Talk:Racial segregation in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial text

So how come there's nobody here talking? hello--oo? anybody out there? Skywriter 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Racial segregation

I saw the two pages shouldn't be merged. Axeman89 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Project Talk

It is Mimi again, asking, what do you think of this project here? -Mimi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.51.159 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

"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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lothar of the Hill People (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

It would, perhaps, be insightful to include the arguments for racial segregation in this article. There is currently little information given about why segregation laws were instituted and defended. This article is not even handed in telling both sides of the story, only that there is segregation and a struggle to overcome it. I speak as one curious about what the other side of the argument was. The argument should be set forth in earnest, not as a straw-man, even though, and because, it is obviously unpopular today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.227.78 (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Apartheid Article== Size of "yellow" map

The Image MOS says: "Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:...Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts." Badagnani (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigger Than This One? ==

Why is it that on English Wikipedia the article on Apartheid (racial segregation in South Africa) is bigger than the U.S.'s own article on it segregation? It may be because it's easier to condemn foreign people for what the U.S. has done in the past than it is to write about where the U.S. itself has also made faults in the past. Invmog (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When was this article written?

The article states "Chicago was declared by Martin Luther King Jr. as the most segregated city in the United States, and is only 5 % more integrated than it was in 1970"

The source is a book from 1993, is this serious? 98.212.0.190 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Segregation: graph

I don't think the Census 2000 graph is very illuminating for the layman curious about segregation.

For one, if we are basing our view of segregation as related to the absence of African Americans in a given population at the county level, then the South would technically evidence the least racial tension. That is, the chart adds an improper logical link between lack of blacks in a given area and the existence of segregation there.

Second, it has been well documented that the two biggest waves of African Americans migration (called together the "Great Migration") out of the South were driven by the expansion of wartime industries--both for WWI and WWII. The areas in yellow on the Census chart--Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, Nebraska (minus eastern NE), Kansas, and southern Utah do not correspond to where historically these war industries were. Therefore, the historical "pull-factors" which drew blacks out of the South and into other regions did not exist in most of these counties.

Third, the lack of large urban areas--and pre-existent African American social networks throughout these predominantly rural regions--suggests that blacks today who might be willing to move to such locations would have to give up cherished cultural and personal ties to both the South, and large Northern cities.

Without the "pull-factors" of Northern and Western industry--indeed, in the last few decades Southern industry has grown the most--and without the "push-factor" of Southern racism--racial tensions being far less acute than in the 1880s-1940s--it does not make sense to suggest that these yellow counties are predominantly white because they of racism.

Incidentally, this is not to suggest that such regions do not have racism, but that it racism--or the lack of it--is not the main reason why these counties have so few African Americans.

I can understand that the Contemporary Segregation section likely could use a visual or two, but I suggest that this graph does not add to the reader's understanding of the issue, and could actually confuse instead.

I say we remove it. Thoughts?

Jim37hike (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

I don't think the issue is quite that simple.

For one thing, slavery exists in many places and times, and not always as it does in the United States. For instance, in many South American countries, races are on something of a sliding scale, with more of one race better than another--racism exists, but there isn't a simple black/white dichotomy. A classic puzzle is in the Andes, where a large percentage of people speak Quechua--an Indian tongue, and have Native American blood--but if they appear fairly white or are social leaders, often would refer to themselves as of Spanish blood.

So, a better question would be, how did American dichotomous racism develop?

From my memory of the relevant historical literature, there are three historical schools concerned with the "origins" debate--that is, where American racism came from. The "Handlin school," represented primarily by Oscar and Mary Handlin, argues that as the economic system of American slavery developed--starting with indentured servants from England, (occasionally) Indian slaves, and blacks--African slaves eventually became predominant. Increasingly, Colonial Americans made the mental connection, black=slave, and racism was born. The Degler School, represented by Carl N. Degler, suggests that people are naturally predisposed to dislike or distrust people who are not like them, and he supports his opinion by citing negative views Europeans held of Africans before slavery. A final view would be Winthrop Jordan's--the "Jordan School"--who suggested that with the development of an imagined community of Colonial Americans, Colonists realized that in order to restrict black rights, any mixing of races (miscegenation) would break down the logic of such legal divisions and black codes, or at least expose the problems in it. (As evidence, Jordan tells the story of Gideon Gibson, a mulatto who was married to a white woman, and owned seven slaves of his own.) Hence, as the Colonial era waned, Colonists began trying to restrict mixed race marriages, and ensure that mixed race children would be counted as black, thus not threatening the racial hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim37hike (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Why this article exists and why it's so large the section on the US in Racial Segregation

Simple: there is no racism in US during the XXth century. Just check the XXth century section in the article about racism: it talks about Japan and Germany. And why is that? Because in two very specific countries (US and South Africa) it wasn't called racism, it was called "racial segregation".

This whole article is a gigantic euphemism, embedded in the collective syntax of US culture.

This article shows better than any I've seen, the "american centrism" in Wikipedia: it's a shame for my beloved encyclopedia that nobody has taken the task of including in it the phrase "racial segregation is a form of racism". There are no references to this very article in the one about racism during the XXth century. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but few do. --Ciroa (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ciroa, I added a link from the main page on racism to racism in the united states, and the racism in the united states page already has a link to Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States. And on the racism page, under the "Inter-Minority Variants" heading, there is a short discussion of minorities & racism in the US, so I also added a link to Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States there. However, I think there is a deeper problem with the 20th century section of the racism page. A discussion of 20th century racism should not only be focused on genocide alone. Racism exists in many forms and guises, and while genocide might be the most noticeable, that clearly isn't the only thing a wiki-reader should learn if they're reading about 20th century racism. And for that matter, while the information on the Japanese push for racial equality and saving Jews from German genocide might be true, why is there no discussion of Japanese, racially-motivated war crimes against the Chinese--i.e., the Rape of Nanking? There's plenty of mud on everybody's boots, so that section probably could be expanded to include more info on racism worldwide. Thoughts? Jim37hike (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

internment of ethnic Germans

Why does the sidebar category include Jews, Japanese, and Italian internment but not that of Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.191 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

--222.152.172.146 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)--222.152.172.146 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)--222.152.172.146 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)--222.152.172.146 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)--222.152.172.146 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)--222.152.172.146 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)--222.152.172.146 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)== Racial Segregation of Latinos and Asians is California? ==

I think this artical consentrates too much on African Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.56.164 (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

There was no legal segregation and no laws that could be termed racist because of colour. Individual people however were free to discriminate however they liked, and some did until the introduction of the Race Relations Act back in the 1960s.

Britain was the country that did most to abolish slavery worldwide, via the Royal Navy, and some articles on this are:

• Somersett's Case
• Abolitionism#Great_Britain
• Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade
• William Wilberforce
• Slave Trade Act 1807
• Slavery Abolition Act 1833

On the whole, being a very cosmopolitan country, in part due to the British Empire, Britain had few if any institutionalised racial problems, as many Britons had served in the various parts of the empire, and the better individuals tended to treat people as people wherever they found them, regardless of colour or race. The exceptions where usually found in the more ignorant of Britons, but that is the same of all cultures everywhere.

AFAIK racism only became a significant problem in Britain as late as the 1960s with the decline of empire and the large influx of people from the West Indies and Indian subcontinent, however for periods prior to this one would need to ask a black person what Britain was like and what their own experience of racism (if any) was. On the whole, During WW II Britain was fairly welcoming to people of any race or colour, the RAF having a number of ethnic groups in its ranks. Then there was the Indian Army which had regiments of many of the different races/religions from what was then British India. Also the Brigade of Gurkhas which was formed from Nepalese volunteers and which still exists to this day. My point is that it is very difficult to be racist towards peoples who you know and like, and who have fought for you and in some case given their lives for you or your cause. Racism breeds on ignorance and prejudice and a sometimes irrational dislike of another people.

Most people are the same everywhere in the world, they want the same things, to have a reasonable (and safe) living, to marry or get a partner, settle down and perhaps have children, etc. This applies equally to someone in a London flat or to someone living in a yurt in Mongolia. Cultures differ but they are only man-made and due to upbringing and (often) local conditions. So be nice to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Racism ?

I take the AFA 263 class (African-American History from the 1865 up to now) and my black professor said that the racial segragation was the best thing which happened to the people in this country. She literally prove to us that there should be a racial segragation of course on equal terms not a racist bias. Maybe it is worth to note in this article that there are blacks (my professor isn't african-american) who supported it and still do ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.10.84 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is not that good. The article should go further to condemn racial segregation, point out the flaws in US so called democracy when there was none for blacks. Go into more details of the US white man's attrocities commited on blacks. It is not enough to say, 'some black men were lynched'. There should be a list of all the terrible crimes commited, specific dates of major lynchings, references to numerous miscarriages of justice - i.e. white people getting away with murdering or raping blacks by being aquitted by local judges. White people forcing blacks to fight in world war 2 as segregated. Stop showing yourself as a beacon of democracy. You weren't, if blacks rised up militarily against you - you would have put them down very violently. So admit your own nature in the article. There are many of us who simply detest you because of the crimes of your forefathers. Don't sit there and say "im not responsible for the past" - because in ten years time some idiot will say that same thing when we talk about the killing of Iraqis.

When I read the article it brings great sadness to me, to see after all that suffering white people are still trying to play down what they did. Change it and show us all that you are a changed race by acknowledging the terrible deeds you did.

You seem to be assuming a lot of things about the authors here, such as their nationality and their complexion. This article is about segregation, not about the entire history of racism in the US. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Malcolm X advocated Black separatism, which is completely different from racial segregation. This article doesn't mention separatism (except for a "See also" I added yesterday), so adding a picture of Malcolm X doesn't seem appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that voluntary separatism is significantly different from U.S. racial discrimination. The picture and caption were out of place, especially since the body of the article doesn't discuss separation n general or Malcolm X in particular.

There does appear to be a problem with the article lead. It states (problem area highlighted), "The expression refers primarily to the legally or socially enforced separation of African Americans from other races, but can more loosely refer to voluntary separation, and also to separation of other racial or ethnic minorities from the majority mainstream society and communities."

The bold faced section should be eliminated for two reasons. First of all, the issue is not discussed in the body of the article, nor should it be. Secondly, the first paragraph of the lead of the wikipedia article Racial segregation specifically excludes voluntary separation from the topic of racial segregation. This exclusion is sourced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Equality Sentence

I've moved this here from the main page. - Amaury (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"African Americans living within America's inner cities must face all five dimensions above and still have to fight for equality and against discrimination." This should be deleted. It's not a page about equality. but segregation history. I noticed even old page discussions discussed this very topic. ErikTylersYo (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that the entire section "Denotation" that this sentence is in should be deleted. It's full of jargon, it's undue weight to one random guy's theory, which is the only source cited, and it is stuck into the middle where it spoils the flow of the article (such as it is) without adding anything new. This would include ErikTylersYo's proposed deletion. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, whole "Denotation" doesn't fit here. I'm guessing it would belong at a page on "Hypersegregation", dedicated to academic theories discussed under this name. groupuscule (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that redirects to here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I support deleting the "Denonation" section as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it fits on the segregration wiki at all. It's not just blacks that are "segregated" because they are poor. In fact I think too much of this page in general just focuses on "racial" issues, when their can be multiple types of segregation, wether they be poor and middle class. The whole racial thing has been way overdone to and extent on this wikipedia in my view. ErikTylersYo (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the topic of this page is racial segregation. If you think there should be more coverage of multiple kinds of segregation you'll have to write new articles. There don't seem to be any on segregation in general, so there's probably room for you to do that, but racial segregation is important enough to merit its own page, and this is it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I get what your saying, but I think the section I was talking about was talking about equality. That's for a whole different wiki page in my view. I'm just kinda upset that so much on this page seems to have a black vs white view on things. I'm poor and don't live where rich people live, middle class live/etc. ErikTylersYo (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well so far everyone who's bothered to comment agrees with you that that section is out of place in this article. We should wait a day or two and see what others think, and then, if no one disagrees, we just take it out. It's just if you remove something and get reverted, it's better to talk about it on the talk page before taking it out again.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

EricTylersYo: it would be cool if you wanted to develop a page on class segregation and/or class segregation in the United States. Right now there are some very underdeveloped articles on this topic, such as Income segregation and Social apartheid. There is a big network of pages around Category:Economic inequality, some of which are very well developed... but even there, I don't see any very good sections on residential segregation. If you wanted to do some research on this topic, and develop one of these pages, it would be a really great contribution to the encyclopedia. I'm sure there are many editors (including myself) who would be glad to help you logistically with such a page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also be happy to help you learn how to do it if you're interested in starting new articles on these subjects.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So anyway, no one seems to like that Denotation section. I took it out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the section belongs--Massey is the leading expert and these are the newest and most complex ideas in the field of sociology. Many scholars have cited his work--he is not "some random guy" The material is not simple but encyclopedias are not supposed to be dumbed down.

And you see no problems with the placement of the material or the integration of the material with the topic? You think it's just fine right where it is with no context?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

yes there was a problem and I tried to fix it by merging sections. Massey's work gets over 5000 citations in Google books (and many more cites in the journals), and is considered the standard of sociology scholarship in recent decades. "denotation" is a bad word (the editor meant "definition") and it needs to come before the history of hypersegregation. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hypersegregation

I Boldly merged the two articles. In order to keep a uniform mood and tone to the article, it probably needs a rewrite. Since segregation not my area of expertise, I will now perform some cleanup on the citations. Cheers! Taric25 (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that hypersegregation is a distinct, formally defined academic term. Namely, in the "five dimensions of segregation" mentioned in the references, a community is considered "hypersegregated" if it is segregated on at least four of those dimensions. This needs to be kept in mind when you clean up that article, so you're not just senselessly throwing terms around. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjensen helped us by creating the new section. Again, since segregation is not my area of expertise, I can work on cleaning the citations, which I did for a lot of them, but the citations still need a lot of work. Interestingly, I did find URLs that have gratis links to the full texts of these articles. Many of them are also libre, since they're public domain published by the United States' Federal Government.

For now, I'll leave rewriting the article, including how to use the terms, to Wikipedians with more expertise on the topic. Taric25 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypersegregation is still not defined in this article. As such, the paragraph is pretty useless. From the paragraph, hypersegregation sounds something like ghettoization, in which case it would not be correct to say that Asians or Hispanics have not been hypersegregated. I obviously know little about the subject myself, only that the section does not match SamuelRiv's description. Thus, unless it is cleaned up by a knowledgable person, it should be deleted.

Hypersegregation is indeed defined in terms of the five dimensions; the problem was that two separate sections covered first the history then the definition. so I merged them. Rjensen (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This term "hypersegregation" to me sound more like the affects of Self-Segregation. What exactly is the difference between the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.13.70 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

There is a neutrality tag (April 2013) in the Racism and issues section, that is directed at the whole article ("The neutrality of this article is disputed") instead of the section, and I guess I somehow missed the relevant "discussion". Can someone please expound on particular concerns? I have not look closely at the article yet so would like to have a starting point. Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

African American English

This sentence "The use of black English vernacular as a variant of the English language has made it extremely difficult for black children in the educational system as well as other African Americans on the job market. This language that has arisen from residential segregation has crippled children of these neighborhoods because they cannot easily transition between standard English school work and books to the black English vernacular that they use in their homes and with their friends.[2]" is inaccurate and misleading. There are many cases of highly differentiated vernacular dialects that co-exist with standard languages including most of Italy, Swiss German, to just begin. I am not familiar with the source, but unless I hear otherwise in two days, I will alter the passage with supporting citations from sociolinguists. mnewmanqc (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Racism and issues

This whole section reads like it was written by a 14-year-old. It should be rewritten entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.104.165 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible Main Page Featured Article for next Martin Luther King Day

I know it's a long way in advance, but I thought I'd note that I've nominated The Negro Motorist Green Book, which relates to the Jim Crow era, for consideration as a Featured Article candidate with the aim of having it on the Main Page on the next Martin Luther King Day. If you would like to comment, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Negro Motorist Green Book/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How does racial segregation occur?

I am new to wikipedia.

I have great interest in the study of segregation because in a way it shows the very essence of human development and the way societies change over time. Racial segregation is a good name for this article because it points to race and segregation solely. Though I feel that this article fails to express the rationality of segregation. Why does it happen? Why did it happen? Are humans inclined to segregate against another groups because it would be vital to their survival? This article needs to be improved greatly in content since it is very controversial and poses many questions about segregation. I think racial segregation occurred because of the changing times and the world becoming more developed with time. Segregation could have been used as a tool to slow down the process of development in other parts of the world because one group will get greater treatment than the other.

Dom&Kish (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear Language, Sourcing

"However, this radical Reconstruction era collapsed because of multidimensional racialism related to the spread of democratic idealism (progressivism)." I don't know what is being said here. 'radical reconstruction' collapsed becasse of 'progressivism'? A source would also help. MrSativa (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Really think the sentence should be pulled out entirely. It's extremely vauge, and speaking as a History major, it makes no sense. I'm not sure if the original author of that bit knows what those words actually mean. 2601:C:2600:DACA:79BB:6611:369E:352C (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the garbled statement, trim down the section on the 19th century, and added a better source (c Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow) Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Segregation in tourism

Remembering Paradise Park: Tourism and Segregation at Silver Springs by Lu Vickers and Cynthia Wilson-Graham, University Press of Florida "A study of a central Florida destination that was the black counterpart to the segregated Silver Springs, complete with identical glass-bottomed boats that shared the Silver River." per Chronicle weekly book list. May be relevant for a section or, if there are more sources, a new article. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

There is a connection. Segregation in South Africa was only established in the 1940's following the example of US law.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Miscegenation

There are articles on Jim Crow Law and Racial Segregation in the USA (which seems like duplication), but nothing on anti-miscegeneation laws. That is an odd omission. I suggest merging the two articles and creating another on the legal status of blacks on the USA.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Royalcourtier: Have you looked at Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States? 69.118.162.150 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Racial segregation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080121121733/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu:80/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=443 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=443
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041114125050/http://www.skidmore.edu:80/~dkarp/Social%20Issues/E/history.html to http://www.skidmore.edu/~dkarp/Social%20Issues/E/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110307135546/http://www.jimcrowhistory.org:80/geography/sports.htm to http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/sports.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060602172112/http://www.jimcrowhistory.org:80/history/creating2.htm to http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Racial segregation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070218230528/http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com:80/issues/2004/may/interest.htm to http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/may/interest.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120314154825/http://www.jimcrowhistory.org:80/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_jim_crow_laws.htm to http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_jim_crow_laws.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091028213811/http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html#s15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Racial segregation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070430211002/http://encarta.msn.com:80/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html#s15
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629002301/http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070910/sc_livescience/homeownersselfsegregatebyraceandeducation;_ylt=AlyjmsI5BA7s..hPZgWKnT0DW7oF to http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070910/sc_livescience/homeownersselfsegregatebyraceandeducation;_ylt=AlyjmsI5BA7s..hPZgWKnT0DW7oF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Racial segregation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070430211002/http://encarta.msn.com:80/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580651_3/Segregation_in_the_United_States.html#s15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Did blacks want racial integration?

Throw things at me if you must, but what this article doesn't mention is that blacks have never been loudly seeking racial integration as a goal in and of itself. It wasn't part of Martin Luther King's dream. Malcolm X was openly segregationist. I've read blacks lamenting the death of the black community that came with integration. What they wanted was truly equal treatment, fair treatment, and respect, which implied an end to mandatory (legal) segregation. It became increasingly clear as the twentieth century progressed (i.e., since Plessy v. Ferguson) that this wasn't forthcoming, would never be, and something had to be done because the status quo was intolerable.

There was an influential book of about 1943, written by a foreigner who had spent time in the US, about the racial situation. If somone could save me digging for it I'd appreciate it. deisenbe (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom. The book you're probably thinking of is Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944).

I think you're 100% wrong about integration. For most of the 20th century, desegregation/integration was one of the top priorities of civil rights organizations. Why do you think black students sat in at whites-only luncheonettes? To integrate them? Why were there Freedom Riders, and before them, the Journey of Reconciliation? To desegregate bus travel. What was Brown v. Board of Ed. about? Desegregating the school systems.

As far as Malcolm X goes, he was not a segregationist, he was a separatist. It's one thing to have only a few neighborhoods open to you (segregation); it's another to have equal opportunity to live where you choose but still choose to live in a black neighborhood. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction re Malcolm X. May I point that black separatism, and Malcolm X, are never mentioned in the article? And thanks for the Myrdal book. That's the one.

Of course Southern blacks wanted desegregation. My point is that "desiring to end segregation" is not the same as "desiring integration". The Little Rock Nine seeking to attend Central High School in 1957 weren't there because their parents wanted them to attend school with whites. They wanted them to attend the best high school. That happened to be all white, and they did not want them to be excluded based on the color of their skin ("race"). But integration was a consequence, a side issue, not the main goal. The goal was to end segregation. That's not the same thing. deisenbe (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Deisenbe might have a point. Our article on racial integration, which is underdeveloped, includes in its definition: "integration includes goals such as leveling barriers to association, creating equal opportunity regardless of race, and the development of a culture that draws on diverse traditions, rather than merely bringing a racial minority into the majority culture." We do not really cover various perspectives on the association and its effects, equal opportunity and whether it was ever achieved is controversial, and the culture which draws on diverse traditions sounds suspiciously similar to multiculturalism, which might not be what the activists had in mind.

To avoid Wikipedia:No original research, we would need specific sources on the goals of individual activists, organizations, and communities beyond desegregation itself. Currently the article covers very little on that front. By the way, the historical perspective of some sections seems rather problematic. The "In the North" includes desegregation campaigns of the 1940s, but nothing in subsequent decades. Dimadick (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racial segregation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130210614/http://www.core.ucl.ac.be/services/psfiles/dp99/dp9913.pdf to http://www.core.ucl.ac.be/services/psfiles/dp99/dp9913.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Racial segregation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20060509165754/http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/may/interest.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20061128214021/http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/may/interest.htm on http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/may/interest.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729213804/http://www.history.army.mil/books/wac/index.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/wac/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Racial segregation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=5758
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222054448/http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=5438 to http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=5438
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005022332/http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Ffair_housing_equal_opp%2Fonline-complaint to http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Ffair_housing_equal_opp%2Fonline-complaint
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905225933/http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/09/22/kozol/ to http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/09/22/kozol/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=5758
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617223929/http://www.educationnews.org/articles/the-stigma-of-inclusion-racial-paternalism-and-separatism-in-higher-education-.html to http://www.educationnews.org/articles/the-stigma-of-inclusion-racial-paternalism-and-separatism-in-higher-education-.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402122117/http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Ffair_housing_equal_opp to http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Ffair_housing_equal_opp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005022332/http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Ffair_housing_equal_opp%2Fonline-complaint to http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Ffair_housing_equal_opp%2Fonline-complaint

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Segregation in cemeteries

Cemeteries appear to have been segregated by law and some of these issues continue: [1][2][3], perhaps the continued legacy of segregation in death should be another section in this article?

The American G.I. Forum filed a federal lawsuit against the Normanna Cemetery Association charges that they violated long-standing civil rights protections when it refused Dorothy Barrera in February of 2016, because her husband was 'Mexican' and not allowed burial in the city cemetery. Other links for this story [4][5][6][7]

Segregated cemeteries have been illegal since 1948 when the U.S. Supreme Court banned racial covenants on real estate,[8] but in many places it still occurs to this day.[9] Any thoughts?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone have a suggestion on the best way to create a sub-section on cemeteries? @deisenbe or anyone else? I can fill in the citations and references, but don't want to mess up the current flow of the article by making a mistake. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Race?

Segregation “along racial lines”. There is a black race? A (or many) Native American races? An oriental race? A Jewish race? I thought we’d moved beyond that. See Race (human categorization).

99% of the article, at least, is about segregation against African Americans. I suggest the article be renamed to reflect this. At least put “Racial” in quotation marks and say what is meant by it. deisenbe (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

the term is "racial" not "race" and it refers to the motivation and purpose of the segregationists. Rjensen (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• A valid point. It's bigoted language. But I'm not sure how far ahead of other sources we can get in correcting this problem. Certainly we shouldn't use discredited terminology and be referring to races of people. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• I support moving the article to Segregation in the United States over the redirect. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If only the article had, like, a lead sentence or something that explained what exactly it was about. --JBL (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Desegregation/integration section absent

Why is there no dedicated section(s) for desegregation/integration in this article? A naive reader with no knowledge of post-Jim Crow America would skim this article and take away that, as a government policy, the country is still racially segregated. Desegregation is mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, but is conspicuously absent from the rest of the article. Surely some editor has books on the subject that could be used for citations. 2603:3004:E1:E800:5069:6A6D:3FDA:5EB (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Royriice.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

History

Why does the history section begin with Reconstruction? Are Wikipedia readers to believe that segregation began during Reconstruction? FloridaArmy (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Suicide Missions - not backed up?

There's a paragraph in Section 3: Racism that states Black soldiers were used for suicide missions in WW1, there's no citation to back up such an assertion, and the only evidence I can find of Black combat units in WW1 were the 92nd and 93rd infantry, both commanded by the French who treated them equally to their own units. In fact the only citations in that paragraph, (citations 44 and 45) suggest both units were well respected by their French commanders. May I suggest such an inflammatory comment be removed until further evidence is found to support it? - Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:503C:A400:E805:C7C9:F9B6:62AC (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I know this was a while ago but I totally agree and removed the comment. It is completely unmentioned by any of the cited sources and I removed it. Foward123456 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Dr. King did not march in Cicero in 1966

Per my reverted edit, see Cicero March for the film documentary of the event, and for background about the march and the film. King, Bevel, and other negotiators at the summit with Mayor Daley which ended the Chicago Open Housing Movement, agreed to call off the march. Others, disagreeing with this decision, decided to carry it on in their absence. Neither King nor Bevel participated. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

LoomCreek (who reverted the edit), in good faith you possibly misread the source used to revert. The march referred to in the source was not the later non-SCLC Cicero march, which occurred after SCLC's Chicago movement had ended, but a demonstration during the movement in which bricks and bottles were thrown at the demonstrators (including King). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Could you clarify what month they occurred? It seems they happened the same year. LoomCreek (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems the confusion just happened because of how close the events were historically, sorry about that. (and given the mention of just 1966 in the article). LoomCreek (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to add a link and for talk page clarity, the Cicero march occurred in September, 1966, after the completion of the Chicago Open Housing Movement. The earlier Marquette Park demonstration in which Dr. King and others faced bricks and other thrown objects took place in August, 1966. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you for the clarification. It might be worth it to mention both as they exist within the context of each other. LoomCreek (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The general march in Chicago neighborhoods by MLK & others. And then the later Cicero March itself. LoomCreek (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The context was different. The Marquette park protests occurred during the Chicago Open Housing Movement. The Cicero march was organized by activists who disagreed with the Open Housing movement's conclusion and announced settlement. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, they exist within the context of each other. LoomCreek (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

SCLC's marches during the movement have nothing to do with the Cicero event (so "the context of each other" doesn't seem to fit). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the decision to lead a march because the previous ended (because the neighborhoods were still segregated, and the problem unresolved. and thus they disagree with its end) is fairly relevant context. Maybe we're just talking past each other at this point.

I'm not really particularly wed to it. The month should be included to prevent confusion atleast. Which is why I originally suggested the inclusion, just a sentence to basically clarify between the two. (another option is to use {{efn}} -the note function- to provide the clarification.) LoomCreek (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)