Jasmine Primary Source + Response Paper

My primary source is available here. Please read page 10, starting at "This theological perspective of marriage has been presented in order to show..." through the first paragraph of page 12.

One of the main focuses of my paper will be the ways in which religion affected peoples' views toward interracial marriage, with my argument being that overall, it was a progressive force. My primary source for this week is an amicus curiae brief filed by 16 Roman Catholic bishops, archbishops, and apostolic administrators, as well as two national Catholic organizations. In this brief, they argue that because marriage is a religious act, the government's interference through anti-miscegenation laws is unconstitutional. This is a prime example both of the positive effect that religious sentiments had on some peoples' attitudes toward the Lovings and interracial marriage, and of religious individuals who felt strongly enough about this issue to take action on behalf of mixed race couples. Further along in the brief, there's a section about how interracial marriages are not inherently dangerous to children; instead, the problems that some interracial families face are due to external prejudice. This will tie in with a couple of the newspaper articles I found that also argue that there is no scientific basis for antimiscegenation laws.

I find the topic matter of Jill Lepore’s essay much more compelling and relatable if I think of her argument in terms of groups rather than individuals. In general, I have not written essays focused primarily on the experiences of a single person or family; when individuals are highly relevant, such as Mildred and Richard Loving in my current essay, I prefer to prioritize the events and ideas related to them rather than their own lives. I suppose this is somewhat in line with Lepore’s views about microhistorians, as she believes that “even when [microhistorians] study a single person’s life, they are keen to evoke a period,  a mentalité, a problem” (132). The difference, though, is that I try to include only as much information about the person’s life as is necessary rather than providing information and then drawing conclusions about society. Even so, I think a lot of her arguments apply more to the experience I have when writing about certain demographic groups, particularly those who are marginalized.

Lepore’s third proposition is that microhistorians “tend to betray people who have left abundant records in order to resurrect those who did not,” which is certainly something that I regularly do (141). In writing about women or racial minorities, I often use documents left by men and white women to try to decry the actions of the powerful and humanize the oppressed. The difference is that I feel little to no guilt about what might be considered a “betrayal” - the only emotional dilemma I face is to what extent I should forgive people who did awful things for being products of their times. Sometimes I think that the standard to which I should compare people should be the most enlightened person from that time, with the logic that if that person could escape the prejudice of the time, then my subject should have been able to as well. Other times, I try to be more realistic in judging people by the average individual from their time instead. In any case, my problem is often that I skip the infatuation phase of researching powerful people and instead demonize them a little more than is necessary because I care too much about the marginalized groups who suffered from that person’s actions.