Volume > Issue > Note List > When Radical Turns Out To Be Reactionary

When Radical Turns Out To Be Reactionary

The May 1 issue of the newsweekly Insight carried a story on a new magazine called Mavin, which Insight describes as “a glossy, graphics-laden magazine” targeted at young people of “mixed race.”

Insight tells us that the most recent issue of Mavin (its fourth) “is chock-full of ads,” which is remarkable since Mavin is so new and has a circulation of only 2,600, and that Mavin itself ran an article on “how advertisers are cashing in on the mystique of the multiracial look.” And Insight tells us that the young founder of Mavin “is betting his new magazine can capitalize on the [interracial] trend.”

Those who married outside their race decades ago, when doing so was definitely not a “trend” and when there was often adversity or ostracism to be endured, will likely be none too thrilled about the Johnny-come-latelies seeking to “cash in” and “capitalize” on strenuous matters of the heart and the children who were subsequently procreated.

But never mind that. The really interesting issue, which Insight doesn’t raise, is: Why are young people these days increasingly marrying outside their race? It’s not just because racial barriers have been falling, for interracial marriages don’t occur in a random pattern. Census figures — and common observation — indicate that the great majority of white-black couples consist of a black male and a white female while the great majority of white-Asian couples consist of a white male and an Asian female.

Enjoyed reading this?

READ MORE! REGISTER TODAY

SUBSCRIBE

You May Also Enjoy

The News You May Have Missed: March 2020

The End Is (Not) Near... The Pressures of Plant Parenthood... Her Majesty’s Psychic Service... Cash Stash... Big Ben Bong... Like the Dewfall... and more

Why Is It O.K. to Insult a Pregnant Lady?

Unsolicited conversations often turn into sermonettes, confrontations, or inquisitions if this is not the “blessed” first child.

Would You Like to "Search for Truth" in an "Open Church"?

One may wonder why Michael Novak allowed his 1964 book to be republished.