Talk:Racial segregation

Israel

I have transferred this in the talk page :

Intermarriage between Ashkenazi Jews and Mizrahi Jews is increasingly common in Israel, and by the late 1990s 28% of all Israeli children had multi-ethnic parents (up from 14% in the 1950s).

I don't see the direct link with segregation. The fact taht 28 % of a community has multi-ethnic parents doesn't mean anything, particularly in a country like Israel with so many communities. The biggest is the Arab one and than come the Russian one and each is around 1,000,000 people out of a population of 7,000,000. What normal mixing would give should be stated and explained before stating that is linked to "segregation" or not. More it is not trange that the intermarriage increased after 1950 given the Mizrahi came to Israel mainly after the exodus from Arab lands. And finaly, the sources considering they were not considered as equivalent to Ashkenazi Jews do not lack. It was and is still partly a problem in Israel society. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

more historical cases

I believe we could list more historical examples. The current historical cases section is somewhat arbitrary (Ireland...) and focusses too narrowly on Anglo-American and Nazi aspects. In the late 19th century up to mid-twentieth century, segregation was a popular official policy in many colonies. (As a necessary administrative tool to justify the very existence of the ruling entities, a nice explanation can be found e.g. in British nationality law and Hong Kong; practical segregation is implied in this sentence from Belgian Congo ″In 1953, the Congolese were granted the right to buy and sell private property in their own name″.)

French Algeria is an interesting example: Algeria was considered to be an integral part of France, but citizenship was granted to people of French, other European or Jewish descent; to Muslims only in very special cases. As a quick-fix I'll try to copy a passage from French Algeria#Discrimination. --Senfteiler (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. section not very coherent

The United States section isn't very coherent. The text lacks a clear direction or organization, and several of the statements imply contradictory ideas.136.181.195.29 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You could find further information at the main article, Racial segregation in the United States, or improve that section using information from there. If you're talking about this U.S. section, then I disagree, it looks quite coherent to me. Yambaram (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada - bad arguments

I am referring to this section: Until 1948, the Canadian Government systematically forced First Nations children to attend Canadian Indian residential school system in order to disconnect them from their indigenous language and culture.

It thus promoted integration, the opposite of racial segregation. See also the main article on these schools:

"the Canadian federal government's Indian Affairs department officially encouraged the growth of the Indian residential school system as a valuable agent in a wider policy of assimilating Native Canadians into European-Canadian society.[9]"

Thus the section should be removed or pruned as not making sense here.

I also feel the PC "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude at work here. Zezen (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Racial segregation in constitution

Somebody removes this [RS] para:

Liberia

Liberian Constitution limits Liberian nationality to Negro people (see also Liberian nationality law).

Why? Explain yourself here.

Zezen (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what the word "segregation" means? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. As per the article itself: "the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds without an objective and reasonable justification, in conformity with the proposed definition of discrimination."

Denying nationality on basis of race is the most obvious racial discrimination.

Most of the historic and current examples in the article are on par with Liberia's case. Please discuss more, without ad hominem.

Zezen (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, no, or you wouldn't be using "segregation" and "discrimination" as synonyms. In what way is this an example of the former? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The article includes the following now: Following its conquest of Ottoman controlled Algeria in 1830, for well over a century France maintained colonial rule in the territory which has been described as "quasi-apartheid".[13] The colonial law of 1865 allowed Arab and Berber Algerians to apply for French citizenship only if they abandoned their Muslim identity; Azzedine Haddour argues that this established "the formal structures of a political apartheid"

Which is an example of religious segregation cum discrimination, if anything. Here the method is the same: the nationality law, but the segregation is racial.

The Head of the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR) and retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia Cllr. Gladys K. Johnson has defended the “Negro Clause” in the Liberian constitution, which forbids white people from gaining citizenship in Liberia.

Giving her personal opinion Wednesday on several provisions of the Liberian constitution at a public interactive forum organized by the Liberia Media for Democratic Initiative, former Associate Justice Johnson dissected Article 27b of the Liberian Constitution which addresses the controversial citizenship issue. Former Associate Justice Johnson agreed that only people of Negro decent should be citizens and noted that any attempt to open up citizenship widely would render most Liberians as third class citizens.

Continued Justice Johnson: “I am only saying that before you jump up and say that let’s remove this whole clause and open up, you must know how to open up, because if you open up too wide in this your own country, you will become third class citizens. So if we are accused of being racist, let’s accept it, than to be made foreigners or nonentities in our own country” 

So they do segregate, and accept that they are racist by doing so. Source

Still not convinced? Call for an RfC.

So you're including it because you personally think it is similar to something in another country that one person describes as political apartheid (ie. separation politically, not actual apartheid)? No, you continue to demonstrate that you don't understand what this article is about. You should learn about the semantic difference between discrimination and segregation, and about how Wikipedia policies like WP:NOR work, and come back when you know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not me, the RS sources claim it was (until the 1940s) and is segregation. By now you are engaging in edit war by removing sourced statements or claims that have been accepted in by other Wikipedians in related articles on country's history. Please abstain from doing so, or organize an RfC.

You must provide a source that says it's segregation. You are not allowed to substitute your own analysis for the analysis of reliable sources. If you believe that other users might support your new edit, you must be the one to gain consensus, per WP:BRD. There's no such thing as "I made a wild unsourced change because I don't understand policy, and now you need consensus to restore the status quo." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I looked up the history of the Talk page. I guess the unexplained removal of your reasoned and civil opinion here by User:Trinacrialucente was unintentional.

2. I added additional sources to the Liberia section, which mention social/sexual/legislative etc. racial segregation expressis verbis:

Ironically, they replicated what they despised – oppression and discrimination based upon “inferiority.” Natives were disparaged and ridiculed as “country people.” The Americo-Liberians set up all the Jim Crow laws of the South in Liberia. There was social segregation in Monrovia, the capital city. Among other things, natives could not enter through the front door. They could not vote. They could not speak unless spoken to. There were sexual restrictions. No native man could marry or have a sexual relationship with an Americo-Liberian woman. Even when natives became educated, they were restricted from government positions. Only a token few were allowed to participate. source for quote

There are many more scholarly sources about this issue.

I hope the reffed books are RS enough for you. If not, please challenge them here, or via an RfC.Zezen (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen (talk · contribs) is not competent to edit en.wiki. Look at what they did to Jewish Bolshevism and Blood libel. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:B4A6:ABC6:D6CA:F708 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Norway doubtful

I do not find this to be racial segregation as such:

On 16 May 1940 the Administrasjonsrådet asked Rikskommisariatet why radio receivers had been confiscated from Jews in Norway.[56] That Administrasjonsrådet thereafter "quietly" accepted[57] racial segregation between Norwegian citizens...

Why?

1. Much worse was happening e.g. in the USA during WWII, see e.g. Japanese internment both in the USA and Canada, which is much closer to the definition of racial segregation employed here.

2. It looks more like a wartime security measure, if anything.

3. The reffed article itself states that the Norwegian government had his hands tied by the German Nazis:

The Jewish question was an international concern, high above the Administration Council of national scope. Legal basis for the decision was to be found in "der Führer Regulation." The national group [Jews] was not treated as Norwegian citizens.  This is where Hitler sets out its racist ideology as applicable law in Norway. This is the moral point. And it could look as though Administration Council members had understood precisely... 

-> I thus posit this Norwegian section be removed. Zezen (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel doubtful, some cases only

As per the segregation definition quoted above in the case of Liberia, I find these Israeli examples to be discrimination, and not segregation (which, in short, means physical separation of access, to e.g. means of transport, buildings, institutions, amenities):

They [Falasha] have been subjected to a number of indignities, such as their donated blood being thrown away at hospitals.[97] On April 26, 2015 a white Israeli police officer beat and arrested a Falasha IDF soldier, Damas Pakada, who alleges he was the target of a racist attack.[98] Subsequent protests broke out in support of Prakada across Israel, and turned violent in Tel Aviv.[99]  

Further arguments:

1. This beating up of a soldier was incidental, and not a promulgated governmental policy.

2. Other groups e.g. homosexuals or tattooed persons have had their donated blood rejected, as mandated by the UN itself, if my memory serves me right, and it is not usually treated as segregation.

-> Let us remove these examples, smacking of POV and original research.

On the other hand, the examples quoted above about segregation in schools against Falasha kids:

Since their arrival in the early 1980's under Operation Solomon, the Falasha have stated they have been treated as "second class citizens"[93] from ongoing "institutional racism"[94] and segregation.[95][96] 

are most pertinent here, and should stay.

Your comments? Zezen (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with your comments in the first part. regarding the second section, "second class citizens" is agin, discrimination, not segregation. The only source that talks abot "segregation" is a blog, which is not a reliable source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, correction, I see anew source was added, from Ha'aretz, which also makes that claim. We could probably use that. It should go in the previous paragraph, the one which discusses Israel's 'de facto' segregation of communities along ethnic lines, and edited to include what the Ha'artez source says - that the government recognizes that this is a problem and is working to force integration and elimination of such de facto segregated schools by closing schools that are predominately Ethiopian. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you are now discussing this topic as opposed to unilaterally undoing edits. The case of Damas is relevant as this de facto segregation is in effect due to the wider racism inherent in Israeli society. Take away the racism, there would be no more segregation (which applies to Israelis BORN IN ISRAEL of Ethiopian descent who speak perfect Hebrew...not just Ethiopian Israelis). The fact that Beta Israel/Falasha donated blood was thrown out IS an act of segregation (under Jim Crow in the US whites could not receive donated blood from blacks...which is of course scientifically baseless).Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not the definition of segregation. Individual acts motivated by racism are not the same thing as segregation. And even racism, on its own, is not the same as segregation. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the concepts and distinctions therein. I am also aware of cause and effect. Throwing away blood due to one's race is a form of racial segregation. The precedent has already been set...you are on the wrong side of history http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-american-red-cross-african-american-blood-ban-scandal/ Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I added yet another source/citation which mentions the Tel Aviv riots as a consequence of on-going segregation. It is relevant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

if you think a racially motivated attack on an individual is the same as segregation, then no, you are not aware of the distinction between racism and segregation. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not say the two were "the same". I provided my sources which concur with my observation. So, either you lack the reading comprehension necessary to follow this topic or you are grasping at straws. Either way, you are not adding anything of value here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

this is an article about segregation. If the two are not the same, then the non-segregation stuff does not belong here. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the one "edit warring". I am adding new citations and sources which support the topic of segregation against the Beta Israel community. I have just added two more sources regarding the scandal of forced birth control as a policy by the Israeli governmet against the Beta Israel community. This topic merits its own paragraph at a minumum. If you feel differently feel free to ask for arbitration.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: What does forced birth control have to do with segregation? LjL (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

you seriously have to ask? Wow. Sinceramente mi sembra che non sai di che cosa parli...e non so perche' mi segui. Forced birth control against ONE population and NOT against another is by definition SEGREGATION. You don't appear to have a good grasp of English or Italian. Not really sure why you feel compelled to edit on this topic of you cannot grasp the concept. I have a feeling you are a sock-puppet and will act accordingly.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, please talk to me in English. You can check the definition of wikt:segregation yourself. It involves segregating (separating). It does not simply involve any kind of abuse. As to your accusations, you'd better have evidence. LjL (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)