|
Racial segregation has appeared in all parts of the world where there are multiracial communities. Where racial amalgamation has occurred on a large scale, as in Hawaii and Brazil, there was no legal segregation, however, there has been occasional social discrimination.[6] Jewish segregation Jews in Europe generally were forced, by decree or by informal pressure, to live in highly segregated ghettos and shtetls.[7] In 1204 the papacy required Jews to segregate themselves from Christians and to wear distinctive clothing.[8] Forced segregation of Jews spread throughout Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries.[9] In the Russian Empire, Jews were restricted to the so-called Pale of Settlement, the Western frontier of the Russian Empire corresponding roughly to the modern-day countries of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.[10] By the early 20th century, the majority of European Jews lived in the Pale of Settlement. Jewish population were confined to mellahs in Morocco beginning from the 15th century. In cities, a mellah was surrounded by a wall with a fortified gateway. In contrast, rural mellahs were separate villages inhabited solely by the Jews.[11] In the middle of the 19th century, J. J. Benjamin wrote about the life of Persian Jews: …they are obliged to live in a separate part of town…; for they are considered as unclean creatures… Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt… For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans… If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him… unmercifully… If a Jew enters a shop for anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods… Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses to ask for them... Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever please them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defense of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life... If... a Jew shows himself in the street during the three days of the Katel (Muharram)…, he is sure to be murdered.[12] Anglo-Saxons in England Segregation may have existed in early Anglo-Saxon England, restricting intermarriage and resulting in the displacement of the native British population by Germanic incomers.[13] According to research led by the University College London, Anglo-Saxon settlers enjoyed substantial social and economic advantages over Celtic Britons.[14] However, Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes argue that there was no population displacement, as the Anglo-Saxons had relatively little genetic impact on England.[15][16] In 2002, the BBC used the headline "English and Welsh are races apart" to report a genetic survey of test subjects from market towns in England and Wales.[17] English Settlers in Ireland The Statutes of Kilkenny were a series of thirty-five acts passed at Kilkenny in 1366. They forbad the intermarriage between the native Irish and the English settlers in Ireland, the English fostering of Irish children, the English adoption of Irish children and use of Irish names and dress.[18] French Algeria Following its conquest of Ottoman controlled Algeria in 1830, for well over a century France maintained colonial rule in the territory which has been described as "quasi-apartheid".[19] The colonial law of 1865 allowed Arab and Berber Algerians to apply for French citizenship only if they abandoned their Muslim identity; Azzedine Haddour argues that this established "the formal structures of a political apartheid".[20] Camille Bonora-Waisman writes that, "[i]n contrast with the Moroccan and Tunisian protectorates", this "colonial apartheid society" was unique to Algeria.[21] This "internal system of apartheid" met with considerable resistance from the Muslims affected by it, and is cited as one of the causes of the 1954 insurrection.[22] Germany Main article: Nur für Deutsche Nur für Deutsche ("Only for Germans") on the tram number 8 in German-occupied Kraków, Poland. German warning in occupied Poland 1939 - "No entrance for Poles!" In the early 14th century, some guilds in the cities of North-East Germany introduced statutes, under which persons of Wendish, i.e. Slavic, origin were forbidden from joining the guild.[23] According to Wilhelm Raabe, "down into the eighteenth century no German guild accepted a Wend."[24] The ban on interracial marriage was a part of the Nuremberg Laws, which prohibited sexual relations and marriages between people classified as "Aryan" and "non-Aryan." Such relationships were called Rassenschande (race defilement). At first the laws were aimed primarily at Jews but were later extended to "Gypsies, Negroes and their bastard offspring".[25][26][27] Aryans found guilty could face incarceration in a concentration camp, while non-Aryans could face the death penalty.[28] To preserve the so-called purity of the German blood, after the war began, the Nazis extended the race defilement law to include all foreigners (non-Germans).[29] Under the General Government of occupied Poland in 1940, the Nazis divided the population into different groups, each with different rights, food rations, allowed housing strips in the cities, public transportation, etc. In an effort to split Polish identity they attempted to establish ethnic divisions of Kashubians and Gorals (Goralenvolk), based on these groups' alleged "Germanic component." Young Polish girl wearing Letter "P" patch. Women behind the barbed wire fence of the Lvov Ghetto in occupied Poland. Spring 1942 During the 1930s and 1940s, Jews in Nazi-controlled states were made to wear yellow ribbons or stars of David, and were, along with Romas (Gypsies), discriminated against by the racial laws. Jewish doctors and professors were not allowed to treat Aryan (effectively, gentile) patients or teach Aryan pupils, respectively. The Jews were not allowed to use any public transportation, besides the ferry, and were able to shop only from 3–5 pm in Jewish stores. After Kristallnacht ("The Night of Broken Glass"), the Jews were fined 1,000,000 marks for damages done by the Nazi troops and SS members. Jews and Roma were subjected to genocide as "undesirable" "racial" groups in the Holocaust. The Nazis established ghettos to confine Jews and sometimes Romas into tightly packed areas of the cities of Eastern Europe, turning them into de facto concentration camps. The Warsaw Ghetto was the largest of these ghettos, with 400,000 people. The Ghetto Litzmannstadt was the second largest, holding about 160,000.[30] Between 1939 and 1945, at least 1.5 million Polish citizens were transported to the Reich for forced labour (in all, about 12 million forced laborers were employed in the German war economy inside Nazi Germany).[31][32] Although Nazi Germany also used forced laborers from Western Europe, Poles, along with other Eastern Europeans viewed as racially inferior,[33] were subject to deeper discriminatory measures. They were forced to wear a yellow with purple border and letter "P" (for Polen/Polish) cloth identifying tag sewn to their clothing, subjected to a curfew, and banned from public transportation. While the treatment of factory workers or farm hands often varied depending on the individual employer, Polish laborers as a rule were compelled to work longer hours for lower wages than Western Europeans – in many cities, they were forced to live in segregated barracks behind barbed wire. Social relations with Germans outside work were forbidden, and sexual relations (Rassenschande or "racial defilement") were punishable by death.[34] Imperial China Tang dynasty Several laws enforcing racial segregation of foreigners from Chinese were passed by the Han chinese during the Tang dynasty. In 779 the Tang dynasty issued an edict which forced Uighurs to wear their ethnic dress, stopped them from marrying Chinese females, and banned them from pretending to be Chinese. Chinese disliked Uighurs because they practiced usury. The magristrate who issued the orders may have wanted to protect "purity" in Chinese custom. In 836, when Lu Chun was appointed as governor of Canton, he was disgusted to find Chinese living with foreigners and intermarriage between Chinese and foreigners. Lu enforced separation, banning interracial marriages, and made it illegal for foreigners to own property. Lu Chun believed his principles were just and upright.[35] The 836 law specifically banned Chinese from forming relationships with "Dark peoples" or "People of colour", which was used to describe foreigners, such as "Iranians, Sogdians, Arabs, Indians, Malays, Sumatrans", among others.[36][37] Qing dynasty The Qing Dynasty was founded not by the Han Chinese who form the majority of the Chinese population, but the Manchus, who are today an ethnic minority of China. The Manchus were keenly aware of their minority status and during the early eras of their reign, they implemented a strict policy of racial segregation between the Manchus and Han Chinese. This ethnic segregation had cultural and economic reasons: intermarriage was forbidden to keep up the Manchurian heritage and minimize sinicization. Han Chinese and Mongols were banned from settling in Manchuria.[38] The Qing Dynasty started colonizing Manchuria with Han Chinese later on in the dynasty's rule, but the Manchu area was still separated from modern-day Inner Mongolia by the Outer Willow Palisade, which kept the Manchu and the Mongols in the area separate. The policy of segregation applied directly to the banner garrisons, most of which occupied a separate walled zone within the cities in which they were stationed. While the Manchus followed the governmental structure of the preceding Ming dynasty, their ethnic policy dictated that appointments were split between Manchu noblemen and Han Chinese officials who had passed the highest levels of the state examinations, and because of the small number of Manchus, this insured that a large fraction of them would be government officials. Italy In 1938, the fascist regime led by Benito Mussolini, under pressure from the Nazis, introduced a series of laws instituting an official segregationist policy in the Italian Empire, especially aimed against Jews. This policy enforced various segregationist norms, like the prohibition for Jews to teach or study in ordinary schools and universities, to own industries reputed of major national interest, to work as journalists, to enter the military, and to wed non-Jews. Some of the immediate consequences of the introduction of the 'provvedimenti per la difesa della razza' (norms for the defence of the race) included many of the best Italian scientists leaving their job, or even Italy. Amongst these, world-renowned physicists Emilio Segrè, Enrico Fermi (whose wife was Jewish), Bruno Pontecorvo, Bruno Rossi, Tullio Levi-Civita, mathematicians Federigo Enriques and Guido Fubini and even the fascist propaganda director, art critic and journalist Margherita Sarfatti, who was one of Mussolini's mistresses. Rita Levi-Montalcini, who would successively win the Nobel Prize for Medicine, was forbidden to work at the university. Albert Einstein, upon approval of the racial law, resigned from honorary membership of the Accademia dei Lincei. After 1943, when Northern Italy was occupied by the Nazis, Italian Jews were rounded up for the Holocaust. Latin America Spanish colonists created caste systems in Latin American countries based on classification by race and race mixture. An extensive nomenclature developed, including the familiar terms "mulatto", "mestizo", and "zambo" (the latter the origin of "sambo"). The Spanish had practiced a form of caste system in Hispania prior to their expulsion of the Jews and Muslims. While many Latin American countries have long since rendered the system officially illegal through legislation, usually at the time of independence, prejudice based on degrees of perceived racial distance from European ancestry combined with one's socioeconomic status remain, an echo of the colonial caste system.[39][40] Norway On 16 May 1940 the Administrasjonsrådet asked Rikskommisariatet why radio receivers had been confiscated from Jews in Norway.[41] That Administrasjonsrådet thereafter "quietly" accepted[42] racial segregation between Norwegian citizens, has been claimed by Tor Bomann-Larsen. Furthermore he claimed that this segregation "created a precedent. 2 years later (with NS-styret in the ministries of Norway) Norwegian police picked up those who had listened to the radios at the addresses where radios were previously confiscated from Jews. November 26, 1942 it was time for departure and extermination".[43] Rhodesia Following a dispute over the terms for the granting of full sovereignty, the British self-governing colony of Rhodesia, governed by a predominantly white minority government, unilaterally declared independence in 1965. Led by Prime Minister Ian Smith, it endured as an unrecognized state under white rule for the next 14 years, with majority rule coming in 1979 with the Internal Settlement between Smith's government and moderate black nationalists, the associated multiracial elections and the reconstitution of the country as Zimbabwe Rhodesia, with Bishop Abel Muzorewa at the helm of a coalition cabinet comprising 12 blacks and five whites. This new order also failed to win legitimacy in the eyes of the world, and British control returned to the country in December 1979, following the Lancaster House Agreement. New elections were held in 1980, and Zimbabwe gained recognized independence in April 1980, with Robert Mugabe as prime minister. "Petty apartheid": sign on Durban beach in English, Afrikaans and Zulu languages Laws enforcing segregation had been around before 1965, although many institutions simply ignored them. One highly publicized legal battle occurred in 1960 involving the opening of a new theatre that was to be open to all races; the proposed unsegregated public toilets at the newly built Reps Theatre in 1959 caused an argument called "The Battle of the Toilets". South Africa Main article: South Africa under apartheid The apartheid system enacted a nation-wide social policy "separate development" with the National Party victory in 1948, following the "colour bar"-discriminatory legislation dating back to the beginning of the Union of South Africa and the Boer republics before which, while repressive to black South Africans along with other minorities, had not gone nearly so far. Apartheid laws can be generally divided into following acts. Firstly, the Population Registration Act in 1950 classified residents in South Africa into four racial groups: "black", "white", "Coloured", and "Indian" and noted their racial identities on their identifications. Secondly, the Group Areas Act in 1950 assigned different regions according to different races. People were forced to live in their corresponding regions and the action of passing the boundaries without a permit was made illegal, extending pass laws that had already curtailed black movement. Thirdly, under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in 1953, amenities in public area, like hospitals, universities and parks, were labeled separately according to particular races. In addition, the Bantu Education Act in 1953 segregated national education in South Africa as well. Additionally, the government of the time enforced the Pass laws, which deprived black South Africans of their right to travel freely within their own country. Under this system black people were severely restricted from urban areas, requiring authorisation from a white employer to enter. Uprisings and protests against apartheid appeared immediately when apartheid arose. As early as 1949, the youth wing of the African National Congress (ANC) advocated the ending of apartheid and suggested fighting against racial segregation by various methods. During the following decades, hundreds of anti-apartheid actions occurred, including those of the Black Consciousness Movement, students’ protests, labor strikes, and church group activism etc. In 1991, the Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act was passed, repealing laws enforcing racial segregation, including the Group Areas Act. In 1994, Nelson Mandela won in the first multiracial democratic election in South Africa. His success fulfilled the ending of apartheid in South African history. United States Main article: Racial segregation in the United States After the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in America, racial discrimination became regulated by the so-called Jim Crow laws, which mandated strict segregation of the races. Though such laws were instituted shortly after fighting ended in many cases, they only became formalized after the end of Republican-enforced Reconstruction in the 1870s and 80s during a period known as the nadir of American race relations. This legislation that mandated segregation lasted to the mid-1960s. An African-American youth at a segregated drinking fountain in Halifax, North Carolina, in 1938. While the U.S. Supreme Court majority in 1896 Plessy explicitly upheld only "separate but equal" facilities (specifically, transportation facilities), Justice John Marshall Harlan in his dissent protested that the decision was an expression of white supremacy; he predicted that segregation would "stimulate aggressions … upon the admitted rights of colored citizens," "arouse race hate" and "perpetuate a feeling of distrust between [the] races. Feelings between whites and blacks were so tense, even the jails were segregated."[44] Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King Jr., working during the period from the end of World War II through the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 supported by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many of their efforts were acts of non-violent civil disobedience aimed at disrupting the enforcement of racial segregation rules and laws, such as refusing to give up a seat in the black part of the bus to a white person (Rosa Parks), or holding sit-ins at all-white diners. By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and by 1970 support for formal legal segregation had dissolved. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954 outlawed segregation in public schools. The Fair Housing Act of 1968, administered and enforced by the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, prohibited discrimination in the sale and rental of housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Formal racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support. Contemporary segregation Bahrain See also: Oppression of Shia in Bahrain, Bandargate scandal and Migrant workers On 28 April 2007, the lower house of Bahraini Parliament passed a law banning unmarried migrant workers from living in residential areas. To justify the law MP Nasser Fadhala, a close ally of the government said "bachelors also use these houses to make alcohol, run prostitute rings or to rape children and housemaids".[45] Sadiq Rahma, technical committee head, who is a member of Al Wefaq said: "The rules we are drawing up are designed to protect the rights of both the families and the Asian bachelors (..) these labourers often have habits which are difficult for families living nearby to tolerate (..) they come out of their homes half dressed, brew alcohol illegally in their homes, use prostitutes and make the neighbourhood dirty (..) these are poor people who often live in groups of 50 or more, crammed into one house or apartment," said Mr Rahma. "The rules also state that there must be at least one bathroom for every five people (..) there have also been cases in which young children have been sexually molested."[46] Bahrain Centre for Human Rights issued a press release condemning this decision as discriminatory and promoting negative racist attitudes towards migrant workers.[45][47] Nabeel Rajab, then BCHR vice president, said: "It is appalling that Bahrain is willing to rest on the benefits of these people’s hard work, and often their suffering, but that they refuse to live with them in equality and dignity. The solution is not to force migrant workers into ghettos, but to urge companies to improve living conditions for workers – and not to accommodate large numbers of workers in inadequate space, and to improve the standard of living for them."[45][47] Canada Since the 1970s, there has been a concern expressed by some academics that major Canadian cities are becoming more segregated on income and ethnic lines. Reports have indicated that the inner suburbs of post-merger Toronto[48] and the southern bedroom communities of Greater Vancouver[48] have become steadily more immigrant and visible minority dominated communities and have lagged behind other neighbourhoods in average income. A CBC panel in Vancouver in 2012 discussed the growing public fear that the proliferation of ethnic enclaves in Greater Vancouver (such as Han Chinese in Richmond and Punjabis in Surrey) amounted to a type of self-segregation. In response to these fears, many minority activists have pointed out that most Canadian neighbourhoods remain predominately White, and yet Whites are never accused of "self-segregation". The Mohawk tribe of Kahnawake has been criticized for evicting non-Mohawks from the Mohawk reserve.[49] Mohawks who marry outside of their race lose their right to live in their homelands.[50][51] The Mohawk government claims that its policy of racially exclusive membership is for the preservation of its identity,[52] but there is no exemption for those who adopt Mohawk language or culture.[50] The policy is based on a 1981 moratorium which was made law in 1984.[53] All interracial couples are sent eviction notices regardless of how long they have lived on the reserve.[51] The only exemption is for interracial couples married before the 1981 moratorium. Although some concerned Mohawk citizens contested the racially-exclusive membership policy, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the Mohawk government may adopt policies it deems necessary to ensure the survival of its people.[52] A long standing practice of segregation has also been imposed upon the commercial salmon fishery in British Columbia since 1992 when separate commercial fisheries were created for select aboriginal groups on three B.C. river systems. Canadians of other races who fish in the separate fisheries have been arrested, jailed and prosecuted. Although the fishermen who were prosecuted were successful at trial (see the decision in R. v. Kapp),[54] the decision was overturned on appeal.[55] On final appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the program on the grounds that segregation of this workplace is a step towards equality in Canada.[citation needed] Affirmative action programs in Canada are protected from equality rights challenges by s. 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Segregation continues today, but more than 35%of the fishermen in the BC commercial fishery are of aboriginal ancestry, yet Canadians of aboriginal ancestry comprise less than 4% of BC's population.[citation needed] Until 1948, Canada also systematically forced First Nations children to attend Canadian Indian residential school system in order to disconnect them from their indigenous language and culture. Fiji This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007) Two military coups in Fiji in 1987 removed a democratically elected government led by an Indo Fijian,.[56] The coup was supported principally by the Ethnic Fijian population. A new constitution was promulgated in 1990, establishing Fiji as a republic, with the offices of President, Prime Minister, two-thirds of the Senate, and a clear majority of the House of Representatives reserved for ethnic Fijians, Ethnic Fijian ownership of the land was also entrenched in the constitution.[57] Fiji's case is a situation of de facto ethnic segregation.[58] Fiji has a long complex history with more than 3500 years as a divided tribal nation. Unification under the British rule as a colony for 96 years brought other racial groups, particularly immigrants from the Indian sub-continent. Israel See also: Racism in Israel and Israel and the apartheid analogy A barrier gate at Bil'in, West Bank, 2006 Israeli Declaration of Independence proclaims equal rights to all citizens regardless of ethnicity, denomination or race. Israel has a substantial list of laws that demand racial equality (such as prohibition of discrimination, equality in Employment, libel based on race or ethnicity.[59]). In 2010, the Israeli supreme court sent a message against racial segregation in a case involving the Slonim Hassidic sect of the Ashkenazi Jews, ruling that segregation between Ashkenazi and Sephardi students in a school is illegal.[60] They argue that they seek "to maintain an equal level of religiosity, not from racism."[61] Responding to the charges, the Slonim Haredim invited Sephardi girls to school, and added in a statement: “All along, we said it's not about race, but the High Court went out against our rabbis, and therefore we went to prison."[62] Due to many cultural differences, and animosity towards a minority perceived to wish to annihilate Israel, a system of passively co-existing communities, segregated along ethnic lines has emerged in Israel, with Arab-Israeli minority communities being left "marooned outside the mainstream". A 2007 poll commissioned by the Center Against Racism (2008) found a worsening of Jewish citizens' perceptions of their Arab counterparts:[63] For instance, 75% of Israeli Jews would not agree to live in a building with Arab residents, 60% would not accept any Arab visitors at their homes, 40% believed that Arabs should be stripped of their right to vote, and 59% believe that the culture of Arabs is primitive.[63] In 2012, a public opinion poll showed that 53% of the polled Israeli Jews said they would not object to an Arab living in their building, while 42% said they would. Asked whether they would object to Arab children being in their child’s class in school, 49% said they would not, 42% said they would.[64][65] The secular Israeli public was found to be the most tolerant, while the religious and Haredi respondents were most discriminatory in their opinions.[65] Malaysia Main articles: Bumiputra and Ketuanan Melayu Malaysia has an article in its constitution which distinguishes the ethnic Malays and indigenous peoples of Malaysia—i.e. bumiputra—from the non-Bumiputra such as ethnic Chinese and Indians under the social contract, of which by law would guarantee the former certain special rights and privileges. To question these rights and privileges however is strictly prohibited under the Internal Security Act, legalised by the 10th Article(IV) of the Constitution of Malaysia.[66] The privileges mentioned herein covers—few of which—the economical and education aspects of Malaysians, e.g. the Malaysian New Economic Policy; an economic policy recently criticised by Thierry Rommel—who headed a European Commission's delegation to Malaysia—as an excuse for "significant protectionism"[67][68] and a quota maintaining higher access of Malays into public universities. While legal racial segregation in daily life is not practiced, self-segregation does exist. Mauritania Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007[69] It was already abolished in 1980 though it was still affecting the descendants of black Africans abducted into slavery before generations, who live now in Mauritania as "black Moors" or haratin and who partially still serve the "white Moors", or bidhan (the name means literally white-skinned people), as slaves. The number of slaves in the country was not known exactly, but is was estimated to be up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population.[70][71] For centuries, the so-called Haratin lower class, mostly poor black Africans living in rural areas, have been considered natural slaves by white Moors of Arab/Berber ancestry. Many descendants of the Arab and Berber tribes today still adhere to the supremacist ideology of their ancestors. This ideology has led to oppression, discrimination and even enslavement of other groups in the region of Sudan and Western Sahara.[72][73] In certain villages in Mauritania there are mosques for lighter-skinned nobles and mosques for black slaves, who are still buried in separate cemeteries.[74] United Kingdom The United Kingdom has no legally sanctioned system of racial segregation and has a substantial list of laws that demand racial equality. However, due to many cultural differences between the pre-existing system of passively co-existing communities, segregation along racial lines has emerged in parts of the United Kingdom, with minority communities being left "marooned outside the mainstream”.[75] The affected and ‘ghettoised’ communities are often largely representative of Pakistanis, Indians and other Sub-Continentals as well as Afro-Caribbeans and other blacks, with skin colour often being a determinant, although the percentage of the United Kingdom's working and poorer class is predominantly white[citation needed]. Such racial segregation has widely been thought to be the basis of growing ethnic tensions, a measurable deterioration in race relations in poorer areas, a deterioration of the standard of living, and levels of education and employment among ethnic minorities in poorer areas. In addition to this, it [racial segregation] is considered by some as being a main precursor to the recent race riots.[76][77] Most British commentators claim it is false that the riots were due to a breakdown of multiculturalism alone, and instead claim that it is more likely to have been caused by other factors such as disillusioned youth, high unemployment and a growing attraction to 'gangsta' culture[clarification needed] by a sizeable proportion of the youth, across all ethnicities, of the United Kingdom.[citation needed] There may be some indication that such segregation, particularly in residential terms, seems to be the result of the unilateral ‘steering’ of ethnic groups into particular areas as well as a culture of vendor discrimination and distrust of ethnic minority clients by some estate agents and other property professionals.[78] This may be indicative of a market preference amongst the more wealthy to reside in areas of less ethnic mixture; less ethnic mixture being perceived as increasing the value and desirability of a residential area. This is likely as other theories such as “ethnic self segregation” have sometimes been shown to be baseless, and a majority of ethnic respondents to a few surveys on the matter have been in favour of wider social and residential integration.[77] United States of America De facto segregation in the United States has increased since the civil rights era in the United States.[79] The Supreme Court ruled in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) that de facto racial segregation was acceptable, as long as schools were not actively making policies for racial exclusion; since then, schools have been segregated due to myriad indirect factors.[79] Redlining is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services, such as banking, insurance, access to jobs,[80] access to health care,[81] or even supermarkets[82] to residents in certain, often racially determined,[83] areas. The most devastating form of redlining, and the most common use of the term, refers to mortgage discrimination. Over the next twenty years, a succession of further court decisions and federal laws, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and measure to end mortgage discrimination in 1975, would completely invalidate de jure racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S., although de facto segregation and discrimination have proven more resilient. According to the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, the actual de facto desegregation of U.S. public schools peaked in the late 1980s; since that time, the schools have, in fact, become more segregated mainly due to the ethnic segregation of the nation with whites dominating the suburbs and minorities the urban centers. According to Rajiv Sethi, an economist at Columbia University, black-white segregation in housing is slowly declining for most metropolitan areas in the US[84] Racial segregation or separation can lead to social, economic and political tensions.[85] Thirty years (the year 2000) after the civil rights era, the United States remained in many areas a residentially segregated society, in which blacks, whites and Hispanics inhabit different neighborhoods of vastly different quality.[86][87][88] 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.[89] Gregory D. Squires wrote in 2003 that it is clear that race has long affected and continues to affect the policies and practices of the insurance industry.[90] Workers living in American inner cities have a harder time finding jobs than suburban workers.[91] The desire of many whites to avoid having their children attend integrated schools has been a factor in white flight to the suburbs.[92] A 2007 study in San Francisco showed that groups of homeowners of all races tended to self-segregate in order to be with people of the same education level and race.[93] 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.[94] 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.[95] These higher rents are largely attributable to exclusionary zoning policies that restrict the supply of housing. Regulations ensure that all housing units are expensive enough to prevent access by undesirable groups. By bidding up the price of housing, many white neighborhoods effectively shut out blacks, because blacks are unwilling, or unable, to pay the premium to buy entry into these expensive neighborhoods. Conversely, equivalent housing in black neighborhoods is far more affordable to those who are unable or unwilling to pay a premium to live in white neighborhoods. Through the 1990s, residential segregation remained at its extreme and has been called "hypersegregation" by some sociologists or "American Apartheid"[96] In February 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. California 543 U.S. 499 (2005) that the California Department of Corrections' unwritten practice of racially segregating prisoners in its prison reception centers – which California claimed was for inmate safety (gangs in California, as throughout the U.S., usually organize on racial lines)— is to be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review. Yemen See also Castes in Yemen In Yemen, the Arab elite practices a form of discrimination against the lower class Akhdam people based on their racial system.[97] Segregation is separation of humans into racial groups in daily life. It may apply to activities such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a public toilet, attending school, going to the movies, riding on a bus, or in the rental or purchase of a home.[1] Segregation itself is defined by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as "the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds without an objective and reasonable justification, in conformity with the proposed definition of discrimination. As a result, the voluntary act of separating oneself from other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds does not constitute segregation".[2] According to the UN Forum on Minority Issues, "The creation and development of classes and schools providing education in minority languages should not be considered impermissible segregation, if the assignment to such classes and schools is of a voluntary nature".[3] Racial segregation is generally outlawed, but may exist through social norms, even when there is no strong individual preference for it, as suggested by Thomas Schelling's models of segregation and subsequent work.[4] Segregation may be maintained by means ranging from discrimination in hiring and in the rental and sale of housing to certain races to vigilante violence (such as lynchings) Generally, a situation that arises when members of different races mutually prefer to associate and do business with members of their own race would usually be described as separation or de facto separation of the races rather than segregation. In the United States, legal segregation was required in some states and came with "anti-miscegenation laws" (prohibitions against interracial marriage).[5] Segregation, however, often allowed close contact in hierarchical situations, such as allowing a person of one race to work as a servant for a member of another race. Segregation can involve spatial separation of the races, and mandatory use of different institutions, such as schools and hospitals by people of different races. |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 21:24 , Processed in 0.124865 second(s), 16 queries .
