@Anonymous: What on earth are you gibbering about?

@Anonymous: China had it outlawed (though, again over 1000 years ago), and some muslim countries still have it outlawed. Of course you also have countries, both today and in the past, which have unwritten laws, where the government butts in whenever they don't like what you're doing.

@Anonymous: We still burnt women at the stake for being witches and believed the stench of excrement warded off disease back then too. What the fuck is the relevance?

There are states within the union where mixed race marriage was a criminal offence well into my parents' teenage years. The era of rock and roll psychedelia, early colour television, and everyone having access to some form of independent transport, electricity, running water and telephones. We were sending people into space and preparing to visit the moon fer chrissakes. It's something that's a part of living memory for more than half the adult population, not a relic of the barely-civilised dark ages.

@Anonymous: So the presence of a large number of a particular melanic phenotype within a geographic area is a moral basis for systematically persecuting them? Screw off.

@Anonymous: Not a moral basis, but a practical basis. For better or worse, most of the time laws are based on practicality and profit rather than morals. This is true through all of history.

@tingle007: question about the man with multiple wives picture......is the dog included in their......whatever you want to call it?

@Anonymous: elizabeth the 1st had the blackamoores act which states that no more black people were allowed in britain cos there were too many already. this was before the slave trade mind.

@Anonymous: That's about immigration policies now, isn't it? Anyway, what is more interesting is that not all black people were slaves even back then. There were no discrimination on legal level towards them (they could be employed, have property, etc.). Also, this was more about their religion (most of them weren't Christian), not the colour of their skin. Anyway, less than a hundred black people were exchanged for the same amount of English prisoners in Spain and Portugal as a result of Her Majesty's proclamation. Hardly it's on the same scale with consequences of American anti-miscegenation laws. And, again, that was more than four hundred years ago, not fifty.
>this was before the slave trade mind.
Slave trade always existed. Africans sold less fortunate tribesmen for as long as history have records.

@Anonymous: LOL @ still trying to justify things in the modern world on the basis of shit perpetrated more than 400 years ago and, indeed, long before the foundation of the United States.

(Elizabeth I died in 1603)

There's plenty more unpleasant stuff that the monarchs of the time visited upon their people and foreigners alike if you really want to delve.