Some of your examples support my view. Especially number 6. If there were so many mixed race marriages that congress got involved in upholding a ban it shows that a lot of common people didn't buy into racism.
Most of your other examples also show that a debate and struggle was going on in society at that time. Blacks, mexicans, and sympathethic whites were on one side and Howard and the (admittedly dominant) racist paradigm were on the other. But there were two sides, even then. I'm glad the lop-sidedness shifted. It would have been nice if REH had been more like Ernest Caldwell, and been on the helping it shift side. --- Mark Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Gary Romeo wrote: > > [snip] > > > ----- > > I think this shows that besides his conversations > with > > Novalyne, Howard should have been aware of > non-racist > > views that were held by whites. That he chose to > > express racist views and include them in some of > this > > stories shows where his head was at. > > > > > > But then how do you explain REH's response to things > like the > following-- > > 1. The 1917 creation by Woodrow Wilson of the > Committe on Public > Information which distributed pamphlets nation wide > explain on the > contirbution of the whites to America's heritage > while actively > downplaying the role of African-Americans, Huns, and > East Europeans. > > 2. The creation of the Bureau of Investigation (no, > not the FBI yet, > but its forerunner) and the work of the young J. > Edgar Hoover against > Marcus Garvey and other civil rights leaders. > > 3. The resurrgence of the KKK and the formation of > the Native Sons of > the Golden West in th eyears following WW1. > > 4. The debates which raged in the US Congress from > 1921 through 1924 > over the various natures and elements of the "races" > (which we would now > call ethnic groups). Read some of those speeches if > you wanna see > racism. Some of the more notable ones are by > Congressmen Purnell, > McSwain, Taylor, and Watkins. Okay, sure none are > Texan senators, but I > challenge you to prove these debates were never > mentioned in the > newspapers. > > 5. The scientific and not-so scientific debates > concerning eugenics > that occurred in Britain and the USA. One can also > add the debates > between Boas (and his students) to those of Hooton > (and his students at > Harvard). While you can question, and rightly so, > how much of this > reached the general public, Prof. Walter Goldschmidt > a student of > Kroeber's in the 1920s has remarke din a recent > memoir that the stuff > was all over the more popular literature (see > AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST V. > 102 (2001) p. 789-807. > > 6. The passing of laws by several state legislatures > on upholding the > ban on mixed-race marriages that occurred in the > 1920s. > > 7. The fact that laws existed on the books of most > Southwestern states > that didn't permit > Hispanics/Mexicans/Mexican-Americans to own land. > Many of the laws were not struck off the books until > after 1935. > > 8. The idea of Volksgeist. > > So, while you offer one case, I offer many. You > really need to take > into account the overall currents of society IMO. > You can't pick and > choose social events if you are going to have a > solid historical method. > > All the best, > MEH > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com
