Jump to content

Racial segregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.132.97.8 (talk) at 02:17, 27 July 2007 (→‎Nazi Germany (1933-1945): consistency). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Ideology-small

Part of a series of articles on
Racial and ethnic segregation
Overview
Historical examples
Contemporary examples
Related
The Rex Theatre for Colored People

Template:Discrimination2 Racial segregation is characterized by separation of different races in daily life, such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a rest room, attending school, going to the movies, or in the rental or purchase of a home[1]. Segregation may be de jure (Latin, meaning "by law")—mandated by law—or de facto (also Latin, meaning "in fact"); de facto segregation may exist even illegally. De facto segregation may be maintained by means ranging from discrimination in hiring and in the rental and sale of housing to certain races to vigilante violence such as lynchings; a situation that arises when members of different races mutually prefer to associate and do business with members of their own race would usually be described as separation or de facto separation of the races rather than segregation.

Both South Africa in the apartheid era and the United States during the slavery era (through 1865) and after the 1876 end of the Reconstruction that followed the American Civil War passed laws requiring or permitting segregation of the races in daily life. The laws in the United States enforcing segregation were known as Jim Crow laws, and the period in which they were in effect is now commonly referred to as the Jim Crow era.

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the right of U.S. states and localities to mandate racial segregation.[2] In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman ordered the desegregation of the U.S. military; in 1954 the Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, largely reversed Plessy; over the next twenty years, a succession of further court decisions and federal laws, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and measure to end mortgage discrimination in 1975, would completely invalidate de jure racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S., although de facto segregation and discrimination have proven more resilient.

De jure segregation in both South Africa and the U.S. came with "anti-miscegenation laws" (prohibitions against interracial marriage) and laws against hiring people of the race that is the object of discrimination in any but menial positions. Segregation in hiring practices contributed to economic imbalance between the races. Segregation, however, often allowed close contact in hierarchical situations, such as allowing a person of one race to work as a servant for a member of another race. Segregation can involve spatial separation of the races, and/or mandatory use of different institutions, such as schools and hospitals by people of different races.

Overview

Even though many societies throughout history have practiced racial segregation, it was by no means universal, and some multiracial societies such as the Roman Empire were notable for their rejection of racial segregation. Few modern societies officially practice racial segregation, and most officially frown upon racial discrimination. However, anxieties about racial, religious and cultural differences still find expression in other forms of political and social controversy, either as an official pretext for culturally accepted discrimination, or as a socially acceptable way to discuss cultural, religious and economic friction that results from racial discrimination. For example, controversies often mask concerns about the culture or racial composition of the immigrants. Issues of race relations also appear in seemingly race-neutral disputes, over such issues as poverty, healthcare, taxation, religion, enforcement of a particular set of cultural norms, and even fashion.

Racial segregation differs from racial discrimination in a number of ways. Discrimination ranges from individual actions, to socially enforced discriminatory behavior, to legally mandated differences in status between members of different races. Segregation has, typically, harshly reinforced discrimination: if people of different races live in separate neighborhoods, attend different schools, receive different social services, etc., then people of the favored races can be largely insulated from societal neglect of people of other races.

Historical cases

Nazi Germany (1933-1945)

A ban of interracial marriage was part of the Nuremberg Laws enacted by the Nazis in Germany against the German Jewish community during the 1930s. The laws prohibited marriages between Jews and Aryan Germans, which were classified as different races.

Under the General Government of occupied Poland in 1940, the population was divided into different groups, each with different rights, food rations, allowed strips in the cities, public transportation, and assigned

During the 1930s and 40s, Jews in Nazi-controlled states were made to wear yellow ribbons or stars of David, and were, along with Romas (Gypsies) discriminated against by the racial laws. Jewish doctors and professors were not allowed to treat Aryan (effectively, gentile) patients or teach Aryan pupils, respectively. The Jews were also not allowed to use any public transportation, besides the ferry, and would only be able to shop from 3-5 in Jewish stores. After Kristallnacht ("The Night of Broken Glass"), the Jews were fined 1,000,000 marks for damages done by the Nazi troops and SS members. Jews and Roma were subjected to genocide as "racial" groups in the Holocaust).

Rhodesia (20th century)

The British colony of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), under Ian Smith, leader of the white minority government, declared unilateral independence in 1965. For the next 15 years, Rhodesia operated under white minority rule until international sanctions forced Smith to hold multiracial elections, after a brief period of British rule in 1979.

Laws enforcing segregation had been around before 1965, although many institutions simply ignored them. One highly publicized legal battle occurred in 1960 involving the opening of a new Theatre that was to be open to all races, this incident was nicknamed "The Battle of the Toilets".

South Africa (20th century)

"Petty apartheid": sign on Durban beach in English, Afrikaans and Zulu languages
Main article: History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era

Apartheid was a system which existed in South Africa for over forty years, although the term itself had a history going back to the 1910s and unofficially before that for many years. It was formalized in the years following the victory of the National Party in the all-white national election of 1948, increased in dominancy under the rule of Prime Minister Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd and remained law until 1990. Examples of apartheid policy introduced are the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1951, which made it illegal for marriage between races.

Apartheid was abolished following a rapid change in public perception of racial segregation throughout the world, and an economic boycott against South Africa which had crippled and threatened to destroy its economy.

United States (19th-21st century)

Main article: Racial segregation in the United States

After the Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in the South, racial discrimination became regulated by the so-called Jim Crow laws, which mandated strict segregation of the races. Though such laws were instituted shortly after fighting ended in many cases, they only became formalized after the end of Republican-enforced Reconstruction in the 1870s and 80s during a period known as the nadir of American race relations. This legalized segregation lasted up to the 1960s, primarily through the deep and extensive power of southern conservatives.

While the majority in 1896 Plessy overtly upheld only "separate but equal" facilities (specifically, transportation facilities), Justice John Marshall Harlan in his dissent protested that the decision was an expression of white supremacy; he predicted that segregation would "stimulate aggressions … upon the admitted rights of colored citizens," "arouse race hate" and "perpetuate a feeling of distrust between [the] races."[3]

A segregated facility in Dallas, Texas. Note the sign "Colored Waiting Room" at the top.

Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., working during the period from the end of World War II through the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 supported by President Lyndon Johnson. Many of their efforts were acts of civil disobedience aimed at violating the racial segregation rules and laws, such as refusing to give up a seat in the black part of the bus to a white person (Rosa Parks), or holding sit-ins at all-white diners.

By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and by the 1970s, opposition to formal and legal segregation had dissolved and segregation and racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, American military and government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support.[4]

Since then, African-Americans have played a significant role as mayors, governors, and state officials in both Southern and Northern states and on the national level have been on the Supreme Court, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, in presidential cabinets, and as head of the joint chiefs of staff.[5]

Governor George Wallace attempts to block the enrollment of black students at the University of Alabama.

Not all racial segregation laws have been repealed in the United States, although Supreme Court rulings have rendered them unenforceable and illegal to carry out. For instance, the Alabama Constitution still mandates that Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race.[6] A proposal to repeal this provision was narrowly defeated in 2004. However, in a different arena, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February 2005 in Johnson v. California (125 S. Ct. 1141) that the California Department of Corrections' unwritten practice of racially segregating prisoners in its prison reception centers — which California claimed was for inmate safety (gangs in California, as throughout the U.S., usually organize on racial lines)— is to be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review. Although the high court remanded the case back to the lower courts, it is likely[citation needed] that their decision will have the impact of forcing California to alter its practice of segregating by race in its reception centers.

According to the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, the actual de facto desegregation of U.S. public schools peaked in the late 1980s; since that time, the schools have, in fact, become more segregated mainly due to the ethnic segregation of the nation with whites dominating the suburbs and minorities the urban centers. As of 2005, the present proportion of black students at majority white schools "are a level lower than in any year since 1968." Interestingly though the most segregated states are in the Northeast and Midwest, and the most desegregated states are in the South and West, with Kentucky being the least segregated in the nation. [7]

Current history

Bahrain

After municipal elections in Bahrain in 2002 brought Islamist opposition party Al Wefaq Islamic Action to power in the capital Manama, its newly installed mayor, Murthader Bader called for the introduction of racial segregation with the removal from the city of all non-Bahraini South Asian inhabitants and for the creation of a new township to house them.

Mr Bader told the English language Gulf Daily News "It would cost a lot and we would have to find an area to accept them," he said. "A big question is where to build any new accommodation."

The government rejected the proposals.

Dominican Republic

Currently the children and grandchildren of Dominicans of Haitian descent as well as many black Dominicans live under a de facto system of apartheid where they do not have access to health care, education and economic services based on their race and heritage http://hrw.org/reports/2002/domrep/domrep0402-01.htm#TopOfPage . According to multiple New York Times, Human Rights Groups [1] and Amnesty International reports, birth certificates are not issued to children whose parents are of either dark complexions or whose features are African.[8] Lynchings of blacks have been reported as well as periodic burning down of homes occupied by blacks.[9] The practice of what is described as Antihaitianismo has been another factor, due to the tension between the Dominican Republic and its neighboring nation.[10] [11] The documentary "The Price of Sugar" documents the current apartheid situation for Haitian workers living in the Dominican Republic. [12] In Europe there have been calls for a travel and economic boycott of the Dominican Republic. Smaller Non-Governmental organizations have called for similar boycotts in the United States.

Fiji

Two military coups in Fiji in 1987 removed from power a government that was led by an ethnic Fijian, but was supported principally by the Indo-Fijian (ethnic Indian) electorate, which then made up approximately half of the population. A new constitution was promulgated in 1990, establishing Fiji as a republic, with the offices of President, Prime Minister, two-thirds of the Senate, and a clear majority of the House of Representatives reserved for ethnic Fijians, despite the fact that ethnic Fijians then comprised less than half the population. Ethnic Fijian ownership of the land (which was worked principally by Indo-Fijians) was also entrenched in the constitution.

World-wide condemnation of the 1990 constitution, and a brain-drain of many Indo-Fijian professionals and business owners, caused the Fijian government to revise the constitution in 1997. Amendments deleted most of the discriminatory provisions, and subsequent elections in 1999 brought a new government to power, with Mahendra Chaudhry as the country's first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister.

Another coup followed in 2000, with George Speight, supported by sympathetic officers in the Army and police force, seizing power, with the aim of ending Indo-Fijian influence in politics. Democracy, and the moderate 1997 constitution, were eventually restored, however.

The subsequently appointed prime minister, Laisenia Qarase, refused to adhere to the Constitution by not including members of the largely Indo-Fijian Fiji Labour Party in the government. This non-adherence partly led to the military coup that eventually ousted him.

Malaysia

Malaysia has an article in its constitution which distinctly segregates the Malays and other indigeneous peoples of Malaysia, or bumiputra, from the non-Malays under the social contract, giving the indigeneous population special rights and privileges. This includes government-sponsored discounts and requiring even the private sector of the economy to preferentially treat bumiputras with economic privileges and penalising companies who do not have a certain quota of bumiputra in employment. Further more, any discussion of abolishing the article is prohibited with the justification that it is seditious. This form of state-sponsored racial segregation is claimed as apartheid to opponents of the article. Supporters of the policy maintain that this is affirmative action for the bumiputra who had suffered during the colonial era of the history of Malaysia, using the concept of the Ketuanan Melayu that Malaysia belongs to the Malays.

Sociological research (Brown v. Board)

In the Brown v. Board decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for a unanimous court, said that "in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal... To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."

The decision made clear that the justices were influenced in part by studies by Kenneth B. Clark showing that segregated education had a negative psychological effect upon black school children. Significant doubt was subsequently cast on these studies, especially Clark's "doll study." Black students in segregated schools were shown both black and white dolls and asked which one they liked better. A majority of black students preferred the white doll, which was believed by Clark to demonstrate lowered black self-esteem as a result of segregation. Clark, however, did not present to the court his own research which showed that black children in integrated schools were even more likely to choose the white doll than those in segregated schools. Though some blacks are even now socially aware that skin color does not matter in life decisions concerning enhancement (2006-2007). Furthermore, when Asian children were segregated around the turn of the century, they consistently outperformed white children.[citation needed]

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ Principles to Guide Housing Policy at the Beginning of the Millennium, Michael Schill & Susan Wachter, Cityscape
  2. ^ Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (full text with hyperlinks to cited material)
  3. ^ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040503/fonerkennedy
  4. ^ "Encarta Encyclopedia". Retrieved 2007-04-24.
  5. ^ "Encarta Encyclopedia". Retrieved 2007-04-24.
  6. ^ http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245806.htm
  7. ^ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051219/kozol
  8. ^ New York Times "No Papers, No Rights" 2005
  9. ^ Amnesty International Dominican Republic Report 2006
  10. ^ http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2003/ling001/antihaitianismo.html
  11. ^ http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2276.cfm
  12. ^ http://www.thepriceofsugar.com

---

  • Dobratz, Betty A. and Shanks-Meile, Stephanie L, White Power, White Pride!: The White Separatist Movement in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001, 384 pages, ISBN 0-8018-6537-9.
  • Rural Face of White Supremacy: Beyond Jim Crow, by Mark Schultz. University of Illinois Press, 2005, ISBN 0-252-02960-7.

Template:Types of Segregation

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_segregation&oldid=147364646"