Maybe this belongs in the politics thread, I'm not sure. Thought this was interesting.

''Interracial marriage is on the rise in Oklahoma, according to the Pew Research Center. The Sooner State has the second highest rate of interracial marriage in the country. Hawaii has the highest rate of interracial marriage.

Between 2008 and 2010, 26.3 percent of all newly married couples “married out” of their race/ethnicity group, according to the Pew study. Of that, 5.6 percent were between white and Hispanic Oklahomans, 1.6 percent between white and Asian, 2 percent between white and black, and 17.1 percent were “other mixed,” a category that included Native Americans.

The “South,” which is how Pew labeled Oklahoma, had a 14-percent rate of interracial marriage between 2008 and 2010. Nearly one-fifth of Oklahoma’s 723,000 married households in 2010 included partners of different racial make-up, according to Census figures. As of 2012, 17.2 percent of married households include interracial couples, compared to 14.8 percent in 2000.

Interracial marriage wasn’t made legal until 1967. The momentous Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision set the precedent for numerous states around the country, granting people of different race and ethnicity the right to marriage.

Oklahoma’s original anti-miscegenation law, which enforced racial segregation in intimate relationships and marriage through criminalization, was passed in 1897. Oklahoma’s law was unique in the way it was phrased, specifically preventing “any person of African descent” from marrying “any person not of African descent.” The specific phrasing of the law was used to nullify relationships between blacks and Native Americans, exclusive to Oklahoma. The statute held a financial fine and prison time of up to five years. The law was deemed unconstitutional by the 1967 Supreme Court decision.

-See more here: MAP OF THE WEEK: Interracial Marriage in Oklahoma | This Land Press (http://thislandpress.com/roundups/map-of-the-week-interracial-marriage-in-oklahoma/)

http://thislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-27-at-10.52.22-AM.png

Here is a full interactive map: Interactive: Interracial Marriage: Who and Where | Pew Social & Demographic Trends (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/04/interracial-marriage-map/)

Might it have a bit to do with the number of people with Native American ethnicity in the state?

Might it have a bit to do with the number of people with Native American ethnicity in the state?Thought about that, but then again, I have still seen a lot of interracial couples and surprisingly more so than other states. Of course, I am not counting the number of interracial couples or really even noticing when I'm out of state.

According to their criteria I guess I am in an interracial marriage (white/Hispanic). I know that I saw a lot of that in Texas and up here, I do see many more white/black couples here in Colorado than I did in Austin.

This is a credit to what's in the hearts of Oklahoma’s in general IMHO.

I believe we have a greater tendency to judge people based on their individual merits rather than skin color... We are not as bad as many places about at letting the peddlers of race push fear on us about others. Most Oklahoma's don't let them self’s be conquered by this fear for pure political gain.

The left winged racists aren't going to like this thread. I wonder what
their hate attack will be?

This is a credit to what's in the hearts of Oklahoma’s in general IMHO.

I believe we have a greater tendency to judge people based on their
individual merits rather than skin color...
Which is what Martin Luther King was all about. For the life of me I can't
understand why the hard lined left winged extremists are opposed to this
concept of live and let live.

Hmmm. I'm not surprised that someone would try to inject politics into this.

Hmmm. I'm not surprised that someone would try to inject politics into this.

Sigh. It was going so well too. Some people just have an agenda and will never stop crapping on things to spread it.

PluPan, thanks for the story. I found it interesting.

For some reason there are people who can't bear the thought that
Martin Luther King wasn't a racist. He wanted Blacks to be accepted
and not judged by their race. Who, except leftists, wouldn't want that?

Seriously, racism was on the was out until lbj and the Democrat racists
decided to keep stoking the fire of hate.

For some reason there are people who can't bear the thought that
Martin Luther King wasn't a racist. He wanted Blacks to be accepted
and not judged by their race. Who, except leftists, wouldn't want that?

Seriously, racism was on the was out until lbj and the Democrat racists
decided to keep stoking the fire of hate.

racism does not equal politics. I did not mention racism in my only previous post here, unlike the previous poster who can't seem to talk about racism often enough to suit himself.

For some reason there are people who can't bear the thought that
Martin Luther King wasn't a racist.

Of course I do not think Dr. King was a racist. Why do you? Or do you need some help with the English language/syntax?

Can anyone explain why the left can't accept the fact that OK is open
minded? This must put a rock in their craw.

Of course I do not think Dr. King was a racist.
??? You're kidding, right?

Please read my post before you react with your typical knee jerk reaction.
I say before you react because you obviously didn't read my post. But
you know that. Hey, why know what you're talking about when you can
make up crap that's wrong? Crap is so much easier to produce.

??? You're kidding, right?

Please read my post before you react with your typical knee jerk reaction.
I say before you react because you obviously didn't read my post. But
you know that. Hey, why know what you're talking about when you can
make up crap that's wrong? Crap is so much easier to produce.

What relevance does that have to the original post?

No I am not kidding. I do not think Dr. King was a racist.

Can anyone explain why the left can't accept the fact that OK is open
minded? This must put a rock in their craw.

Again with politics. This is not a political issue and you are the only one who thinks it is which must put a rock in your craw.

Martin Luther King was a humanitarian, imo. I don't think his message was about blacks specifically having equality rather than everyone looking at each other as humans instead of diving one another into racial groups. The only race here is humans and he knew that. He wanted everyone to be treated equally with race completely out of the equation. I'm sure he still had pride in his race and it is always good to take pride in your race and culture, but you can still have balance and view everyone as human beings who share similar interest even if they seem different.

Oklahoma’s original anti-miscegenation law, which enforced racial segregation in intimate relationships and marriage through criminalization, was passed in 1897. Oklahoma’s law was unique in the way it was phrased, specifically preventing “any person of African descent” from marrying “any person not of African descent.” The specific phrasing of the law was used to nullify relationships between blacks and Native Americans, exclusive to Oklahoma. The statute held a financial fine and prison time of up to five years. The law was deemed unconstitutional by the 1967 Supreme Court decision.

-See more here: MAP OF THE WEEK: Interracial Marriage in Oklahoma | This Land Press (http://thislandpress.com/roundups/map-of-the-week-interracial-marriage-in-oklahoma/)

I assume this law is the reason behind the controversy a couple years ago of descendants of intermarried black and Native Americans being denied tribal recognition? (I confess I know very little about this particular issue other than a few TV newscasts.) Was the case ever resolved or is it still in the court system?

Again with politics. This is not a political issue and you are the only one who thinks it is which must put a rock in your craw.

It's sad when attention is sought over more than Tinkerbell begging for clapping.

I assume this law is the reason behind the controversy a couple years ago of descendants of intermarried black and Native Americans being denied tribal recognition? (I confess I know very little about this particular issue other than a few TV newscasts.) Was the case ever resolved or is it still in the court system?

Where did you pick up on the "intermarrried" of those Blacks that were asking for the same benefits that Native Americans received? I followed the story and in particular the part about Maxine Waters shutting off funds to the Tribes prior to the court decision in attempt to force them to capitulate on the Blacks' claim.

It's sad when attention is sought over more than Tinkerbell begging for clapping.

I just consider the source

Where did you pick up on the "intermarrried" of those Blacks that were asking for the same benefits that Native Americans received? I followed the story and in particular the part about Maxine Waters shutting off funds to the Tribes prior to the court decision in attempt to force them to capitulate on the Blacks' claim.

Descendants of those people would normally be eligible for tribal membership and benefits if not for the old law PluPlan cited right? Seems to me if those people were descendants of marriages that were considered illegal in Oklahoma solely because of a law deemed unconstitutional they have a legitimate claim. I am asking if the two issues are related and if the unconstitutionality of that law was the basis for the claim. I assumed there would be at least a couple knowledgeable people on the subject that might enlighten me.

Interesting article, PluPan. Thanks for posting it. My first thought of this was that Oklahoma's abnormal statistic was centered around Native American presence here but that statistic was never specifically addressed. I was also surprised that the 5.6% of Oklahoma marriages between "whites" and "Hispanic Americans" was considered interracial. A quick google search led me to the Wikipedia article on race and not only did it not mention the "red, yellow, black and white" list, the first few paragraphs were mostly about how different the various definitions of race are and that many governmental bodies had determined to not recognize race at all.

Descendants of those people would normally be eligible for tribal membership and benefits if not for the old law PluPlan cited right? Seems to me if those people were descendants of marriages that were considered illegal in Oklahoma solely because of a law deemed unconstitutional they have a legitimate claim. I am asking if the two issues are related and if the unconstitutionality of that law was the basis for the claim. I assumed there would be at least a couple knowledgeable people on the subject that might enlighten me.

Getting off topic I think but to settle this issue, the lawsuit Maxine Waters pushed was not between Blacks with Native American ancestry but Blacks without it who were descended from Indian owned Black slaves. (Some of the tribes had slaves who were not Black)

Ok - that makes more sense as to why there was the amount of controversy surrounding it.

Might it have a bit to do with the number of people with Native American ethnicity in the state?

Yes.


Between 2008 and 2010, 26.3 percent of all newly married couples “married out” of their race/ethnicity group, according to the Pew study. Of that, 5.6 percent were between white and Hispanic Oklahomans, 1.6 percent between white and Asian, 2 percent between white and black, and 17.1 percent were “other mixed,” a category that included Native Americans.

I think you are referring to the Cherokee Freedman controversy.

Slave descendants seek equal rights from Cherokee Nation - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/21/slave_descendants_seek_equal_rights_from_cherokee_ nation_partner/)

A quick primer: the Cherokee Nation possessed slaves and they were forced to take the Trail of Tears. When the Civil War erupted, the Cherokees aligned themselves with the CSA, largely due to the slavery issue. The confederacy was defeated, and the Cherokees had to agree to let former slaves (freedmen) into their tribe in order to be admitted back into the Union. In 2007, the Cherokees voted to strip the freedman of their citizenship, which was in direct violation of the treaty they signed, thus causing them to lose millions in federal funds. It should be noted a lot of freedman do have indian ancestry.

Lots of layers to this story...way more than what can be said here. If you have time, the Salon/This Land article is a good, if rather lengthy read.

^ OK - this is making more sense. I honestly never paid too much attention beyond halfway listening to an occasional news report. Thanks for the info and link.

^
No problem!

Back to the subject at hand. I am black and I have not had any issue dating outside my race here. Its really not a big deal in OKC. My longest relationships have been with a Vietnamese and Puerto Rican girl, if that tells you anything. I find it interesting our interracial marriage rate is in line with a lot of the West, despite being considered for these purposes a southern state. When people say OK is not really southern they are referring to nuances like these. Knowing my experiences down there, I think a lot of the south still has an issue with interracial dating, even among my generation.

^ OK - this is making more sense. I honestly never paid too much attention beyond halfway listening to an occasional news report. Thanks for the info and link.Yeah sorry about that, CaptDave. I knew about as much as you did on this.

Yeah sorry about that, CaptDave. I knew about as much as you did on this.

No worries. I learned about something I really did not understand fully. Not a bad thing in my view.

Yes.

Shocker.

I won't go into the slant the Salon put on the story but they're no un-bias source.


Cherokee freedmen controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cherokee Freedmen Controversy is an ongoing political and tribal dispute between the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen regarding tribal citizenship. During the American Civil War, the Cherokee who supported the Union abolished the practice of African slavery by act of the Cherokee National Council in 1863. The Cherokee Freedmen became citizens of the Cherokee Nation in accordance with a treaty made with the United States government a year after the Civil War ended. In the early 1980s, the Cherokee Nation administration amended citizenship rules to require direct descent from an ancestor listed as "Cherokee By Blood" on the Dawes Rolls. The change stripped descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen of citizenship and voting rights unless they satisfied this new criterion. About 25,000 Freedmen were excluded from the tribe.
On March 7, 2006, the Cherokee Supreme Court ruled that the descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen were unconstitutionally kept from enrolling as citizens and were allowed to enroll in the Cherokee Nation. Chad "Corntassel" Smith, then-Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, called for an emergency election to amend the constitution in response to the ruling.[1] After a petition was circulated, a special election held on March 3, 2007 resulted in a constitutional amendment that disenrolled the Cherokee Freedmen descendants. This led to several legal proceedings in United States and Cherokee Nation courts in which the Freedmen descendants continued to press for their treaty rights and recognition as Cherokee Nation members.[2] The 2007 constitutional amendment was voided in Cherokee Nation district court on January 14, 2011, but was overturned by a 4-1 ruling in Cherokee Nation Supreme Court on August 22, 2011 before the special run-off election for Principal Chief. The ruling excluded the Cherokee Freedmen descendants from voting in the special election.
After the freezing of $33 million in funds by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in response to the ruling, an agreement in federal court between the Cherokee Nation, the Freedmen descendants and the US government allowed the Freedmen to vote in the special election. Bill John Baker was elected Principal Chief in the special election and inaugurated in October 2011. The Cherokee Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of the election results by former chief Chad Smith.
Both sides filed complaints in federal court in Tulsa, Oklahoma by July 2012; the Cherokee say the 1866 treaty does not require them to give full citizenship to the Freedmen, who continue to seek full rights.