I'd like to keep government as limited as possible, and I view all kinds state prohibitons or enforcements with skepticism. (to answer your question about intermarriage prohibition)
All right, can you explain me antisegregation legislation in this light, please?
Well, if you truly don't like state prohibitions and enforcements, then presumably you wouldn't have liked segregation, because it was laws promulgated by the state and enforced by the state that made it legal. They were commonly known as "Jim Crow" laws. Following the civil war and the freeing of the slaves many southern states passed legislation
mandating or enforcing separation of the races: blacks could not go to the same schools, or sit in the same part of the bus, or use the same restaurants or rest rooms as white people. So, although black people descended from people who had been in the U.S. for hundreds of years and were American citizens, they were to be segregated or kept apart by force of law. I hope I don't need to tell you that although they paid taxes like everyone else their state or local tax funded facilities were far inferior to those for whites.
In the Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas case, the Supreme Court held that such laws were unconstitutional. The suit was brought on behalf of a little African American girl who wished to go to a school near her and not to the substandard "black" one.
Eventually, all such laws failed. A famous case involved a black woman known as Rosa Parks. Blacks were relegated to only a few back rows on buses. So, even if the "white" section was virtually empty, they had to stand if the "black" section was full. Rosa Parks went and sat herself in the "white" section and was arrested.
Americans would now come into contact with one another more frequently and on a more equal basis. That is emphatically
not the same as a law that mandates intermarriage between the races. It's not even the case that it is encouraged through tax benefits or anything of that kind. The government doesn't interfere in this matter. It is a question of individual choice, and most Americans don't make that choice, although that number is increasing. There is more intermarriage with Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans. You were provided with the statistics upthread.
And what I am trying to say, and somehow it keeps falling on deaf ears, is that I'd like to keep the world diverse! Is it that difficult to understand? Do you want Italian identity, language and culture to disappear?
Well, who's saying you can't feel that way or teach your children to feel the same way? If you were living in America, I'd say "It's a free country.", believe whatever you want. Just be prepared to get an earful if you go around haranguing other people as to whom they should or should not marry.
No, I absolutely don't want the Italian identity, language and culture to disappear. However, I know enough history to know that identity, culture, and language are not static. Fifteen hundred years ago, my people spoke a form of vulgar Latin which only through the centuries developed into the Italian I speak today. Dante wasn't born, or Michelangelo, DaVinci, or Verdi, to name but a few of those who created "Italian" culture. In my particular area of Italy, the mountain people will still worshiping the statue stele, not Gesu Cristo. To bring it down to an absurd level, no one had ever even seen a tomato.
What will Italian culture and language be like in another 1500 years? I don't know, but even without the immigration of one single soul from outside the country, it won't be the same as it is today. How long ago did your culture develop into its present form? Was it the same four thousand years ago? I would bet not.
