virginia-v

youtube

5 Couples Get Honest About Being In A Mixed Race Marriage In 2017

That was hard to wacth. How much of a raging pathetic asshole do you have to be to pray that your daughter doesn’t get pregnant by the man she loves because he’s black. White people are ridiculous.

This summer marked the 50th anniversary of the landmark Loving v. Virginia case, which invalidated laws banning interracial marriage in the U.S. in 1967.

In case you’re curious, Richard Loving passed away in 1975. He was killed by a drunk driver. Mildred Loving passed way in 2008 after a battle with pneumonia. They certainly didn’t have easy lives. But they are survived by their children, grand children and great grand children.

the New York Times published a really interesting piece looking at interracial couples 50 years later here

#Racism #US

chimerahs  asked:

Question. Its illegal for schools to force you to stand for the pledge, even silently, bc of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette right? I wanna make sure I'm getting this right bc these white teachers trying to get bold and I will read them facts any day over cursing them out through they weak ass little bones.

i don’t stand for the pledge most of the time and they don’t do shit so….. it does sound illegal lmfao. and yes, the West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette does prohibit any school authority to force you to stand for the pledge. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!! 

4

Loving v. Virginia was the landmark civil rights decision by the United States Supreme Court that invalidated laws preventing inter-racial marriage. Virginia had strict anti-miscegenation laws which prohibited marriage between ‘whites’ and 'coloreds’. The couple who brought these charges to the court was Mildred and Richard Loving—a black woman and her white husband—who were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other. The Supreme Court overturned the Lovings’ convictions in a unanimous decision on June 12, 1967, now colloquially known as “Loving Day”.

The case has been receiving renewed attention thanks to a number of recent works. From Chronical Books, Loving V. Virginia by Patricia Hruby Powell and illustrated by Shadra Strickland is a gorgeous “documentary novel” based on the case. For younger readers, there’s The Case for Loving by Selina Alko with illustrations by the author and Sean Qualls, available from Scholastic Books. Finally, in theaters now, Loving directed by Jeff Nichols, starring Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga, who is Oscar-nominated this year for her performance.

huffingtonpost.com
#LovingDay: 50 Years After The Loving Verdict, A Photo Essay Looks Back On Their Love
Remembering the couple who brought down anti-miscegenation laws in 16 U.S. states.

Monday, June 12, marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia, which quashed anti-miscegenation laws in 16 states around the nation, ushering restrictions against interracial marriage to the wrong side of history.

The date is now remembered as Loving Day in honor of Richard and Mildred Loving, the couple who defied the state’s ability to dictate the terms of their love based on their skin color. Mildred, who was of African American and Native American descent, and Richard, who was white, wed in 1958 in Washington D.C., because interracial marriage was illegal in their native rural Virginia, as well as 15 other Southern U.S. states.

When the Lovings returned to Virginia, however, local police raided their home one early morning after being tipped off by another resident. They declared the Lovings’ marriage license invalid within the scope of the state, placing the couple under arrest.

The Lovings pled guilty to “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth,” and were sentenced to one year in prison. A judge later agreed to suspend the sentence if Mildred and Richard left Virginia and did not return for 25 years.

The couple relocated to Washington, D.C., but they did not end their story there. In 1964, attorneys from the ACLU filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings, requesting the charges and sentences against the Lovings be dropped. The Lovings appealed the local ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, where their sentence was unanimously overturned in 1967.

“Under our Constitution,” Chief Justice Earl Warren said in his decision, “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Two years before this verdict, in the spring of 1965, Life magazine photojournalist Grey Villet spent time with the Lovings, as well as their family and friends, documenting the lives of a couple whose love had transcended the everyday to become the stuff of legends.

Villet’s photo essay, titled “The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait,” captures Mildred and Richard when word of their civil rights battle was spreading throughout the country and the fate of their relationship remained unknown. Through black-and-white images, the photographer captures the subtle glances, spurts of laughter and moments of quiet determination that, together, comprise a love story whose power echoes today.

We commemorate the Lovings’ bravery and tenacity in the face of prejudice and the systems of white supremacy. Villet’s photos help us remember the Lovings not just for what they represented, but who they were. The simple moments of connection, support and companionship that provided the strength to change the world.

The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait is available on Amazon.

2

“In the archive footage of this couple, there is this energy between them that is so beautiful and so alive. Joel and I wanted to re-create that out of a respect for the pair, but also because it looked like fun because they actually giggle, and just look like [they have] such a really lovely relationship.”

–  Ruth Negga on how she and Joel Edgerton strove to portray Mildred and Richard Loving in “Loving”

Dearest, I feel certain that I am going mad again. I feel we can’t go through another of those terrible times. And I shan’t recover this time. I begin to hear voices, and I can’t concentrate. So I am doing what seems the best thing to do. You have given me the greatest possible happiness. You have been in every way all that anyone could be. I don’t think two people could have been happier till this terrible disease came. I can’t fight any longer. I know that I am spoiling your life, that without me you could work. And you will I know. You see I can’t even write this properly. I can’t read. What I want to say is I owe all the happiness of my life to you. You have been entirely patient with me and incredibly good. I want to say that—everybody knows it. If anybody could have saved me it would have been you. Everything has gone from me but the certainty of your goodness. I can’t go on spoiling your life any longer. I don’t think two people could have been happier than we have been. V.
—  Virginia Woolf’s suicide letter to her husband.
Loving v. Virginia

Had an interesting moment with my Mom the other day.  She recorded Loving on the DVR and asked if I wanted to watch it with her.  She peppered me with legal questions periodically until we got about ¾ of the way into the movie when she sat up and went, “wait! What year was this decided?” Being the good law student that I am, I rattled of, “June of 1967.”  My mom sat back heavily and went, “Oh.  Oh my. This case is why.”  At this point I whirled around and got to see understanding dawn across my mother’s face.

My grandmother is a Japanese National.  She’s here on a greencard, which she has by virtue of her marriage to my grandfather, a U.S. Citizen.  My grandfather was a proud Texan of German/Irish descent who enlisted in the Navy by fudging his age.  He was shipped off to Japan in his early twenties.  He met my grandmother while stationed in Japan and they dated.  My mom knows few details about how they met or their relationship before getting married.  All my mom knows is that they waited a long time to get married before getting married in a big hurry. They were married in July of 1967.

I watched understanding dawn across my mother’s face as she realized that they were waiting for this Supreme Court case.  Because their marriage was illegal until weeks before they were married.  I watched her realize that her parents engaged in the same rush to the courthouse that accompanied the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage.

By nature of my birth, any marriage I enter into will be interacial.  It’s the same way my mother’s marriage is interacial by nature of the fact that she’s both Asian and European. This is something I have rarely considered in thinking on marriage beyond, I definitely want to incorporate Japanese traditions.   But, two generations ago, my grandparents’ interracial marriage was on hold because it was initially illegal.  Blows my mind.

The Slaying of Sandy Hook Elementary (game)

‘The Slaying of Sandy Hook Elementary’ is a game created by Ryan Lambourn that is available to play for free online. It stirred a large amount of controversy, especially after it was revealed that the creator had also made a game based off of the Virginia Tech shooting titled ‘V Tech Rampage.’ However, while the game has been labelled “the most offensive game by far,” unlike ‘V Tech Rampage’ Lambourn’s Sandy Hook game has more behind it than just shock value.

In the game you control the shooter (whose name is not mentioned). He is depicted as a jagged black silhouette without any distinguishing features. Obviously, the focus of the game is not set on trying to cast the shooter any sympathy. The rest of the NPCs are also black silhouettes (some of teachers and others of children), but they are also made to be generic and unidentifiable.

While some may argue that any game made based on a mass shooting is tasteless, the game does at least have a purpose. After the initial game (in which you control the shooter and attempt to shoot as many people on the map as possible before the time runs out- when you then end the game by shooting yourself), different playable modes are unlocked. In one mode (gun control mode) your weapon is a katana, in which it becomes much more difficult to amass a high kill count (and in which, you attempt to kill yourself by overdosing on pills, which ultimately fails and puts you in jail). In another mode, the teachers also have guns, but consistently miss you when they attempt to shoot at you.

After the end of each game, the game will list how many people you’ve killed, revealing the creator’s purpose. Without his semi-automatic weapons, the shooter would not have been able to kill as many people, wouldn’t have been able to shoot his way into the school in the first place, would have had a much harder time getting passed his mother, and would have had a more difficult time committing suicide (and thus would have had to face the reality of what he had done).

If you’re interested in playing the game, you can search the title online and find it easily- or watch playthroughs of it on Youtube. If you’re looking for something with blood and gore, look elsewhere, but if you’re curious you can give it a try. What are your thoughts/opinions on the game? I’m sure many in the tcc know about the Columbine RPG, so I thought I would introduce this one as well. Is it offensive and tasteless, a provoking and interesting statement, or something else?

3

“Chemistry is an incalculable thing. You find two people that you really like and respond to, that fit the spirit of the people who are going to be on-screen, and you place them together and hope for the best.”

“These two people have to connect. That’s where I lean very heavily on these two actors. There’s a scene where Mildred has been released from jail. She goes home. Richard’s not there. He sneaks out that night and sneaks into her room. It’s all done in one shot.”

“I remember sitting behind the camera watching this and thinking, ‘There’s no flinching. There is no hint of hesitation in their skin or eyes. They are face to face, cheek to cheek. Lips to lips, in this very delicate, intimate scene.’ That’s the definition of chemistry. I can’t take any credit for that other than I just set the table.”

–  “Loving” writer/director Jeff Nichols on the beautiful chemistry created on-screen by Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as Richard and Mildred Loving

Slaves to Citizens

The 14th Amendment fundamentally altered the balance of power between the states and the Federal Government. It asserted that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States” and therefore deserve equal protection under the law. 

 Its drafters intended to protect the newly freed slaves’ rights from former Confederate state governments. It failed in that regard, but in the 20th century, the 14th Amendment became the core instrument for challenging discriminatory state laws and expanding rights for all citizens.This amendment was cited in many Supreme Court cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and University of California v. Bakke.

Joint Resolution Proposing the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Learn more about the “Amending America” exhibit

2

“One of my favourite scenes, which is a perfect example of what [director] Jeff [Nichols] does so masterfully, is when Richard and Mildred come back to Virginia. They’re not saying a word and Mildred just takes a moment to feel the sun. In that moment, without any dialogue, you not only sense what coming home means to her — you also feel it. You feel the temperature, you feel the light, you can smell. It’s like adding another dimension to watching a movie.”

“And it’s not just that, you see him looking at her. And the tiniest bit of a smile breaks through his reserve, because he’s given her what she’s wanted so badly. And then he looks up the road, where all the bad things may come from, and he feels the anxiety again. And all of that happens in a few seconds of screen time.”

–  “Loving” producer Colin Firth describing his favourite moment in the film 

Avevo composto per te una bellissima lettera, nelle ore da incubo della mia notte insonne, ed è sfuggita: mi manchi e basta, in un modo molto semplice, disperato e umano. Tu, con tutte le tue lettere non mute, non scriveresti mai una frase elementare come questa; forse non la sentiresti nemmeno. Tuttavia credo che ti accorgerai di un piccolo vuoto. Ma lo rivestiresti di una frase tanto squisita che perderebbe un po’ della sua realtà. Mentre per me è una cosa fortissima: mi manchi ancor più di quanto credessi: ed ero pronta, a sentire la tua mancanza, e molto. Così, in realtà, questa lettera è solo uno strillo di dolore. E incredibile quanto sei diventata essenziale per me. Suppongo che tu sia abituata a sentirti dire cose del genere. Maledetta te, creatura viziata; non riuscirò a farmi amare di più, da te, scoprendomi così . […]
—  V. Woolf.