Talk about race or religion these days and there is no shortage of people who will try to intimidate you into silence.

Take for instance the recent prounouncement on C-SPAN's Washington Journal by the 1999 Miss America regarding interracial dating. In response to a topic that came up when a caller phoned in to express her belief that interracial dating was wrong, Ms. Johnson first said that she agreed with the caller "on all avenues." When pressed by the host to elaborate, however, she changed her answer to clarify that she wouldn't "smile upon" interracial dating in her family. Obviously, she realized she let the cat out of the bag and decided to try and minimize the damage. She did not elaborate on her reasons, but it doesn't take a degree from Regent University to figure out where she was getting the basis for her opinion. Now, here is where it gets funny. I heard her brief comments on interracial dating on C-SPAN's Washington Journal while she was being interviewed and taking calls from viewers regarding her recent appearance at the Republican National Convention. Upon hearing her astute reflections on interracial relationships, I decided to post information regarding her comments on several Delphi message boards. Us interracially married people sometimes like to talk about that kind of stuff, you know. Well. You'd have thought I'd said that God is dead. The objections to discussing her point of view were incredible. The overall consensus of those objecting was that she (Miss America 1999) was entitled to the right to hold her own opinions. Well, duh. Obviously she has the right to hold such views. I'm pretty sure few people would disagree with that statement. Strike that, few tolerant people would disagree with that statement. Funny thing is though, many of the same people arguing that she should be able to hold her own opinions also argued that public discussion of her publicly stated opinions was wrong. How so?

Those who've read my rag, The Multiracial Activist, know that I've been heavily involved in the public discussion of Bob Jones University and their views on interracial dating/marriage, which they (now) openly admit were not based on Scripture. Now, the fact that I pointed out this contradiction a few times was often used by BJU apologists as evidence that I was intolerant of their right to hold those views.

Now, now. Using God, the Bible or even the past suffering of ancestors, like Julian Bond of the NAACP, as a weapon to silence debate is deplorable. The right to hold a view, does not trump another's right to dissect and discuss that viewpoint. Often though, free speech as practiced by religious conservatives or liberal civil rights advocates means that anyone who disagrees is "Christian-bashing," being "intolerant" or even "racist."

In my writings, I have often criticized religious conservative intolerance. However, I have far more often criticized liberal intolerance, such as expressed by the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus to name a few. All have courted and embraced individuals intolerant of interracial dating/marriage and "racial" self-identification. Now then, as the father of two so-called multiracial children and as a white/Cherokee man married to a black Christian woman, I am neither "anti-Christian" nor "intolerant." I am definitely not a "racist." I am, however, unabashedly critical of those who profess to speak for God. I am equally critical, if not more so, of so-called civil rights leaders who preach tolerance and acceptance, yet label those with any viewpoints counter to their own as "racist" and such. For instance, advocates of multiracial self-identification were described as fronting "white supremacy" groups by the former Washington Bureau Director of the NAACP. This is a classic NAACP tactic. If you can't beat your opponent in the court of public opinion then, by all means, commit character assassination. Use of the words like "racist" or "Uncle Tom" will earn you even bigger points.

There are many in the former multiracial movement who feel that criticizing liberal politicians and public figures is a bad, horrible practice. Why?

If those of us of "mixed-race" or in "interracial" marriages/relationships are unable or, even worse, unwilling to publicly discuss and counter hypocrisy and intolerance on the left and/or the use of religion as a tool of oppression of our community, then there is no hope. A few years ago certain national mixed-race organizations were revelling in their alliances with the very forces of darkness that worked to defeat the former multiracial movement. I wonder what they think of those alliances today, in light of the recent "Back to Black" and similar campaigns sponsored by civil rights and ethnic groups which encouraged people to check "black only."

Now is the time to let go of the "sacred cow" mentality with regard to policy discussions related to race or religion. Right Now. No organization or individual should be given a free pass to undermine our community, regardless of what they promise some of us in immoral backroom deals. Our future success in defeating "race" as a social construct depends on it. Of course, if you like being a second class citizen, barely tolerated by organizations and institutions who don't necessarily have your best interests at heart, then feel free to sit this one out and not get in the way. I won't be joining you though. The game isn't over yet and I have work to do.

Also by James Landrith:

• Open Letter to The Interracial, Multiracial
  and Transracial Adoptee Community

• Daddy's House or Knowing Who Your True Friends Really Are
  

©2001 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.