Either Theodore or Hadrian had very short hair because Bede says that the hair took four months to grow in order “that it might be shorn in the shape of a crown for he had the tonsure of St. Paul.” As worded by Bede, it might mean either man. Some writers have translated it to mean Theodore and others, Hadrian.
5 (a & b). See sources in Sex and Race, Vol. 1, p. 118. 1941.
6 Gibbon, Vol. 4, Chap. 53, pp. 13-14.
7 Ancient Laws and Institutes of England. Theodori Arch. Cant. XVI, 35. It read: “Si qua Christiana faemina a perfidis Judaeis munera suscipit, ac cum eis voluntarie fornicationem fecerit, annum integrum separatur ab aeclesia et cum magna tribuationate vivat; deinde ix. annos poeniteat. Si autem liberos genuerit xii. annos poeniteat,” etc., etc.
8 Caste and Class. American Jour. of Sociology, Vol. 22, pp. 749-50. 1917. Professor Ross adds: “Even to female beauty and charm the caste line may show itself adamant. The daughter of a rich American who marries a titled European is rarely admitted to the husband’s rank. She is made to feel the farmer’s or workingman’s blood in her veins, the taint of usefulness in her ancestors. The American wife of a high-caste Austrian is not invited to homes of her husband’s friends, nor recognized socially.”
I saw an example of this snobbery as practiced against Americans in 1930 at Addis-Ababa. Among the visitors to Haile Selassie’s coronation were the titled daughter of a former viceroy of India and one of New York’s social set, who is related to one of America’s great millionaires. Both ladies travelled together, stopped at the same hotel and were being invited together everywhere, as at the receptions at the French and Italian legations. However, at the reception given to the Duke of Gloucester, son of George. V, by the British Legation the American woman was not invited though her name had been given in by the American Minister. She was much hurt by the snub. “To think,” she said to me, “that Lady —— and I are both travelling together and she was invited and I left out.”
9 History of the Kings of England, pp. 255, 230 (trans. by John Sharpe. 1915). For the manner in which the Southern masters did the identical thing to colored and near-white women in the nineteenth century see chapter, “Slaveholders and Their Trade with Houses of Prostitution” in Sex and Race, Vol. 2.
10 History of England, pp. 13-14. 1849.
11 Prendergast, J. P., The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, pp. 40, 143, 1868.
12 Hirschfeld, M., Mand and Woman, p. 114. 1935. F. A. Sweetenham says that Malay men had the strongest objection to a Malay woman loving, or marrying with, a Chinese. Sometimes the Chinese was killed; sometimes the woman. It was never so bad, he says, “if a Malay had a Chinese woman.” (British Malaya, p. 147. 1929).
13 Records of Massachusetts Bay Colony, Oct. 19 and 26, 1652; Hart, A. B., Commonwealth History of Massachusetts. Vol. 4, pp. 488-92; Vol. 5, 517-21. 1927; Haynes, G. H., The Cause of Know Nothing Success in American Hist. Rev. 1897-8. Vol. 2, pp. 67-82; Cullen, J. B., The Irish in Boston. 1899; Roberts, E. F., Ireland in America, pp. 82-3. 1931; McGuire, J. F., The Irish in America. 1863; Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia. Vol. 1, pp. 663-73. 1884.
14 Records New Plymouth Colony, Dec. 3, 1658; Sept. 4, 1656; Laws New Plymouth Colony, June 10, 1660. Records Massachusetts Bay Colony Oct. 26, 1652; Oct. 19. 1652; Oct. 14, 1656; Oct. 8, 1662; Oct. 2, 1678. Palfrey, History of New England, Vol. 2, pp. 460-484. 1860.
15 Familiar Hist. of the Evangelical Churches of N. Y., pp. 156-9. 1839. Henning’s Statutes of Virginia, Vol. 5, Chap. 14, art. 9, p. 550. Lebeson, A. L., Jewish Pioneers in America, p. 46. 1931.
Chapter Two
MIXED MARRIAGES AS SEEN BY THE LAW - OUR TIMES
“When the state is most corrupt then the laws are most multiplied” Tacitus.
“What has been decreed among prehistoric protozoa cannot be annulled by Act of Parliament.” Thomas Huxley.
AS was said although Negroes were fairly abundant in Europe, there was no law on record against their marriage with white people except in France during the period when the white colonists of Haiti exercised much influence there. The white Americans, though they were able to revive Negro slavery in England after its abolition by Lord Chief Justice Holt1 about 1702, either did not try, or did not succeed in getting an anti-miscegenation law passed. Thus the reasons for opposing mixed marriages which, as we have seen so far were social and economic, did not also become “racial” until the colonization of the New World began. As Hoernle says, “The evidence strongly suggests that colour prejudice entered into the colonial expansion of Europe in proportion as economic, industrial and nationalistic motives replaced the older religious motives as the chief determinant in the relations of white and non-white.”
It may fairly be said that any prohibition of marriage between white and black at all began in the New World. Venezuela, Mexico, Haiti and one or two other Latin American lands, had such laws, but they were abolished either under the Spanish regime or upon the winning of independence. The United States is the only country in the New World which has carried its law against the marriage of white and black from its colonial period into its national one.
It still has them in twenty-eight states, being one of the only three countries in which such marriages are outlawed. The others are South Africa, and Australia.
In South Africa, such unions were one legal in Cape Colony and Natal but it is a crime now. In Transvaal and Natal the penalty is imprisonment and the lash.
A commission appointed in 1938 by the South African government to inquire whether interracial marriages “are sufficiently numerous to be seriously detrimental” to the future of the white race recommended that “legislation on the model of the Transvaal laws should be passed prohibiting marriages between Europeans and non-Europeans.”a As for illicit intercourse between white and black in any part of South Africa that is as serious an offense as beastiality. The penalty, according to a law of March 26, 1927 is five years’ imprisonment.b This law has had no more success than similar ones in the United States, and “the colored population increases year after year.”c
Nazi Germany
In Nazi Germany the Nuremberg law of 1935 provided: “Whoever ministers or tries to administer to the debasement or disturbance of German blood purity by uniting or aiding a union with members of the Jewish race or other colored races shall be found guilty of race treachery and sent to prison.
“Racial treason is committed even when sexual relations are effected with the use of prevenceptives.”
In determining who are of mixed blood this law was retroactive to the year 1800. If one had a Jewish or a Negro ancestor in that year he was not an “Aryan.” In 1938 a farmer, son of a German professor, was designated by his uncle to inherit his farm under the hereditary farmer’s act as the nearest male relative. On investigating the prospective heir’s ancestry it was discovered, however, that his great-grandmother had been a mulatto, born in 1805 of a white father and a black mother, and he was disinherited. The court ruled that the requirements of blood purity are so imperative that although only “Aryan” strain was visible in him it did not count. The rich estate went to the Reich, that is, the Nazis.4
WHO IS A NEGRO- AFRICAN, OCEANIC, MALAYAN AND AMERICAN TYPES
V. Upper left to right: Woman of Central Africa, a Negro; and a Batusti, of East Africa, who though black-skinner and wooly-haired is not classed a Negro. Below: Native of Mauritania, Africa, coal-black and frizzly-haired, but also, “not a Negro.” Centre: Black-skinned, frizzly-haired Malayan, also “not a Negro.” Right: Peyton M. DeWitt, noted horticulturist, born in the United States and with a distant African ancestor. He “is a