U.S. government bodies have tried to regulate interracial intimacy from the day Pocahontas married John Rolfe up through Loving
v. Virginia, which found antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. Even without a solid biological definition of race, laws regarding the mixing of the races have been upheld by the highest courts to prevent dilution or devaluation of white privilege, argues Moran, professor at U.C. Berkeley School of Law, based on her studies of historical regulations created for different ethnicities. The history of interracial intimacy has crucial ongoing implications, she believes, pointing to America's relatively few interracial marriages today. Do workplace and residential segregation keep us from meeting people of other ethnicities? Do the economics of marriage encourage marrying "up" or equal, which may favor a same-race match? There are no clear answers, though Moran reveals intriguing insights from examining the "outmarriage" rates of various groups. Not surprisingly, she finds that differing "racialized images of sexuality" account for many discrepancies—e.g., black women don't marry out much; Asian-American women do. With this race-intimacy perspective, Moran traces adoption and child custody policy and census bureau policies on racial identity. While hopeful for America's more multiracial future generations, Moran is well aware of the bureaucratic and public apathy that preserves the segregated status quo. Her attention to detail can be daunting, but legal scholars will prize her research. General readers may find the going slow, though the weirder anecdotes from our racial history enliven this study, which is likely to become a classic in its field. (May)
