Racial segregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This entry is related to, but not included in the Political ideologies series or one of its sub-series. Other related articles can be found at the Politics Portal.
The Rex Theatre for Colored People
The Rex Theatre for Colored People

Racial segregation is characterized by separation of different races in daily life when both are doing equal tasks, 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 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—both 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 era of legal segregation in the United States was commonly referred to as the Jim Crow era, and the practice of segregation was referred to as Jim Crow.

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the right of U.S. states and localities to mandate racial segregation. 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 "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.

Contents

[edit] Overview

Part of a series of articles on
Racial segregation
About this image

Isolationism
White Australia policy
South African Apartheid

Segregation in the US
Black Codes
Jim Crow laws
Redlining
White flight
Sundown towns
Proposition 14
Indian Appropriations
Immigration Act of 1924
Separate but equal

This box: view • talk • edit

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.

[edit] Historical cases

[edit] Australia (20th century)

From Australian federation (1901) up to 1972, what became known as the "White Australia Policy" officially discriminated against those who were not white and prevented them from immigrating to Australia, by deliberately making their immigration tests too hard to pass. The history of this form of racial discrimination is described in a government fact sheet.[2] The various government laws and acts that made up the Policy were amended or replaced over a course of twenty or so years, from the mid-fifties to the mid-seventies. See White Australia Policy.

In the past, it was policy for Aborigines to be taken to live on missions, the intention being for them to be "out of the way" for the expanding territory of the white settlers. In the early-to-mid 20th Century the official policy regarding half-Aboriginal children was one of assimilation: they would be brought up on the missions to become part of white society and made to marry only white people, the intention being to "breed out" the Aboriginal traits by the third generation or so. Around the 1960s, the official policy regarding all indigenous Australians was changed to one of integration: being able to live either in Western society, on missions or in traditional society.

Despite the official stance being integration, a large percentage of indigenous Australians live away from the urban areas in comparatively poor socio-economic conditions, leaving them somewhat segregated from the rest of Australian society. A number of commentators and civil rights groups have characterised the situation as apartheid[3][4][5] - in fact, Australia's government policies are viewed by some as the original impetus for the apartheid system in South Africa.[6][7][8]

In 1972 Australia's immigration policy turned to Multiculturalism after widespread opposition and social disgust. Today Australia prides itself in being racially diverse with a significant, yet small, percentage of Australian citizens being of "non-white" decent.

[edit] Nazi Germany (20th century)

An example of miscegenation laws was the Nuremberg Laws enacted by the Nazis in Germany against the large German Jewish community during the 1930s. The laws prohibited marriages between Jews and so-called "aryan" Germans.

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 forced 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.

[edit] 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".

[edit] South Africa (20th century)

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

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.

[edit] 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."[9]

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

Not all racial segregation laws have been repealed in the United States, although Supreme Court rulings have rendered them unenforceable. 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.[10] 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 desegregation of U.S. public schools peaked in 1988; since that time, the schools have, in fact, become more segregated. As of 2005, the present proportion of black students at majority white schools "a level lower than in any year since 1968."[11]

[edit] Current history

[edit] 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.

[edit] Israel and the territories

The Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem criticises Israel for apartheid-like activities: "Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person’s rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."[12]

Others argue that this comparison is ungrounded, maintaining that Israel has over one million Arab citizens, and they are given the same rights and freedoms as the rest of the population.

For example, Benjamin Pogrund, who was active in the South African anti-apartheid movement, wrote of the comparison:

"... it isn't true. Anyone who knows what apartheid was, and who knows Israel today, is aware of that. Use of the apartheid label is at best ignorant and naïve and at worst cynical and manipulative."[13]

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have expressed concern over human rights within Israel:

  • From Human Rights Watch (in terms reminiscent of the situation of Roma people in some Eastern European countries):
"Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children, and their relatively poor performance in school reflects this."[14]
  • From Amnesty International:
"In August the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called for the revocation of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, passed the previous year and extended for six months in July. The law institutionalized racial discrimination. It barred Israeli Arab citizens married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories from living with their spouses in Israel, and forced families to either live apart or leave the country altogether."[15]

South African Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid and said that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".[16]

[edit] Fiji

Ever since the arrival of Indians in Fiji in 1879, the British colonial administration has ensured that the immmigrant Indian community and the native Fijians were kept apart. Initially Fijians and Indians were physically barred from intermingling. Later, institutions were set up that attempted to make this segregation permanent.

[edit] Education

Schools were initailly only set up for the native Fijians and, after much pressure from local and overseas groups, when Indian children were allowed into schools, they were in segregated schools. It is still common to see in Fiji schools next to each other with students from different ethnic backgrounds. Teachers traning colleges were also established on racial lines and Government scholarships are still being being awarded on racial basis. There are still two teacher's unions in Fiji - one for ethnic Fijians only and the other predominantly Indian, although its membership is open to all.

[edit] Sports

There is very little inter-mingling of the two major races in sports. Fijians mainly play rugby, while Indians play soccer. Although the Soccer Association was initially established as an Indian organisation, it opened its doors to people of all races in 1961 and ethnic Fijians now make up the majority its players.

[edit] Politics

Segregation has always been practised in politics in Fiji. During early colonial times, seats were reserved for each race and voting was conducted in communal constituencies. The number of members for each race was always biased in favour of the Europeans and against the Indians. In the 1960s attempts were made to correct some of this imbalance with the introduction of the cross-voting system where some seats were reserved for each race (disproportonally) but voters from all races could vote. After independence, in 1970, the number of seats where elections were held under the cross-voting system was increased but most seats were still alloctaed disproportinally on a racial basis. [17]

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. The 1997 constitution still reserved the position of President and Vice-President for ethnic Fijians and allowed the Senate, where ethnic Fijians were guaranteed an overwhelming majority, to have veto powers on changes to constitution and other key legislation.

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.

[edit] Malaysia

Malaysia has an article in its constitution which distinctly segregates the Malays and other indigeneous peoples of Malaysia from the non-Malays, or bumiputra under the social contract, giving them 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. Furthermore, 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.

[edit] 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]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes and references

  1. ^ Principles to Guide Housing Policy at the Beginning of the Millennium, Michael Schill & Susan Wachter, Cityscape
  2. ^ http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/08abolition.htm
  3. ^ http://www.unswpress.com.au/isbn/0868407194.htm
  4. ^ http://www.zmag.org/content/Race/pilger0127.cfm
  5. ^ http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/054.html
  6. ^ http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/177.html
  7. ^ http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/limb.htm
  8. ^ http://www.convictcreations.com/history/federation.htm
  9. ^ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040503/fonerkennedy
  10. ^ http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245806.htm
  11. ^ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051219/kozol
  12. ^ http://www.btselem.org/english/settlements/index.asp
  13. ^ http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm
  14. ^ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/12/05/isrlpa3399.htm
  15. ^ http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng
  16. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1957644.stm
  17. ^ http://www.education.ucsb.edu/socialjustice/spickard.pdf

---

  • 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.

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/c/Racial_segregation.html"