My initial reaction to Ty Schwoeffermann’s recent ugly rant about the dangers of interracial dating (“Watch out for ‘Jungle Fever,’” ODE Nov. 15): “Something isn’t right.”
It begins as soon as he puts ink to paper, condemning the “virus” that is “sexual desire for the opposite race.” To compare any loving relationship to something that spreads illness and death is, well, morbid. Moreover, as Mr. Schwoeffermann’s eyes seem only to see binary colors, let me make a clear point. Black and white are easily defined opposites, but what about yellow, red and brown? I am Middle Eastern. Would Schwoeffermann equally object to my hand holding a black girl’s? What exactly is the opposite of brown?
Notwithstanding the obvious fact that America is more diverse than Mr. Schwoeffermann suggests, let us examine his main argument against dating across the black-white divide. He states, “In America no interracial couple will survive as long as negative prejudices exist in the general public’s conscience.” He suggests that such relationships might work in other, more tolerant countries.
I think he hasn’t traveled much.
The prejudices we face in this country are the same that exist in France, England, Canada and even Iran – with differing cultural histories, of course. Schwoeffermann proposes that until such prejudices are eradicated from American society, libidinal segregation is the answer. That is, in fact, until he contradicts himself in the same paragraph: “An interracial relationship will be directly or indirectly challenging stereotypes that have a history of violence.” Voilá, an answer to his own problem: subverting stereotypes through exposure and integration!
And why does Mr. Schwoeffermann dedicate one-third of his essay on dating to the history of racism in America? I am fully aware of the brutal murder of Emmett Till in 1955. In fact, I am also aware that white Americans actively lynched black men all over the United States for any reason they could find. I wonder if Schwoeffermann is aware that “The Birth of a Nation” was released in 1915.
If he wants to argue that racism still exists in this country, I agree. He could just as well use contemporary news headlines to make his point. But to argue that because racism still exists in America, then interracial dating is impossible simply defies logic.
I find Mr. Schwoeffermann’s tirade to be unintelligent, incoherent and poorly written. If he prefers segregated dating, he is more than free to live his life that way. I, for one, smile every time I see interracial couples holding hands, because I realize they really are sending a political message without even intending to. They are too busy being in love.
And in response to Mr. Schwoeffermann’s denunciation of students who would dare attend “every black student union dance even though nobody invited you,” I scratch my head in puzzlement. As a leader of another cultural student group on campus, I believe the whole point of such student associations is to bridge divides, not buttress barriers. Mr. Schwoeffermann seems to believe we all would be better off keeping to our own kind and color. I can only imagine the ensuing uproar had a white College Republican written such an article.
Babak Ghafarzade is a University Honors College student