Talk:Racial segregation

Segregation vs Discrimination

1. Japanese were held in internment camps, not concentration camps.

2. Segregation by laws was confined to African-Americans and did not extend to any other ethnic group.

3. Segregation laws were enacted by states and not all states had segregation laws.

4. It is difficult to say that the United States has the longest history or racial segregation in the world. For long periods in the history of Islamic empires, for example, different peoples were segregated (Turks, Persians, etc.), regardless of whether or not they were believers, people of the book or non-believers.

5. Jews and Arabs are both semitic peoples.

6. Jews in Europe were often segregated -- required to live in specific neighborhoods ("ghettos") and limited in the work and business they could do.

7. Jews in Arab countries are segregated to this day.

8. I think this article is superficial and biased.

9. Israel's current territory is its 1947 borders plus East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (which were annexed after the 1967 war). The rest of the land under Israeli control constitutes the occupied territories and is not a part of Israel (although some political groups in Israel think that it should be).

10. I think a factual article focused on the legal status of Jews and Arabs in Israel and in the occupied territories would be useful.

Graham, why did you put in (and take out) the following?

and Israeli-occupied Palestine

I would love to get some clarification on the following points:

1. Jews and Arabs are (or are not) considered different races.
2. Arabs suffer (or do not suffer) segregation in Israel, West Bank, etc.
3. Jews suffer (or do not suffer) segregation in Islamic or Arab countries.

--Ed Poor

I put it in because it is true. I took it out again because some Zionist would no doubt be offended that anybody dare point this out, and would delete it anyway; and on reflection I decided it added nothing useful to the article. [Again, to forestall wild accusations of anti-Semitism from certain quarters, I point out that the word Zionist means an adherent to the political ideology of Zionism. Not all Zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionists. I do not use the word as a synonym for Jew, because it isn't. How many times do I have to say this?]

Once or twice a day ought to do it ;-) --Ed Poor

1. Jews and Arabs are (or are not) considered different races.

As far as I am aware the word "race" has no respectable scientific meaning when applied to people.

1. Arabs suffer (or do not suffer) segregation in Israel, West Bank, etc.

Yes they do. The Israeli government requires all people to register as either Jewish or not Jewish, and they have an elaborate series of legal rules for deciding who falls into which category. There are certain areas where non-Jews are not allowed to go, for example there is a whole system of roads built throughout the Occupied Territories, for the use of Jews only. These roads are of a much higher standard than the roads for non-Jews, which often run parallel. At junctions between the two types of road there are traffic lights which are designed so that Jews always have the right of way. And when I say Jews here I mean Jews, not Israelis. No Arab Israelis are allowed, either. (I read a first-hand account of this extraordinary arrangement in the New Scientist magazine a few months ago, but I can't find an electronic copy to link to. It seems you have to pay to read their back-numbers on-line.)

1. Jews suffer (or do not suffer) segregation in Islamic or Arab countries.

No they do not. They certainly suffer discrimination and persecution, but as far as I am aware no country on earth other than Israel formally classifies all its citizens according to their ethnic group and varies their legal rights and responsibilities depending on that classification. GrahamN 12:01 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

See my bit below. I think you may be forgetting that the US and Canada give special rights to native people (people in North America are indeed classified as either native or non-native). I'm pretty most other countries with "native" populations (South America, Russia, Norway, etc.) do the same. - stewacide

This is a good point. More pertinently, perhaps, there are also the controversial Bumiputra policies in Malaysia. GrahamN 16:27 29 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Thank you for answering my questions. I plainly need to do more research. --Ed Poor 12:10 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

---

"One country which has laws that discriminate on the basis of racial or ethnical origin presently is Israel. Jews have substantialy different rights from non-Jewish population, under the Israeli law. This includes not only the occupied teritories, but the Israel proper (Some Israelis consider West bank, Gaza etc. part of Israel, so it is necessary to make this clarification) which has some non-Jewish inhabitants, who are citizens of Israel. They do not have the same rights as the Jews.

Um, Muslim/Christian/Athiest/Zoroastrian Arab/Jewish/Indian/Japanese citizens of Israel do have the same rights. Not allowing Palestinian Arabs onto Israeli highways is simply good sense. Given the recent shooting of an Arab Israeli by a Palestinian terrorist on one of the roads not protected by a wall which you call segregated, maybe it is time to rethink your position? Jeremy Nimmo 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that such laws are discriminatory, but do they constitute "segregation"?

The US and Canada (and probably a lot of other countries) give special rights to "native" people, and favour them in certain ways, which doesn't seem much different from what Iarael does favouring jews in certain ways. The only difference I can see is that Jews are the controlling majority, while natives in North America are a small minority nationally (although they would be the majority in many areas).

While such laws are by definition racist, they don't don't seem to do anything to keep people segregated (i.e. seperate) as was the case in the southern US and South Africa in the past. IMHO either the Israel bit needs to be removed, clarified (to show how they "segregate", not just discriminate), or the US, etc. should be added. -- stewacide 04:58 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Although it seems clear to me that Israel does have a policy of enforced racial segregation in the Occupied Territories, I don't want to get into an argument about it. Personally, I'm happy for the Israel paragraph to be deleted altogether, if that is what you want. Others may disagree with me. GrahamN 16:27 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I think it is actually quite true. Arab-israelis (or palestian-israelis as some of them prefer) have different rights by law (See apartheid, the section about israel is losing its POV'dness it once had), and palestinians (Occupied territories) cannot enter Israel, so allegation of discrimination on the basis of ethnicity are quite valid, in my opinion. The problem is, that the paragraph doesn't explain or give any cite what rights are not given, just mentions them as facts. Therefore it is POV and useless. So either some factual evidence is written or it is removed completely. -- Rotem Dan 16:55 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have any problem with citing Israel for segregation, I just don't see how the article as written proves it.

Another thought: perhapse this article would be better titled simply "Segregation". "Race" is a meaningless term anyways, and there are certainly other types of segregation out there (ethnic, religious, gender, etc.). The line between "race", culture, and religion can get very blurry (see: Israel). -- stewacide

I see we have inserted some criticism of the USA Patriot Act in the old racial segregation article. It appears that the goal is to get criticism of the USA Patriot Act, Iraq War, and George Bush into as many articles as possible these days regardless of whether such criticism really fits with the article as a whole. Ark30inf 07:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just a thought most articles we list the countries abc, perhaps we should do it here as well. Plus there is still some segregation Germany in modren times Ask the Tukishs who hav felt segregated. Smith03 14:59, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC) Also how bout recent immigrants to France. That far right win candidtate came in second a few years back, suggests that perhaps there might a feeling of segregation in france. Also the natives people of OZ and New Zealand. Smith03 15:06, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you're confusing racism with segregation. There are no laws in Australia, New Zealand or France making it mandatory for people of different races to live their lives separately (schools, transport, etc). Exile 17:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 2. Other ethnic groups have faced segregation. Japanese American internment was an extreme form of segregation. There have been de facto segregated areas in Los Angeles where people were separated by race, because property owners would not rent or sell to non-whites or Jews. I'm using the term de facto loosely, because the LAPD would detain and move you to "your area" if you were in the "wrong area" at night, so it was de facto segregation, but with government support. California did not have segregation laws, but they did have segregation, most definitely. 75.38.0.113 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

segregation evil?

it has been proven time and again throughout history that two peoples cannot live in the same living space and survive, one will eventually outgrow and kill the other or at best they will merge together with the first happening more often, with this in mind why is segregation if sought after just to preserve ones own kind evil in of itself?

-Fartwimp- 1stCMAR Wildcards

Segregation per se is not evil (as pointed out somewhere above). Racial segregation is bad because it doesn't deal with the problem at hand (i.e. people wanting to smash each others' heads in because they believe they are different), it just postpones the "clash" and might even aggravate it. Integration deals with this problem head-on by confronting the "different" people with each other building tolerance and understanding. In time people would have to find another reason than race, looks, religion etc. (presumably a more rational one) to "justify" smashing each others' head in. Integration has the additional benefit of putting different things (e.g. cultures, scientific knowledge etc.) together and (sometimes) creating a new thing that is better. -- 15 Apr 2005

A mess?

Does anyone else think this article is currently a complete mess? There is a general confusion over what "segregation" means, and many things in the article belong elsewhere. There are also mispellings (eg subjagation), misusages (eg comprise), etc. I am reluctant to fix the individual mistakes because many of them are in sections that shouldn't be here. The organization is somewhat sloppy (Nazi Germany refers to a time&place, where other distinctions are simply place). The White Separatism / Black Separatism doesn't belong. The Fiji section doesn't even mention segregation. Other sections just refer to certain races being treated badly. This alone does not constitute segregation. Racial profiling should be its own article, and should not really be linked with this page. The disclaimer about the term 'race' should probably be deleted, or if not, then at least moved to the introduction. I would glady fix what I see as wrong, but I am hesitant to edit others' work without either their permission or a general consensus. Mauvila 06:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Question About Rhodesia

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Rhodesian blacks have voting rights?

Yes and no, Blacks were only allowed to vote if they were Tribal Chiefs or met certain property qualifications (obviously, very few did). --Andrew Hyde 08:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arab World.

Used to say "Institutionalized ethnic discrimination exists in many Arab countries. Jordan forbids Jews from becoming citizens. Palestinian refugees are generally treated as second-class citizens at best in their countries of refuge.

Many Gulf states allow entrance to large numbers of migrant workers from South Asia and other countries to do menial labour, who are often treated extremely poorly. Generally speaking, Arab countries recognize only Arabs as first-class citizens, though treatment of others ranges from tolerance to hostility in different places.". I don't object to an Arab section here but it needs specifics. I deleted all the woolly generalisations and added one specific (about Mecca) (Does anyone know if this also applies to Medina?) "Many Arab Countries". How many, which countries, which institutions?. "Generally treated as second-class citizens". How are they treated specifically? Are they segregated or are they just poor? "Many Gulf States" How many? Which states? "Generally speaking...first-class citizens...ranges from" Again specifics please. What rights do Arabs have that others don't? old joe 03:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of factual errors in the section on the Arab world. Since this is currently a fairly sensitive subject I will make some observations here rather than editing directly. In my view there is a lot of irrelevant material in the whole article but I will concentrate on what I know!

Jordan - Source 1998 Report from the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CERD.C.318.Add.1.En?Opendocument)

Jordanian nationality law does not "forbid Jews from becoming citizens". It does however state that as regards the elegibility for citizenship of Palestinians born before 1957 only non-Jewish Palestinains are eligible. While discriminatory, this can hardly be described as "segregation". There are no laws in Jordan enforcing separation of communities on the basis of ethnic origin or relegion. However, there is discrimination in favour of Arabs as regards elegibility for citizenship although an article on this type of discrimination in general throughout the world would be huge. I can see no reason why either Jordan or the Arab world are singled out in this article on segregation.

Saudi Arabia does not forbid entry to Jews. It does however forbid entry to Israeli passport holders. This is not the same thing and, while discriminatory, cannot be described as "segregation". The well-known British journalist John Simpson is not only a regular visitor to Saudi Arabia but is also of Jewish origin. In April 2005 the European Commissioner for Trade Peter Mandelson who is also of Jewsih origin visited the country. Other high-profile examples include Henry Kissinger - at one time a regular visitor to the Kingdom. The question of the non-respect of religous rights, notably the freedom to worship of non-Muslim residents is a serious issue as regards Saudi Arabia. In fact the much harsher discrimination against Saudi Shi'a Muslims is even more serious since these are not temporary residents. Nevertheless, this once again is a question of discrimination not segregation.

As regards entry to Mecca (and indeed Medina), while "discriminatory" by definition, the ban on non-Muslims can hardly be described as "segregation". Since the area designated as the "Haram" is regarded as sacred to Muslims who themselves cannot enter unless in a state of ritual purity; this de facto excludes non-Muslims. The exclusion of non believers from various shrines etc. is not unique but in no case cannot it be described as "segregation." I would suggest that this statement be removed or moved to the article on discrimination (although it is difficult to say what prejudice non-Muslims suffer as a result - other than frustrated curiosity).

The space devoted to the views of the mayor of Manama, Bahrain whose proposals were moreover rejected by the Bahraini government is totally disproporionate to the length of the article. I would propose to simply delete these paragraphs.

Just as elsewhere in the world there are serious issues of discrimination (in the sense that this represents a distinct disadvantage as regards civil or economic rights) in the Arab world. In the Gulf there is a grave question regarding the treatment of migrant labour, in Jordan - and other countries - the treatment of Palestinian refugees,in North Africa the status of Berber linguistic and cultural rights,in Sudan the position of non-Muslims and non Arab Muslims, these are issues of discrimination, not segregation and should be properly dealt with as such.

Historically in the Arab world there did exist "segregation" in the sense that there were formal "Jewish" or "Christian" quarters in major cities. In addition the inhabitants of these quarters were sometimes restricted to certain professions and were excluded from certain offical positions. Moreover Jews and Christians were, in general, subject to different legal codes and courts based on their own specific religious laws rather than being subject to the "shari'a" courts - except where one of the parties was a Muslim. In early Islam, non-Muslims, for long the majority in many of the territories conquered were subject to the "jizya" poll tax. There is a great deal of material on the historical phenomenon of religious segregation in the Arab and Islamic world - it just seems odd that none is included here rather than the irrelevant and incorrect information that is. I would add that - to the best of my knowledge no Arab country currently imposes a system of segregation on its non-Muslim citizens (which is not to say there is no discrimination). Wildbe 3 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)

I would like to get clarifications about

1.Racial discremination based on caste in India.

2.Voting rights of African Americans in USA.

3.Areas where racial segregation is still legally practiced in USA.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Althu (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006

1.

Can someone else field this one?

2.

The voting rights of African Americans in the U.S. are, in principle, identical to those of any other citizens. You might find Category:History_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States useful. The list of states that must be precleared under the 1965 Voting Rights Act to change a voting standard, practice or procedure is a pretty good indication of where there were, prior to that time, severe abuses.

In practice, of course, there are even today various irregularities in voting in the U.S., and many believe that these tend to operate against African Americans. These range from issues in certain states of insufficient numbers of polling places in African American neighborhoods, to inordinate numbers of traffic stops agains African Americans on election day, when they are likely to be trying to get to the polls. There have also been some cases where it is claimed that districting plans were structured to the detriment of the African American community, although there have also clearly been cases where a "Black district" was deliberately carved out to guarantee African American representation in a legislature.

3.

Almost none, at least not de jure. In practice, in the last 12–15 years, the 30-year trend toward desegragation of America's public schools has, in fact, reversed. None of this is de jure; it's the product of continuing de facto segregated housing patterns and discontinuation of some programs to achieve balance in the schools despite those patterns. A recent article on the topic is Jonathan Kozol, "Overcoming Apartheid", The Nation, December 19, 2005 issue.

There are certainly churches, clubs, etc. that are de facto segregated, but it is typically because no one had forced the issue. For example, where I went to college, the center of African American social life on campus was Malcolm X House, a rather nice building comparable to a fraternity house, which functioned as a residence for about a quarter of the school's African American students, home of its African American Studies program, and a de facto social center. I don't know what would have happened if a white student had applied to live there: my guess is that he would have been placed in the housing lottery for it like anyone else who applied, but that he would have found himself in a damned uncongenial environment if he got in. (For the record, I only set foot in Malcolm X House perhaps half a dozen times, mostly to help set up for concerts. And I suspect that was about 5.9 times more often than the average white student there.) But it should be noted: this was voluntary self-segregation by a minority, which is generally considered more acceptable in the U.S. than self-segregation by the white majority, on the theory that the white majority inherently have certain access to power, and that exclusion from a white institution is likely to mean exclusion from the center of power, while exclusion from an African American, Asian American, or Mexican institution is not. In a town where African Americans formed the majority, an African American business association that would not let in a non-African American member would be on very shaky ground.

Finally: there are affirmative action programs that make distinctions on the basis of race, but these are typically with the purpose of countering segregation. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

changed lead

I changed the lead because segregation does not involve the complete separation of the races; it involves the separation of the races in certain situations and not in others, as I 've pointed out. I also took out the note which said that it was "sometimes geographical", mostly because it simply didn't make sense to me. Segregated housing is certainly one kind of segregation; is that all that's meant. The following sentence, which noted that segregation could involve different institutions, seems to be part of, or at least not to contradict, the pont about the geography.... Anyway, if someone has a better understanding of what was meant in the earlier version, and feels it still needs to be in there given my changes, I'd encourage them to put it back....NoahB 18:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried to put it back myself, though I don't really see how one can have separate schools without some degree of spatial separation.....NoahB 18:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Israel - "Apartheid wall"

The NPOV way to describe this is as accusations of Aparthied, Sam. You're re-wording assumes that the barrier is, in fact, a manifestation of racial bias - this means that Wikipedia is now taking a position on the accusation, which policy forbids. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The article at hand is entitled Segregation. The State of Israel neither legislates nor encourages segregation between different ethnic groups or religions. On any day of the week you can find Arabs working with Jews, Arabs hospitalized along side Jews, Arabs serving in Israel's Knesset with Jews, Arabs serving in Israel's security forces with Jews, and even Arabs living along side Jews (e.g. Jerusalem, Lod, Ramle).

I submit the above as statements of fact, not opinion.

The fact that Arabs and Jews tend to live in separate neighborhoods or towns is out of cultural reasons and is no different than the fact that religious Jews tend to live in neighborhoods or towns that are separate from secular Jews. The latter is not segregation, so why is the former?

Must Israel bashing enter into every Wikipedia entry? I understand that Anti-Jews wish to rewrite history, and that the open nature of Wikipedia presents a fertile platform that cannot be resisted. But if every outragous anti-Israel / anti-Jew claim is given legitimacy, then Wikipedia will become yet another useless internet resource. For if so many articles need to be against Israel, then one wonders what the slant is on all the other articles.

Finally, even if anti-Israel claims are qualified by "some say", and even if counter-claims are also included, their inclusion into Wikipedia gives them legitimacy.

I wish to remove all references to Israel in this article.

Please take your censorship elsewhere. The Israel-related entry is very NPOV and even too mild for my taste. Israel is a racist state in its very name and its flag, which clearly state who's boss in the country. For what I care, Aryan state, White state, Arab state or Jewish state are all the same crap. If you really believe the section is inaccurate, either edit it or place a {{NPOV-section}} in it.

Now, no one contests that in Israel there are some Arab-Israelians with more rights that Palestinians. However, it's no news that Palestinians have died in their ambulances while waiting for the ambulance to pass a security check-point, and it should be obvious that settlers are not Arabs, yet they receive land and extensive subsidies. Why cannot Arabs have the same, exactly?

There are bunches of arguments, including-but-not-limited-to highways reserved to settlers that cut through formerly Palestinian territory (often disrupting the local economy by splitting the population or forcing them to pass painstakingly slow "security checks"). I'll integrate when I have time to gather sufficient sources on-line. --Orzetto 14:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Israel is a racist state in its very name and its flag" to me is the soul of POV'ness.

I think the issue here is that there's a dispute as to the origin of the different legal status of Palestinians vs Israeli citizens. On one hand, you can argue that this stems from differing religious backgrounds. The counterargument is that some Muslim Arabs are full Israeli citizens, and that the Palestinians in the occupied territories are, after all, in **occupied** territories. Therefore, their legal status originates from the disputed nature of their citizenship, NOT their religion or ethnicity.

Most of the Palestinians in the territories moved there from other parts of Israel at its founding specifically to **avoid** becoming full Israeli citizens. When, to their surprise, Israel survived its War of Independence, they were stuck. The Arab countries whose territory they now lived in didn't allow them citizenship (instead keeping them in refugee camps) and they couldn't or wouldn't return to Israel. Those who never left became full Israeli citizens, and I haven't seen it documented that they have been subject to segregation.

When Israel conquered this land in 1967, it became disputed territory. Israel hasn't annexed it, but their settlement efforts and the strategic situation makes it likely that they want to. Syria wants the Golan Heights back, Jordan and Egypt would prefer that the West Bank and Gaza Strip become part of an eventual independent Palestinian State. And the Palestinians living there? Well, right now they're not exactly citizens of anywhere, are they? They want their own country, but said country, in as much as it currently exists, is under the control of Israel's occupation.

So while charges of discrimination might certainly apply, I'm not ready to call it segregation yet. Can anyone document segregation of Israeli muslims? As it stands, it looks like the treatment of people in the territories is more comparable to the treatment of any occupied, conquered people (eg Tibet, the Baltic states under the USSR, etc).

As for the wall, the ambulance checks, etc., even a cursory glance at the news reveals that these are security measures stemming from attacks that have happened in fact. Ambulances, for example, used to be waved through checkpoints immediately. However, the Palestinian Authority used ambulances to transport suicide bombers during the second intifada. You might be outraged by these measures, and they certainly merit mention in other articles, but they are not germane to this one. -- Wellspring 18:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Were segregation between Arabs and Jews sanctioned by the government, all of the statements of fact that I list above could not be true. This article has nothing to do with "ancient Palestinians", west bank, or any of the other buzz words so easliy bandied about. The simple question is: Does the State of Israel practice segregation, either racial, religious, or otherwise? The answer is a simple "no". Don't get borders mixed up with segregation. Please take your propaganda elsewhere. The Israel section goes. I will let the Arab experts take care of the sections dealing with their countries.

Again, I have deleted all reference to Israel in the article entitled "Racial Segregation". While some may use the word "apartheid" to characterize Israeli policies (a lie, in my opinion), there is clearly no racial element to any of Israel's policies. Ethiopian Jewry (race: black African) was brought to Israel and welcomed with open arms. Of course, it will take a while one or two generations until these immigrants become 'main-streamed' into all walks of society, but this is not unlike every other group that immigrated to the country en masse.

The article is entitled RACIAL SEGREGATION. Unless you have reliable information that demonstrates how the Israeli government either practices, encourages, or turns a blind eye to racial discrimination or segregation, Israel has no business appearing in this article. Kindly take your anti-Israel, non-NPOV sentiment to another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.164.245 (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2007

This is clearly biased towards isreal, didn't you read the article??? no less than THREE INDEPENDENT human rights organizations have said isreal is segregated, intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and many prominent leftist american's (and a sizable percentage of jewish intellectuals) there were laws mentioned in the article that was posted before so obviously the government has something to do with it. also a "jewish state" if you consider jews and ethnicity is going to be inherently racist, just like a "Christian state" or an "white state". PALESTINIANS WERE FORCE OFF OF THEIR LAND AT GUNPOINT AND TOLD "THIS IS JEWISH LAND NOW." if someone can tell me how this does not constitute "racism" I would very much invite it.

also just the fact that there is argument about this warrants a mention. so in conclusion, cut the zionist bullcrap and point of view, independent human rights organizations have more of a say on wikiepdia than pro-isreali POV zionists and please don't accuse human rights organizations of being anti-semitic, that trick is getting a little old.

I'm reverting. From a book review by Steve Sailer: "What is a race? It is essentially a lineage. A racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent."[1] That clearly distinguishes Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs. Argyriou (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Apartheid outside South Africa" with "Racial segregation"

The following is from Talk:Apartheid outside South Africa: --Hottentot

On the article page it says: "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Racial segregation." The problem with this suggestion is that in South Africa, segregation and apartheid refer to two different phenomena marked by different ideologies, policies, and historical contexts. Using the term "apartheid" as synonymous with "segregation" is historically inaccurate and smacks of agenda-pushing, which has no place in an ostensibly objective encyclopedia. smg (unsigned comment by User:71.0.88.219)

I disagree. Apartheid was a unique and sufficiently significant social program that it deserves its own article. "Apartheid outside South Africa" implies that the racial segregation in other countries was comparable, and does not deserve its own article. Though the term "apartheid" has been applied on occasion elsewhere, no other country has experienced the precise combination of laws and practices that Apartheid involved. The Apartheid outside South Africa article seems to describe racial segregation. The entire term appears to be a neologism implying a point of view and it is inappropriate for us to have an article on the topic implicitly supports one point of view, and which is largely redundant to this article. I endorse a merger. -Willmcw 07:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a merger (even though the result would a massive chunk of text). Apartheid is a term used in its strictest sense to describe only the legal system that was referred to by its instigators as Apartheid. Any figurative usage for comparison with other similar legal codes based on race can be called "Apartheid-like" for the rhetorical purpose of drawing parallels to the original. But who knows - maybe sometime in the future the language will evolve to encompass a broader meaning for this Afrikaans word not limited by time and space. (See also this merger discussion) //Big Adamsky 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. They are not the same Apartheid is location spicific and only one kind of Racial segregation. futurebird 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Effect of Segregated Education on Negro school children

This article is the subject of an ongoing deletion vote. I think some of the below is salvageable, given its history notability, so I voted to Clean-Up. But the general consensus is going the other way. So for now I'm parking the whole article here, on the discussion page of Racial Segregation, with the hope of merging the valuable stuff in when I get a chance. --Christofurio 16:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

In the article, “Does Psychology Make a Significant Difference in Our Lives?” written by Philip G. Zimbardo, the author boldly asserted that psychology matters in our lives because “our theories, research, and methodologies are serving to influence individual and societal actions.” An instance where psychological research has affected society’s action was shown in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS when Chief Justice Earl Warren rules, “We conclude 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.” (Aclu MT, 1955) The decision was influenced by Kenneth B. Clark’s effective demonstration that segregated education had a negative impact on Negro school children (Clark, 1939a, 1939b, 1940, 1950).

For instance, when 160 subjects (5, 6, and 7 year olds Negro children) were given a Coloring test*, 36 percent of them colored their preferences in white, and 16 percent used a bizarre or irrelevant color. This finding tends to support the assumption that 52% of the subject tends to repress or attempt to escape from the apparently painful fact of the meaning of color differences in American society (Clark, 1950). Further testing shows a striking preference among the black children (44%) for the white doll and a rejection of the brown doll (56%) which led to the conclusion that young Negro children would prefer to be white. Such preferences reflected an awareness of the fact that to be colored in contemporary American society is a mark of inferior status (Clark, 1950). When asked for explanations for the rejection of the brown doll, the children replied, “looks bad all over”, “cause him black—cause his cheeks are colored—it’s ugly”, or “looks bad cause it don’t look pretty”. On the contrary, some explanations for the choice of white doll are such as “cause its got blue eyes—cause its got pretty eyes”, “cause it got pretty hands, eyes, and eyebrows”, or “cause he’s not colored like these—they are the best looking cause they’re white”. It is clear that the expressions are indicative of negative attitudes toward the Negro race (Clark, 1950).

In conclusion, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s ruling of desegregation was influenced by Kenneth B. Clark’s efficacious demonstration that segregated education had a negative impact on Negro school children, namely feelings of inferiority, frustration, and rejection.

---

This test consisted of a sheet of paper on which there were outline drawings of a leaf, an apple, an orange, a mouse, a boy, and a girl. A box of crayons, including the usual assortment and brown, black, white and tan, was given to the child. Each child was asked first to color the objects and the mouse in order to determine whether there was a stable concept of the relationship of color to object. If the child passed this portion of the test he was then told: “color this little boy (or girl) the color that you are”. This is _____ (child’s name), color him (or her) the color you are. After this request was complied with the child was then told: “Now this is a little girl, (or boy). Color her (or him) the color you like little boys (or girls) to be”. References

Aclu MT (1955). Radio spot: Your Constitutional Rights Retrieved from http://www.pressrecord.com/politic/rights.html

Clark, K.B., & Clark, M.K. (1939a). The development of consciousness of self and the emergence of racial identification in Negro preschool children. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 591-599.

Clark, K.B., & Clark, M.K. (1939b). Segregation as a factor in the racial identification of Negro preschool children: A preliminary report. Journal of Experimental Education, 8, 161-163.

Clark, K.B., & Clark, M.K. (1940). Skin color as a factor in racial identification of negro preschool children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 159-169.

Clark, K.B., & Clark, M.K. (1950). Emotional factors in racial identification and preferences in Negro children. Journal of Negro Education, 19, 341-350.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_effect_of_segregated_education_on_negro_school_children"

Other than the U.S.

As usual, this article is written with a dominantly American view point, and a focus on blacks and "Latinos". This makes the issue seem infinitely simpler than it really is, and the diverse situations that can be found around the world. Another thing the artcle fails to mention is modern Israeli Jews discriminate against other races in Israel and make it illegal for one of them to marry or have sexual relations with an Israeli. In today's South Africa and Zimbabwe, whites are treated poorly and are often the target of hate crimes that go uninvestigated or ignored by the authorities. Indeed there are even government sanctioned land siezures that deprive whites of their homes and livelyhoods, and violate basic human rights. This article depicts segregation as a crime against the only victims Americans are allowed to acknoledge; it's about time we looked past the limited views that pop-culture zeitgeist allows us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.20.64 (talk) 21 Jan 2006

While I would welcome seeing this article made more international, the South Africa and Zimbabwe remarks about land seizures are utterly irrelevant: that may be race prejudice (especially in Zimbabwe), but it is not racial segregation, the title of the article. If you are correct about Israel having laws illegalising marriage (or, even more remarkably, sexual relations) between certain individuals in Israel on a racial basis, that would be worth noting here. I'd want to see documentation on that, though, because frankly I doubt it. The only thing weird I know of in this respect about Israeli marriage laws is that, in contradiction to most other countries, marrying an Israeli citizen does not automatically grant the right to immigrate. But that's not mainly about segregation: it's mainly about Palestinian Arab Israelis not being able to marry Palestinians from the territories and get them into Israel. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

USA section is blackcentric

Discuss other races please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.148.166.5 (talk) 25 Jan 2006

In terms of formal segregation, the black/white issues in the U.S. are the most blatant, though you are right that there has been other significant racial segregation.

This is a wiki. If you have worthwhile material to add, add it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Chinatowns in the US are in ways racially segregated usually by custom and as an area of choice by Chinese Americans. It's widely known Asian-Americans (such as Japanese Americans and Filipino Americans) were subject to many forms of public segregation in California and the Western US until the end of WWII. They endured a similar kind of racism based on the idea on Asians(-Americans) are a different race from "white" or Caucasian people. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagreement with lead paragraph

There is quite a bit that I disagree with in the lead paragraph.

1. To start with: the definition of "racial segregation". There is far too much focus on laws and far too little on de facto societal segregation. Right now, the article begins, "Racial segregation exists where governments have passed laws either allowing or requiring discrimination on the basis of race." This presumes that segregation exists only where it has at least some overt legal sanction. But when one speaks, for example, of U.S. schools becoming more segregated in recent years, it has little or nothing to do with laws: it is simple numerical fact. "Forced separation" can occur through a force that is more akin to vigilantism than law.
2. "In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of states to pass discriminatory legislation." Actually, no, except in the most narrow, literal sense of "discriminatory" ("making a distinction") and ignoring its connotation of "making an odious distinction", as in discriminating against a person or class of people. Plessy v. Ferguson upheld segregation, but only on the basis that "separate but equal" facilities would be provided. It was overturned more than half a century later in Brown v. Board precisely on the basis that separate had meant, in practice, unequal.
3. "Segregation continued until 1954 when the court reversed its earlier decision." By no means did segregation end in 1954. Indeed, in the U.S. South, even de jure segregation hung on for another decade or so, and to this day there are, illegally and by no means mainly in the South, "sundown towns" where it is absolutely impossible for a non-white person to buy land or (in most cases) even to rent.

Rather than rewrite this right now myself, I thought I'd allow at least a few days for comment, given that this is a much-worked-on article and that so far I have not been a major participant. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

re: your second point which begins #"In 1896, "Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. The arbitrary separation of citizens, on the basis of race...is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with civil freedom." Dissenting opinion of Judge John Marshall Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896.

"Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe it does." Chief Justice Earl Warren in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040503&s=fonerkennedy excerpt: Dissenting in Plessy, Justice John Marshall Harlan stated forthrightly what everyone actually knew: that racial segregation arose not from any mutual, reciprocal, respectful desire for social distance and group autonomy but rather as an expression of white supremacist subordination of people of color. Noting that segregation proceeds "on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded" that they cannot be allowed to share public space with whites, Harlan 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."

The half-century after Plessy confirmed Harlan's dire prophecies. White supremacists bent on undoing the gains achieved during the Reconstruction Era disenfranchised blacks, severely limited their economic and educational opportunities, terrorized them through mob violence and systematically stigmatized them by extending segregationist laws and customs to practically every sphere of social life, from hospitals to prisons, beaches, restaurants, bathrooms and schools. In some courtrooms, witnesses of different races were required to take oaths on separate Bibles. -end Foner/Kennedy quote-

As to your other points, the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation is important. Today we have de facto segregation. Nothing's changed 'ceptin' segregation is not required in the South. It merely continues to be practiced in the North and South, East and West. I made that point in one of the related articles, can't recall if it was this or another.

Hey, if you can improve on what's here, have at it. I'm happy to see collegial effort. skywriter 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Harlan's dissent characterized (correctly in my view, and apparently in yours) the majority view in Plessy as inevitably giving support to invidious discrimination, but it did so implicitly, not explicitly. And, yes, I will have a go at the lead paragraph. - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

New paragraph

	==Facts==  	 
		 
	-Black people in the 1930s could not speak to white people on the street 	 
		 
	-Blacks and whites lived in separate parts of towns 	 
		 
	-Blacks and whites attended separate schools 	 
		 
	-Segregation WAS considered legal in courts (i.e. Brown v. Board of Education) 	 
		 
	-In some places, black and whites entered public places through separate doors 	 
		 
	-Blacks and whites did not sit together in churches and restaurants 	 
		 
	-Blacks often had to pass extremely difficult literacy tests in order to vote 	 
		 
	-Segregation was NOT matter of wealth, they did not enjoy the same legal rights and priveleges as well-to-do whites

I removed this badly formatted piece entered wholesale. It needs wikifying, formatting and then someone might want to replace it, SqueakBox 13:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it kinda strange that you used Brown vs Board of Education as an example since that was the precedent that *ended* school segregation, did you mean to write plessy vs. ferguson?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with SqueakBox's removal of the above section as it indeed is not factual. It is riddled with error. skywriter 11:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Finland and Åland?

There is not even one fact in this text, so I am removing your biased "contribution". It's gives an impression that Swedish speaking population is oppressing Finns which IS NOT TRUE. Åland is autonomic province of Finland and unlike the mainland it have only one official language which is Swedish, however rights of the Finnish speaking population are quaranteed in the law...which you ignored entirely.

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1991/19911144 7§ 3) jolla on tyydyttävä ruotsin kielen taito. I don't understand how you can translate this as "good command of Swedish language".

"If a person dies, neither an in-memoriam nor even a small notice of the death is permitted to be published in Finnish language in any newspapers." http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990731 Article 12 § Check what Finnish law say about this issue.

"Earlier they have demanded separate toilets and doors for Finns and Swedes," Strange, I have not heard such demands and I live in Finland. Can you kindly tell me who said this and where? And who are "they"?

"There are also a number of other institutions, which are for Swedish-speakers only, whereas all Swedish-speakers are welcome to any institutions that are mostly for Finnish-speakers." You are free to apply to any "Swedish-speakers only" institutions.

"There is not an officially used term for this policy. In Internet discussions, the word "apartheid" is used." Yeah, it's in internet = it have to be true. --80.223.49.207 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue should be discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Swedish or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land how we can talk about Racial segregation when the issue is language policy? The text which is in this article at the moment doesn't reflect the reality at all, it's just pile of biased opinions.

-- I will after a few days comment your opinion. The facts are all correct. One mistake I made, as you say, not good command of Swedish but only satisfactory command of Swedish is required from Finnish landowners in Åland. As to the proper topic of this issue, I'd refer to the earlier discussion on segregation or discrimination. The Swedish issue in Finland and Åland has the both aspects. You say, "There is not even one fact in this text." Well, is it then not enought that I show clearly just ONE essential FACT so that we all can agree that it is you, whose contribution and control does not hold the truth. The first fact is the following, "Swedish National Party is demanding that Finnish and Swedish speaking pupils must be educated apart, in separate school buildings." And here is the contents (translated by myself):

"SFP (Swedish Folk Party) proposes separate schools for Swedish-speakers STT-HR, 14.4.2006 [Note STT is a news agency, which is considered to be pretty much Swedish-policy oriented]

Swedish Folk Party SFP has the opition that Finnish and Swedish speaking pupils should be educated in apart buildings. The opinion is included in the new bilingualism programme that is to be accepted in the party convent in July.

The matter was reported by 'Vasabladet' on Good Friday. The newspaper interviewed Ms. Maria Björnberg-Enckell, the chairman of the committee that wrote the programme.

- Also in Helsinki we presently have joint school and kindergarten buildings for Swedish and Finnish speakers. The bilingualism committee has yet the opinion that education should take place in apart school buildings, says Björnberg-Enckell.

Björnberg-Enckell says additionally that this principle should be applied also in those areas, where Swedish-speakers form the majority."

and the link is http://www.verkkouutiset.fi/juttu.php?id=89760

It is very difficult to demand for apartheid and at the same time try to say that you are not demanding for apartheid. Kielisoturi 16:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Who is this person: "Lalli", who has totally removed the fact that in present Finland and Åland, serious racial segregation (apartheid) is applied based on language? Even the fact that a Governmental Party, Swedish National Party, requires total apartheid at schools, to ensure that Finnish-speaking children must not use the same school buildings as do the Swedes. And the fact that Finnish Government, and another fact, previous Swedish prime minister Mr. Bildt, are recommending this kind of Swedoapartheid in Kosovo and Cyprus. There is something really wrong, if Wikipedia can be censored in order to keep unpleasant facts unknown. I demand that the censoring person's (IP's) miscontributions to Wikipedia shall be cancelled, and the given fact shall be reapproved. Kielisoturi 06:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There weren't many true facts in your text. And if there were. it would not be any racial issue, anyway. Two languages, two schooling systems. I really see no point with your agenda. --Lalli 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The contents seem legitimate and referenced to me. BTW accusations and vandalism of others' contributions aren't a good way to start your presence on Wikipedia. CarlGH 06:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you have started here later than I have. Kielisoturi's writings were no less than nationalist propaganda and gives a twisted POV. There are really no separation problems in Finland. What Kielisoturi refuses to get, is that there have always been mostly different schools for different language groups. --Lalli 17:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* OK let me spell it out for you: READ the RULES and practice in the sandbox first. CarlGH 07:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, CarlGH.

Again is Lalli performing vandalism. He does not like the word "apartheid". Thus he removes the whole paragraph. Isn't it literally "apartheid", if a political party definitely wants to educate children "apart", in separated school buildings. I demand that the vandalism of Lalli shall be discontinued, and his ability to contribute shall be cancelled. And what else is Aland but a kind of apartheid ghetto. Apartheid may be good, as is proposed by Mr. Carl Bildt, if it can help a minority to survive. But still, it is apartheid. Remember the word "Finlandisierung"? Twenty years ago Finns were kneeling in front of The Soviet Union. And Finns were very angry, if somebody showed, how stupid and cowardlike such behaviour was. Now with the language apartheid and segregation, the same. Swedes want to create aparted school buildings and aparted "home lands" (Aland and Swedish Finland). But they hate to hear the bad words: segregation and apartheid. Kielisoturi 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no racial segregation in Finland or Åland. Only in some language warriors' minds. --Lalli 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do? "Lalli" is again vandalizing. He does not like the contents so he destroyes it. I again demand that such vandalism shall be ended and the paragrapah "Language Segregation in Finland and Åland" shall in future be protected against modifications. BTW, the nickname "Lalli" is in Finland a historical term. It refers to Finland's first named "Robin Hood", who did not accept the crusade of Bishop Henry against Finland. By using such nickname, the present "Lalli" shows that he wants to cheat everybody. On todays news on Finnish Language segreagtion/ Åland: They are now asking help from the country of Sweden in order to fight against Finnish language. Yet they have a problem: most business is held with Finns and thus they need Finnish skills. But Åland segrationists want to cut all reasonable ties with Finnish-speakers. "Lalli" has also understood totally wrong Kielisoturi's objectives. He believes that Kielisoturi wants to throw Swedes away from Finland. (He sent a such personal message to me.) It is not the case: Swedes like Russians and Estonians, etc. are welcome to Finland. The only goal that Kielisoturi has is that there shall be no apartheid based on language or race. Kielisoturi 09:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See: Propaganda --Lalli 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There are only two major questions: 1) Is there language segregation in Finland? 2) Is it worth writing in Wikipedia. And the answers, in shortly, are: 1) Yes; Åland pact is a pure example of language segregation. And really, Swedish National Party is truly requiring to expand it furhter to the continental Finland; OFFICIALLY REQUIRING THAT FINNISH PUPILS MUST NOT ENTER THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS OF SWEDISH PUPILS AND THE EXISTING MIXED SCHOOL BUILIDNGS MUST BE APARTED. 2) It is a miracle that international human rights activists do not know those FACTS; i.e. the apartheid in Finland. Yes, it is propaganda like the truth always is the best propaganda. Hiding the truth, that is the method of the Finland-Swedes. Kielisoturi 10:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In either way, this article is about racial segregation. Make your own article about your "language war", if you want to. --Lalli 08:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Language segregation is a subtopic of racial segregation and racial segregation cannot be analysed without other ethnic segregation. My argument is that European Commission directive 2000/43 racial and ethnic discrimination http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_180/l_18020000719en00220026.pdf clearly states that there is nothing such as "race": "The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races. The use of the term ‘racial origin’ in this Directive does not imply an acceptance of such theories." as well as the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION does similarly http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf. But anyway, thanks, Lalli for your obvious acceptance of my written contents. Your only remaining argument is that it is written under a wrong title. Kielisoturi 14:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Protect Finland /Aland from vandalism

Many times "Lalli" or some IP address only persons have totally destroyed the paragrapha Finland/ Åland language segregation. Thus it needs a decision to protect the contents from such vandalism. An article in a dictionary must not be destroyed just because you hate it. Kielisoturi 09:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As per your request, I have protected the page for a "cool down" period, in accordance with the WP:PPol, which allows for 'Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request'. This is temporary, and I will unprotect the page in a few days. In the mean time, please see if you all can reach an agreement on the talk page. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one's interested in doing that. I have unprotected. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to 'Homosexuals'

The link takes me to Gays, Illinois, which I am certain is a mistake....

Merge USA section into Racial segregation in the United States

The USA section on racial segregation is so long that it really does deserve it's own article (I suggest: Racial segregation in the United States) -- although a brief summary should remain in this article with a pointer to the longer main article. I have taken a poor attempt at creating a main article from a section of Apartheid outside of South Africa. This is not an area that I am that familiar with, it is just an area that I see needs some work. --Ben Houston 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is too long... merge out, but leave a paragraph and link. --futurebird 08:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism within article

I'd like to report this page as being vandalised. As you can see, the vandalism begins in the first sentence: "Racial Segregation is (also boring) characterized by seperation of people..." (parenthetical retained). At the end of the list of external links, "blah blah" has been typed. There may be more instances throughout the article. I understand this is minor vandalism, but I still feel it needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure what to actions should be taken, so I would appreciate any help. I also didn't know if I should personally edit it; I wanted to ensure that the necessary actions were taken against the vandal. I also contacted Wikipedia via email. Thanks. Lipstick rogue 09:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix vandalism yourself. If you can figure out who made the changes which resulted in the specific vandalism, go to the user's talk page, see if there are already warnings for that vandalism or other incidents, look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, pick out the appropriate warning template, and stick it on the user's talk page.

Be careful, but be bold. One thing to watch for in particular is if the vandalism has been perpetrated by an IP address instead of a logged-in user; since many people's IP can change, old vandalism warnings on a user talk page may not be related to the current incident, while recent ones probably are. Argyriou 14:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WWII in USA

"During World War II… German Americans were not sent to internment camps to the same extent as the Japanese and Italian." This would seem to suggest that internment of Italians was in numbers comparable to Japanese. To put this politely: I seriously doubt this. - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

5th century

I'm not at all sure the section Germanic apartheid system in 5th Century Britain is worth keeping, but I've restored it, because it was removed without comment. At the very least, it is substantive enough to merit discussion of whether it belongs. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "Apartheid"

From the article "the term ['Apartheid']… had a history going back to the 1910s and unofficially before that for many years". Interesting, if true. Does someone have a pre-1910 citation for this word in the sense of "segregation"? If so, this should be cited; if not, then the last clause of this sentence should probably be dropped. - Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the US get such a big section?

Yes, I know that America is the most important and greatest country in the world and so on and so forth, but it's section in this article should be no bigger than South Africa's. It needs to be moved to the main US segregation article

While I have thought the same thing about the size, there's no need to get all ironic, buddy. It is that big because a large number of Wikipedians happen to be US citizens, and because it is (at least) as well researched as any other.

That said, I would support moving large amounts of the data over to the main article, or simply pruning it. Don't have the time or inclination to do it now. MadMaxDog 04:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is with the "Compare" stuff under "see also?"

What is the point of this:

Compare

• Race, racialism, and racism
• Black supremacy, Hispanic supremacy, and White supremacy
• Black pride and White pride
• Black Power and White Power
• Black nationalism, Chicano nationalism, and White nationalism

It's US centric and adds nothing. May I remove it? Please object or agree.... futurebird 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of those only marginally deal with this article, I'd say dump them all. Radagast83 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

homework help question

i need help with mi homework.here is the question.How did segregation affect black people?

You need to try Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Coolcaesar 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sections on Malaysia and Bahrain very questionable

Bahrain: Too long and disproportionate given the issue under discussion is a proposition that never got to the execution stage. Since the article is supposed to be discussing existing cases of segregation, I really can't understand how this section can be NPOV.

Malaysia: This section is even worse. The measures described are forms of affirmative action that may be labeled as discrimination by some. But in what way is this segregation? What are the laws and measures in the state of Malaysia that separate Malays and non-Malays physically? Are there any laws about miscegenation, place of domicile, or exclusivity of certain areas to certain people? This section at least needs a significant rewrite, optimally it needs to be entirely deleted.

Guys, this is Wikipedia, the main aim should be to write an informative article that gives neutral or neutrally worded information to people who have no background on the issue. I know most of us have agendas (I can see anti-Arabism and Islamophobia shining here), but I am sure we can get over them and write something that is factually accurate.

Within three days if nobody discusses these sections or addresses their problems, I will tag both. I will delete both within a week (again unless a serious discussion starts here). --Karkaron 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

United States and Malaysia, in particular

I don't disagree that there is some de-facto segregation in the United States, but I think the 19th-21st century label is unfair. This is especially true because the U.S. is not the only country of the bunch with de-facto segregation even now. I'm sure that places from South Africa to Brazil to the UK are the same way. 19th-20th century sounds a lot more fair.

Also, as has been noted, the Malaysia case is not segregation at all, but discrimination (of which affirmative action in the United States is also an example, though I'm not against it). Chinese, Indians, Malays, and others can mix (and marry) at will. There are no separate facilities. This is not segregation. --Riction 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Australia

I've deleted all the Australian stuff. Assimililation and integration are not even remotely related to segregation - they are in fact the complete opposite. So too immigration (which is factually incorrect, the test were not "too difficult" - there were no tests, specific countries were banned). Segregation is not just racism in general. There were some instances of Aborigines being excluded from some areas eg metropolitan Perth, but this is not mentioned at all and I don't have the facts available to comment on it. Brettr 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

possible vandalism

ok I'm not sure about this but I might have caught some vandalism here...it said that "all forms of du jure segregation had been eliminated." I just eliminated the du jure part...I'm sorry if this was not vandalism...please tell me if this was or if it was not vandalism. Jammerocker 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Segregation Dallas.jpg

Image:Segregation Dallas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on Fiji

The section on Fiji is very one sided and does not give the reader an overall picture further more it is unreferenced an unsourced and I believe should be re written, there is evidence of defacto separation but not segregation the Fiji section should be removed or as I said before rewritten as it is divisive and incorrectly written..Vinaka MB 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten part of the Fiji section but I am still not certain that it even belongs on this page anyone ones thought on the subject would be helpful. Vinaka Maikeli MB 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fiji Section has been edited again with the wrong information I edited it to create some balance as an encyclopedia article but I still believe it needs to be removed as segregation does not describe the Fiji situation correctly at all, Vinaka, Maikeli MB (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncommented change of a date

[2]: "Apartheid… remained law until 1990" changed to "Apartheid… remained law until 1994". I don't know which is correct; I'm not sure there was one single date that can be given as the end of apartheid; in any case, since this is apparently in dispute, someone should provide a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yemen

The source on Yemen does not say that there is any "racial segregation", only that there is discrimination. Please not that discrimination is not the same as segregation.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also does the source say anything about "implicit" "division"? Where?Bless sins (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "issues" have been taken account for now. Still, what you mentioned is no reason to censor out the fact thay they are black of ethiopian descent. Yahel Guhan 05:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Aryan Invasion" nonsense

I deleted the India part in this part [3] as unencyclopedic per WP:FRINGE for the following reason: The edit makes the pseudohistorical claim that "light-skinned" "Aryans" invaded India and established the caste system. Such a narrative was coined by the British Empire in India during colonial times as a racial fantasy of the British to attempt a justification of their rule over the subcontinent. The references cited in the edit to "back up" such outdated and offensive ideas were carefully Synthesized based on partisan sources like Eric Margolis (who is known to make false and venomous accusations against Indians) and unreliable sources. The wikipedia articles Aryanism#British Raj and Indo-Aryan migration contain a vast plethora of scholarly material that dispute (and ultimately debunk) the notion of an "Aryan Invasion and caste establishment". The caste system existed in the region long prior to the Indo-Aryan migrations, and the Central Asians who migrated (not invaded) the subcontinent did so peacefully over the course of generations, and were integrated into the caste system over time. Anodized bolt (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Restore the vandalistically deleted material or face Wikipedia penalties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

coding errors

in at least one section (india) the html is broken. someone should recode it. I am having trouble seing the text in the text box or i would do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.127.234 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Race and Caste in Modern Mexico and Egypt

"The society the Spanish created in Mexico was highly race-conscious and racially stratified. Every person had an official racial classification: white, followed by casta (mixed white and Indian), with Indian and black at the botom. People had different rights based on their race ... Mexico is a racially diverse society, and it began as a caste society: one in which everyone was racially classified at birth and race determined people's rights and obligations. Modern Mexico has explicitly rejected caste structures. Race consciousness has been greatly reduced, but there are still racial inequalities ... But while government policies have minimized race consciousness in Mexico, racial inequalities persist. The government's refusal to collect data about race makes it hard to document racial inequalities that obviously exist. There is a strong association between skin color and status, and skin color and wealth. Whiteness is admired: la guera ("the blonde") is the ideal of feminine beauty, seen in advertisements, on television, and in the movies. Light skin and European features are associated with wealth and success; government officials and corporation executives look European. Dark skin is associated with Indians, with poverty, ignorance, and dirt. To call a person an Indio (Indian) is an insult..."

Egypt

"Egypt is a racially mixed society. Its people come from Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe, but they have been mixing and intermarrying for thousands of years. As a result, Egyptians vary in their skin colors and facial features. There is no doubt that light skin is a source of prestige. Before the 1952 revolution, many families of the landowning elite were aristocrats descended from Egypt's earlier rulers (including Greeks, Turks and Macedonians). They were conscious of their lighter skin and sought similar spouses for their children (Hooglund, Egypt: A Country Study, p. 119). Today lighter skin is still associated with elite status, with wealth and power. Movie stars and women in advertisements tend to have light skin..." (Global Sociology / Linda Schneider, Arnold Silverman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.98.54 (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Segregation Research Studies

I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, so please forgive my mistakes or faux pas. Should there be a bit about the research that's been done on why racial segregation tends to happen? I'm talking about Schelling's numerous agent-based models and how small personal preferences can (and do) lead to macro-behaviors and large scale racial segregation. If it's appropriate, I'd be glad to write up a brief summary to post. If it's not, then never mind. Thanks.

Also - there's an external link at the bottom of the page for "a study of segregation." Does this link work for anyone else? Should it be corrected or removed? Purpunknat (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

USA section under "Contemporary segregation" is biased

"Thirty years after the civil rights era, the United States remains a residentially segregated society in which Blacks, Whites and Hispanics inhabit different neighborhoods of vastly different quality.[66][67][68]"

I sense an implicit assumption that it is not their own choice/fault, that racism is the cause.

"Dan Immergluck writes that in 2002 small businesses in black neighborhoods still received fewer loans, even after accounting for businesses density, businesses size, industrial mix, neighborhood income, and the credit quality of local businesses.[69] ... Workers living in American inner-cities have a harder time finding jobs than suburban workers.[71]"

How about crime levels?

"By 1990, the legal barriers enforcing segregation had been mostly replaced by decentralized racism, where whites pay more than blacks to live in predominantly white areas.[74] Today, many whites are willing, and are able, to pay a premium to live in a predominantly white neighborhood. Equivalent housing in white areas commands a higher rent.[75] By bidding up the price of housing, many white neighborhoods again effectively shut out blacks, because blacks are unwilling, or unable, to pay the premium to buy entry into white neighborhoods. Through the 1990s, residential segregation remained at its extreme and has been called "hypersegregation" by some sociologists or "American Apartheid"[76]"

I am tempted to remove this paragraph. The will to live in rich and safe areas is called "racism", and the result is called "apartheid". This is totally unfair use of both words. Again it is also assumed that it is the white's fault that many of the blacks are poor, which is not necessarily the case.

It is important to draw a line between de jure segregation and de facto segregation. As long as segregation is not enforced through law, it will have to prove its value in the market, which it ideally can't. In other words, if five out of ten companies discriminate races and discrimination is not beneficial for a company, then the other five will be strengthened in the competition. In this case the racists are punished by reality.