First of all, it's a fact that the enemies of the Catholic Faith wish to dominate the formerly Catholic countries by creating a "one world government" -- and to do that, they need to destroy all bonds of nationality and race. By encouraging intermarriage, they have achieved this to a large degree.
Intermarriage is not a modern phenomenon but a human one that's been going on for millenia. There are entire subgroups that are the result of intermarriage (North Africans=Arabs + Subsaharan Africans; Seychellois= French+African; Tahitian= French, Native Polynesian, and Asian subgroups; Madagascan=African+Southeast Asian).
People who have dominated have never encouraged intermarriage, and ironically, neither have people who have been subversives. It is something that just happens because when people get into contact with other people they stop perceiving them as "others" but as human beings. Stereotypes always erode in those environments, and people have diminished anxiety about what there proper social role is, or what limitations can be place on them by race or ethnicity.
The perspective that you've just offered (that intermarriage is a plot to destroy family structures and transmission of cultural values) isn't a side point or insignificant -- essentially, you are implying that intermarriage is a threat to every society's framework and that mixed race people should be treated with suspicion, or perceived as anomalies. Someone else also pointed out that this is a very English/Anglo perspective.
What group do YOU feel that you "belong" to and can identify with? Guess what, we are SUPPOSED to have a culture that we feel is part of us. God intended the differences in the races and peoples.
I disagree. I'm beginning to believe that the early apostles, and Jesus himself, were challenging the social orders they were moving through, especially as it concerned race, ethnicity, and cultural allegiance. Some of the heroes in Jesus parables' were known in their regions as mixed race people (Egs:Samaritans) -- it's very interesting that people in dominant groups perceived those people as threat to the social fabric and questioned the legitimacy of their cultural expressions, and that those mixed race people were also the result of interrelationships between colonizers and the colonized.
Inquister Generalis:
You strike me as someone who deeply needs to believe certain things because it helps you negotiate reality (Ie: at the root of what you are saying is that you need to believe in stereotypes). That is your choice, and has no significance to me.
Of course stereotypes can be proven untrue -- if the facts don't gel, it isn't true. A thread of truth or relevance still doesn't make something true (real, factual, relevant). The "good stereotypes" you listed were still routed in the bad:
Black people are good at sports.
This is routed in the idea that while intellectually inferior, Blacks can excel in physical pursuits (being closer to animals or savages). No, this is not positive, benign, or complementary.
Asians are good at Math.
This is routed in the idea that Asians are naturally calculating or very cunning ("inscrutable" is the word commonly used). No, this is not positive, benign, or complementary.
Indigenous people are good at bargaining.
So why not set them up to sell themselves, their land, etc? Another baddie.
Anyways, God bless you in your struggle...
