Grandson Criticizes Film About 1st Legal Interracial Marriage: My Grandmother Was Indian

The grandson of the late Mildred Loving criticizes the latest Hollywood biopic depicting the woman and her husband Richard Loving’s fight to be legally married in 1958.

The film “Loving” — directed by Jeff Nichols and starring Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga —  is about that legal fight striking down Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act that prohibited legal marriages between the races. The 1958 historic Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia changed everything for interracial couples across the country.

While Mildred and Richard Loving made history as the first legal Black and white marriage, grandson Mark Loving disputes the film’s depiction.

In an interview with Richmond, Virginia’s WWBT, Mark Loving states that his grandmother never claimed to be Black.

“I know during those times, there were only two colors: white and Blacks,” Loving explains. “But she was Native American. [In fact,] both of her parents were Native American.”

She really identified as Rappahannock Indian, he says.

Mark Loving adds that she was not aiming to become a civil rights hero; Mildred just wanted to be with her husband. Loving insists that his grandmother would have despised the fact that the family was receiving so much attention.

“She wasn’t trying to be no hero, she wasn’t tryin’ to be no civil rights activist,” he said. “She just wanted to come back to Central Point, Virginia.”

2016-11-04_1146_001-min

Screenshot of original D.C. marriage license

The couple’s original D.C. marriage license states that Mildred’s race was indeed Native American.

Independent journalism doesn't fund itself.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top