Jeremiah, I agree wholeheartedly! The whole issue of "race" is an outmoded concept, which no longer applies. I am classified "white," but have English, Irish, Scottish, German and Native American heritage. I'm about 1/8 Native American, I think (based o n what my parents tell me), from Cherokee and Senica tribes. But I have no affiliation with these people. My wife is Chinese (Oriental). Where does that place my two boys, ages 15 and 17? They are trying to figure this out as they apply for college. I think we'd all be better off if we decided not to classify people by "race" (whatever that is) but rather by cultural heritage. I have an older dictionary (American College Standard, 1963) which breaks race down to the three "normal" classifications, then says "A number of groups, such as the Polynesian, are of doubtful classification." I guess they were saying, in a round-about way, that they just didn't know. If that's so, why is it so important?

I have always considered myself Black, despite the fact that although my dad is Black, my mother is 3/4 White and 1/4 Black and people have constantly asked me what I am. When she was born, in Louisiana in 1945, she was considered Black. Therefore, I ha ve 2 Black parents. Right? I never considered myself to be anything else until a really good friend of mine (who is half white and half Japanese) told me that she considered me to be multiracial. I have thought about it for a while and still chose to c all myself Black because not only are most "African-Americans" really racially mixed anyway, but the color black is inclusive of all colors.

Still, this leaves me feeling lost. I agree with some of the others who have written above that we shoul d get rid of all of the labels and simply be Americans. American is how I FEEL. I am proud of my AMERICAN heritage, which is inclusive of all the wonderful cultures and people who have made this land what it is and will continue to help it evolve into w hat it should be. I understand the ideas behind the multiracial movement, but wish there could be a few more naive people who think we should and could all just be Americans.

Why is it when one speaks of interracial, it is overwhelmingly a white woman with a black man. I'm an educated man who has studied this from afar. I've listened to many forms of media and heard from many people themselves and it all seems to boil down t o one thing. Black men view the white woman as a prize, a status symbol if you will. They also admire the sexual promiscuousness that is found in so many of them, considering many of these white women "easy". Many of these white women will falsely mask th e relationship as "love", although a look into their past reveals an unusual amount of "love" involving black men. The reasons for this attraction are a bit to vulgar to mention on this board, but only a slight bit of imagination is required here. It ther efore is my hypothesis that many of these relationships begin under the guise of sexual perversion (especially as far as the white woman is concerned) and continue on that basis. Another interesting issue is the level to which self-centeredness overcomes the welfare of the mixed-race children born out of this unusual union. Do not children in this day and age have enough problems to deal with? It's a real shame that most people don't realize this, the children are merely innocent victims. Anyone with any intelligence will come to the same conclusion, and I am in no way alone.

I have watched the bulletin board for a week or so to see whether anyone would reply to this "Causual Oberver." Since no one has, and I do have some feelings about this topic, I will reply.

The first point you make, I cannot relate to, since I 'm a 51 year old male, I cannot determine what any female might think. I've been trying to figure out females for years, with limited success. But it seems that you have at least some figured out.

However, you might test your hypothesis at leas t somewhat scientifically by comparing this view with the views of a number of responders to this discussion forum, prior to your comments. It seems, if I've read correctly, that there are several that don't fit your hypothesis.

You did comment on the "the level to which self-centeredness overcomes the welfare of the mixed-race children born out of this unusual union." This comment is where I do have some differences with you, and I do feel that I am someone with some slight degree of intelligen ce (although my wife might disagree). First, the idea of having children according to some label is erroneous. We are all unique, and just about everyone has some mixing of genes somewhere along the family tree.

To see how false your idea is, w e could look at another gene which affects different people, that of blood type. Would you have people only marry within their blood type? I'm B-. A case can be made that certain individuals should not marry because of their blood type. If they did, the ir child could have problems, or could cause the mother problems, due to blood incompatibility. But do we look at blood type when we pick marriage partners? No, we don't.

Why then should we look at skin color; or whether a person has an eye f old; or attached or detached ear lobes; or hair which is nappy, straight, long, short, bald, blond, brown, black, green (I had to put that in now) or bleached; or anything else other than the person themselves? Dr. King, whose life we celebrate tomorrow, talked about the "content of character" rather than the color of their skin when he talked about the way we look at people.

You talked about the welfare of the child of such an "unusual union." First, I don't think such unions are very unusual anymore. Second, the welfare of the child of any union is more a product of the amount of time, energy, work, play, opportunities, and lifestyle choices that the parents make rather than what classification you might wish to place them into. My observati on is that children tend to grow up strong, healthy, perceptive and inquisitive if we give them the opportunities that they need to persevere. Parenting, in short, is more the determining factor than "race."

Finally, let me address your perspecti ve in preventing such "unusual unions" due to considerations for the child. In my reality, I want to prepare my children for a world filled with opportunity, a world which values cultural perspectives which might be "different" than our own, and a world i n which an individual born here might need to communicate at various levels with other people of other cultures. What better way than to expose that child, through his own family, to different cultural perspectives? My children know the culture of Chinese people in Hong Kong, as well as the US culture. They can see the differences, and the similarities, of people. They know that these people have many of the same aspirations as do we in the United States. And they can use that knowledge to formulate their approach to life in the world if the 21st Century.

Are their conflicts and crises? You bet, but no more than other couples. How we deal with conflicts and crises speaks much louder to our children than artificial, biased, egocentric statements such as yours. A professor I knew in college once gave me the same advice you offered in your comment. I didn't adhere to it, and I'm happy I did not.

Children are not "merely innocent victims" unless someone decides to mistreat or injure them . I'm sure that you'll find parents which you define as unusual will treasure their children, and provide for them as best they can, no matter what society decides. You then, can make a difference by deciding now that your preconceived ideas of "these chi ldren" are based upon a false premise that somehow they are "different" from other children. You can change your perspective, and decide to include everyone into the human race.

Our challenge is to stop needless classification, and look to our c hildren as the gifts to us that they are: representatives for the next century, a century vastly different than our last, where we'll need all our experiences to try solving some of mankind's most vexing problems. Racism remains at the top of the list of these problems.

I have an issue with the use of the terms "race" or "racial" as race itself
is a non-existant fictional construct. Species refers to humans. Ethnicity refers to
those belonging to or sharing a common and distinctive culture, says Random
House. I am multi-ethnic. Scotch-Irish, African-American, Swedish and German.
I allie myself with the African-American community as I know that is the one into which
I'll be most readily accepted.

In addition I don't consider myself bi-ethnic because I consist of more than TWO ethnicities.
I find it annoying that no one acknowledges or just understands that if you are of
African-American, Native and Irish you are multi or poly-ethnic. Not bi-anything. \
Just a major semantic peeve of mine.

I am a 36 year old black woman who is married to a 38 year old white man. We live in a small country town and really for the most part have had no problems with an interracial marriage, except for the fact that my husband's mother will have nothing to do with me or her children because of the color of our skin. She has never met me and has never even seen her grandchildren who are two beautiful kids. But, the way I see it, it's HER LOSS.

I am a 36 year old black woman who is married to a 38 year old white man. We live in a small country town and really for the most part have had no problems with an interracial marriage, except for the fact that my husband's mother will have nothing to do with me or her children because of the color of our skin. She has never met me and has never even seen her grandchildren who are two beautiful kids. But, the way I see it, it's HER LOSS.

I was borm in Brattlebore Vermont, and presently most
of my family lives in New Hampshire/Maine area.
My mother is european-american, my biological
father is african-american and native-american
although he generally only identifies with his african
heritage. For me it is coming down to who do I see
when a glare into a mirror. What is the image staring back at me? Is it how people/media catorgize or label me, could it be how my family view's me, or a friend's opinion, or a lover's perhaps, do I see my image as God would. Somewhere in all this noise of echoing voice's, lay's my own, Who am I. Most people around here view any one that is naturally of a darker skin than white and if they have brown eye's their black or either one of the othr around these
parts. But when I want out to california everyone asked
me what I was. I wasn't really use to being related to
as anything then purely black. Now that I'am in a collere
type setting in New Hamphire, It's more common that people
perceive me as mixed. But my new roommate the other night
side to me if she saw me walking down a street, she wouldn't
think of me as a mixed type person. So than I said to here
"Well, that's interesting because most people that confront
me about what I am now usually assume that I'am mixed", t
than she responded with,"Well, yah I suppose you do looked
mixed". In New England your either Black or White and
that's that.

I think all people are interracial. It is hard in this world to find anyone who is "truly pure," (meaning purely one race). I myself am African-American and Native American. I think everyone should love one another. Because who knows that person you despise, (because they are of a different race), may be related to you.

First, this is a great idea I have enjoyed visiting this site.
Second, It is depressing that even on this page, people are still so hung up on what racial group they belong to. My racial and cultural make up is so mixed that I don't even know, or care, how to define it.

I think that race is important only because we are so often defined by our race (by others).

We are all different, we are all mixed and we are all wonderful. It is about time that we stopped thinking so much about what we are and started thinking more about who we are.

I don't care what race, religion or culture my mate is (I do prefer males, but I have nothing against homosexuals) I just want a guy who is good to me and I think that is not exclusive to any race.

If I date interracially will there be problems? Sure, who cares, people think I am wierd anyway.

As for the definition of interracial: ALL OF US, although (forgive the cliche) as I recal we all belong to the same race, so is their really something as interracial?

There are only three real "races." Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Interracial would be some combination of these three types. I agree with some of the previous postings about the irrationality of attempting to identify with a particular race. However, I think there is real value in the culture one belongs to. Furthermore, race often goes hand in hand with cultural identification. African Americans were made painfully aware that their "race" was different from their white slaveholders. Their "race" was a visual bondthey had with each other. The black power movement of the 70s allowed African Americans to to give purpose and value to their cultural traditions.They used "race" as a bond to unite in a powerful and meaningful way. Although I believe race is becoming less meaningful due to intermarriage, greater acceptance of people as people, it is still important as it relates to our own cultural heritages, continued prejudice and the equality of all people.

Bravo to all the above postings! Aren't we just preaching to the choir though? When one is enlightened to the
silliness of race classification, realizing that we are all human beings, and that inclusivity is what most of us want
despite our degree of pigmentation, then our "mixed" children won't feel excluded. The writer who mentioned
blood type hit the nail on the head. In the medical profession, I'm still trying to get out of identifying patients by
their perceived race.....blood type it turns out, is even clinically so much more relevant! I tell docs in training not to
tell me the race of a patient unless he/she is also able to tell me what denomination or religious affiliation the pt
has!....Those factors are probably more clinically relevant than his/her race anyway....but, old habits die hard.
By the way, Patricia Raybon's book, My First White Friend, is an excellent source to begin the healing! Lauri

I grew up in a primarily caucasion atmosphere, especially in my school.
When my parents divorced and my Dad began dating a white woman, I had nothing
against it. But, even when the two would show up to my school even in
in 1995-1996 people would ask me all types of qustions involving him and Barbara.
I would be confused on how to answer them, but hey I said I don't see them as
an interracial couple, I see them as two people in love, and that is all
that matters. That is my definition of interracial.

I grew up in a primarily caucasion atmosphere, especially in my school.
When my parents divorced and my Dad began dating a white woman, I had nothing
against it. But, even when the two would show up to my school even in
in 1995-1996 people would ask me all types of qustions involving him and Barbara.
I would be confused on how to answer them, but hey I said I don't see them as
an interracial couple, I see them as two people in love, and that is all
that matters. That is my definition of interracial.

I'd like to respond to "Casual Reader," although it's been almost a year since his original post.

Casual reader says the term, "interracial" is primarily used for black men and white women. I wonder what backward boonies he lives in! I'm a proud yankee, and where I am "interracial" refers to matters concerning any two "races" (btw, anthropologists of course think the word "race" has no meaning).

As for the basis of interracial relationships being lust, it is no more true of interracial relationships than it is of intra-racial ones. Casual reader seems to be closet bigot because he singles out interracial couples for criticism. Love and lust are both necessary for happy, healthy relationships.

As for the children of interracial relationships, please come visit me. I'll show my biracial children are happy, healthy, and scholastically at the top of their class.

I think that the lines between races have faded and blended. I personally am French, German, with three great grandmothers of Native American ancestory and a grandmother who is octaroon (person of 1\8 Black ancestory) yet I am pretry pale complected, with dark hair and eyes (even though I tan easily). So I put white down on racial classifications. Am I really? Who's to say and why do they make me choose? I doubt many people are truly one race or the other.

I am going to try to answer some of casual observer's
questions --- from my perpective anyway.

Perhaps most interracial marriages do involve black men
and white women ( I never counted), but certainly not all.
I am part of an interracial marriage --- or so defined by my
family and friends who tried so hard to talk me out of it.
My husband is East Indian.

Why was I attracted to him? Long before I had even spoken
with him there was a physical attraction --and nothing like
casual observer refers to. I have always been attracted to
dark-skinned men --- whether they be African-American,
Hispanic, Indian or Italian. Why are some men more attracted
to blondes or perhaps red-heads, or maybe blue eyes? The
"attraction" may start the process, and if one is lucky
enough to meet the person of his dreams --- and that person
has every thing else necessary to make the chemistry
complete --- you get LOVE. (by the way, my friends, when
they tried to talk me out of this union 35 years ago, would
say "he is only marrying you because you are white". My
reply "Well at least when I am 70 I'll still be white".
Hair colors, figures and even fabulous personalities can
change".)

Have we had problems? of course! But never because of our
racial differences. Cultural differences ---now that is a
different story. But they are the same problems I might
have had if I had married someone from the other side of
the proverbial railroad track. And I bet casual observer
has some opinion as to which side of that track I was born.

As for my two beautiful chilren (now grown and quite
successful), they had a few problems along the way. It
made them strong. They consider themselves American.
When required to state a race, they state what ever seems
best at the time. If they are applying for a minority
scholarship, they are Asian. Applying for a job,,, they are
caucasian. The whole idea is so stupid ... but they have
to fill in all those boxes. Since they had a few problems,
they deserve a few perks!

After we moved to the States and my family and friends were
able to meet him and get to know my husband, they all learned
to love him as much I do.

I am 22-years old male.
I am looking for pretty half korean & half white girl <5'5" 17-21 years old for love.
Maybe it's not a very suitable place for such messages, but I wanna meet my dream
- indeed combination of oriental wisdom and charm with european independency -
It's really a MAGIC BLEND !
Interracial - it is compound of all national streaks and our task - to develop best of them.
If such girl exists I would like to meet her...

Hey everybody,
Well this is my favorite question to answer "what am I", well to look at me I "look black" but in the inside i am far from it, my mom is about 88 percent cherokee indian and the other part of her is made up of black, white,chinese and God whoever knows. My dad is half spanish, and half black they think there is some kind of indian on that side but a small part. Now with all these combinations i somehow turned out with a pretty brown skin color,and curly reddish brown hair. most people don't even ask me what i am they just consider me black because i have brown skin. now i am currently dating a white male who is Irish and German. Of course people question our relationship "as if" it's hard to understand but the way is see it is my baby is beautiful on the inside and out. So i really can't explain the word "interracial", but to me it's just another word for "beautiful people".
So i want to just say god bless to you all, and god loves everyone, keep making more beautiful babies like me....
love always,
krissy

I recently read an article where Tiger Woods said he was only 1/8 BLACK,1/4 this, 1/4 that what I want to know is HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT. I guess I could say that I am a QUADROON (A person of 1/4 black ancestory:the child of a MULATTO and a WHITE person) but HOW DO I KNOW? I am so SICK of everyone making thenselves sound like some sort of RECIPIE BOOK. EVERYONE in AMERICA is mixed, especially BLACKS and LATINOS....so what's the big deal with these so called NEW MIXED PEOPLE. My Family comes from a long line of miscongeneation. I have ancestors that participated in the famous QUADROON BALLS of New Orleans, I even have MIXED(Part BLACK)ancestors that OWNED SLAVES in Haiti, New Orleans, and Cape Verde. If they were mixed back then wouldn't todays BLACKS and HISPANICS be mixed, after all they're the decendants of those PURE and MIXED SLAVES and SLAVE-OWNERS. I know I don't look BLACK, that's probably why I am so PRO-BLACK-AMERICAN....My CAPE VERDEAN family always jokes about how AMERICAN BLACKS are DILUTED and NOT BLACK AT ALL...we don't even now what tribe or part of AFRICA we came from, and this is the truth. If I had a penny for every BLACK person I knew with NATIVE AMERICAN and/or EUROPEAN blood I'd be one of the richest people in the world. MULATTOES don't exists today; a MULATTO is the offspring of a PURE BLACK & PURE WHITE. Most of these MIXED PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DECENT would see that if they studied their BLACK-AMERICAN history they already we mixed before their mom married their dad or visa versa. MY CULTURE IS MIXED FOR ME AND HAS BEEN MIXED FOR 500 or MORE YEARS....I speak a language, CREOLE, that combined the FRENCH & SPANISH & PORTUGUESE of my EUROPEAN ANCESTORS with the AFRICAN & NATIVE AMERICAN TONGUES of my DARKER ANCESTORS...so why do I need a NEW culture..this MIXED RACE THING...MIXED RACE isn't even a culture...all it is is a fasad to group everyone into one catagory...no offense but if you've ever met a CREOLE, we are a proud people...I LOVE MY HERITAGE, so why would I want to be clumped in with someone who isn't of any AFRICAN DECENT, and doesn't have the same history as I do? BLACK and HISPANIC have been the MOST excepting of all the RACES, if we weren't then we wouldn't have so many different shades of ourselves. I've heard people say that to slove the world's racial problem we should all mix into ONE RACE....NOW I'M NOT PREJUDICE, how could I be, but that's one of the worst ideas I have ever heard...OUR CULTURES AND ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS ARE WHAT MAKES US DIFFERENT....nobody has a house that's all one color inside and out, with the furniture, food, and appliances all the same color...most people like varity, well if everyone is the same then we have no varity....and trust me if we were all the same color someone stupid would start finding ways to make us hate each other...they did it with BLACKS:DARK-SKIN HATES LIGHT-SKIN, KINKY-HAIR HATES STRAIGHT-HAIR.....I like varity. I like being able to go visit my Jewish friend one day, my Irish friend the next, and my Cuban friend the next...

There is of course one race, the "Human Race"; but within this race there are three "sub-races"--White, Black, and Oriental. The only race that has more than one ethnic group within its race is the White race; primarily Caucasian and Hispanic (Spanish), but also Arabic, Indian (India), American Indian of non-oriental decent, and Russian (which by the way is where most of those that populated America before Europeans descended from). The Spanish descendants are peoples of places like Puerto Rico and Cuba. Mexicans are descended from those that existed in Mexico/Central America before the Spanish arrived (on the whole). The exceptions to this would be those that are of the affluent class of Mexico. This is probably because of the Spanish influence/history. The descendants of those that existed before the Spanish arrived speak Spanish, obviously, because of the Spanish influence. All of this has been proven through various studies if I remember correctly! The tendency of people to separate all the different shades of skin color has become painfully obvious down through the centuries however. So, "interracial" is not as varied as we humans stupidly believe; beliefs that we blindly fallow.

There is of course one race, the "Human Race"; but within this race there are three "sub-races"--White, Black, and Oriental. The only race that has more than one ethnic group within its race is the White race; primarily Caucasian and Hispanic (Spanish), but also Arabic, Indian (India), American Indian of non-oriental decent, and Russian (which by the way is where most of those that populated America before Europeans descended from). The Spanish descendants are peoples of places like Puerto Rico and Cuba. Mexicans are descended from those that existed in Mexico/Central America before the Spanish arrived (on the whole). The exceptions to this would be those that are of the affluent class of Mexico. This is probably because of the Spanish influence/history. The descendants of those that existed before the Spanish arrived speak Spanish, obviously, because of the Spanish influence. All of this has been proven through various studies if I remember correctly! The tendency of people to separate all the different shades of skin color has become painfully obvious down through the centuries however. So, "interracial" is not as varied as we humans stupidly believe; beliefs that we blindly fallow.

Blindness is something we are all guilty of. The racial issue is not immune to this blind tendency. We all have our opinions on the subject of race, and I am no exception to that. I happen to believe that we should stay with our own kind. For those who say that we are all of mixed blood, then stay with those that you most closely resemble (racially). Human nature does not, and will never, allow for racial mixing without troubles. Look around you folks, things are NOT going just fine out there (USA ..or any other country that has different races within the same country). There are even rumors of civil war because of this issue (lumped with another issue called civil LIBERTIES). There is an argument out there that our civil liberties have been tossed aside all in the name of civil rights, and that we fought one, maybe even two wars (depending on how you view the "Civil War") in vain. Blindness and all the "oh screw you's"!" aside, the fact of the matter is that our founding fathers intended this country to be made up of Europeans� and only Europeans. If they had known what damage they have done, the plague they have brought upon us in this day, because they had to bring servitude to this country in their day then the situation of "multi-culturalism" ,and bleeding-heart liberalism that blindly supports it would not be as damaging to the foundation of this country. This country's problems will not only continue, but they will grow. They will not only grow, but grow at a faster and faster rate as time passes from this point on. This will happen until one day this country will be so morally, ethically, and pridefully weakened that it will no longer have the strength to exist.

We are destroying ourselves. We are just too BLIND to see it! No amount of "I don't agree with you" or "give me a break!" or "that's your opinion" or "I feel sorry for you buddy!" is going to change it! Human nature is flawed and weak. How can human nature expect to fix human nature. That's a redundancy!
So you folks go on having your arguments, opinions, bleeding heart blindness, and bickering amongst you. This country's Blindness to what the REAL cause of all the symptoms/"problems" (and the racial problem is but another symptom) are is THE problem!

My definition of interracial is the mixing of two different races. Not just black men dating white women , It is the mixxing
of all nationality's and race!!!!

Let's see, my definition of interracial. Well, it is clear that it means the mixing or blending of two different and distinct races. As others have stated, there are three seperate classifications of race in the world, Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. These divisions primarirly derived from geographical regions, body types and features. Negroid referred to those in the continental Africa and pacific Islands. Caucasiod refers to the European continent, and Russia and parts of the Persian empire, and Mongoloid refers to Asia, the pacific Islands, India and some parts of Persia and Mongolia(Eastern Russia). Now with that in mind, it is easy to understand that out of these three classifications any mixing would produce an "inter racial" being. Not full mongoloid, not full caucasoid, or negroid. It is not rocket science. However, it can be distorted to seperate people politically,socially and racially. Latin America is an interracial society, made up of many different sub groups. Their is Meztizo for the mixture of indian and spanish, miskito for the mixture of black, indian ,mulatto for mixture of black and spanish. These are the largest groups in Latin America with pure indians, pure negritos or pure spanish being minorities. To me,the definiton of interracial is the most positive and beautiful idea on earth. It is the idea that humans have transcended their base needs and desires. Ones that are driven by a fear of thinking for ones self, to ingratiate the pack. It is an evolution,if you will. Higher evolved humans that are able to see human beings as human beings and not a racial category or stereotype. The persons in the interracial relationship does not redefine what race and humanity is, they complete the definition as God intended before the fall of man and the tower of Babel. Our divisions from of true selves is a direct result of our sinful nature, not God holy order. We came from Adam "first man" and Eve "first woman", we were one people until our sins of hate, greed and selfishness tore us apart. Interracial couples define the real union, that of one human to another. Pigments, hair folicles, shape of the eyes, etc. are all devised for adaption to regional, geographical and environmental conditons, not for superior, inferior divisiveness. All this and I am not a scientist. If I can understand these very simple ways of nature, anyone can. Children of these unions are a special and unique creature. They are God's children. Treat them with love and care and with pride that they are of one "Humanity" and they will be fine.

I am a student at Wake Forest University in North Carolina, USA and I am doing research on interracial adoption in England. I came across this site and after reading some of the comments realized that many of you check this site regularly and might be able to help me in my research. If any of you know of any publications, websites, books, etc. that discuss interracial adoption specifically in Britain that would help tremendously. You can reach me via e-mail at rexnoble21@hotmail.com

peace.

I never use this word to describe an individual of mixed
race/ethnicity/culture. I prefer mixed, blended, or in my own particular case, Creole. Interracial implies interaction between individuals or groups who identify themselves as being of only one race/ethnicity/culture.

I thought that All Black Americans were mixed in some way....isn't that why we ( Black Americans) look different form Africans?
Besides I always beleaved that all Americans ( no matter what the color) are mixed in some way. So what is the big deal with interracial couples and people. Is a person considered interracial if their parents are different colors only?

If somebody considers themselves to be something then they are. I suppose the word "interracial" would have to fall into this category too: your own subjective beliefs define what you are. I do wish the race concept could be disposed of, however, as it is not only divisive, but diverts attention from the fact that it is a person's culture which is the true distinctive criterion between human populations, not their physical characteristics.

Hi!
I went through some of the comments. And I have to say the
opinions about the word "interracial" are very different,
just like all the people are. I am the result of an "inter
racial" marriage myself. My mom is German and my dad is
Pakistani. And so far I have not figured out yet, what I am.
I was born in Canada, but grow up in Germany. That did not
exactly help, since (not all !!! but some) Germans are still
very much against foreiners. That is why I moved back to
Canada with my family. But even here people still have the
problem, having to belong to one or another racial background. Why is that? Why does the skin colour, or different ways to dress matter so much to a lot of people?
I feel that it only should matter how the personallity is.
And somehow the word "interracial" does not sound very
friendly. It makes me feel different again. How come nobody
found a nicer word for it yet? But at least, it is better
than the names I have been called already.
Thanks for thr opportunity to give my opinion.

I know that it has been two years since Mike has posted a message, but I have a few words for him. You may think that people should stay within their own race, but who are you to judge anyone in this society based on skin color. I don't believe that we have a problem with being blind, I believe that this country has a problem with putting up with bad attitudes like yours. Our founding fathers did not intend to have this country only europeans otherwise they would have not brought slaves over from Africa, and on top of that this country was already a mixed culture. You would know this if you would have ever taken a history class! We had native americans and multiple other cultures long before anyone from England came her. Learn your history buddy! There is nothing wrong with mixing races. If you are a Christian you would know that God loves everyone the same and can even forgive you for your prejudice attitude. It says no where in the Bible that interracial marriages or having interracial children is a sin. I would not change my interracial relationship for anything. Yes we get stares but because of uneducated individuals whom have no love for the human race but only love for people with their own skin color. Hurray for all of those couple out their that are not conforming to societies way of thinking, and shame on you Mike for you way of thinking. You are fighting a loosing battle!

We are all one color! The color of people!!
I love you all!!!
George Vreeland Hill

�@

Hi,

My name is Troy Fleming. My wife a white Hungarian Female and me, an African American male started a sportswear company called One People One Planet. Our goal is to promote diversity and respect regardless of race, religion, or creed. By wearing (OP/OP) sportswear, you show the world you truly support diversity, multicultural, and interracial relations.

We invite you to join our team.

I have been reading the news which in appearing in the European TV and press about Kashmir. I am shocked to read the word 'rebels' and crushing of 'violent insurgency' used instead of the word 'terrorists' . Ofcourse, if they are doing thisintentionally to mangle India's image or its stance on the Kashmir issue than nothing needs to be said. But if it is a mistake due to lack of proper information than I would like to clear some facts:

A 'rebel' or 'insurgency' means to rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler of and within the political system. Yes, like many other countries round the world India too has its own sets of naxalites, traitors, smugglers, criminals, etc. The country's law and its democratic system has the potentiality to deal with them in a very justified way. However, the ones you are referring to are neither Indians nor insiders in the first place. The so called 'rebels', or 'freedom fighters' as the Pakistani General Musharaf prefers to call them, are all foreign mercenaries and terrorists.

As a journalist I have visited Kashmir in and out and let me tell you that there is noting like people's movement against the Indian Union, as is being propagated by Pakistan. The Kashmir Valley (in India) is open to the world and you should visit it once. What you will see is that the Kashmiris are either scared of Pakistani terrorism and many local young men have formed the Village Defense Committee (VDC) in coordination with the Indian Security Forces, to fight them. Earlier, in the 1990s Indian youths had fallen pray to the Pakistani propaganda. But today, there is hardly any 'violent insurgent' left in Kashmir, in contrass to the words used by ISN. All of these violent mercenaries are coming in from across the boarder and are of Pakistani, Afghani, Arab and Sudani origins. If you visit the graveyards of Kashmir you will find that more than half of them belong to foreign nationals.

Yes, there are some Islamic Separatist, like the Huriyat who are more like Pakistan�s agents in India. But they have contradicting objectives within themselves. More important they are in small numbers and do not have any local support. Though they make tall claims the fact is that they have not contested even in the local elections of Jammu and Kashmnir to prove themselves. Few of them who had done so had the bad experience of loosing their minimum deposit. * (* Considered to be disqualified as an election candidate by the Election Commissioner failing to secure even the minimum number of votes after the vote-counting takes place). Except for the Pakistani government and the media (as long as they get something sensational to sell the news) no one is really interested in them. If they get violent, they will be behind bars according to the law of the State. Infact there are number of groups in Kashmir and in Pakistani occupied Kashmir (PoK) who are representing the people of Kashmir in a much bigger way. Which Pakistan and its propaganda machinery has deliberately ignored.

Anyway, whether the people who are creating this inhumane trouble in Kashmir are 'insurgents' and 'rebels' or 'hardcore terrorist from Pakistan' can be understood by applying just simple logic:

1. How do these masses of poor people (if you consider them to be from Kashmir) manage to secure expensive sophisticated arms like AK 47 semi-automatics, IEDs, Stringer missiles and grenade launchers, when they are not in the position even to buy food for themselves and their family*?

(* Remember the history of the world shows that the element of poverty is essential to create any kind of a political revolution.)

2. From where do they get the training to fight the security forces when there is no such training center at least in the Kashmir valley?*

(*India has armed forces trained to fight in all three difficult terrenes of the world: Desert, Mountain (High Altitude) and Jungle (Tropical Rainforest and Grassland). It is not the job of untrained local civilians to fight them - even in guerrilla warfare.)

3.. Why do they kill innocent civilians (their so called 'brother Kashmiris') when the fight is suppose to be against the establishment / the India Union?*

(*Rebels revolt against the Government only terrorist go against the people.)

4. Why do they kill the Kashmiri Hindus (Pundits), Sikhs, Buddhist and Anti-Pakistani Muslim leaders in particular? *

(*Is it not because Pakistan still believes in the Jinha�s Two State Theory of 1940s that once Jammu & Kashmir becomes entirely a Muslim State all the Muslims will prefer to join Paksitan).

5. Why do these 'insurgents' and 'rebels' (if they are citizens of India) contest in the State and National elections and prove that the people of Kashmir do support their separatist objectives.

(After all India has such a rare form of open democracy that even anti-democratic (the Communist) and anti-establishment parties too can come to power if the people vote for them.)

Further,

5, for what purpose are the madrasas and training camps operated by the Pakistani militant outfits like Laskar-e-Toyeba (Sunni Islam), Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Al Faran, Hizbul-Mujahideen, etc. inside Pakistan and PoK used for?*

(*The US and UN have more details about them.)

6. Why does the killing and terrorism activites in Kashmir valley shoot-up only after the Pakistani artillery starts firing across the Line of Control (LoC) without any provocation *

(* Ans: To distract the attention of the Indian forces and give passage for the terrorist from Pakistan to cross the boarder in large numbers.)

I would like any logical thinker to consider such questions to establish that these terrorists are actually indigenous Indians or Kashmiris.

Even the recently killed fidyaeen squad militants (of suicide squad ) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir have carried notes in their pocket saying '"inform my master (wali) that finally I have served my religion by giving my life by fighting the enemies of Islam". Please note they do not mention Kashmir even at the time of their death. For they are not really concerned with Kashmir at all. Such fidais are no fighters of Kashmiri independence either. It is clear that they are brainwashed in the Madrasas* (*Islamic racial schools in Pakistan of which the Taliban is a well-known product) that the Indians (along with the Americans, Russians and Israelis) are the enemy of Islam. Paksitan has been using such innocent youth (most of them unemployed, HIV positives and drug addicts) from the Islamic fundamentalist states to fight its own low cost proxy war against India without employing its defense forces.

According to Gen. Parvez Musharaf these Jehadis / freedom fighters / religious warriors / insurgents / rebels /... are doing something which his entire defense forces were unable to do. What the earlier leaders of Pakistan were unable to do. What the UN was unable to do. What the Pakistani nuclear blackmail could not do. .... harm India. And the unaffected India, instead of giving him Kashmir told him to sign on the draft saying that they were 'terrorist' at the Agra Summit !!!

The reasons behind the diplomatic talk and propaganda of calling these Pakistani terrorist 'rebels and insurgents are quite simple to understand:

1. First of all inspite of its acts of terrorism Pakistan does not get registered as a Terrorist State;

2. It manages to create an impression on the International Community that the people of Jammu and Kashmir want to become Pakistani citizens (the unfinished agenda of the Partition) and that India is forcefully suppressing them;

3. When the Indian Security Forces do their job against Pakistan's terrorism and proxy war in the region than by coloring it as a 'freedom struggle' bring in the ''violation of Human Rights' issues - something which the Western countries are very sensitive about.

4. Break the Hindu -Muslim harmony in entire India - to break India. (Terrorists hiding in Mosques and the recent attacks on Hindu pilgrims in Kashmir are few of such examples.) "If the Indian Union's secularism breakdown inside the Jammu & Kashmir State than the Hindus will not prefer the Muslim community spread all over the country".

Fortunately the Indian masses have understood the Pakistan's game plan on Kashmir, because of which the tolerance and harmony within the Union has remained unaffected.

To anticipate your thoughts, the question is why is Pakistan so determined to secure Kashmir? Why is this the "Core Issue" for Pakistan?

In short the reasons are:

1. Pakistan is a country which was formed on the basis of 'racism ' and separatism. Today, as you can see, this two aspects has become very much part of its culture.

2. It wants to take its revenge regarding the creation of Bangla Desh and of occupying Siachin.* (* Gen. Pervez Musharafs remarks during the breakfast talk with the Editors at the Agra Summit)

3. It wants to finally prove that the Jinha theory of the 1940s (supported by the British Raj) of forming the Muslim State out of Hindustan / Greater India was finally the correct one against the concept of a Secularism which formed the Indian Union. (Hence the word �dispute� objected by India during the Agra Summit).

4. Have complete control over the rivers flowing into Pakistan from the Kashmiri (and Punjabi) highlands of India. For as long as their water source is in Indian's hand both the solders and farmers of Paksitan are insecure and feel that India is dominating them. (It will be like Germany and France claiming over Switzerland because the Rhine and Rhone flows down from its highlands.)

5. Secure Sino-Pak Strategic advantage over India forever.

All of these are deeply concerned with Pakistan's internal politics:

6. If Kashmir issue gets extinct than the Pakistani Army will have no role to play in the Pakistani power politics.

7. By focusing on India and on external issues its Government can downplay real sensitive issues within the country like the state of its economy, violation of human rights in Sindh and Bulachisthan Provinces, law and order, corruption, etc. etc.

8. The masses of Talibanized militant groups (especially consisting of Sunni Islamic fundamentalist) created by Pakistan's ISI to fight Indian Forces will certainly boomerang back on Pakistan itself if they have no Kashmir to strike upon.

So, in short, it is necessary for all intellects to understand that first and foremost the Kashmir problem of South Asia is a problem deliberately created by Pakistan and the people of Kashmir are its real victims. Secondly, that the entire problem is much deep rooted, more for Pakistan than for India. 'Kashmir' is not just the 'core issue' for Pakistan, it is its 'life-jacket'. For without 'Kashmir' it thinks it will sink.

It is in interest of India and also of the international community that this country does not sink. Thus, our job should be to train Pakistan how to swim without the 'life-jacket' of Kashmir. This is what the India Prime Minister Atal Bihar Vajpayee was speaking about when he mentioned about 'Confidence Building Measures' as the first step.

I hope you all will give your co-operation for the peace building process in South Asia.

Thanking you.

Best regards,

Prasad
Humanist Movement

I am 15 years old and my father is black and my mother is a white German. Being interracial is special because it represents the fact that the world cannot be seen as just black & white. And no matter how different one group of people are from another group, they can always find things in common and get along. Interracial people represent the bonds between different groups in society.

Being interracial or any one race is in reality not a big deal. It's people who make it a big deal by being racist, stereotypical, or just can't stop talking about it. I mean, it's great to be proud of your background, but must you talk about it every day like it's what life is all about?

Racial divisions that we can see were caused by different groups of mankind living in different geographical locations. It is simple, people mated with others that they felt would help the offspring survive better in the climate in which they lived, in those ancient times. Specific human heriditary genes were sought out. For example, all humans are brown. The pigment cell itself is brown. In some climates, being really really brown, to the point where as you look black, is an advantage for a human population. Race is about survival. Racism is about ignorance. And it is passed down through generations. We learn it from parents and other elders. For example, I did not know my grandfather wasn't black until I was told of this fact when I was 22 years old. In Okahoma, where I am originally from there are many light skinned black folk. You can't even tell they are black. I just assumed growing up that he was part black and part native american. I knew he was native!
american because his mother was. Turns out He is actually native american and white. His father being from the ancestrial line of an american president. President Tyler to be exact. My grandmother is really black. Blacker than most american blacks. The reason I write this is to illustrait the example that as a young boy growing up, all I knew is that he's my grandpa. I didn't really know or care about what color he is. He is grandpa. He and my grandmother have been married since forever. Well an interesting thing happened with my own son, when he was six years old. We were over visiting with my parents and sisters. Someone mentioned my wife's being white (a Swiss woman I met and married when I was in the Marine Corps). Our son from our union piped in and said "my mom is black". He didn't know his own mother is white. He just thought she is the same as everyone else in that room. If everyone else I am around is black, she must be too. See, children don't kn!
ow anything about race. He knows now and of course he is older now. But I told him that instant, that in this world she is classified as of the white race. Bravo! United States 101. Learn racial classifications as soon as possible so you fit in with the rest of society. But when classification actually gets nasty is when people point out others from different racial make ups or from other backgrounds and defame them. This is what there is too much of in this society. We as a society tend to teach our young that not only are there different types of people, but that some of those types should not be associated with. The truth is that there is good and bad in all people.