Chapter 4than whites (23% for men and 25% for
women) (U.S.Census Bureau,2005b).
However,asnationsbecomemore
economicallyself-sufficient,theytendto
movetowardfreedomof choicein
marriage.Thisseemstoberelatedto
women’sincreasededucationalattainment
andeconomicindependence.Inless
industrializednations,womenoftenarenot
abletosupportthemselvesandmust
dependonmen(theirfathersandlater
theirhusbands)forsurvival.Womenin
theseculturesallowtheirparentstochoose
theirspousesandthenmarryatanearly
age.Industrializationbringsmore
employmentandeducationalopportunities
forwomen.Thisleadstoadelayin
marriageandmoretimefordatingbefore
marriage(Olson&DeFrain,1999).
Manyindustrializingnationsarenow
practicingablendof theoldtraditionsof
arrangedmarriagesandthemore
Westernizednotionof dating.Forexample,
youngpeopleinIndiaarebeginningto
choosetheirownspousesthroughdating,
butunderthestrictsupervisionof their
parents.InChina,couplesarestillformally
introducedbyfriendsandrelatives,butare
beginningtodateandchoosetheirown
spouses.InJapan,whileyoungpeoplehave
limitedcontactwiththeoppositesex,they
arebeginningtodateandfallinloveon
theirown(Olson&DeFrain,1999).
Race also has an impact on dating.
With 30% of whites and 34% of blacks
admittingtopersonalracialprejudiceSIDEBAR4.1
RACE ANDCOURTSHIP. ARETHEYRELATED?
Tounderstandtheenduringlegacyof colorline
in our marriage choices, we must look at the
political history.From 1661 to 1967,courtship
andmarriagewereregulatedbynumerousstate
lawscalledantimiscegenationlaws,designedto
preventracialmixing.Thelawsuntil1967were
relatively unchanged, however the racial
categories which these laws were based on
changed considerably. For instance, in 1785,
Virginia considered anyone less than one
quarter“Negro”as white. But in the early 20th
century, any drop of “Negro” blood precluded
entrance into the white race. Thus a couple
complying with the antimiscegenation laws in
one time period could be in violation of them
in another. The immediate post-war period
brought new ways of thinking about race as
cultural understanding of race entered
mainstream America. While several states
dropped or changed their antimiscegenation
laws,it took the federal Supreme Court to rule
in favor of Andrea Perez in Perez vs. Sharp in
- Perez was a Mexican-American woman
considered white applying for a marriage
license to African-American, Sylvester Davis
after receiving permission from her Parish to
marry. Some important considerations based
on this case to ask yourself include:Why is the
rate of interracial marriage still so low despite
the absence of legal prohibitions? What does
the endurance of antimiscegenation laws into
the late 1960’s say about the social definitions
of raceandhowtheyshapethepossibilitiesand
limits of our courtship choices? Who should
define who we can and cannot date or marry?
Adapted from Lubin,A.“What’s love got to do with it?”
The politics of race and marriage in the California
Supreme Court’s 1948Perezand Sharp Decision.
OAH Magazine of History,18(4),31-34.