of the term miscegenation), suggests that one is attempting to focus attention on a personal matter that has no broader social implications. Consequently, and despite the fact that interracial marriage has profound implications for society, it is totally ignored as a social issue. The media pay little attention to interracial marriage, its increasing incidence, or its broader implications for society. The subject has been made taboo by the political correctness movement and by the language police. In the minds of our social engineers, ignoring miscegenation, and making no reference to it by name is one of the best ways to normalize the practice and to make it socially acceptable.

Once again, our social engineers will say that one's choice of a mate is exclusively a personal matter. But, this is obviously not true in any absolute sense. For the state does intervene to prevent other forms of marriage which it deems to threaten its interests. Because the state has an interest in public health, it does not hesitate to enforce the prohibition on incest. The state has no reservations about denouncing and prohibiting such forms of marriage. Yet, it is unwilling to prohibit interracial marriage, because, in its view, miscegenation actually tends to serve its interests, by blurring the lines of distinction between the subgroups of which society is composed, and by promoting its internal stability. So, the statement that one's choice of a mate is exclusively a personal matter must be qualified by saying that the state will prohibit a form of marriage that it deems to be a threat to its vital interests. The state in a multiracial society has no interest in prohibiting interracial marriage.

The Consequences of Terminological Purge: Reduction of Social Inhibitions to Miscegenation
Thanks to the combined efforts of academia, the press, the advertising and entertainment industries, social barriers to miscegenation have been greatly reduced over the last 40 years. Though Hollywood frequently gives its assent to the practice of miscegenation, it never refers to the practice by name. It simply does its part to normalize the practice by depicting it in either a value neutral or a positive light. As a result of the combined influence of the language police, the political correctness movement, and Hollywood, miscegenation has become a disembodied term that has no reference point in popular American social and political discourse. Therefore, it has become a term that has no meaning for most people in contemporary America.

As far as both the press and the architects of popular culture are concerned, use of the term miscegenation implies that one is being judgmental, or that one has assigned a negative value to the practices of interracial marriage and interbreeding. Use of the term also seems to indicate that one must be opposed to the humanist project of creating a universal brotherhood of man, because it implies that one has "judged" a matter that has been blessed by the humanists and the defenders of radical individualism, among others. In an age when individualism has been taken far beyond its functional bounds or its logical limits, one's choice of marital partner is deemed to be exclusively a personal matter, over which society should have no say. Society should have no right to regulate such matters, even to achieve a higher social end. Actually, society does have the right to regulate the reproductive behavior of its members to achieve certain consensually agreed upon aims.

If a society wants to establish certain conditions for membership, it can. If it wanted to endorse the principle of racial preservation, it could. If it wanted to make the statement that all races have dignity and deserve preservation, it could. If it wanted to make a commitment to the principle of racial preservation a condition for membership, it could. If it wanted to exclude those who were unwilling to make this commitment, it could. And, if it wanted to deny legal sanction to miscegenation, it could. On such an important issue as racial preservation, society has the right to proscribe individual behavior to achieve a desired public good. It is a principal aim of all laws to regulate individual behavior to serve a public good. Laws pertaining to miscegenation are no different

The term miscegenation is no longer in popular usage because it is does not express "value neutrality to the practice of breeding across racial lines. It suggests that one has assigned a positive value to the ideal of racial preservation and a negative value to the practice of miscegenation. It further suggests that one has negatively evaluated a practice which humanists, social engineers and champions of political correctness all assume to be the individual's prerogative.

Increasing Incidence
The creators of popular culture must share a large part of the responsibility for the increasing rate of miscegenation in multiracial societies. In their role as social engineers, they have reduced the barriers against miscegenation and have made the practice more socially acceptable. In their view, they are helping stabilize an unstable situation (a multiracial society). Yet, the increasing frequency of miscegenation has the most profound implications for the future constitution of the human race, and for the organization of human society. Hence, it should perhaps not be so casually dismissed as just another province of individual choice .

The incidence of miscegenation bears some relationship to social and economic class. Specifically, it tends to be inversely proportional to one's social class. That is to say, it generally tends to increase as social class decreases. This occurs mainly for four reasons. The lower classes tend to be less educated, less intelligent and they have a correspondingly greater susceptibility to the influences of media and popular culture. Secondly, miscegenation has historically been more common among the lower classes because of more frequent contacts between blacks and whites among the lower classes. This is due to the fact that blacks have historically been more concentrated in the lower classes. Third, because the lower one's socioeconomic status, the more likely one is to enter into relationships of economic convenience. And fourth, hedonism, action seeking and the quest to gratify sexual impulses without considering the consequences is a behavioral pattern that is more common among the lower classes. These four things add up to increased rates of miscegenation among the lower classes. Nonetheless, miscegenation is occurring with increasing frequency in all social classes, primarily as a result of the increasing barrage of cultural messages that depict it in either a value neutral or a positive light. The overall effect of these messages is to reduce the social inhibitions and barriers to the occurrence of miscegenation across all social classes.

Restoration of Acceptable Usage
The first step towards redeeming the term "miscegenation" is to attempt to revive its usage as a technical term to refer to the acts of interracial marriage, intercourse, and interbreeding. At the same time as we attempt to restore its usage as a technical term, we can begin to build a positive image around the value of maintaining racial integrity, or racial preservation. Towards this end, it is necessary to stress several points.

First, we want to stress that insofar as one accords all races equal respect and values their preservation, this can in no way be considered racist. In fact, anyone who would accuse someone who values racial preservation as being a racist is revealing their own hidden agenda, namely, a desire to eliminate the distinctiveness of all races; because they believe this is necessary to achieve interracial harmony in a multiracial society. This adequately outlines the most important linguistic tasks that lay before us, in order to redeem the term miscegenation, and restore its usage in a way that depicts racial preservation in a positive light.