Informacije

Mildred in Richard: Ljubezenska zgodba, ki je spremenila Ameriko

Mildred in Richard: Ljubezenska zgodba, ki je spremenila Ameriko


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

"Kaj počneš v postelji s to žensko?" Je vprašal šerif R Garnett Brooks, ko je osvetlil nekaj svetilk v postelji. Ura je bila 11. julija 1958 ob 2. uri zjutraj in zadevni par, Richard Loving in Mildred Jeter, sta bila poročena pet tednov. "Jaz sem njegova žena," je odgovorila Mildred. Šerif, ki je ravnal na anonimen nasvet, s svojim zaslišanjem ni popustil. Richard je bil irskega in angleškega porekla, Mildred pa afroameriškega in indijanskega porekla, po zakonu države pa je bilo njuno poroko zločin. Aretirali so jih zaradi kršitve zakona o rasni integriteti Virginije.

Richard je preživel noč v zaporu, preden so ga izpustili z obveznico v višini 1.000 dolarjev, ki jo je nabavila njegova sestra. Mildred pa ni smela dovoliti obveznice. Tri noči je preživela sama v celici majhne ženske, ki je ustrezala samo eni. Ko je bila končno izpuščena, je bilo to v oskrbo njenega očeta. Potem ko sta zakonca priznala krivdo, jim je predsedujoči sodnik Leon M. Bazile dal možnost izbire: 25 let zapustiti Virginijo ali iti v zapor. Odšli so in naslednjih devet let preživeli v izgnanstvu.

Lovings sta se prvič srečala, ko je bila Mildred enajst let, Richard pa 17. Bil je družinski prijatelj, a njuno zmenkovanje se je začelo šele čez leta. Odraščali so približno tri ali štiri milje narazen, bili so vzgojeni v razmeroma mešani skupnosti, ki se je videla kot družina, ne glede na raso. Pogosto so se združevali ob glasbi in dirkah, kar je bilo nenavadno, da so se ljudje različnih ras mešali, delali skupaj in včasih hodili. Mildredina mama je bila delno Rappahannock Indijanka, njen oče pa Cherokee. Kasneje se je opredelila kot Indijanka.

Richard in Mildred sta se nekaj let srečevala, preden sta se odločila za poroko, potem ko je Mildred zanosila. (Mildred je že imela prvega otroka iz drugega razmerja.) Lovings sta se poročila v Washington, DC, kjer je bila medrasna poroka zakonita, in to je bilo glavno mesto države, v katero so se kasneje vrnili, ko so bili prisiljeni zapustiti svoj dom.

Lovings so pustili družino in prijatelje, da bi si poskušali oživeti v Washingtonu, a se nikoli niso počutili kot doma. Mildred se ni prilagajala mestnemu življenju; bila je podeželska punca, ki je bila vajena podeželskega območja, kjer je bilo prostora za otroke. Ker so želeli videti družino, bi se Lovings uprli odredbi sodišča, da bi se občasno vrnili v Virginijo. Ker se jim ni bilo dovoljeno vrniti skupaj, so sprejeli previdnostne ukrepe, da jih v Virginiji ne bi videli skupaj, Richard se pogosto nikoli ni odpravil ven od hiše.

V ozadju boja Lovings se je uveljavilo gibanje za državljanske pravice. Medtem ko sta bila Lovings preveč zasedena s svojimi stiskami, da bi bila vpletena, jih je navdihnil aktivizem, ki so ga videli. Leta 1964 je Mildred za pomoč pisala državnemu tožilcu Robertu F. Kennedyju. Kennedy ji je rekel, naj se obrne na ameriško unijo za državljanske svoboščine. Odvetnika ACLU Bernard S. Cohen in Philip J. Hirschkop sta vneto sprejela zadevo.

Njihov prvi poskus pravičnosti je bil razveljavitev zadeve in razveljavitev sodbe prvotnega sodnika. Ko so na odgovor čakali skoraj leto dni, so na okrožno sodišče v vzhodnem okrožju Virginije vložili skupinsko tožbo, ki je končno izzvala odgovor sodnika Bazileja. Izjavil je: »Vsemogočni Bog je ustvaril rase bele, črne, rumene, malajske in rdeče ter jih postavil na ločene celine. Toda za vmešavanje v njegovo ureditev ne bi bilo razloga za takšne poroke. Dejstvo, da je ločil rase, kaže, da se ni nameraval mešati. " Ta odgovor, ki je bil poln predsodkov, je bil razlog za pritožbo na vrhovno pritožbeno sodišče v Virginiji, vendar je to sodišče potrdilo prvotno sodbo.

Do takrat so Lovings skrivaj živeli skupaj v Virginiji. Razmišljali so o tem, da bi ostali ločeno pri svojih družinah, vendar so po nasvetu odvetnikov ostali skupaj šele potem, ko so jim zagotovili, da jih bodo, tudi če bodo aretirani, zadržali le nekaj ur (s klicem ACLU za pomoč pri izpustitvi) .

Fotograf LIFE Grey Villet se je z Lovings srečal leta 1965, preden je prelomni primer začel sojenje, ko so ga poslali na nalogo, da dokumentira vsakdanji svet para. Ujel je preprosto zgodbo, ljubezensko zgodbo. Fotografiral je Lovings, ki skupaj gledata televizijo, se igrata z otroki in se poljubljata. Fotografije so izšle v številki iz leta 1966 in redko predstavljajo zasebno življenje para, ki bi imelo tako trajen vpliv na zakone Združenih držav.

Zadeva se je prebila na vrhovno sodišče ZDA, kjer so se 10. aprila 1967 začele ustne razprave. Philip Hirschkop ni bil usposobljen za obravnavo primera pred Sodiščem, saj je bil pravni fakulteti šele nekaj več kot dve leti (eno leto ne glede na to zahtevo). To je pomenilo, da je moral vse, kar je Hirschkop napisal, podpisati Bernard Cohen, ki je bil tri leta izven pravne šole, vendar ni imel izkušenj na zveznem sodišču. Ta dva odvetnika začetnika sta razumela, da trdita o eni najpomembnejših zadev ustavnega prava, ki je kdaj prišla na sodišče.

Ko so jo pred začetkom ustnih argumentov vprašali, kaj misli o zadevi, je Mildred odgovorila: »To je načelo, to je zakon. Se mi ne zdi prav. Če bomo zmagali, bomo pomagali veliko ljudem. Vem, da imamo nekaj sovražnikov, vendar imamo tudi nekaj prijateljev, zato za moje sovražnike res ni nobene razlike. " Noben od ljubezni se ni pojavil na sodišču, vendar je Richard svojim odvetnikom poslal pismo, v katerem je pisalo: "Sodišču povej, da ljubim svojo ženo in ni pošteno, da ne morem živeti z njo v Virginiji." Sodniki so se strinjali. S soglasno odločbo, sprejeto 12. junija 1967, so bili zakoni, ki prepovedujejo medrasne poroke, šteli za neustavne in so jih razveljavili v 16 državah (čeprav bi Alabama leta 2000 razveljavila svoje zakone o preprečevanju miscegeniranja). Odločitev temelji na določbah o ustreznem postopku in enakih zaščitnih klavzulah 14. spremembe, v razsodbi pa je pisalo: »V skladu z našo ustavo svoboda poroke ali ne poroke oseba druge rase prebiva s posameznikom in je država ne more kršiti. . Ta prepričanja je treba razveljaviti. Tako je naročeno. "

Trajalo je devet let, toda Lovings so bili - pravno - doma. Skupaj sta zgradila hišo na hektarju zemlje, ki jim ju je dal Richardov oče. Osem let pozneje je Lovings med sobotno nočjo med vožnjo proti domu udaril pijani voznik. Richard je bil ubit. Mildred se ni nikoli več poročila, vendar je ostala v domu, ki ga je Richard zgradil, obkrožen z družino in prijatelji.

Mildred je živela mirno, zasebno življenje, zavračala je pogovore in se izogibala žarometom. Je pa junija 2007 naredila redko izjemo. Na 40. obletnico sodbe Loving v. Virginia so tri osebe, ki so delale v imenu skupine za pravice gejev Faith in America, prišle k Mildred zaradi svojih misli o istospolnih porokah. . Po temeljitem premisleku in razpravah s sosedi in njenimi otroki je pobožno religiozna Mildred izdala izjavo, v kateri je deloma pisalo: »Verjamem, da bi morali vsi Američani, ne glede na njihovo raso, ne glede na spol, ne glede na spolno usmerjenost, imeti enako svobodo. poročiti. Vlada nima nobenega posla, ki nekaterim vsiljuje verska prepričanja drugim. Še posebej, če zanika državljanske pravice ljudi. "

O dediščini Mildred in Richarda ni dvoma. 12. junija je neuradno praznovanje, imenovano "Dan ljubezni", v čast obletnici odločitve vrhovnega sodišča in večkulturnosti. Ljubezen proti Virginiji je v Združenih državah razglasila nezakonite zakone proti miscegnaciji, vendar je morda, kar je še pomembneje, dediščina vedno trajajoče ljubezni-ljubezni, ki je zmagala tudi ob stalnem sovraštvu.

Njihova zgodba je na srebrnem platnu prišla 4. novembra 2016 v nagrajenem filmu "Ljubiti".


Ljubezni: par, ki je spremenil zgodovino

Mildred in Richard Loving si nista nikoli prizadevala, da bi njun zakon postal eden najbolj znanih primerov državljanskih pravic v zadnjem stoletju. Toda njihova globoka naklonjenost drug drugemu in čista odločnost, da je srce zmagalo nad sovraštvom, ju je pripeljalo do vrhovnega sodišča, kjer jih je ACLU zastopala v pomembnem primeru, ki je odpravil državne prepovedi medrasnih zakonov.

Zdaj bo opisana ta saga o 17-letni črnki, ki se ni hotela nič drugega kot poročiti s svojo belo 23-letno ljubico iz otroštva Ljubezenska zgodba, dokumentarni film, ki bo na primer prikazan na Valentinovo, ob 21. uri. ET.

Za ogled napovednika kliknite na spodnjo sliko:

"To je ljubezenska zgodba," je dejala režiserka Nancy Buirski. "In to je zgodba o ljudeh, ki jim je bilo rečeno, da ne morejo ljubiti tistega, ki ga želijo ljubiti."

Potem ko sta se Lovings leta 1958 poročila v Washingtonu, sta se vrnila v domačo državo Virginijo, kjer sta jih kmalu zatem spravila iz postelje in aretirala zaradi kršitve zakona o preprečevanju miscenacije države. Državni sodnik jih je obsodil na leto dni zapora, vendar je odložil kazen, če bi zapustili državo za 25 let.

Lovings sta ostala živeti v Washingtonu, a sta bila pet let kasneje znova aretirana zaradi skupnega potovanja, ko sta se vrnila v Virginijo na obisk k sorodnikom. Po sprejetju zakona o državljanskih pravicah iz leta 1964 sta zakonca za pomoč pisala državnemu tožilcu Robertu F. Kennedyju. Vprašali so jih, ali jim bo prelomni zakon dovolil, da sta skupaj v istem avtomobilu. Kennedy jih je poslal v urad ACLU za območje državnega prestolnice, ki je obravnaval njihov primer.

Prostovoljna odvetnika Philip Hirschkop in Bernard Cohen sta zastopala zakonca pri izgubi pritožb glede najnovejših obtožb na okrožnih in pritožbenih sodiščih. "To je bil grozen čas v Ameriki," je povedal Cohen Washington Post leta 2008. "Rasizem je bil zrel in to je bil zadnji de jure ostanek rasizma-bilo je veliko de facto rasizma, vendar je bil ta zakon. zadnji knjižni izraz suženjstva v Ameriki."

Ljubezen proti Virginiji, šel na vrhovno sodišče, kjer so sodniki leta 1967 preklicali prepoved medrasne poroke Virginije.

Richard Loving je umrl v prometni nesreči leta 1975. Mildred Loving je leta 2008 umrl zaradi pljučnice.

Dokumentarec prikazuje redke domače filme zaljubljencev in njihovih treh otrok, pa tudi doslej še nikoli videne izseke s fotografiranja, ki ga je paru podaril fotograf revije Life. Slišani so tudi odlomki ustnih argumentov na vrhovnem sodišču.

"Vsakdo lahko spremeni zgodovino," je dejal Buirski. "To so bili skromni ljudje, skromni v vseh pogledih, ki so se želeli vrniti domov, da bi z družino živeli v Virginiji."

Vrhnja fotografija: Grey Villet, [Richard Loving poljublja ženo Mildred, ko se vrača domov iz službe, okrožje King and Queen, Virginia], april 1965. © Posestvo Grey Villet. Od razstave 20 fotografij družine Loving, ki je trenutno na ogled v Mednarodnem fotografskem centru v New Yorku (1133 Avenue of Americas na 43. ulici) do 6. maja 2012. Oglejte si več slik s te razstave & gt & gt


“Ljubeča zgodba ”: Kako je medrasni par spremenil narod

Kate Sheppard

Mildred in Richard Loving leta 1965 Grey Villet/z dovoljenjem HBO

Najbolj presenetljivo pri Mildred in Richardu Lovingu je, da nista hotela biti znana. Niso želeli spremeniti zgodovine ali se soočiti z rasizmom. Želeli so samo priti domov v Virginijo, da bi bili blizu svojih družin. Lovings niso bili radikali. Bili sta samo dve zaljubljeni osebi, med njimi pa molčeči bel fant, ki ga je eden od njunih odvetnikov opisal kot »rdečkastega vratu«, drugi pa ljubko, umirjeno mlado žensko črnega in indijanskega porekla.

Ko Ljubezenska zgodba svoj prvi nastop na HBO na Valentinovo, bo prvič srečalo veliko Američanov. So soimenjak v pomembni zadevi Vrhovnega sodišča iz leta 1967, ki je v 16 zveznih državah kakih 13 let po tem, ko je šolska segregacija postala neustavna, odpravila zakone o preprečevanju miscegeniranja, ki so še vedno v knjigah. Ti zakoni so bili eden zadnjih formalnih ostankov v dobi Jim Crow in ta film prvič prikazuje, kaj je bilo potrebno, da so jih podrli.

Tudi ko so spremenili Ameriko, Lovings nikoli niso bili domače ime. Po poroki v Washingtonu, DC, junija 1958, sta se preprosto vrnila na svoj dom v Central Point v Virginiji. Po njenih besedah ​​Mildred ni vedela o svojem državnem zakonu o rasni integriteti in zakonu iz leta 1924, ki prepoveduje medrasne poroke.

Nekaj ​​več kot mesec dni po vrnitvi Lovings ’ domov je policija ob 2. uri zjutraj vdrla v njuno hišo, ju aretirala in vrgla v zapor. Leon Bazile, sodnik okrožnega sodišča v okrožju Caroline, ju je obsodil zaradi kaznivih dejanj. “Vsemogočni Bog je ustvaril rase bele, črne, rumene, malajske in rdeče ter jih postavil na ločene celine, ” je zapisal sodnik. “ Dejstvo, da je ločil dirke, kaže, da se ni nameraval mešati. ”

Bazile se je strinjal, da jim bo začasno odložil enoletno zaporno kazen, če bodo zapustili državo. Tako so se Lovings odločili živeti v izgnanstvu v prestolnici države in mdash90 milj od svojega domačega kraja, a svetu stran od svojega starega podeželskega življenja.

Leta 1963 se je Mildred, po petih letih skrivanja in obiska družin, pisal državnemu tožilcu Robertu Kennedyju in ga prosil za pomoč. Kennedy jo je napotil na ameriško zvezo za državljanske svoboščine, ki je na primer podala dva mlada odvetnika. V Ljubezenska zgodba, režiserka/producentka Nancy Buirski vključuje zanimive posnetke zakulisja strateških sej para s svojimi odvetniki, ki se pogovarjajo o tem, kaj storiti, če jih ponovno ujamejo.

Bolj razsvetljujoč pa je obsežen, kakovosten arhivski video in fotografija Lovings, ki so samo družina doma. Film se odpre z razširjeno sceno Mildred, ki hčerki Peggy pomaga pri oblačenju nogavic in čevljev. Tam sta Richard & mdasha kvadratni čeljusti, posadno odrezan zidar & mdashmown trava ali sprostitev na kavču z otroki. Posebej presenetljiv je a Življenje fotografija revije, na kateri Mildred stoji na pokrovu, vrata zaslona so se odprla, da pozdravi svojega moža. Richard, oblečen v kavbojke in delovno srajco, je s kamero obrnjen s hrbtom. Njegova roka počiva na boku Mildred in svetloba sije na njenem obrazu, zaradi česar je videti angelsko & mdash, kar jo je morda takrat videl.

Lovings niso vedeli, da bodo spremenili Ameriko. Prav tako niso želeli, da bi bila vloga & mdash ”ne bila vključena v gibanje za državljanske pravice, "na neki točki pojasnjuje Mildred. “ Poskušali smo se vrniti v Virginijo. To je bil naš cilj. ” Šele leta 1967, ko je zadeva prešla na vrhovno sodišče, se je zdelo, da se zavedajo, da gre ne le za njih.

Kljub temu Lovings niso prišli v Washington, da bi slišali ustne argumente. Raje so ostali doma. Ko je njihov odvetnik Bernard Cohen vprašal Richarda, ali bi imel kaj povedati sodnikom, je preprosto odgovoril: “ Povej sodišču, da ljubim svojo ženo, in#8217 je samo nepravično, da ne morem ’t živeti z njo v Virginiji. ”

V zadnjih 45 letih se je veliko spremenilo. Potem pa spet veliko ni. Alabama je do leta 2000 uspela razveljaviti zakon o preprečevanju miscenacije. Pred samo tremi leti je mirovni sodnik v Louisiani zavrnil poroko bele ženske s temnopoltim moškim in navedel zaskrbljenost, da njuna poroka ne bo trajala dolgo in njuni otroci bi trpel. ” (To je bil enak argument, ki ga je generalni pravobranilec Virginije nekoč uporabil v primeru Loving.) V anketi volivcev v Mississippiju aprila lani je skoraj polovica registriranih republikancev menila, da bi morala biti medrasna poroka nezakonita .

Večina Američanov se strinja s črno-belo poroko in nacionalna anketa septembra lani je pokazala, da je bilo rekordno število odobreno. Toda 14 odstotkov nas še vedno ne drži ’t. Še več, te poroke so še vedno precej redke. Od leta 2009 je le 550.000 poročenih parov v ZDA & mdashfewer than 1 odstotkov & mdash sestojilo iz črnega zakonca in belega zakonca.

Ti pari so tudi v rednih medijih relativno redki in jih vsaj realno predstavljajo. Ugani, kdo prihaja na večerjo debitiral na nacionalni ravni istega leta, ko je vrhovno sodišče izdalo odločbo o ljubezni. Medtem ko je film s svojo temo premikal meje, se je vrtel okoli samega obstoja medrasnega para v nasprotju z njuno zvezo.

V zadnjem času so medrasne poroke prikazovali kot pretresljive in spolne (1991 ’s) Vročina v džungli ali leta 2001 ’ Monster ’s Ball). Ali kot udarec & mdashsee remake leta 2005 GWCTD z Ashtonom Kutcherjem kot nepričakovanim gostom. Včasih se dirka obravnava kot nepremostljiva ovira (kot leta 1991 ’) Mississippi Masala). Včasih se preprosto prezre (2009 ’s) Away We Go).

Kot polovica medrasnega para se mi zdi slednji pristop najpogostejši v teh dneh. “Svet, v katerem medrasni pari skoraj nikoli ne razpravljajo o rasi, se ne počuti resnično ” se strinja Tampa Bay Times medijski kolumnist Eric Deggans, črnec, ki je dve desetletji poročen z belo žensko, v nedavnem komentarju NPR. “ To se mi zdi izogibanje. ”

V medrasnih odnosih v resničnem svetu rase ni mogoče prezreti. Seveda o tem ne razmišljamo, ko je treba pomivati ​​posodo, plačevati račune, obletnice praznovati, nečake in nečakinje se igrati. Toda vedno se skriva ob strani. Prvič, nikoli ne bomo šli na počitnice v Mississippi. Takrat nas je med pregledom na letališču ločil agent TSA, ki je mojem partnerju naročil, naj stopi s svojo skupino temnopoltih družin, ki jih nismo nikoli srečali, medtem ko me je poslal na drugo stran.

Očitno se nič od tega ne primerja s tem, s čimer so se Lovings srečevali vsak dan. Ne morem dojeti, s čim so se ukvarjali. Obstajajo pa še strahovi: Kaj pa, če ljudje domnevajo, da naši otroci niso moji? Kaj pa, če ne opravimo dovolj dobrega dela, da svoje otroke naučimo ceniti vse vidike svoje dediščine? Kaj pa, če pred moževo družino povem nekaj neprijetnega? In kaj storimo, ko naše družine govorijo stvari, ki nas sramotijo?

Najbolj prepričljiv vidik Ljubezenska zgodbana koncu je normalnost življenja, ki ga prikazuje & normalnost, za katero se je borila ta družina. Če sploh kaj, sem upal, da bo to omogočilo še več osebnega vpogleda v družino. Kajti medtem ko potekajo razgovori s hčerko Peggy in nekaterimi družinskimi prijatelji, Richarda in Mildred nista več z nami & mdashand je umrl tudi eden od njunih dveh sinov.

Kljub temu je ta zgodba o Lovings ’ pogumu in odločnosti dovolj, da gledalce globoko skrbi za pravno odločitev & mdasha, ki ima danes poseben odmev glede na tekočo bitko za zakonske pravice istospolnih parov. Če nas lahko dokumentarni film navdihne, da pogledamo mimo politike in znanja, da bi prepoznali humanost ljudi, ki jih naši zakoni demonizirajo, potem je narodu zagotovo naredil uslugo.


Kje so zdaj otroci Richarda in Mildred Loving?

& lsquoLoving & rsquo je čudovita zgodba, ki opisuje resnične spore, ki sta jih morala preživeti Richard in Mildred Loving, da sta mirno in zakonito obstajala kot medrasni par. Ko je vrhovno sodišče odločilo v njihovo korist (v Loving proti Virginiji), se je prihodnost zakonskih zvez v Ameriki za vedno spremenila. Zanimivo je, da so se Lovings kljub temu, da so bili v tako burnem obdobju v državi tako monumentalni povzročitelji sprememb, vedno želeli izogniti pozornosti.

Čeprav je par od takrat umrl, sta za seboj pustila lepo družino. Mildred, ki je leta 2008 podlegla pljučnici, je bilo obkroženih z 8 vnuki in 11 pravnuki. Poleg tega s tako ikonično zgodbo, kot je zgodba o Lovings, človek seveda postane radoveden in želi izvedeti več o življenju, ki so ga zgradili zase. Zato si poglejmo ljubeče otroke.

Kdo so Richard in Mildred ljubeči & rsquos otroci?

Richard in Mildred sta se prvič spoznala, ko je bil star 17 let, ona pa 11 let. Vendar sta se skupaj dobila šele v srednji šoli. Ko je pri 18 letih zanosila, sta se odločila poročiti in oditi v Washington, DC, da bi se povezala. Nekega večera, potem ko sta se vrnila v svojo hišo v Central Pointu v Virginiji, ju je aretiral šerifov oddelek (ki je prejel anonimni namig o medrasnem paru). Par je imel nato možnost, da se preseli v drugo mesto, da bi se izognil zaporu. Torej, par se je preselil v okrožje Columbia.

Zasluge za sliko: Ljubeča družina

Kljub temu, da se je naveličala socialnih in finančnih vprašanj, s katerimi se soočajo, se je Mildred obrnila na takratnega generalnega državnega tožilca Roberta F. Kennedyja, ki jo je usmeril proti ACLU. To je sprožilo postopek zoper zakone proti miscegenaciji, sčasoma pa so se Lovings po zmagi vrnili v Virginijo. Ne samo, da bi par za vedno postal sinonim za gibanje za državljanske pravice, ampak bi tudi vzgajali tri otroke. Nujno je treba opozoriti, da Richard ni bil biološko soroden prvorojencu Mildred.

Najstarejši otrok se je imenoval Sidney Clay Jeter, ki naj bi se rodil 27. januarja 1957 v okrožju Caroline v Virginiji. Ko je odraščal, je šel v javni šolski sistem okrožja Caroline in bil vključen v baptistično cerkev sv. Leta 1975 se je pridružil vojski, kasneje pa je bil častno razrešen. Leta 2007 se je poročil z Mary Yarbrough in imel dve hčerki. Srednji otrok je bil Donald Lendberg Loving, ki se je rodil 8. oktobra 1958.

Domnevno je Donald delal za KMM Telecommunications v Fredericksburgu. Bil je poročen s Kathryn A. Loving in bil tudi oče. Vendar o njem ni znanega veliko drugega. Najmlajša je njihova sestra, Peggy Loving Fortune. Zdaj je ločena mati treh otrok. V nekem intervjuju je govorila o svojih starših: “ Pomagali so veliko ljudem. Da vidim veliko medrasnih zakonov ali parov in veliko mešanih otrok, želim, da vedo, da so zaradi mojih staršev sposobni narediti tisto, kar so želeli. ”

Kje so zdaj Richard in Mildred ljubeči & rsquos otroci?

Od danes je Peggy edini preživeli otrok. Sidney je maja 2010 umrl zaradi razlogov, ki v javnosti niso znani. Takrat je bil star 53 let. Njegov mlajši brat je žal pred njim umrl avgusta 2000. Dogodek je bil nepričakovan in Donald je bil takrat star 41 let. Po ogledu & lsquoLoving, & rsquo hči je izjavila, da so jo preplavila čustva. Peggy je dodala, “I & rsquom tako hvaležna, da se zgodba [mojih staršev & rsquo] končno pripoveduje. & Rdquo

Zasluge za sliko: CNN


RICHARD IN MILDRED LOVING: LJUBEZNI ZGODBA, KI JE POROČILO PONOVNO PRAVICO

Dokumentarni film režiserke Nancy Buirski Ljubezenska zgodba, ki opisuje življenja gospoda in gospe Richarda in Mildred Loving, katerih primer je pomagal odpraviti zakone o preprečevanju miscegeniranja, bo junija predstavljen na festivalu Silverdocs v Washingtonu. Film je bil premierno prikazan na filmskem festivalu Tribeca v New Yorku. ACLU bo 13. junija gostil DC -jevo predstavo na Capitol Hillu. Gospa Buirski in odvetnik Lovings Phil Hirschkop bosta istega večera po projekciji na šoli za vizualne umetnosti v New Yorku pripravila panelno razpravo.

V naslednjem članku gospa Buirski pojasnjuje, zakaj se je odločila za snemanje tega dokumentarca, ter obravnava trajni učinek, ki ga Ljubezen proti Virginijiin Lovings so imeli v Ameriki.

Richard in Mildred Loving.

Zdaj nista več oba.

G. Loving je umrl v avtomobilski nesreči 29. junija 1975, ko je pijan voznik trčil v njegovo vozilo. Imel je 41 let. Mildred, ki je bila takrat z njim v avtu, je utrpela poškodbe (izgubila je desno oko), a je preživela. Nadaljevala je življenje in vzgajala tri otroke: Peggy, Sidney in Donald (umrl leta 2000).

2. maja 2008 je gospa Loving umrla zaradi pljučnice v starosti 68 let v Milfordu, VA. Vedno je bila skromna glede spoštovanja, ki ga je toliko ljudi izkazovalo njej in Richardu, in je štela, da sta ona in Richard delala preprosto kot dejanje ljubezni drug do drugega. Toda to, kar so storili, je spremenilo zakone, ki so na več načinov vplivali na poroko.

Vrhovno sodišče ZDA je z 9: 0 glasovi razglasilo ustavni zakon Virginia ’s proti premeščanju, zakon o rasni integriteti iz leta 1924 “, s čimer je razveljavilo. Pace proti Alabami (1883) in odpraviti vse rasne zakonske omejitve poroke v Združenih državah.

Richard in Mildred verjetno nista niti pomislila na globok učinek, ki bi ga imela njuna poroka, ko so leta 1967 po vsej Ameriki razveljavili razveljavitev zakonov o preprečevanju miscegeniranja (z zadnjo zadrgo Alabamo, ki je leta 2000 preklicala zakone o preprečevanju miscegeniranja). pomembna odločitev Vrhovnega sodišča ZDA z dne Ljubezen proti Virginiji. 12. junij se danes praznuje kot Dan ljubezni ” v čast Richardu in Mildred Loving.

12. junija 2007 je bila 40. obletnica Ljubeč v. Virginia, ga. Ljubeč v. Virginia:

Ko sem zdaj obkrožen s čudovitimi otroki in vnuki, ne mine niti dneva, da ne pomislim na Richarda in našo ljubezen, našo pravico do poroke in koliko mi je pomenilo to svobodo poročiti se z osebo, ki mi je dragocena jaz, tudi če bi drugi mislili, da je on “ napačna oseba ”, da se poročim. Verjamem, da bi morali imeti vsi Američani, ne glede na njihovo raso, ne glede na spol, ne glede na spolno usmerjenost, enako svobodo poroke. Vlada nima nobenega posla, ki nekaterim vsiljuje verska prepričanja drugim. Še posebej, če ljudem odreka državljanske pravice.

Še vedno nisem politična oseba, vendar sem ponosen, da sta Richard ’s in moje ime v sodnem postopku, ki lahko pomaga okrepiti ljubezen, zavezanost, poštenost in družino, da je toliko ljudi, črnih ali belih, mladih ali staro, homoseksualno ali naravnost iskanje v življenju. Podpiram svobodo poroke za vse. To je tisto, kar pomeni Ljubezen in ljubezen.

Do dneva, ko je umrla, se je gospa Loving preprosto štela za navadno žensko, ki se nikoli ni smatrala za izjemno: “ ‘To ni bilo moje početje, «je povedala za Associated Press v redkem intervjuju. "To je bilo božje delo." ”

Da, to je bilo Božje delo.

Vseeno sta bila ti in Richard izjemna.

Za to smo vam hvaležni.

Ljubezenska zgodba, zaradi katere je bila poroka temeljna pravica

Sreda, 27. april 2011, 10:16 EST

V New Yorku poteka filmski festival Tribeca, eden od predstavljenih dokumentarnih filmov pa se poglobi v zgodbo, ki stoji za prelomnim primerom državljanskih pravic Loving vs Virginia, ki je razveljavil zakone Jima Crowa, ki naj bi ljudem preprečili, da bi odprto gradili družine po rasni osnovi.

Mildred in Richard Loving sta bila medrasna para, ki sta se poročila v Washingtonu, DC leta 1958. Kmalu po ponovnem vstopu v domači kraj v Virginiji sta bila par aretirana v svoji spalnici in izgnana iz države za 25 let. Ljubezni bodo naslednjih devet let preživeli v izgnanstvu, prikrito obiskovali družino in prijatelje doma v Virginiji - in se borili za pravico, da se zakonito vrnejo. Njihov primer se je prebil na vrhovno sodišče in leta 1967 je sodišče obsodilo zakon o rasni integriteti Virginije kot ukrep, "namenjen ohranjanju nadvlade belih", ki je kršil ustrezen postopek in enako zaščito. Sodba je štela protiustavne zakone o preprečevanju miscegnacije, ki so bili v veljavi v takratnih 16 državah. Vendar sta Južna Karolina do leta 1998 in Alabama do leta 2000 uradno odstranila jezik, ki prepoveduje medrasne poroke, iz svojih državnih ustanov.

Prelomni primer se je v zadnjih letih vrnil v ljudsko zavest, saj so države razpravljale o pravicah istospolnih porok. Zagovorniki enakosti zakonov so opozorili na boj Lovings kot na temeljni del ameriške zgodovine in zakonsko zvezo uveljavili kot temeljno državljansko pravico. Toda desetletja je bilo prepuščeno opombam zgodovine državljanskih pravic, ki so jih zasenčile uspešnice, kot sta Brown proti odboru za izobraževanje.

"Zaljubljena zgodba" režiserke Nancy Buirski želi poglobiti razumevanje javnosti ne le o tem primeru, ampak tudi o ljubeči družini. Ustvarjalci svoje zgodbe poustvarjajo v intervjujih s prijatelji, člani skupnosti in odvetniki, ki se borijo proti njihovemu primeru. Buirski in njena ekipa sta obudili neuporabljene posnetke Lovings izpred 45 let, vključno z domačimi filmi, in izkopali stare fotografije, da bi par oživeli. Posledično je film tako privlačna ljubezenska zgodba kot zgodovina rasistične zakonodaje.

"Ljubezenska zgodba" letos kroži na filmskem festivalu, predvajati pa se bo na HBO februarja 2012. Z Buirskim sem se pogovarjal po projekciji filma Tribeca ta teden.

Zakaj ste želeli posneti ta film?

Leta 2008 sem naletel na osmrtnico o Mildred Loving in ob branju zgodbe sem spoznal, da je imela neverjetno življenje. Bila je neverjetno prepričljiv lik, deloma zato, ker ni bila vaša tipična aktivistka, ki se je odločila spremeniti. Saj ni bila aktivistka za državljanske pravice. Bila je ženska, ki se je po 25 letih izgnanstva poskušala vrniti na svoj dom v Virginijo, ker se je poročila z belcem. In tudi on ni bil nekdo, ki je bil vaš tipičen človek, ki je spremenil svet. Resnično je imel rad svojo ženo in čutil je, da je izgnanstvo, v katerega jih je država silila, preprosto napačno. Zato so želeli narediti napako, vendar niso poskušali spremeniti zgodovine, in meni se je zdelo, da je to nenavaden pristop k dogodku o državljanskih pravicah in spremembam, ki so posledica njihovih dejanj.

Kakšen je po vašem mnenju pomen zgodbe o ljubeznih danes, leta 2011?

Obstaja ogromno pomembnosti. To ni samo zgodba o državljanskih pravicah, ampak zgodba o človekovih pravicah. Govorimo o svobodi izbire, koga imate radi in s kom se lahko poročite, in očitno obstajajo današnja vprašanja glede teh vprašanj glede pravic istospolnih zakonov.

Mislim, da je druga pomembnost posledica identifikacije, ki jo imajo v družbi nekateri mešani pari in otroci mešane rase. Čeprav mnogi od nas to jemljejo kot samoumevno, ni nujno, da je tako enostavno, kot se morda zdi del mešanega odnosa. Mislim, da je tisto, kar povezuje obe situaciji, v letih 1967 in 2011, tisto, kar motivira mnoge ljudi, da poskušajo preprečiti poroko - nestrpnost in predsodki, ki se pojavijo leta 2011, ne le glede istospolnih porok, ampak celo o reformi priseljencev. Mislim, da je to povezano s strahom. I believe that fear was a motivating factor when the Lovings were arrested and I believe fear is also a motivating factor in the intolerance that we see in society today.

Can you tell us more about Peggy Loving, the couple’s only surviving daughter? How does she feel about the case and the film?

You know, she’s very proud of her parents. She knows exactly what they achieved. She says whenever she watches a mixed-race couple walk down the street, arm in arm, she knows that that might not be the case if it weren’t for her parents, and she gets kind of emotional when she thinks about that. She likes to think of herself as a kind of rainbow, mixed, she feels it’s important that people recognize her mixed-race heritage and she’s very proud of it. And I think she loves the film.

How about the Lovings’ lawyers? They’re both still alive. Did they share any views, all these years later?

Philip Hirschkop [one of the Lovings’ attorneys] said recently that the fear and the prejudice that pervades our society today is a reminder of what the Lovings went through, and even though they prevailed, there’s nothing that could give them back their nine years of exile and separation from their family. And so we may take it for granted, but we really should be remembering how people like the Lovings struggled to get us where we are today.

So you were inspired after reading Loving’s obituary. Tell us about the long road from there to Tribeca.

Oh, you know, it’s three years later and it is a long process, but it’s an exciting one. You really just have to believe in the story and believe in the way you want to tell the story. And I think the most important thing was recognizing the value of the footage that we had and the photographs, and because we had such intimate material, allowing the Lovings to tell their own story. So we’ve made a historical film in a somewhat unusual style because there is no narrator, there’s no voice of God explaining to us what’s happening. It’s basically following the Lovings and their daughter and other people who knew them, allowing them to tell the story.

Is there anything else you wanted to say about the film?

[The film’s editor] Elisabeth Haviland James and and I both felt a real obligation to bring this story to a really wide audience and the fact that the depth of the story, the real story about this couple and their love have been overlooked for so many years. We really felt a commitment to bring this to a wider audience and we’re very grateful that we’re getting the response that we’re getting.

Do you feel like there’s any reason that it was overlooked? Because it was a landmark civil rights case and yet…

I think there were a number of other landmark cases and changes that were taking place just prior to this, and they tended to overtake this one because, you know, you had voting rights, you had Brown vs. Board of Education, you had people struggling for public accommodation, you know, the freedom to sit where they want to sit on the bus. Those felt a little more urgent than this did, so I think that’s one reason.

I think another reason is that the Lovings themselves were so humble and shy they didn’t particularly want publicity. And they were also in danger, because they were going back and forth to Virginia where they were supposedly prohibited from doing that, so they really needed to protect themselves and their family. And then finally, the fact that this was a case that dealt with the bedroom, that tended not to get the biggest publicity. Voting rights was an easier thing for people to deal with.

“The Loving Story” screened at the Tribeca Film Festival this week and will play at the Silverdocs Festival in Washington, D.C., in June. The ACLU will be hosting a D.C. showing on Capitol Hill on June 13. Buirski and the Lovings’ attorney Phil Hirschkop will hold a panel discussion this evening after a screening at the School of Visual Arts in New York.

*This article has been altered since publication.

Here is a video of Richard and Mildred. They discuss their marriage, their arrests, and their being told to leave the state of Virginia for 25 years. The video also divulges Mrs. Loving’s decision to write to then U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the case taken on by lawyers, and the case brought before the United States Supreme Court, where the infamous anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in June 1967.

The following “Mildred and Richard Loving Documentary” features more information on the Lovings, as well as including the founder of “Loving Day”, Ken Tanabe.


Connect with us.

Several descendants of the slaves sold to keep Georgetown University afloat in 1838 have received acceptance letters from the school. Two of them, Elizabeth and Shepard Thomas, and their mother, Sandra, joined Race/Related’s Rachel Swarns and John Eligon for a discussion. [Watch]

We examine topics related to race and culture each Wednesday at 9 p.m. Eastern on The Times’s Facebook page.

Know anyone else who might like to subscribe? Have them sign up at:


POVEZANI ČLANKI

And it is no wonder - eight years prior, the pair had married in the District of Columbia to evade the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which banned any white person marrying any non-white person.

But when they returned to Virginia, police stormed into their room in the middle of the night and they were arrested.

The pair were found guilty of miscegenation in 1959 and were each sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for 25 years if they left Virginia.

Tender: Mildred Loving greets husband Richard on their front porch in King and Queen County, Virginia, April 1965

Love: Grey Villet captures Richard and Mildred Loving with their children Peggy, Donald and Sidney in their living room in King and Queen County, Virginia, April 1965

They moved back to the District of Columbia, where they began the long legal battle to erase their criminal records - and justify their relationship.

Following vocal support from the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic churches, the Lovings won the fight - with the Supreme Court branding Virginia's anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional in 1967.

It wrote in its decision: 'Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.

'To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.'

A moment: Grey Villet captures Mildred and Richard Loving, their daughter Peggy, Mildred's sister Garnet and Richard's mother Lola, on the porch of Mildred's mother's house, Caroline County, Virginia in April 1965

Family: Richard and Mildred Loving sit in the open door of a car celebrating Richard's winning race, Sumerduck dragway in Sumerduck, Virginia, April 1965

Following the ruling, there was a 448 per cent increase in the number of interracial marriages in Georgia alone.

In 2007, 32 years after her husband died, Mrs Loving - who herself passed away the following year - released a statement in support of same-sex marriage.

She said: 'Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry

'I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

Concern: Mildred and Richard Loving in their home. They had been arrested in 1958, shortly after their marriage

Fears: In 1967, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict, ruled in the Loving's favor in 'Loving v. Virginia' and overturned Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute


Mildred Loving's Grandson Says She Wasn't Black

Mark Loving, the grandson of Mildred Loving, says his grandmother is being "racially profiled" in the upcoming film Loving.

Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter's 1958 marriage in Virginia would change the course of history when it came to interracial marriages. Loving was a white man and Jeter was a black woman, and their marriage was a violation of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. It led to a Supreme Court case that eventually overturned the antiquated law.

But Mark Loving says his grandmother wasn't black: In an interview with Richmond, Va's., NBC12, he says she was Native American.

"I know during those times, there were only two colors: white and blacks," Mark Loving said. "But she was Native American both of her parents were Native American."

Mark Loving also says he has proof—his grandparents' marriage license, on which his grandmother was classified as "Indian."

However, there may be a simple reason she was labeled Indian, and that is some old Virginia history.

Writer Arica L. Coleman wrote about the Loving family in a Time article earlier this year. Mildred Loving did speak about her background and said that she was Native American, but Coleman delved into how that designation probably came to be.

In 1930, legislators, fearing that blacks would use the Indian claim to subvert the law, restricted the Indian classification to reservation Indians on the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Reservations in King William County, the nation’s oldest reservations. Numerous non-reservation citizens claiming an Indian identity circumvented the restriction by marrying in Washington, D.C., where they were able to obtain marriage licenses with the Indian racial designation.

Mildred Loving was no exception. Her racial identity was informed by the deeply entrenched racial politics of her community in Central Point, Va.

Interestingly enough, Coleman also spoke with one of the Lovings' lawyers, Bernard Cohen, and he said that Mildred Loving identified only as black to him.

We can probably assume that Mildred Loving was no different from some black people you meet who want to assert their Native American heritage, but as noted in Professor Henry Louis Gates' popular article , the truth of the matter is that just because you have “high cheekbones and straight black hair" doesn't mean you have Native American blood.

However, as far as Mark Loving is concerned, his grandmother wouldn't be OK with the upcoming Loving film because, he says, her true identity is being erased and she wasn't trying to be an activist.


The White and Black Worlds of Loving v. Virginia

H ollywood interpretations of true events always take some liberties with the truth, but the new film Loving&mdashbased on the intriguing story of Richard and Mildred Loving, the plaintiffs of the case Loving v. the Commonwealth of Virginia&mdashadheres relatively closely to the historical account. Writer-director Jeff Nichols&rsquo two-hour film chronicles the nine-year saga of the couple&rsquos courtship, marriage, arrest, banishment and Supreme Court triumph in 1967, which declared state proscriptions against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

The film also, however, sticks close to popular myths that have dogged the case for decades, particularly by contextualizing the story within a black/white racial binary&mdashwhen in fact Richard and Mildred Loving are prime examples of the way such lines have long been blurred.

This binary construction is nothing new. For example, it can already be seen in Simeon Booker&rsquos Ebony Magazine article &ldquoThe Couple That Rocked Courts,&rdquo which appeared several months after the Supreme Court decision. Booker situated Richard as a white man living in &ldquothe passing capital of America,&rdquo a place where black residents seemed nearly white too.

In this situation, Mildred&mdashlike many of her neighbors&mdashis the one who seems capable of passing into a white world. Some evidence does suggest that she did not always identify as black, and the question gets even more complicated when it came to the Lovings&rsquo children. As a 1966 LIFE Magazine article about the case, &ldquoThe Crime of Being Married,&rdquo notes in a caption, their daughter&rsquos &ldquofeatures are pure white&rdquo though their oldest son&rsquos are &ldquoheavily Negroid.&rdquo (And in fact, as I highlighted in the recent journal article &ldquoMildred Loving: The Extraordinary Life of An Ordinary Woman,&rdquo he was not Richard&rsquos biological son, but Mildred&rsquos from a previous relationship.) Because of laws that defined whiteness in absolute terms, the way the children looked did not matter legally, but appearances could be important&mdashand were a topic about which Booker&rsquos audience would likely have had a substantial interest.

Nichols&rsquo film looks at the question of passing from nearly the opposite perspective, focusing on how Richard, though phenotypically and legally white, seamlessly transverses the color line via his geographical and familial connections, socially &ldquopassing&rdquo as black.

Richard&rsquos ancestral roots were steeped in white southern patriarchal tradition. According to the 1830 census, his paternal ancestor Lewis Loving owned seven slaves. Richard&rsquos paternal grandfather, T. P. Farmer, served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. Prior to Richard&rsquos marriage to Mildred on June 2, 1958, the Loving surname, at least in Caroline County, was the exclusive property of its white residents. The county court established the couple&rsquos racial identity by their birth certificates: Richard Perry Loving, &ldquowhite&rdquo and Mildred Delores Jeter &ldquocolored,&rdquo born 1933 and 1939 respectively.

But, while Richard&rsquos race was marked by the physical and legal constructions of whiteness, geographical and social markers also placed him on the opposite side of the color line.

Baz Dreisinger, in her book Near Black: White-Black Passing in American Culture, explores this phenomenon of &ldquoreverse racial passing,&rdquo which she defines as &ldquoany instance in which a person legally recognized as white effectively functions as a non-white person in any quarter of the social arena.&rdquo

This was certainly the case for Richard Loving, who lived in a county that was less than 50% white. His father was the employee of one of the wealthiest &ldquoNegroes&rdquo in the county for nearly 25 years. Richard&rsquos closet companions were black, including his drag-racing partners and Mildred&rsquos older brothers. The latter relationship went from mere friendship to the familial when Richard moved into the Jeter household soon after learning his fiancée was pregnant. When the Lovings were banished from Virginia as a part of their plea deal for violating the state&rsquos anti-miscegenation statute, they returned to Washington, D. C., where they had gotten married, and resided with Mildred&rsquos cousin who lived in a thriving black community on the northeast side of town.

Nichols emphasizes Richard&rsquos lack of connection to white society, and the prevalence of what Dreisinger describes as &ldquomoments of slippage,&rdquo when white people &ldquoperceive themselves or are perceived by others, as &lsquolosing&rsquo their whiteness and &lsquoacquiring&rsquo blackness.&rdquo

Such moments are poignantly captured in several instances in the film&mdashfor example, in a fictionalized encounter between Richard and the county sheriff. (The sheriff, perhaps not coincidentally, addresses Richard as &ldquoBoy&rdquo a term that has historically been used to emasculate black men.) The sheriff scolds Richard for his marriage to a black woman, then shows pity for Richard&rsquos confusion regarding his proper place within the racial order, a consequence of being born in racially mixed Central Point.

“I&rsquom sorry for you. I really am. All ya&rsquoll over there in Central Point don&rsquot know up from down. All mixed up,&rdquo he says. &ldquoHalf Cherokee, Rappahannock, part Negro, part white. Blood don&rsquot know what it wants to be. You just got born in the wrong place is all.&rdquo

In a second instance, Richard is at the local bar enjoying a night out on the town with his drag-racing companions when one of them quips to Richard, &ldquoyou think you like a black man, but you white. But not now. Now you know what it&rsquos like. You black now aren&rsquot you? You a damn fool.&rdquo

In other words, Richard is getting to know what it&rsquos really like to be black, now that he&rsquos experiencing actual discrimination, and he was a &ldquofool&rdquo to give up the privilege that his black companions crave.

Rather than setting the black characters close to whiteness, Nichols places Richard so close in proximity to blackness that the community and even his children bear no resemblance to the multi-racial world the Lovings called home.

Richard Loving would attest to the Supreme Court that the only thing they needed to know was that he loved his wife. That was why he married her. And yet there has so often been an urge to go looking for a deeper explanation. Did he marry her because she was basically white? Or because he was basically black? Neither is, taking his own word for it, true. That&rsquos the problem with &ldquopassing,&rdquo from a historical perspective, and it&rsquos something that the Loving story exposes. Though it may be convenient narrative to say in the 1960s that black Virginians passed visually for white or to say today that white ones passed socially for black, the reality is much more nuanced: both sides sometimes meet in the middle.

But that doesn&rsquot mean passing doesn&rsquot matter. In her book, Dreisinger contends that narratives of racial passing not only demonstrate how Americans &ldquograpple with the color line in intriguing and inimitable ways,&rdquo but are also &ldquocrucial to understanding how blacks and whites look upon each other whether with awe, fear, desire&mdashor all three. & rdquo Loving will certainly continue a national conversation about race, interracial intimacy and mixed-race identity&mdasheven as it places its characters in a binary world.

Historians explain how the past informs the present

Arica L. Coleman is the author of That the Blood Stay Pure: African Americans, Native Americans and the Predicament of Race and Identity in Virginia and chair of the Committee on the Status of African American, Latino/a, Asian American, and Native American (ALANA) Historians and ALANA Histories at the Organization of American Historians.


The love story that changed history: Fascinating photographs of interracial marriage at a time when it was banned in 16 states

Just 45 years ago, 16 states deemed marriages between two people of different races illegal.

But in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the case of Richard Perry Loving, who was white, and his wife, Mildred Loving, of African American and Native American descent.

The case changed history - and was captured on film by LIFE photographer Grey Villet, whose black-and-white photographs are now set to go on display at the International Center of Photography.

Loving: Grey Villet's photograph captures Richard Loving kissing wife Mildred as he arrives home from work in King and Queen County, Virginia, April 1965

Content: The Loving's children Peggy, Sidney and Donald play in King and Queen County, Virginia in April 1965

Twenty images show the tenderness and family support enjoyed by Mildred and Richard and their three children, Peggy, Sidney and Donald.

The children, unaware of the struggles their parents face, are captured by Villet as blissfully happy as they play in the fields near their Virginia home or share secrets with their parents on the couch.

Their parents, caught sharing a kiss on their front porch, appear more worry-stricken.

And it is no wonder - eight years prior, the pair had married in the District of Columbia to evade the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which banned any white person marrying any non-white person.

But when they returned to Virginia, police stormed into their room in the middle of the night and they were arrested.

The pair were found guilty of miscegenation in 1959 and were each sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for 25 years if they left Virginia.

Tender: Mildred Loving greets husband Richard on their front porch in King and Queen County, Virginia, April 1965

Love: Grey Villet captures Richard and Mildred Loving with their children Peggy, Donald and Sidney in their living room in King and Queen County, Virginia, April 1965

They moved back to the District of Columbia, where they began the long legal battle to erase their criminal records - and justify their relationship.

Following vocal support from the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic churches, the Lovings won the fight - with the Supreme Court branding Virginia's anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional in 1967.

It wrote in its decision: 'Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.

'To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.'

A moment: Grey Villet captures Mildred and Richard Loving, their daughter Peggy, Mildred's sister Garnet and Richard's mother Lola, on the porch of Mildred's mother's house, Caroline County, Virginia in April 1965

Family: Richard and Mildred Loving sit in the open door of a car celebrating Richard's winning race, Sumerduck dragway in Sumerduck, Virginia, April 1965

Following the ruling, there was a 448 per cent increase in the number of interracial marriages in Georgia alone.

In 2007, 32 years after her husband died, Mrs Loving - who herself passed away the following year - released a statement in support of same-sex marriage.

She said: 'Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry

'I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

Concern: Mildred and Richard Loving in their home. They had been arrested in 1958, shortly after their marriage

Fears: In 1967, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict, ruled in the Loving's favor in 'Loving v. Virginia' and overturned Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute

Long fight: Left, Mildred and Richard Loving speak with their American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in May 1965. Pictured right, Mildred walks with her daughter near their home in Caroline County, Virginia the same year

am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.'

Photographs of their content family life and grapple with the law were unearthed by director Nancy Buirski during the making of a documentary about the pair.

Her documentary, The Loving Story, will air on February 14 on HBO.

Twenty of the prints will be exhibited at the International Center of Photography in New York City, from January 20 until May 6. They are on loan by the estate of Grey Villet and by the Loving family .

Together: Richard Loving and his son sit on a sofa in their home in Central Point, Caroline County, Virginia, May 196 - two years before the U.S Supreme court threw out the law banning interracial marriage

Struggle: Mildred (center) and Richard Loving (left), with their daughter, on the front steps of the home of Richard Loving's mother (right) in Central Point, Caroline County, Virginia, May 1965

For more information about the exhibition, visit International Center of Photography

Mildred Loving holds a photo of her husband Richard as a young man. The Lovings' children stand in the background: (from left to right) Sidney, Donald, and Peggy, holding her son Mark. Richard died in a 1975 automobile accident that left Mildred blind in one eye she died in 2008. Donald died in 2000.

Thank you for posting, love knows no bounderies.

A beautiful thread. Thanks.

Thank goodness for humans such as these.

Before this, I knew a few scant facts (mostly referential) about the Loving case.

I just wanted to thank you for some of these threads you initiate on your own. Are you a journalist? If not, I wish more journalists had this individual sense, or freedom, of giving the world things to think about turning the microscope away and towards under-appreciated stories.

Thank you for posting. The Lovings were strong trailblazers standing up for their right to choose. My family owes a debt of gratitude to them because they sacrificed and fought for the freedom I exercised when I choose to marry outside of my race. And I would love to say that if I met resistance I would also show courage but I would be lying.

I never knew Mrs. Loving was a cougar. She was 6 years older. They broke all kinds of barrier back then. Just goes to show that Love knows no boundaries. What I don't understand is why can't Gay rights activists can't use this ruling to prevent the discrimination against gays right to marry. the wording of the supreme court ruling applies to gay rights to marry as well.

prodigalfan said:

I never knew Mrs. Loving was a cougar. She was 6 years older. They broke all kinds of barrier back then. Just goes to show that Love knows no boundaries. What I don't understand is why can't Gay rights activists can't use this ruling to prevent the discrimination against gays right to marry. the wording of the supreme court ruling applies to gay rights to marry as well.

Yes, and interesting that Mildred Loving said she supported the right to marry for all, including gays. Unwavering in her convictions. It's a wonderful story.

I'd heard of this case before, but the human story and the photos are great.

U can rape-kill-torture-impregnate Black woman for 200 plus years but u can't marry one. AmeriKa is a trip.

Graycap23 said:

Interesting.

U can rape-kill-torture-impregnate Black woman for 200 plus years but u can't marry one. AmeriKa is a trip.

that's where the craziness is, because it was a law, another level of lies had to come about to deal with the rape or impregnating of black and mixed women.

One that was common back during slavery times is : they came in those colors, when an African women popped out a fair skinned baby

the other was that Mulattoes were sterile so that child couldn't have come from a white man

But I'm glad the Lovings did what they did.

Peggy Loving Fortune (center), daughter of Mildred and Richard Loving, talks Saturday night with part of the creative team behind the documentary ‘The Loving Story,’ including director Nancy Buirski (second from left). (Photo by Suzanne Carr Rossi/The Free Lance-Star)


Poglej si posnetek: Mildred and Richard Loving (Maj 2022).