Talk:Racial segregation in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why South Africa?
This is about Segregation in the US. Why are there random comparisons to South Africa? I mean, maybe there might be a short mention of apartheid, but South African segregation really has no place in an article about the US.
[edit] = Who said racial?!
Why does "Segregation in the United States" default to "Racial Segregation in the United States"?
Considering the the most serious segregation between people in the United States is between poor males and the middle classes, this is a very serious error.
Segregation can be on the basis of many factors. Why are people so hysterical about black people?! Segregation's "sister word" is Inequality, not racism.
And this is not 1640. This is 2008!!! The only reason black people were victimized in the first place is because they were poor. Perhaps also because they were foreign. It is because they were poor that black people were victimized. Therefor, poor white people today are still at least as |80.65.242.154]] (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Segregation
I think that segregation is cruel and I am glad that it is over in the U.S. - Mimi (A Wikipedia fan)
On the contrary, segregation has almost never been worse and you are profoundly retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] First Sentence
The first sentence ("Racial segregation in the United States is the history of racial segregation, of facilities, services, and opportunities such as housing, education, employment, and transportation—along racial lines") is so awkward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.58.15 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Proposed merge with Racial segregation
I saw the two pages shouldn't be merged. Axeman89 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should Be Merged
- a assume this is about Racial segregation#United States? What exactly is the proposal? Certainly this article is too large to merge into Racial segregation. Certainly Racial segregation should have a section on the United States. So a real merger is out of the question.
- Is there any information at Racial segregation#United States that is not also here? If so, it should certainly be added to this article. At that point, if someone wants to shrink Racial segregation#United States somewhat, that becomes an internal matter in editing Racial segregation.
- Is there anyone who sees taking a differerent approach to this? Saying it "should be merged" isn't really much use, unless you want to make a case (which I doubt could be made) that this page should not exist at all. - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- This article needs quite a bit of work but should not be merged with the more general article. The focus on the United States has a very special history that should not be submerged. Skywriter 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree that this article requires a lot of work. I also agree that it should NOT be merged with the USA section in Racial segregation -- that section should briefly summarize the contents of this article and include a pointer to this article. --Deodar 06:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems we have a pretty good consensus against merging. I will remove the notice. Someone beat me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the tag was mis-interpreted, but the proposal was not to move all the information from one page to another, but (from what I see), was to move a bunch of the information that was specific to the USA from the general article to the specific article. The subsection "United States (19th-20th century)" is FAR too long for a general article, so I'm going to shorten it and make sure that nothing is lost by moving the less 'overview' info into the main article. (also the merge tag was not properly removed, as the other tag still remained, over 3 months later). Radagast83 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some dropped content
I agree that it was right to drop these long quoted passages, but I suspect there is some material there that at least is worth using as a citation for statements we already have, and maybe some content worth paraphrasing and including. The following seems very much to the point "Almost 70 years later, the white family would have a house in the suburbs worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the black family would be locked in a public housing tower in a city." - Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Malay Race"
The article assumes that the categorization "Malay race" in anti-miscegenation laws referred to people from Melanesia. This category was actually invented to refer to Filipinos, who began to enter the US after the Philipines became a US colony. Fairlane75 18:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Project Talk
It is Mimi again, asking, what do you think of this project here? -Mimi
[edit] Cleanup
Is it me, or does this article flow poorly? I don't know enough from an academic or intellectual viewpoint about the issue to really fix it myself. It strikes me that there needs to be a clearly defined section on History to list chronologically the development and high points of the issue. Then there should be a section discussing issues (as there already is for National, Southern and Northern Issues). I'd say that the plainly historically narrative portions should be aligned under history, leaving the Issues sections for issues only. Great start, and intersting topic that more people should be educated on, thoughts on revisions? Andrew 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, while the internment policies in World War II were egregious, and certianly aimes to segregate people whose origin was from the countries the US was at war with, was it really "segregation" in the same sense as the black-white segregation borne out of chatel slavery in the early United States? Andrew 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New merger discussion
A discussion of a merger of Allegations of American apartheid into this article is taking place at Talk:Allegations of American apartheid. 6SJ7 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree the articles should be merged.
[edit] Contemporay issue
This article needs to be careful to treat both contemporary forms of segregation as well as the history. I've added some material and sources to improve it, but there is still a lot of work to do. futurebird 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Typical Liberal Nonsense
This article was not written by someone who lives in a predominantly black neighborhood. As a white resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, one of the primary black neighborhoods of the US, I will be the first to say that racism per se is not the reason for "decentralized" racism. Many people are justifiably afraid of living amongst blacks. Crime is high, most residents have minimal desire to work, and incivility rules the day. I have to endure racist taunts on a regular basis. There is also the unfortunate fact that nowhere in the world is there a black neighborhood that is safe, clean, and modern.
People, and not just whites, don't want to live around blacks because of the way they act, not the way they look. This article seems unable, or unwilling to address that fact. Rather than attempt to project modern liberal thought into the reasons for segregation, I think this article should simply discuss the facts of segregation and not speculate as to how or why it occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.69.210 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Racial segregation in Britain
Where can I find out about segration in Britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.162.63 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unequal Education Revision Necessary
The unequal education section seems to give a rather specific insident in detail of a one "Columbia High School". It is completly unsourced and in dire need of revision. Barbaryan7 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)