Has interracial relationships historically always been taboo?

no comment

I just now realized. What with the one drop rule enforced the way it was, there must've been some very white "blacks" throughout the south.

Blonde haired blue eyed white girls were used as sex slaves because they had one black grandparent or great grandparent

I'm willing to bet some people supported the law just because they felt there wasn't enough variety on the slave markets.

>Caucasian is a fucking meme

Human genetic clustering isn't a meme. Some Southern European ethnicities are genetically closer to Lebanese people than to other Europeans

And the European looking Lebs are considered white in the Western world

>Some Southern European ethnicities are genetically closer to Lebanese people than to other Europeans
Do people forget that Rome was a global center for people world wide to come trade in?
I've been to Italy and I'd unironically say that some South Italians aren't white.

Why is it so heavily promoted?

...

"European-looking Lebs" are literally genetically identical to "non-European looking Lebs".

This gives me a very hard boner.

There still are!

Show me the part of the Bible where interracial relationships are forbidden.

>Show me the part of the Bible where interracial relationships are forbidden.

They aren't. Moses married a black women, Miriam got all pissed at him for it and God struck that bitch down with lepresy. Not to mention the fact that even European Jews have like 4% DNA from Sub-Saharan African it would make sense

Eh. It's mostly after years of forced assimilation and pressure as religious minorities there was a very, very strong secular movement ahead of everyone else.

It could have started when the Aryans took over India.
They subjugated the people of the Indus Valley, forbade them to read their own language and Sanskrit.
Only the priests 9brahmans) were allowed to read and only Aryans could become priests.
The Aryans only married the nobilities and the same was so for the priests.

They even went as far as preaching about a "divine caste system that only showed that the Aryans were the sun and the people of the Indus Valley were the dirt to be trampled on.
And they still use this retarded faith system.

>They even went as far as preaching about a "divine caste system that only showed that the Aryans were the sun and the people of the Indus Valley were the dirt to be trampled on.
Tbf the caste system came into affect within the sub-continent centuries after the Indo-Europeans were long assimilated into the gene pool.
It was more by their descendants.

I wouldn't call it assimilated in the gene.
I'd say "had control over them for centuries"
That's because the Veda's were completed in 600BCE while they settled there around 1800BCE
It took them a long time to complete it.

Pretty sure the fact that it's taboo is a new thing because multi-racial countries weren't really normal before the end of colonialism.

I mean, it is a relatively new thing that people of different phenotypic character live in the same nation and are even considered citizens of the same country.

livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html
>Though relationships between people of different social groups was once common, there was a "transformation where most groups now practice endogamy," or marry within their group, said study co-author Priya Moorjani, a geneticist at Harvard University.
>Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that while class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago
>Early on, there were distinct classes of people — the priests, the nobility and the common people — but no mention of segregation or occupational restrictions. By about 3,000 years ago, the texts mention a fourth, lowest class: the Sudras. But it wasn't until about 100 B.C. that a holy text called the Manusmruti explicitly forbade intermarriage across castes

The civilisational construct that is Europe doesn't exist back then, the Romans would consider themselves Mediterranean rather than european, and they would be culturally closer to Greeks, Anatolians, and Levantines at the time than they do with the Nords/Germanics

These are fake stats. The same study has a version where sub-Saharan admixture is less.

Marrying outside of your ethnic group has been somewhat of a taboo for a lot of history, at least for lower class people.

You're not going to get an honest response because everyone here is motived by their political ideology.

But yes to a certain degree. There were times in history when it happened, but it was frowned upon. And historically people were very endogamous, not just along ethnic lines but even religious. Spanish soldiers marrying Native American women, and a few free people of color communities that existed doesn't mean it was accepted. Anglo Indians even hid their ancestry and claimed to be fully British. Alistair Mcgowan's family history comes to mind. And the racial classification system that existed in Latin America. Obviously there was a sense of shame about it.

Those free people of color communities became marginalised minorities, like the melungeons and the other groups that existed.

Septimius Severus was not black by any stretch of the imagination. He probably didn't look too much different to Southern Europeans.

There's a difference between "interracial relationships were not accepted" and "mongrel children were not considered slaves, second-class citizens or just somehow inferior."

Yes humans were and always will be racist.

* "interracial relationships were accepted", to stay consistent with the second proposition.

The point is that it was no real demerit to the guy from the dominant ethnic group in general, taking foreign wives was openly encouraged in many contexts (especially war/genocide) and it was typically considered a great honor for the inferior partner.
Women taking on inferior partners was obviously frowned upon and the lucky guys might have faced retribution if only out of jealousy or concern that they were getting uppity. I don't want to yell "IT WAS THE PATRIARCHY" but yeah.

There was also often a line drawn between interracial relationships and interracial, just like there existed for nobles and commoners back home. No one minded that the king patronized a harem of lowborn courtesans (who enjoyed incredible social mobility from the association) but if he had married one of them it'd have been a scandal. In the same way, fucking your slaves was better than freeing and marrying them, and if you had to marry them you might take them as secondary wives etc.

* There was also often a line drawn between interracial relationships and interracial MARRIAGE

fuck my brain

>Anglo Indians even hid their ancestry and claimed to be fully British
Tbf, Anglo-Indian marriages were encouraged by the British at first while they were still in their Indoboo phase. The children were treated fine then.
It's when they thought it would lead to sympathy for India that they started frowning upon it largely, which in turn made the lives of everyone involved harder as well as decreased the number of marriages.

>Women taking on inferior partners was obviously frowned upon and the lucky guys might have faced retribution if only out of jealousy or concern that they were getting uppity. I don't want to yell "IT WAS THE PATRIARCHY" but yeah.
True desu
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Notting_Hill_race_riots
>The riot is popularly believed to have been triggered by an assault against Majbritt Morrison, a white Swedish woman,[4] on 29 August 1958.[5] Morrison had been arguing with her Jamaican husband Raymond Morrison at the Latimer Road tube station. A group of various white people attempted to intervene in the argument and a small fight broke out between the intervening people and some of Raymond Morrison's friends.[6] The following day Majbritt Morrison was verbally and physically assaulted by a gang of white youths that had recalled seeing her the night before.[7] According to one report, the youths threw milk bottles at Morrison and called her racial slurs such as "Black man's trollop",
But your Spanish example was wrong. The Spaniards, all memes aside, tried to be just to the remaining natives under Judeo-Christian beliefs and interracial marriage was allowed for everyone I think.

Were there ever interracial marriages between royal families?

No, man from Somalia have always fucked swedish girls

You can literally go and ask /pol/ yourself why they're pushing it.

How do people not know that the concept of race is modern/a few centuries old

For the Spanish it wasn't unusual for the to get American wives. At nearly every city that Hernan Cortes and his soldiers visited, they were given women by the Americans.

Abram Petrovich Gannibal comes to mind.

Mexico was funny place
>Spaniards
>Berbers
>Jews
>Hindu
>Filipino
>blacks
>natives
>Nipponese
>Chinese
>other Europeans
All mixed or not.

In Mexico? What happened to them?

MESTIZAJE

Huh, you think that'll happen to America?

I didn't know that Mexico had a multiethnic history. I thought it was only the Spaniards and the indigenous who bred together too much.

Do you know what Mexicans view themselves as, racially? Do they relate more to the Spaniard or to the natives? Or do they have some kind of wewuzian history to do with the east Asians?

>Septimius Severus was not black by any stretch of the imagination.

Literally nobody on this thread implied that.

You're right. Afrocentrist shitposting is so prevalent online I instinctively argue against it even when there isn't any.

Depends if the male is attractive

pic related would be a good interracial specimen

OP's image is not.

As you can see, the result of the bonding is sub-par, and unaesthetic to the eye

No. In Brazil for example, genetic analysis reveals like 80% of their historical male ancestors were europeans, and 90% of their historical female ancestors were natives. Can't remember the exact numbers but it was something to that effect.

...

GRANDE

Before colonization interracial marriage was an oddity, so rare as to not cause any mass outcry. Christian Spaniards probably were angry at Arab Muslims invaders marrying local women, but they would have felt the same way about pagans from Norway doing this.

Interracial marriage, and race, didn't really become a big deal until colonization allowed this to happen on a mass scale. And in any scenario where Christian/white women were scarce, European men married local girls. Even outside the Americas, large and powerful part-Euro populations emerged in many European colonies.

Yeah, abolitionists actually made a big cause of this to appeal to people who didn't care about blacks being treated horribly

Is it?

NEGRO

LA RAZA, THE RACE

Aka mestizos

That's incorrect entirely.

Interracial no. Inter-class yes.

Isn't La Raza a fairly small group? They're pretty insignificant, right?

Why does she look so fucking smug?

>taboo

No its the majority. Most people consider themselves a mix between natives and Europeans. There are some white Mexicans that look down on brown people but for the most part they just consider themselves Mexicans

Okay, yeah that's probably true that they see themselves that way. But isn't La Raza actually a somewhat organized political group?

I haven't heard of it as a political group itself really. I think I read somewhere the mestizaje was used a while ago to make a national identity I think. I think they sometimes they refer to other mexicans as la raza too but I'm not sure.

It might have been used by some chicano movements like cesar chavez, or maybe you're thinking of that one commie group that believes in aztlan but I haven't heard of a significant political group called that.
Maybe someone else has a better answer

I think that political entity youre thinking of is primarily a chicano thing.

Because she has married into the American priestly caste and is now immune to all criticism.

Mexican here. Kind of like how said I think most of us just identify with each other and with the concept of being Mexican more than with genetics or any specific racial origin. Somehow it emerged as a very strong cultural identity despite all the miscegenation, and varying individuals will give varying amounts of attention to the Precolumbian, Spanish and other migrant history of Mexico, but the Spanish and indigenous influence stands out more for most people.

For example, I have Spanish, Arabic and mestizo individuals in my family tree, but my current family members just relate culturally and racially with Mexico and I have more of an interest in its Precolumbian history than my mom who has more of an interest with Spain. I'd also imagine that Mexicans who have more pure native ancestry are more aware of their roots in that regard. Though, if you go to the US and ask latinos with varying shades of skin color what race they are, most will just simply answer "Mexican" before they can even think of saying white, native, etc.

She looks English as hell

Oh boy this thread sure is history and isn't thinly veiled /pol/ shit. Nope. Not at all.

well you like it or not but its history
columbian exchange was a thing and Mexico was melting pot of many races

Mexico is mostly indian and spanish, like lets say 40 - 40%. Then like a 10% black, because the spanish did import slaves to mexico to work sugar cane. Then we have a 10% of anything else, that mostly has to do with philipinos (philipines was a spanish colony at the same time as mexico, so there was some cross migration there), lebanese & chinese (both XX century mass migrations), french and italians (XIX century migrations).
They all assimilated very fast because we have never been afraid of interracial relationships.

Mexican here.
The La raza-aztlan-chicano "movements" are exclusively a mexican-american thing.
We do not concern ourselves with such things in mexico proper. Our main enemy is, and always has been our government. Americans are racist business partners that whine about us every once in a while, but we just carry on with our lives.