Cassius Clay on Interracial Marriage

Listen to the young Cassius Clay (or was he Muhammad Ali by then?) in 1971, speaking on the necessity for marrying within one’s own race. He is witty, intelligent, articulate, and absolutely politically incorrect, even by the standards of his time.

Watch the discomfiture of the BBC interviewer, as if he is thinking: This man is an authentic Afro-American — how can he say such dreadful things?

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

8 thoughts on “Cassius Clay on Interracial Marriage

  1. That is a very interesting clip. In today’s world I think interracial marraige is less of a problem (even though it still presents some problems) than intercultural marraige. One of the partners must yield in the latter circumstance especially when children are involved.

  2. I used to think he had gotten hit in the head too many times.

    Could never tell when he was serious or being self-promotional because he can flick between the two states instantly!

    He is basically right in his points. I married a Latino and I’m a white Germanic guy. My butt just don’t move right when I hear latino music. As for my wife tears do not flow out of her eyes and down her cheeks like they do mine when I hear Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata!

  3. Wikipedia says the Cassius Clay became a Sunni Muslim in 1964.

    Islam was or is very attractive to black men because of the power it gives them and not grace. It does not require a whole lot of thought or intellect to be Islamic.

  4. This man is an authentic Afro-American — how can he say such dreadful things?

    Because he’s not white and thus exempt from censure for saying such things.

  5. Personally I think, “who cares whom a person marries?”

    But I also think “If this is what he wants to think, why shouldn’t he be allowed to say it?” It’s not racist, but I agree that it’s fun to watch the poor PC BBC guy who isn’t getting the narrative he wanted.

    Now I don’t care about people freely marrying in and out of race; it’s a little bit problematic marrying out of religion, creed and/or culture, for purely practical reasons, not because I regard some folks as “dirty” or “lower”. Forcing conflicting creeds, beliefs and cultures together in this crucible we call society or the even tighter crucible called family can be a volatile experiment. If cultures are to coexist peacefully let them protect their natural respective comfort zones and let us be done with this insane experiment in blind alchemy.

  6. I think that it is perfectly acceptable for people to have and express a preference for members of their own race. Genetically, humans are programmed to prefer a very slight measure of exogamy (measured by some to peak just outside the second cousin degree of relation). I also think that it is tolerable for people to have and express a preference for members of a different race, though it does tend to towards sexual objectification (hearing white guys go on about “Asian chicks” doesn’t make me personally think more highly of them). It is likely that greater exogamic tendencies are triggered in the minority of a population as a biological mechanism that serves to leverage genetic diversity in a population. My guess is that a total lack of such matings would be destructive to humanity as a species.

    That is to say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to mate with a member of your own race, and while there maybe is something a little odd about wanting to mate outside your race it’s probably a bad idea to forbid it. Still, while I think that we should be allowed to say that (regardless of personal skin color), I don’t mandate it as a prerequisite for civilized society (let alone citizenship in society) that everyone agree.

    I do think that, in civilized society, a person that expresses a belief they cannot logically defend is under the necessity of acknowledging that they cannot make their argument. But that doesn’t mean they must admit to being wrong…logical arguments for error have often been accepted as a result of limited knowledge or outright deception in the presented evidence.

    That the widespread belief that humans are especially unique as intelligent life-forms is not supported by the best existing evidence (and appears to be largely an irrational instinctive preference for one’s own species) doesn’t mean that such people must admit they are wrong…it is possible (and perhaps likely) that they are right (though possibly in a different way than they would like).

    Chiu Chun-Ling.

Comments are closed.