Hubbry Logo
Racial segregationRacial segregationMain
Open search
Racial segregation
Community hub
Racial segregation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Racial segregation
Racial segregation
from Wikipedia

African-American man drinking from a "Colored" water cooler in streetcar terminal, Oklahoma City, July 1939

Racial segregation is the separation of people into racial or other ethnic groups in daily life. Segregation can involve the spatial separation of the races, and mandatory use of different institutions, such as schools and hospitals by people of different races. Specifically, it may be applied to activities such as eating in restaurants, drinking from water fountains, using public toilets, attending schools, going to movie theaters, riding buses, renting or purchasing homes, renting hotel rooms, going to supermarkets, or attending places of worship.[1] In addition, segregation often allows close contact between members of different racial or ethnic groups in hierarchical situations, such as allowing a person of one race to work as a servant for a member of another race. Racial segregation has generally been outlawed worldwide.

Segregation 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 people 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 can amount to the international crime of apartheid and a crime against humanity under the 2002 Rome Declaration of Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Historic cases from ancient times to the 1960s

[edit]

Racial segregation was often used to secure the advantages enjoyed by a certain dominant group, e.g. "various conquerors—among them Asian Mongols, African Bantu, and American Aztecs". In recent times, it was mostly imposed by white groups.[4]

Imperial China

[edit]

Tang dynasty

[edit]
Ethnic Han were banned from forming relationships with Sogdians, depicted here on the Anyang funerary bed, circa 567/573.

Several laws which enforced racial segregation of foreigners from Chinese were passed by the Han Chinese during the Tang dynasty.[citation needed] In 779, the Tang dynasty issued an edict which forced Uyghurs to wear their ethnic dress, stopped them from marrying Han Chinese females, and banned them from pretending to be Han Chinese.[5] 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.[5] 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.[6][7]

Qing dynasty

[edit]
Han and Manchu people depicted together in separate styles of clothing

The Qing dynasty was founded not by Han Chinese, who form the majority of the Chinese population, but by Manchus, who are today an ethnic minority of China. The Manchus were keenly aware of their minority status, however, it was only later in the dynasty that they banned intermarriage.

Han defectors played a massive role in the Qing conquest of China. Han Chinese Generals of the Ming Dynasty who defected to the Manchu were often given women from the Imperial Aisin Gioro family in marriage while the ordinary soldiers who defected were given non-royal Manchu women as wives. The Manchu leader Nurhaci married one of his granddaughters to the Ming General Li Yongfang after he surrendered Fushun in Liaoning to the Manchu in 1618.[8][9] Jurchen (Manchu) women married most of the Han Chinese defectors in Liaodong.[10] Aisin Gioro women were married to the sons of the Han Chinese Generals Sun Sike (Sun Ssu-k'o), Geng Jimao (Keng Chi-mao), Shang Kexi (Shang K'o-hsi), and Wu Sangui (Wu San-kuei).[11]

A mass marriage of Han Chinese officers and officials to Manchu women numbering 1,000 couples was arranged by Prince Yoto and Hongtaiji in 1632 to promote harmony between the two ethnic groups.[8]

Geng Zhongming, a Han bannerman, was awarded the title of Prince Jingnan, and his son Geng Jingmao managed to have both his sons Geng Jingzhong and Geng Zhaozhong become court attendants under Shunzhi and marry Aisin Gioro women, with Haoge's (a son of Hong Taiji) daughter marrying Geng Jingzhong and Prince Abatai's (Hong Taiji) granddaughter marrying Geng Zhaozhong.[12]

The Qing differentiated between Han Bannermen and ordinary Han civilians. Han Bannermen were made out of Han Chinese who defected to the Qing up to 1644 and joined the Eight Banners, giving them social and legal privileges in addition to being acculturated to Manchu culture. So many Han defected to the Qing and swelled the ranks of the Eight Banners that ethnic Manchus became a minority within the Banners, making up only 16% in 1648, with Han Bannermen dominating at 75%.[13][14][15] It was this multi-ethnic force in which Manchus were only a minority, which conquered China for the Qing.[16]

It was Han Chinese Bannermen who were responsible for the successful Qing conquest of China, they made up the majority of governors in the early Qing and were the ones who governed and administered China after the conquest, stabilizing Qing rule.[17] Han Bannermen dominated the post of governor-general in the time of the Shunzhi and Kangxi Emperors, and also the post of governors, largely excluding ordinary Han civilians from the posts.[18]

To promote ethnic harmony, a 1648 decree from the Manchu Shunzhi Emperor allowed Han Chinese civilian men to marry Manchu women from the Banners with the permission of the Board of Revenue if they were registered daughters of officials or commoners or the permission of their banner company captain if they were unregistered commoners, it was only later in the dynasty that these policies allowing intermarriage were done away with.[19][20]

The Qing implemented a policy of segregation between the Bannermen of the Eight Banners (Manchu Bannermen, Mongol Bannermen, Han Bannermen) and Han Chinese civilians[when?]. This ethnic segregation had cultural and economic reasons: intermarriage was forbidden to keep up the Manchu heritage and minimize sinicization. Han Chinese civilians and Mongol civilians were banned from settling in Manchuria.[21] Han civilians and Mongol civilians were banned from crossing into each other's lands. Ordinary Mongol civilians in Inner Mongolia were banned from even crossing into other Mongol Banners (a banner in Inner Mongolia was an administrative division and not related to the Mongol Bannermen in the Eight Banners).

These restrictions did not apply to Han Bannermen, who were settled in Manchuria by the Qing. Han bannermen were differentiated from Han civilians by the Qing and treated differently.

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. Manchu Bannermen, Han Bannermen, and Mongol Bannermen were separated from the Han civilian population. 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 civilian 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.

Colonial societies

[edit]

Belgian Congo

[edit]

From 1952, and even more so after the triumphant visit of King Baudouin to the colony in 1955, Governor-General Léon Pétillon (1952–1958) worked to create a "Belgian-Congolese community", in which Black and White people were to be treated as equals.[22] Regardless, anti-miscegenation laws remained in place, and between 1959 and 1962 thousands of mixed-race Congolese children were forcibly deported from the Congo by the Belgian government and the Catholic Church and taken to Belgium.[23]

French Algeria

[edit]

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".[24] 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".[25] Camille Bonora-Waisman writes that "in contrast with the Moroccan and Tunisian protectorates", this "colonial apartheid society" was unique to Algeria.[26]

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 and ensuing independence war.[27]

Rhodesia

[edit]
Land apportionment in Rhodesia in 1965

The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 passed in Southern Rhodesia (now known as Zimbabwe) was a segregationist measure that governed land allocation and acquisition in rural areas, making distinctions between Blacks and Whites.[28]

One highly publicised 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".

Uganda

[edit]
Idi Amin, pictured shortly after the expulsion

After the end of British rule in 1962, Indian people living in Uganda existed in segregated ethnic communities with their own schools and healthcare.[29] Indians constituted 1% of the population but earned a fifth of the national income and controlled 90% of the country's businesses.[30][31]

In 1972, the President of Uganda Idi Amin ordered the expulsion of the country's Indian minority with disastrous consequences for the local economy. The government confiscated some 5,655 firms, ranches, farms, and agricultural estates, along with cars, homes and other household goods.[32]

Religious and racial antisemitism

[edit]

Jews in Europe were generally forced, by decree or by informal pressure, to live in highly segregated ghettos and shtetls.[33] In 1204, the papacy required Jews to segregate themselves from Christians and it also required them to wear distinctive clothing.[34] Forced segregation of Jews spread throughout Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries.[35] In the Russian Empire, Jews were restricted to the so-called Pale of Settlement, the Western frontier of the Russian Empire which roughly corresponds to the modern-day countries of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.[36] By the early 20th century, the majority of Europe's Jews lived in the Pale of Settlement.

From the beginning of the 15th century, Jewish populations in Morocco were confined to mellahs. In cities, a mellah was surrounded by a wall with a fortified gateway. In contrast, rural mellahs were separate villages whose sole inhabitants were Jews.[37]

In the middle of the 19th century, J. J. Benjamin wrote about the lives 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.[38]

On 16 May 1940 in Norway, the Administrasjonsrådet asked the Rikskommisariatet why radio receivers had been confiscated from Jews in Norway.[39] That Administrasjonsrådet thereafter "quietly" accepted[39] 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 arrested citizens at the addresses where radios had previously been confiscated from Jews.[39]

Fascist Italy

[edit]

In 1938, under pressure from the Nazis, the fascist regime, which was led by Benito Mussolini, passed a series of racial laws which instituted an official segregationist policy in the Italian Empire, this policy was especially directed against Italian Jews. This policy enforced various segregationist norms, like the laws which banned Jews from teaching or studying in ordinary schools and universities, banned Jews from owning industries that were reputed to be very important to the nation, banned Jews from working as journalists, banned Jews from joining the military, and banned Jews from marrying non-Jews. As an immediate consequence of the introduction of the 'provvedimenti per la difesa della razza' (norms for the defence of the race), many of the best Italian scientists quit their jobs, and some of them also left Italy. Amongst these scientists were the internationally-known 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. Upon the passage of the racial law, Albert Einstein cancelled his honorary membership in the Accademia dei Lincei.

After 1943, when Northern Italy was occupied by the Nazis, Italian Jews were rounded up during the Holocaust by Nazis and Nazi collaborators, with a significant portion being killed.

Nazi Germany

[edit]
"Nur für deutsche Fahrgäste" ("Only for German passengers") on the tram number 8 in German-occupied Kraków, Poland

German praise for America's system of institutional racism, which was expressed in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, was continuous throughout the early 1930s.[40] The U.S. was the global leader of codified racism, and its race laws fascinated the Germans.[40] The National Socialist Handbook for Law and Legislation of 1934–35, edited by Hitler's lawyer Hans Frank, contains a pivotal essay by Herbert Kier on the recommendations for race legislation which devoted a quarter of its pages to U.S. legislation—from segregation, race-based citizenship, immigration regulations, and anti-miscegenation.[40] This directly inspired the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law.[40] The ban on interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation) 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".[41][42][43] Aryans found guilty could face incarceration in a Nazi concentration camp, while non-Aryans could face the death penalty.[44] 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).[45]

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 the Polish people's identity, they attempted to establish ethnic divisions of Kashubians and Gorals (Goralenvolk), based on these groups' alleged "Germanic component".

During the 1930s and 1940s, Jews in Nazi-controlled states were forced to wear something that identified them as Jewish, such as a yellow ribbon or a star of David, and along with Romas (Gypsies), they were subjected to discrimination by the racial laws. Jewish doctors were not allowed to treat Aryan patients and Jewish professors were not permitted to teach Aryan pupils. In addition, Jews were not allowed to use any form of public transportation, besides the ferry, and they were only allowed to shop in Jewish stores from 3–5 pm. After Kristallnacht ("The Night of Broken Glass"), the Jews were fined 1,000,000,000 ℛ︁ℳ︁ for the damage which was done by Nazi troops and SS members.

Women behind the barbed wire fence of the Lwów Ghetto in occupied Poland, Spring 1942

Jews, Poles, and Roma were subjected to genocide as "undesirable" racial groups in The Holocaust. The Nazis established ghettos in order to confine Jews and sometimes, they confined Romas in 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 Łódź Ghetto was the second largest, holding about 160,000.[46]

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).[47][48] Although Nazi Germany also used forced laborers from Western Europe, Poles, along with other Eastern Europeans viewed as racially inferior,[49] 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.[50]

Other countries

[edit]

Canada

[edit]

Racial segregation was widespread and deeply imbedded into the fabric of Canadian society prior to the Canadian constitution of 1982. Multiple court decisions, including one from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1939, upheld racial segregation as valid. The last black specifically segregated school closed in Ontario in 1965, while the last black specifically segregated school closed in Nova Scotia in 1983. The last racially segregated Indigenous school closed in 1996 in Saskatchewan.[51]

Canada has had multiple white only neighbourhoods and cities, white only public spaces, stores, universities, hospitals, employment, restaurants, theatres, sports arenas and universities. Though the black population in Canada was significantly less than the black population in the United States, severe restrictions on black people existed in all forms, particularly in immigration, employment access and mobility. Unlike in the United States, racial segregation in Canada applied to all non-whites and was historically enforced through laws, court decisions and social norms with a closed immigration system that barred virtually all non-whites from immigrating until 1962. Section 38 of the 1910 Immigration Act permitted the government to prohibit the entry of immigrants "belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada, or of immigrants of any specified class, occupation or character."[51]

Racial segregation practices extended to many areas of employment in Canada. Black men and women in Quebec were historically relegated to the service sector regardless of their educational attainment. White business owners and even provincial and federal government agencies often did not hire black people, with explicit rules preventing their employment. When the labour movement took hold in Canada near the end of the 19th century, workers began organizing and forming trade unions with the aim of improving the working conditions and quality of life for employees. However, black workers were systematically denied membership to these unions, and worker's protection was reserved exclusively for whites.[51]

South Africa

[edit]
"Apartheid": sign on Durban beach in English, Afrikaans and Zulu, 1989

The apartheid system carried out by Afrikaner minority rule enacted a nationwide social policy "separate development" with the National Party victory in the 1948 general election, 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 areas, 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 South Africans 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 League 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.[52] 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. Despite this, the legacy of apartheid and segregationism is still ongoing to this day in South Africa with high racial inequality in post-apartheid South Africa.

United States

[edit]

In the United States, racial segregation was mandated by law in some states and enforced along with anti-miscegenation laws (prohibitions against interracial marriage), until the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren struck down racial segregation.[53][54][55][56][57]

After the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing Slavery in the United States, Jim Crow laws were introduced to codify racial discrimination. The laws mandated strict segregation of the races. Though many of these laws were passed shortly after the Civil War ended, they only became formalized after the end of the Reconstruction era in 1877. The period that followed the Reconstruction era is known as the nadir of American race relations.

Colored Sailors room in World War I

While the U.S. Supreme Court majority in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case explicitly permitted "separate but equal" facilities (specifically, transportation facilities), Justice John Marshall Harlan, in his dissent, protested that the decision 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."[58]

Elected in 1912, President Woodrow Wilson tolerated the extension of segregation throughout the federal government that was already underway.[59] In World War I, Blacks were drafted and served in the United States Army in segregated units.[60] The U.S. military was still heavily segregated in World War II. The air force and the marines had no Blacks enlisted in their ranks. There were Blacks in the Navy Seabees. The army had only five African-American officers.[61] In addition, no African-American would receive the Medal of Honor during the war, and their tasks in the war were largely reserved to noncombat units. Black soldiers had to sometimes give up their seats in trains to the Nazi prisoners of war.[61]

A club which was central to the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, the Cotton Club in Harlem, New York City was a whites-only establishment, where Blacks (such as Duke Ellington) were allowed to perform, but they were only allowed to perform in front of a white audience.[62] In the reception to honor his success at the 1936 Summer Olympics, Jesse Owens was not permitted to enter through the main doors of the Waldorf Astoria New York and instead forced to travel up to the event in a freight elevator.[63]

The first black Academy Award recipient, actress Hattie McDaniel, was not permitted to attend the premiere of Gone with the Wind at Loew's Grand Theatre in Atlanta because of Georgia's segregation laws. During the 12th Academy Awards ceremony at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, McDaniel was required to sit at a segregated table at the far wall of the room; the hotel had a no-blacks policy, but allowed McDaniel in as a favor.[64] Her final wish to be buried in Hollywood Forever Cemetery was denied because the graveyard was restricted to Whites only.[64]

On 11 September 1964, John Lennon announced the Beatles would not play to a segregated audience in Jacksonville, Florida.[65] City officials relented following this announcement.[65] A contract for a 1965 Beatles concert at the Cow Palace in California specifies that the band "not be required to perform in front of a segregated audience".[65]

American sports were racially segregated until the mid-twentieth century. In baseball, the "Negro leagues" were established by Rube Foster for non-white players, such as Negro league baseball, which ran through the early 1950s.[66] In basketball, the Black Fives (all-black teams) were established in 1904, and emerged in New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and other cities. Racial segregation in basketball lasted until 1950 when the NBA became racially integrated.[67]

White tenants seeking to prevent Blacks from moving into the housing project erected this sign. Detroit, 1942.

Many U.S. states banned interracial marriage, with Maryland passing the first anti-miscegenation law in 1691.[68] Though opposed to slavery in the U.S., Abraham Lincoln stated during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858:

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race".[69]

Likewise, when former president Harry S. Truman was asked by a reporter in 1963 if interracial marriage would become widespread in the U.S., he responded, "I hope not; I don’t believe in it", before asking a question often aimed at anyone advocating racial integration: "Would you want your daughter to marry a Negro? She won't love someone who isn't her color."[70]

In 1958, Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were prosecuted in Virginia because their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as white and people classified as "colored" (persons of non-white ancestry).[71][72] Although their one-year prison sentence was suspended, in 1963 they sought the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an appeal on their behalf that eventually found its way to the United States Supreme Court. In 1967 the court issued a historic ruling in Loving v. Virginia that invalidated all laws prohibiting interracial marriage in the U.S.[73]

Rosa Parks being fingerprinted after being arrested for not giving up her seat on the bus to a white person

Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice during the civil rights movement by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Clarence M. Mitchell Jr., Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and James Farmer working for social and political freedom during the period from the end of World War II through the Interstate Commerce Commission desegregation order of 1961, the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 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 under Chief Justice Earl Warren, and by 1970 support for formal legal segregation had dissolved.[74][75] The Warren Court's decision on landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954 outlawed segregation in public schools, and its decision on Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States in 1964 prohibits racial segregation and discrimination in public institutions and public accommodations.[76][77][78] 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 became illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. However, implicit racism continues to this day through avenues like occupational segregation.[79] In recent years, there has been a trend that reverses those efforts to desegregate schools made by those mandatory school desegregation orders.[80]

Historic cases (1970s to present)

[edit]

Bahrain

[edit]

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, Nasser Fadhala, MP, a close ally of the government, said "bachelors also use these houses to make alcohol, run prostitute rings or to rape children and housemaids".[81]

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."[82]

Bahrain Centre for Human Rights issued a press release condemning this decision as discriminatory and promoting negative racist attitudes towards migrant workers.[81][83] 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."[81][83]

Canada

[edit]

Until 1965, racial segregation in schools, stores and most aspects of public life existed legally in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, and informally in other provinces such as British Columbia.[84]

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[85] and the southern bedroom communities of Greater Vancouver[85] 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 B.C. and Punjabis in Surrey, B.C.) 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 white people are never accused of "self-segregation".

The Mohawk tribe of Kahnawake has been criticized for evicting non-Mohawks from the Mohawk reserve.[86] Mohawks who marry outside of their tribal nation lose their right to live in their homelands.[87][88] The Mohawk government claims that its policy of nationally exclusive membership is for the preservation of its identity,[89] but there is no exemption for those who adopt Mohawk language or culture.[87] All interracial couples were sent eviction notices regardless of how long they have lived on the reserve.[88] The only exemption is for mixed national couples married before the 1981 moratorium. Although some concerned Mohawk citizens contested the nationally 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.[89]

A long-standing practice of national 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 nations who fish in the separate fisheries have been arrested, jailed and prosecuted. Although the fishermen who were prosecuted were successful at trial in R v Kapp,[90] this decision was overturned on appeal.[91]

Fiji

[edit]

Two military coups in Fiji in 1987 removed a democratically elected government led by Indo-Fijians.[92] This 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.[93] Most of these provisions were ended with the promulgation of the 1997 Constitution, although the President (and 14 of the 32 Senators) were still selected by the all-indigenous Great Council of Chiefs. The last of these distinctions were removed by the 2013 Constitution.[94]

Fiji's case is a situation of de facto racial segregation,[95] as Fiji has a long complex history of more than 3500 years as a divided tribal nation, with unification under 96 years of British rule also bringing other racial groups, particularly immigrants from the Indian subcontinent.

Hungary

[edit]

The racial segregation of Roma children in the Hungarian education system has been an ongoing issue since the 1990s. Over the past 20 years, there has been an increase in cases where Roma pupils have been placed in separate schools or classes. In a landmark strategic litigation case involving twenty-eight schools, Hungarian courts found that educational authorities had failed to intervene against discriminatory practices, thereby violating national equal treatment laws.[96][97] Similar cases have been documented across Hungary, with multiple courts ruling that schools and authorities violated equal treatment laws by creating or maintaining segregation.[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111]

Israel

[edit]
A barrier gate at Bil'in, West Bank, 2006

The 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).[112] There is however, in practice, significant institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens.[113]

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.[114] They argue that they seek "to maintain an equal level of religiosity, not from racism".[115] 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."[116]

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". This de facto segregation also exists between different Jewish ethnic groups ("edot") such as Sepharadim, Ashkenazim and Beta Israel (Jews of Ethiopian descent),[117] which leads to de facto segregated schools, housing and public policy. The government has embarked on a program to shut down such schools, in order to force integration, but some in the Ethiopian community complained that not all such schools have been closed.[118] In a 2007 poll commissioned by the Center Against Racism and conducted by the GeoCartographia Institute, 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.[119] 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.[120][121] The secular Israeli public was found to be the most tolerant, while the religious and Haredi respondents were the most discriminatory.

Some commentators have sought to find commonalities between apartheid in South Africa and the political situation in Israel. A system of apartheid, a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel proper. There is near-total physical separation between the Palestinian and the Israeli settler population of the West Bank, as well as the judicial separation that governs both communities, which discriminates against the Palestinians in a wide range of ways. Israel also discriminates against its own Palestinian citizens. Palestinians in the occupied territories live under military occupation and are progressively segregated, barred from freedom of movement, and discriminated against. After institutionalized segregation, Palestinians face eventual forced displacement of their homes by Israeli settlers at which point they barred from returning home, and the Palestinian areas becomes annexed into the Israeli state.[122][123][124]

Other commentators have sought to refute these allegations of apartheid. Palestinian citizens of Israel participate in elections (see List of Arab members of the Knesset) and members of the judiciary include Palestinians. The Supreme Court contains at least one Palestinian person. Jewish and Palestinian Israelis both attend colleges and universities in Israel. Hospital facilities in Israel treat all Israelis, regardless of religion or creed. Lastly, Jewish Israelis are in the majority in Israel proper, comprising some 73% of the population. These characteristics are not associated with a system of Apartheid.[125][126][127]

Kenya

[edit]

The end of British colonial rule in Kenya in 1964 led to an inadvertent increase in ethnic segregation. Through private purchases and government schemes, farmland previously held by European farmers was transferred to African owners. These farms were further sub-divided into smaller localities, and, due to joint migration, many adjacent localities were occupied by members of different ethnic groups.[128][pages needed] This separation along these boundaries persists today. Kimuli Kasara, in a study of recent ethnic violence in the wake of the disputed 2007-08 Kenyan elections, used these post-colonial boundaries as an instrument for the degree of ethnic segregation.[129] Through a 2 Stage Least Squares Regression analysis, Kasara showed that increased ethnic segregation in Kenya's Rift Valley Province is associated with an increase in ethnic violence.[129]

Liberia

[edit]

The Constitution of Liberia limits Liberian nationality to Negro people[130] (see also Liberian nationality law).

While Lebanese and Indian nationals are active in trading, as well as in the retail and service sectors, and Europeans and Americans work in the mining and agricultural sectors, these minority groups with long-tenured residence in the Republic are precluded from becoming citizens as a result of their race.[131]

Malaysia

[edit]
Thousands of Malaysian Malay bumiputeras protesting against the ratification of ICERD.

Malaysia has an article in its constitution which distinguishes the ethnic Malays and the non-ethnic Malays people—i.e. bumiputra—from the non-Bumiputra such as ethnic Chinese and Indians, among others, under the social contract, of which by law would guarantee the former certain special rights and privileges. To question these rights and privileges is strictly prohibited under the Internal Security Act (ISA), legalised by the 10th Article (IV) of the Constitution of Malaysia.[citation needed] In essence, non-Malays are treated as second-class citizens in Malaysia, facing many roadblocks and discrimination in matters such as economic freedom, education, healthcare and housing.[132]

Malaysia is also not a signatory of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), one of the only few countries in the world not to do so. A possible ratification in 2018 led to an anti-ICERD mass rally by Malay supremacists at the country's capital to prevent it, threatening a racial conflict if it does happen.[133]

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 criticised by Thierry Rommel, who headed a European Commission's delegation to Malaysia, as an excuse for "significant protectionism"[134][135] and a quota maintaining higher access of Malays into public universities.

Such racial segregation policies have caused significant rates of human capital flight (brain drain) from Malaysia. A study by Stanford University highlighted that among the main factors behind the Malaysian brain drain include social injustice. It stated that the high rates of emigration of non-bumiputera Malaysians from the country is driven by discriminatory policies that appear to favour Malays/Bumiputeras—such as providing exclusive additional assistance in starting businesses and educational opportunities.[136]

Mauritania

[edit]

Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007.[137] It was already abolished in 1980, although it was still affecting the black Africans. The number of slaves in the country was not known exactly, but it was estimated to be up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population.[138][139]

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.[140][141]

United Kingdom

[edit]

Although racial segregation was never made legal in the UK, pubs, workplaces, shops and other commercial premises operated a "colour bar" where non-white customers were banned from using certain rooms and facilities.[142] Segregation also operated in the 20th century in certain professions,[143] in housing and even at Buckingham Palace.[144] The colour bar in pubs was deemed illegal by the Race Relations Act 1965 but other institutions such as members' clubs could still bar people because of their race until a few years later.

The United Kingdom nowadays has no legally sanctioned system of racial segregation and has a substantial list of laws that demand racial equality.[145] 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".[146]

The affected and 'ghettoised' communities are often largely representative of Pakistanis, Indians and other Sub-Continentals, and has been thought to be the basis of ethnic tensions, and a deterioration of the standard of living and levels of education and employment among ethnic minorities in poorer areas. These factors are considered by some to have been a cause of the 2001 English race riots in Bradford, Oldham and Harehills in northern England which have large Asian communities.[147][148]

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.[149] 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.[148]

United States

[edit]

De facto segregation in the United States has increased since the civil rights movement, while official segregation has been outlawed.[150] 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.[150]

Redlining is part of how white communities in America maintained some level of racial segregation. It is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services, such as mortgages, banking, insurance, access to jobs,[151] access to health care, or even supermarkets[152] to residents in certain, often racially determined,[153] areas. The most effective form of redlining, and the practice most commonly meant by 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. According to Rajiv Sethi, an economist at Columbia University, black-white segregation in housing is slowly declining for most metropolitan areas in the US.[154] Racial segregation or separation can lead to social, economic and political tensions.[155] 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.[156][157][154]

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.[158] 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.[159] Workers living in American inner cities have a harder time finding jobs than suburban workers.[160]

Some academics have labeled the desire of many whites to avoid having their children attend academically inferior integrated schools as being a factor in "white flight" from the cities.[161] 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 economic status, education level and race.[162] By 1990, the legal barriers enforcing segregation had been mostly replaced, although today many white Americans are willing to pay a premium to live in a predominantly white neighborhood.[163] Equivalent housing in white areas commands a higher rent.[164] These higher rents are largely attributable to exclusionary zoning policies that restrict the supply of housing. Through the 1990s, residential segregation remained at its extreme and has been called "hypersegregation" by some sociologists or "American Apartheid".[165] 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.[166]

The Blaxit movement promotes the expatriation of African-American people to Africa or Europe for cultural, racial, and economic reasons, in an attempt to deal with historic segregation.[167]

Yemen

[edit]

In Yemen, the Arab elite practices a form of discrimination against the lower class Al-Akhdam people based on their racial characteristics.[168]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Racial segregation is the physical separation of people into distinct racial or ethnic groups across residential, educational, occupational, and public domains, often resulting from legal mandates, discriminatory practices, or individual preferences. This phenomenon has manifested both as de jure segregation, enforced by explicit laws and policies, and de facto segregation, arising from socioeconomic patterns, housing market dynamics, and voluntary sorting by racial groups. Historically, it has been a tool for maintaining social hierarchies in multiracial societies, with notable implementations in the United States through Jim Crow laws post-Reconstruction, which mandated separation in public facilities like transportation, schools, and drinking fountains under the "separate but equal" doctrine upheld by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In the United States, de jure segregation originated with Black Codes in the 1860s following emancipation, evolving into comprehensive state laws by the late that restricted interracial interactions and reinforced white dominance in the South, while de facto practices persisted nationwide through restrictive covenants and . Legal challenges culminated in the , leading to the overturning of school segregation in (1954) and the prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations via the , though residential segregation endures due to economic disparities and preferences. Globally, racial segregation appeared in systems like apartheid in , which institutionalized separation across all life spheres from 1948 to the early 1990s, and in colonial , where land allocation favored whites. Other examples include Nazi Germany's exclusionary policies against Jews and enforced separations in under targeting Asians. Empirical research indicates that high levels of racial segregation correlate with adverse outcomes, including reduced intergenerational mobility, poorer metrics, and concentrated for minority groups, particularly Black Americans, often mediated by unequal resource distribution and exposure to . However, segregation indices also reflect endogenous factors such as group preferences for cultural affinity and economic self-sorting, complicating attributions to alone. Despite legal prohibitions in many nations, segregation persists in urban areas worldwide, influencing social cohesion, , and economic opportunities through spatial isolation.

Definitions and Conceptual Framework

Legal segregation, or segregation, refers to the enforced separation of individuals by race through explicit statutory or constitutional provisions. In the United States, this manifested in laws such as those enacted in Southern states following the , mandating racial separation in public accommodations, transportation, and from the late until the mid-20th century. The Supreme Court's 1896 decision in upheld such measures under the "separate but equal" doctrine, permitting states to require distinct facilities for Black and white citizens provided they were ostensibly equivalent. This form of segregation was invalidated by in 1954, which ruled that state-enforced separation in schools violated the of the Fourteenth Amendment. In contrast, segregation describes racial separation arising from non-legal factors, such as socioeconomic disparities, residential preferences, and private market dynamics, rather than direct governmental mandate. This occurs, for instance, when population distributions lead to racially homogeneous neighborhoods due to income variations or individual choices in , resulting in segregated schools via geographic attendance zones without statutory racial classifications. Unlike de jure systems, de facto arrangements lack the intent of state action to segregate by race, though they may perpetuate imbalances; U.S. has distinguished them since the 1960s, holding that mere racial imbalance does not constitute a constitutional violation absent proof of discriminatory purpose. Historical analyses note that post-Brown efforts focused on dismantling legal barriers, yet de facto patterns endured, with 2020 data showing over 40% of Black students attending schools where they comprise at least 90% of enrollment, often tied to urban concentrations rather than explicit policy. The distinction carries significant remedial implications: segregation invites judicial intervention to compel integration, as seen in court-ordered busing in the , whereas cases require demonstrating intent for liability, complicating remedies and leading to claims that the boundary is often blurred by indirect public policies like or lending practices. Critics, including legal scholars, argue the label can obscure historical governmental contributions to residential patterns, such as Federal Housing Administration guidelines from the 1930s that discouraged integration, though these fell short of overt racial mandates. Empirically, voluntary factors like family proximity and economic sorting explain much persistent separation, with studies indicating that even absent barriers, racial groups often cluster due to cultural affinities and income gaps averaging $25,000 annually between white and Black households in 2022. This framework underscores that while systems are readily attributable to state culpability, outcomes reflect multifaceted causal chains beyond legislative fiat.

Historical and Theoretical Justifications

Historical justifications for racial segregation often invoked the preservation of social order and public peace following periods of upheaval, such as the U.S. Civil War and Reconstruction era (1865–1877), where Southern states enacted Black Codes and later Jim Crow laws to restrict interracial interactions and reassert white dominance. These measures were defended as necessary to prevent racial conflict and maintain stability in diverse societies, with proponents arguing that forced integration would exacerbate tensions rooted in perceived cultural and temperamental differences between groups. In the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, the majority opinion upheld Louisiana's railway segregation law under the "separate but equal" doctrine, reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause did not prohibit states from segregating races if facilities were substantively equivalent, as laws mandating separation did not inherently imply inferiority but rather accommodated natural social preferences for association with one's own race. This legal rationale, articulated by Justice Henry Billings Brown, emphasized that any stigma of inferiority arose from individual perceptions rather than the law itself, thereby providing constitutional cover for widespread de jure segregation until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In , apartheid's theoretical framework, formalized under Prime Minister from 1958 onward, portrayed segregation as "separate development" or apartheid—a policy of granting parallel autonomy to racial groups to foster their distinct national identities and prevent . , drawing from his background in and , justified this by claiming that Bantu tribes retained tribal affinities incompatible with white civilization, necessitating territorial homelands (Bantustans) for self-governance to avoid domination and conflict; he argued in parliamentary speeches that integration would lead to white minority subjugation, framing apartheid as a humanitarian safeguard for black rather than oppression. This rationale extended earlier colonial segregation policies, positioning racial partition as a pragmatic response to demographic realities and historical tribal divisions, though critics noted its roots in maintaining economic exploitation. Theoretical underpinnings frequently relied on and , pseudo-scientific ideologies emerging in the late that applied evolutionary principles to human societies, positing races as biologically hierarchical with fixed differences in intelligence, morality, and adaptability. Social Darwinists like argued that segregation aligned with "," preventing the dysgenic mixing of superior (e.g., European) and inferior races, which they claimed would dilute genetic stock and societal progress; this view influenced policies by framing non-intervention in racial stratification as . , popularized by in the , reinforced these ideas through advocacy for policies restricting reproduction and association across racial lines to preserve "fit" populations, with proponents citing and IQ data—later discredited—as evidence of innate disparities justifying isolation to avert national decline. Such theories permeated justifications in both American and South African contexts, where they merged with local racial anxieties to rationalize segregation as scientifically endorsed protection against degeneracy, despite lacking empirical rigor and being undermined by post-World War II genetic research demonstrating race as a social rather than strictly biological category.

Historical Origins and Early Examples

Ancient and Pre-Modern Instances

In ancient , the varna system, articulated in the around 1500–1200 BCE, divided society into four hereditary groups—Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and farmers), and Shudras (laborers)—originating from the and functioning as a mechanism of social separation based on birth and ancestral descent. These divisions enforced , occupational restrictions, and ritual hierarchies, with Shudras and later untouchables (avarnas) barred from higher sacred spaces, intermarriage, and full social participation, often residing in segregated village outskirts to avoid ritual pollution. Genetic analyses confirm that jati (sub-caste) solidified around 0–200 CE, preserving distinct ancestral components from Indo-European and indigenous South Asian populations, which contributed to persistent physical and genetic differentiation. In , following the conquest of during the (c. 743–724 BCE), the —descendants of the subjugated Messenians—comprised a hereditary servile class comprising perhaps 70% of the population, compelled to perform agricultural labor on lands owned by Spartan citizens while prohibited from owning property or bearing arms. This system maintained ethnic-cultural separation, as helots were ritually declared enemies annually via the ephors' war declaration, justifying surveillance, selective killings (krypteia), and restrictions on mobility, despite shared Hellenic ancestry with Spartans; helots lived in rural dependencies but were ideologically distinct to preserve Spartan military focus. During China's (1271–1368 CE), Mongol rulers under classified subjects into a four-tier ethnic : (ruling elite), (Central and West Asians like Uighurs and ), Han (northern Chinese), and Nan (southern Chinese), with differential legal codes, taxation burdens, and administrative privileges that segregated access to governance and military roles. Intermarriage across tiers was rare and discouraged, and residential patterns favored and settlements in urban centers, reinforcing ancestral distinctions between nomads and Han agrarians to consolidate conqueror dominance. Such pre-modern separations, while not framed in modern biological racial terms, relied on perceived immutable descent and physical markers to enforce hierarchical exclusion, differing from fluid ethnic assimilations in contemporaneous empires like .

Colonial and Imperial Developments

European colonial powers from the onward institutionalized racial segregation in their empires to enforce hierarchies of dominance, facilitate resource extraction, and prevent intermingling that could undermine European authority. These practices categorized subjects by perceived racial ancestry—typically prioritizing Europeans over , Africans, and Asians—and imposed restrictions on residence, , , and public facilities. Such segregation was justified through emerging pseudoscientific notions of racial inferiority, though primarily driven by pragmatic needs for labor control and social stability amid demographic imbalances where colonizers were minorities. In Iberian colonies, Spain's casta system in viceroyalties like New Spain (established 1535) and Peru classified populations into over a dozen endogamous categories based on mixtures of Spanish, indigenous, and African ancestry, such as peninsulares (Spain-born whites), criollos (American-born whites), mestizos (Spanish-indigenous), and mulatos (Spanish-African). Higher castes enjoyed legal privileges, including tax exemptions and access to offices, while lower ones faced discriminatory taxes (tributos) and residential quarantines in barrios segregated by race; by the late 18th century, administrative records and casta paintings documented these divisions, with inter-caste unions penalized to preserve "purity of blood" (limpieza de sangre) doctrines originating in medieval Spain. Portugal implemented analogous hierarchies in Brazil from the 1530s, where enslaved Africans (numbering over 4 million imported by 1850) were confined to plantations and urban quilombos were suppressed, though miscegenation blurred lines more than in Spanish realms. French colonies formalized segregation via the of 1685, decreed by for Caribbean islands like Saint-Domingue (modern ) and extended to by 1724; this 60-article code defined slaves as non-Christian blacks or mulattos, mandating their separation from whites in housing and prohibiting interracial marriages under penalty of exile, while requiring manumitted "" to carry passes and reside in designated areas. Enforcement aimed at , expelling and granting masters rights to punish slaves harshly, yet it inadvertently fostered a three-tier society—whites, free gens de couleur (who numbered 28,000 by 1789 in Saint-Domingue), and slaves (500,000)—with spatial divisions in ports like Cap-Français. The (VOC) introduced segregation at the from its founding in 1652 under , designating separate zones for European settlers, Khoikhoi pastoralists, and imported slaves from , , and (over 60,000 by 1800); free blacks (Vrijlieden) were restricted to urban fringes like Cape Town's , while commandos raided indigenous lands, displacing San hunter-gatherers and enforcing labor passes that prefigured later pass laws. British imperial expansion amplified these patterns: in after 1757, Europeans clustered in fortified "civil stations" and hill resorts like Simla (founded 1819) to avoid "native contamination," with the 1883 backlash exposing demands for judicial racial barriers; in Africa, post-1880s conquests reserved "white highlands" in (1902 Crown Lands Ordinance) for European farmers, barring Africans from ownership and confining them to reserves comprising just 7% of land by 1920. These colonial frameworks laid causal foundations for 20th-century systems by embedding racial categorization in and , often yielding economic efficiencies for empires—such as undivided European enclaves facilitating trade—but at the cost of indigenous displacement and revolts, like the 1791 triggered partly by segregated resentments. Empirical records from colonial archives reveal enforcement varied by locale, with looser mixing in tropical outposts versus rigid divides in settler colonies, reflecting adaptive realism over ideological purity.

Major 20th-Century De Jure Systems

United States Jim Crow Era

The Jim Crow era refers to the period of state and local laws enforcing racial segregation between and black Americans, primarily in the , from the end of federal Reconstruction in 1877 until the mid-1960s. These laws originated in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, building on Black Codes enacted by Southern states as early as 1865 to restrict the freedoms of newly emancipated slaves following the of the 13th . By the 1880s and 1890s, Southern legislatures formalized segregation through statutes mandating separation in public facilities, transportation, and , often justified as preserving social order amid white Democratic efforts to regain political control after the withdrew federal troops from the South. A pivotal legal endorsement came in the 1896 Supreme Court decision , which upheld a law requiring segregated railway cars and established the "" doctrine under the of the 14th Amendment. In practice, segregated facilities for blacks were systematically inferior in quality and funding, though the ruling permitted states to maintain racial separation as long as nominal equality was claimed. Examples of included mandates for separate schools, as in Mississippi's 1890 constitution requiring distinct public education systems for whites and blacks; prohibitions on , enacted in states like by 1870; and segregation of public spaces such as parks, theaters, and restrooms, with violations punishable by fines or imprisonment. Enforcement extended beyond statutes to extralegal violence, including lynchings by white mobs, which peaked in the with at least 161 victims documented in alone. Between 1877 and 1950, organizations like the have documented over 4,500 racial terror lynchings, often without and targeting blacks for perceived economic competition or social defiance. Groups such as the revived in the 1910s and 1920s further intimidated communities through intimidation and murder, supplementing legal mechanisms to uphold . These practices affected an estimated 10 Southern states most stringently, though similar customs existed in border states. The system persisted until challenged by federal legislation, with the prohibiting segregation in public accommodations and employment, effectively dismantling the legal framework of Jim Crow. Signed into law on July 2, 1964, by President , the Act followed Supreme Court precedents like (1954), which overturned school segregation, marking the gradual erosion of separation. Despite formal repeal, resistance through "" campaigns in Southern states delayed full implementation into the late 1960s.

South African Apartheid

Apartheid, meaning "apartness" in Afrikaans, was a policy of racial segregation formalized as state law in South Africa following the National Party's electoral victory on May 26, 1948, which brought to power a government committed to white supremacy and separation of racial groups. The system expanded pre-existing segregation practices into comprehensive legislation that classified South Africans into four racial categories—White, Black (Bantu), Coloured, and Indian—primarily based on appearance, ancestry, and social status, enforcing strict separation in residence, education, employment, public facilities, and political rights. This classification underpinned all apartheid measures, with the Population Registration Act of 1950 mandating registration and identity documentation tied to race, enabling enforcement of segregation and restricting interracial interactions. Central to residential segregation was the of 1950, which designated specific urban and rural areas for exclusive occupation by one racial group, leading to the forced removal of over 3.5 million non-whites from white-designated zones between 1950 and 1983, including the destruction of mixed communities like in . Educational segregation was institutionalized through the Bantu Education Act of 1953, which established a separate, government-controlled system for aimed at preparing them for manual labor rather than intellectual pursuits, with per-pupil spending on white education exceeding that for by a factor of 10 to 1 by the . Public amenities, transportation, and beaches were similarly divided, with pass laws under the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act of 1952 requiring non-whites to carry identification to enter white areas, criminalizing unauthorized presence and fueling labor control in mines and farms. Resistance to these segregation policies escalated in the 1960s and 1970s, marked by the Sharpeville Massacre on March 21, 1960, where police killed 69 unarmed Black protesters demonstrating against pass laws, prompting international condemnation and the UN's declaration of the day as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The on June 16, 1976, began as a against the imposition of as a in Black schools, resulting in over 600 deaths amid widespread riots that highlighted educational inequities and spread nationally, eroding domestic and global support for apartheid. These events, combined with and internal unrest, pressured the regime, leading President to unban the (ANC) and release on February 11, 1990, after 27 years of imprisonment. Negotiations between the National Party and ANC, formalized in the Convention for a Democratic (CODESA) in 1991, dismantled key apartheid laws, culminating in the first multiracial elections on April 26-29, 1994, won by the ANC with 62.65% of the vote, installing Mandela as president and formally ending institutionalized segregation. Empirically, apartheid's segregation entrenched economic disparities, with South Africans confined to underdeveloped "homelands" comprising 13% of land despite being 75% of the population, limiting access to industrial jobs and contributing to persistent rates post-1994, where GDP per capita in former white areas far exceeded townships. Studies indicate that forced resettlements under Group Areas policies reduced intergenerational and income in affected communities by up to 37%, with effects lingering into the due to disrupted networks and inferior schooling. While the system preserved white economic dominance—South Africa's GDP grew at an average 3.2% annually from 1948 to 1970—segregation stifled overall development, as evidenced by literacy rates lagging 20-30% behind whites by 1990, constraining broader gains.

Other Colonial and Post-Colonial Regimes

In British , racial segregation manifested through policies reserving prime land for white settlers, as enacted by the , which designated approximately 51% of arable land for the white minority comprising less than 5% of the population, while confining the African majority to overcrowded reserves comprising 42% of the territory. Job reservation laws further restricted Africans from skilled positions, and urban areas like enforced exclusion of Africans from white neighborhoods, with separate amenities and pass laws controlling movement. Following the in 1965 to preserve white minority rule, these practices persisted until the in 1979, marking a post-colonial extension of colonial-era segregation under the government. The implemented an implicit system of racial apartheid from 1908 to 1960, featuring segregated residential districts, social facilities, and employment hierarchies that barred Africans from senior roles while imposing curfews and identity cards on them. Colonial authorities systematically abducted and deported thousands of mixed-race () children to or mission schools to enforce racial purity and prevent , a policy recognized in by a court as constituting . This segregation extended to prohibiting interracial marriages and maintaining separate and healthcare systems, with whites occupying urban centers and Africans relegated to peripheral townships. In , colonial rule from the to 1975 enforced through forced labor codes (indigenato system until 1961) that subjected Africans to labor and restricted mobility, while mestizos and blacks faced barriers to and property ownership. in created musseques—overcrowded shantytowns for Africans—contrasting with white enclaves, despite official ideology of denying racial hierarchy; in practice, race determined access to power, , and jobs, with Africans comprising 98% of the yet holding minimal . Similar patterns prevailed in , where segregation underpinned economic exploitation until independence wars dismantled the regime. French Algeria exhibited de facto segregation between European settlers (pieds-noirs) and the Muslim Arab-Berber majority from 1830 to 1962, with Europeans dominating coastal cities and fertile lands while natives were confined to rural interiors or bidonvilles (slums) amid discriminatory codes limiting voting and land rights. Employment hierarchies favored Europeans, and social facilities remained separate, fueling resentment that contributed to the Algerian War of Independence, though lacking the explicit legislative framework of southern African systems. Post-colonial transitions in these territories often retained informal divisions due to entrenched economic disparities, but formal de jure segregation largely ended with independence, unlike prolonged minority-rule holdouts in Rhodesia.

Transition and Dismantling Efforts

Civil Rights Challenges in the United States

Following , momentum against racial segregation grew, beginning with President Harry Truman's on July 26, 1948, which mandated desegregation of the U.S. armed forces and established equality of treatment for all personnel regardless of race. This executive action, prompted by advocacy from Black veterans and civil rights groups, marked the first federal step toward dismantling military segregation, though full implementation faced resistance and occurred gradually during the . Legal challenges intensified through the NAACP's strategy of litigation, culminating in the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education on May 17, 1954, which declared state-enforced segregation in public schools unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson. The ruling emphasized that segregation generated feelings of inferiority in Black children, harming their educational and developmental opportunities. Southern political leaders responded with the Southern Manifesto, issued March 12, 1956, by 19 senators and 82 representatives from 11 Southern states, denouncing Brown as judicial overreach and pledging "massive resistance" through legal and extralegal means to preserve segregation. Grassroots activism emerged prominently with the from December 1, 1955, to December 20, 1956, sparked by ' arrest for refusing to yield her bus seat to a white passenger, leading over 40,000 Black residents to boycott the city's segregated transit system for 381 days. Organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association under Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the boycott ended after the upheld a federal district court ruling in that bus segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment, though participants faced bombings, arrests, and economic hardship. School desegregation efforts met fierce opposition, as seen in the Little Rock crisis of 1957, where Arkansas Governor deployed the to block nine Black students from entering Central High School; President Dwight Eisenhower responded with Executive Order 10730 on September 23, 1957, federalizing the Guard and deploying the to enforce integration amid mob violence. The early 1960s saw escalated nonviolent direct action, including the Freedom Rides of May 1961, organized by the (CORE), where interracial groups tested bans on segregation in interstate travel, facing firebombings in , and brutal beatings in Birmingham and Montgomery that drew national attention and prompted federal intervention via marshals and Robert Kennedy's enforcement of desegregated terminals. The of April-May 1963, led by and the (SCLC), involved protests against segregated public facilities; Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor's use of police dogs, fire hoses, and mass arrests—over 3,000, including children—on May 3-5 generated horrific media images that pressured city negotiations and influenced federal action. These efforts converged in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963, drawing an estimated 250,000 participants to advocate ending segregation and securing economic justice, highlighted by King's "" speech, which amplified pressure on . The resulting , signed by President on July 2, prohibited segregation in public accommodations, employment discrimination, and federally funded programs, following a 72-day and House passage on February 10, 1964. Voter suppression challenges persisted, culminating in the of 1965, including "Bloody Sunday" on March 7 when state troopers attacked 600 demonstrators, leading to the Voting Rights Act signed August 6, 1965, which suspended literacy tests and authorized federal oversight in discriminatory jurisdictions. Despite these legislative victories, implementation involved ongoing federal enforcement against local resistance, including violence like the 1963 assassination of NAACP leader Medgar Evers and the 1964 murders of activists Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner.

Global Anti-Segregation Movements and International Law

The foundations of international law against racial segregation were laid in the post-World War II era with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the on December 10, 1948, which in Article 2 stipulates that all individuals are entitled to its protections "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, [or] sex." This non-binding declaration influenced subsequent instruments by framing racial distinctions in rights and opportunities as antithetical to human dignity, though it lacked enforcement mechanisms and was often critiqued for its aspirational rather than prescriptive nature. A pivotal advancement came with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), adopted by the UN General Assembly via Resolution 2106 (XX) on December 21, 1965, and entering into force on January 4, 1969, after ratification by 27 states. ICERD defines racial discrimination broadly as any distinction, exclusion, or preference based on race, color, descent, or national/ethnic origin that impairs equality in political, economic, social, or cultural rights, obligating state parties to condemn and eliminate such practices through legislative and other measures. By 2023, 182 states had ratified it, though notable holdouts like the United States (ratified in 1994 with reservations limiting domestic applicability) highlight uneven global adherence. Complementing ICERD, the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid classified apartheid—South Africa's institutionalized racial segregation—as a crime against humanity, requiring states to prosecute perpetrators and cooperate internationally. Global anti-segregation movements gained traction amid and dynamics, often intertwining with broader anti-racism campaigns. The , targeting South Africa's racial separation policies enacted from 1948 onward, exemplifies this, evolving from domestic resistance into a transnational effort by the with boycotts of South African goods, sports, and cultural exchanges. The British , established in 1959 following the Massacre on March 21, 1960—where police killed 69 unarmed protesters—coordinated international advocacy, including pushes for that pressured over 100 multinational corporations to by the 1980s. Student-led campaigns proliferated globally, with U.S. universities committing over $3.6 billion in divestments from South Africa-linked holdings between 1985 and 1990, amplifying economic isolation. United Nations resolutions reinforced these movements, such as Resolution 1761 (XVII) on November 6, 1962, which condemned apartheid and recommended voluntary sanctions, marking the first UN call for economic measures against a for racial policies. Subsequent actions included Security Council Resolution 418 in 1977 imposing a mandatory , expanded in resolutions like 591 (1986) to cover dual-use technologies, contributing to South Africa's pariah status. These efforts, while symbolically potent, faced implementation challenges due to vetoes by Western powers and varying national interests, as evidenced by the UN Special Against Apartheid's reports documenting persistent trade despite resolutions. Parallel movements against segregation in other contexts, such as Rhodesia's 1969 land apportionment laws, drew similar international isolation, though less systematically enforced than against apartheid. Overall, these legal and activist frameworks advanced normative opposition to segregation but revealed gaps in causal efficacy, as non-ratifying states and weak monitoring bodies limited tangible dismantlement beyond high-profile cases like apartheid's end in 1994.

Contemporary De Facto and Persistent Forms

Residential and Educational Segregation in the West

In the United States, racial residential segregation has declined gradually since the late 20th century but remains substantial, with the median Black-White dissimilarity index for large metropolitan areas at 52.8 in 2020, down from 58.2 in 2010 and 71.2 in 1980. This measure indicates that about 53% of Blacks would need to relocate to achieve even distribution with Whites, reflecting persistent clustering driven by economic disparities, housing preferences, and historical patterns rather than formal barriers. Hispanic-White segregation has shown similar modest reductions, while Asian-White levels remain lower overall. In Europe, ethnic residential segregation levels are generally lower than in the U.S., though concentrated in urban areas with high non-European migrant populations, such as in French banlieues or Swedish suburbs, where multiscalar analyses reveal varying degrees of separation influenced by immigration waves and socioeconomic sorting. Educational segregation in Western countries mirrors residential patterns, as school assignments often tie to neighborhoods, exacerbating racial and ethnic divides. In the U.S., school-level racial segregation has intensified since the ; Black-White segregation rose 37% from 1991 to 2019 in large districts serving over 2,500 Black students, with Black students increasingly isolated in high-poverty schools. A 2022 Government Accountability Office report found that over one-third of students—approximately 18.5 million—attended schools where 75% or more were of one race or , including across public, , and systems. In , similar trends appear in countries like the and , where ethnic minority students, particularly from non-Western backgrounds, are overrepresented in underperforming urban schools, with segregation indices showing clustering tied to parental choice and residential enclaves rather than explicit policy. These patterns persist despite legal prohibitions, with attributing much of the separation to voluntary factors like income differences—Blacks and Hispanics have median household incomes 60-70% of White levels—and cultural affinities leading to self-sorting, as opposed to solely discriminatory practices often emphasized in academic narratives from left-leaning institutions. For instance, U.S. Census data from 2020 highlight slower segregation declines in metros like (index ~70) compared to areas, underscoring regional economic influences. In , post-2010 immigration has amplified ethnic concentrations without proportional integration, as seen in Denmark's lower non-European shares in dense areas versus Sweden's higher ones, per multicity studies. Such segregation correlates with divergent outcomes, though causal links require disentangling from confounders like family structure and prior achievement gaps.
MetricU.S. Black-White (2020)Trend Since 1990
Residential Dissimilarity Index (Median Metro)52.8Decline ~23%
School Segregation Increase (Large Districts, Black-White)+3.5 points (1991-2019)Rising
European data, while less standardized, indicate analogous persistence: in , minority ethnic groups face entrenched housing inequalities, with non-White British households twice as likely to rent substandard accommodations, feeding into school ethnic imbalances. Policy efforts like busing have waned, yielding to choice-based systems that amplify preferences for ethnocultural proximity, as evidenced by stable or increasing isolation in multiracial districts. This reality challenges narratives of inevitable convergence through antidiscrimination laws alone, pointing instead to underlying voluntary and structural drivers.

Ongoing Global Instances Post-2000

In post-apartheid , de facto racial segregation persists in urban residential patterns and education, despite constitutional prohibitions since 1994. Major cities like and remain divided, with Black South Africans predominantly residing in peripheral originally established under apartheid, while occupy central suburbs with superior infrastructure and amenities. A 2019 analysis documented that spatial segregation has endured due to economic disparities, limited integration, and historical land ownership patterns, resulting in Black households facing longer commutes and higher poverty concentrations. School segregation remains acute, with a 2024 study finding that apartheid-era divisions have evolved into de facto separation driven by fee structures and location, where predominantly White or affluent schools serve fewer Black students compared to under-resourced township schools. In (GCC) states such as , UAE, and , migrant workers—primarily from and —experience systemic residential and social segregation under the kafala sponsorship system, which has persisted into the . These workers, comprising over 80% of the labor force in many GCC countries as of 2020, are housed in isolated labor camps on urban peripheries, physically separated from citizen populations and lacking access to city-center services. This arrangement enforces dependency on employers for residency and mobility, with reports documenting nationality-based wage disparities and exclusion from public spaces, exacerbating racial hierarchies where darker-skinned migrants face heightened scrutiny and inferior living conditions. Reforms since 2017, such as partial kafala easing in , have not dismantled camp segregation, as geographic and social barriers remain tied to citizenship status. In and the occupied Palestinian territories, policies including the barrier (constructed from 2002 onward) and settlement expansions have maintained separation between Jewish Israelis and , with differential legal frameworks applying based on and . Housing policies in , as assessed by UN experts in 2022, enforce segregation through demolition orders disproportionately targeting Palestinian structures and restrictive building permits, confining to enclaves amid expanding Jewish neighborhoods. While Israeli authorities cite imperatives for barriers and checkpoints that limit Palestinian movement, analyses from organizations like describe these as elements of institutionalized domination, though such characterizations are contested by Israeli officials as misrepresentations of defensive measures. Checkpoints and segregated road networks, expanded post-2000, continue to restrict daily interactions and economic access for over 2.8 million as of 2023. In , (formerly "untouchables") face ongoing caste-based segregation often racialized through skin color associations and historical impurity notions, with segregated living quarters persisting in rural and urban areas post-2000. documented in 2007 that are relegated to separate colonies outside villages, denied shared water sources and temple access in numerous cases, with violence enforcing boundaries; similar patterns were reported in urban slums as late as 2020 amid exacerbations. Despite quotas introduced in the 1950 constitution and expanded thereafter, residential discrimination endures, as evidenced by 2021 studies showing Dalit exclusion from upper-caste neighborhoods due to social norms and landlord biases.

Empirical Impacts and Causal Analysis

Social Cohesion, Crime, and Trust Outcomes

Empirical studies indicate that racial segregation is associated with diminished social cohesion in neighborhoods, as measured by residents' perceptions of mutual support and shared values. In analyses of European neighborhoods, ethnic segregation within locales correlates negatively with perceived cohesion, an effect moderated by broader contextual factors such as national policies, though the association holds independently of socioeconomic controls. Similarly, in U.S. contexts, persistent racial segregation contributes to lower cohesion in black-majority neighborhoods compared to ones, even at comparable income levels, due to structural disadvantages like inferior services and environmental hazards concentrated by historical segregation. Interpersonal trust declines in racially segregated metropolitan areas, with regression analyses showing that higher segregation indices reduce generalized trust among residents, independent of diversity levels alone. This pattern aligns with findings that segregation in diverse communities acts as a barrier to trust-building contact, exacerbating mistrust across groups; for instance, in both U.S. and U.K. samples, segregation explains much of the negative diversity-trust link, as isolated enclaves foster and limit positive interactions. Eric Uslaner's research further demonstrates that segregated settings correlate with lower overall trust and higher , contrasting with homogeneous but integrated areas. Racial segregation strongly predicts elevated crime rates, particularly violent offenses, by concentrating and family disruption in minority enclaves. In a study of 125 U.S. cities, black-white segregation emerged as the strongest predictor of black rates, with its effect size 2.5 times larger than or inequality measures, linking to both acquaintance and stranger killings. Longitudinal data from 1970–2000 across 352 cities reveal that in high racial/ethnic heterogeneity contexts, greater segregation amplifies trajectories of aggravated assaults, robberies, burglaries, and thefts, with positive coefficients (e.g., heterogeneity slope for assaults at 0.003, p<0.01) indicating segregation's aggravating role beyond demographic composition. Black male victimization rates underscore this, rising from 45 per 100,000 in 1960 to 140 per 100,000 in 1990 amid intensifying urban segregation. These associations persist after controlling for economic factors, suggesting segregation's causal contribution through subcultural adaptations to concentrated disadvantage.

Economic and Educational Effects of Segregation versus Forced Integration

Under de jure racial segregation in the United States, black students typically attended schools with substantially lower funding and resources compared to white schools, particularly in the South, where per-pupil expenditures for black schools were often less than half those for white schools in the 1940s and 1950s, contributing to lower literacy rates and graduation outcomes. Despite these constraints, black educational attainment advanced notably from 1940 to 1960, with high school completion rates rising from about 10% to over 40% for black youth aged 17-20, outpacing contemporaneous white gains in relative terms. Forced integration efforts following the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision and subsequent court-ordered desegregation in the 1960s-1970s provided black students greater access to better-equipped facilities and higher-quality teachers in some districts, yielding modest absolute improvements in black achievement, especially in Southern states where gains in test scores and graduation rates were largest during the 1970s. However, these policies frequently failed to narrow persistent black-white achievement gaps, which remained stable at approximately 0.8 to 1 standard deviation on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math and reading tests from the 1970s through the 2010s, as black score improvements largely paralleled those of whites without convergence. Mandatory busing programs, a common mechanism of forced integration in the , produced mixed educational results, with some voluntary interdistrict programs like Boston's METCO showing positive effects such as higher math scores and reduced suspensions for participating black students due to exposure to suburban resources. In contrast, many court-mandated busing initiatives within urban districts yielded no significant long-term academic benefits for black students and sometimes exacerbated disruptions, as evidenced by analyses of Boston's program finding negligible gains in test scores or graduation for bused students of color amid logistical challenges and social tensions. A key unintended consequence was "," where white enrollment declined sharply—by up to 20-30% in affected districts—leading to rapid resegregation, reduced overall funding from bases, and diminished integration levels over time, which offset potential peer and resource benefits for minorities. Peer-reviewed examinations link ongoing racial segregation, often post-desegregation, to widened achievement gaps, but causal evidence attributes much of the persistence to socioeconomic factors and family influences rather than racial mixing alone, as integrated settings did not consistently generate positive peer effects sufficient to close disparities. Economically, segregation restricted black access to skilled labor markets and networks, perpetuating income disparities; for instance, in the pre-1964 era, black median family income was about 55% of white levels, with limited interracial job competition enforcing barriers. Post-integration, legal barriers fell, enabling black income growth—reaching 61% of white medians by 1970—but relative progress decelerated, with black poverty rates dropping only 18 percentage points from 1960-1980 compared to 40 points from 1940-1960, coinciding with expanded welfare policies rather than integration per se. Forced integration in employment via affirmative action increased black representation in professional roles, boosting middle-class formation initially, yet studies indicate minimal acceleration of overall black economic advancement beyond market-driven trends observed pre-Civil Rights Act, with potential mismatches in qualifications leading to higher dropout and underperformance rates in integrated settings. Desegregation's long-run economic impacts for blacks included modest earnings gains—estimated at 5-10% higher adult incomes from Southern court orders—but these were tempered by white flight's fiscal strain on districts, reducing public investments and exacerbating urban economic decline. Overall, while segregation imposed clear opportunity costs, forced integration's net economic benefits remain empirically contested, as persistent gaps in earnings and wealth—black households at 15-20% of white levels in 2020—suggest deeper causal factors like family structure erosion and cultural adaptations, which integration policies did not address and may have indirectly hindered through dependency incentives.

Debates, Rationales, and Policy Critiques

Arguments Supporting Segregation or Separation

Proponents of racial segregation or separation argue that ethnic homogeneity fosters higher levels of social trust and cohesion, as evidenced by Robert Putnam's 2007 study analyzing over 30,000 respondents across 41 U.S. communities, which found that greater ethnic diversity correlates with reduced interpersonal trust, lower , and diminished participation, including fewer instances of voting, , charitable giving, and working on community projects. Putnam's analysis indicated that in more diverse settings, residents "hunker down," exhibiting lower confidence in neighbors and institutions regardless of their own group membership, suggesting that forced proximity exacerbates social withdrawal rather than building bridges. This effect persists even after controlling for socioeconomic factors, challenging assumptions that diversity inherently strengthens social bonds and supporting separation as a means to preserve existing trust networks within homogeneous groups. Economically, ethnic fractionalization has been linked to poorer growth outcomes, with and colleagues' 2003 measures across 190 countries showing that higher ethnic diversity negatively impacts GDP per capita growth, , and infrastructure development, such as telephone penetration. Their data, derived from comprehensive linguistic and ethnic classifications, confirmed and strengthened prior findings that fragmented societies provide fewer public goods due to reduced cooperation across groups, as self-preferencing hinders collective investment. In contrast, homogeneous nations like or exhibit sustained high growth and low , attributed to aligned group interests that facilitate efficient policy implementation without the coordination costs of diversity. Advocates contend that separation allows groups to govern themselves according to culturally congruent norms, avoiding the suboptimal equilibria observed in diverse polities where ethnic bargaining dilutes economic reforms. Crime disparities further underpin arguments for separation, as U.S. Department of Justice data reveal disproportionate involvement of certain racial groups in violent offenses, with individuals comprising 26.6% of arrests in 2019 despite being 13% of the population, and victimization rates for Black persons at 21.3 per 100,000 in 2023 compared to 3.2 for whites. This pattern implies elevated risks in integrated settings, particularly for interracial victimization, where separation could minimize exposure to group-specific profiles rooted in socioeconomic or behavioral differences, thereby enhancing overall safety without relying on universalist assumptions of equal propensities. Empirical observations of voluntary clustering—such as ethnic enclaves forming for mutual protection—suggest innate preferences for separation that align with these risk assessments, as individuals seek environments matching their tolerance for local rates. Philosophically, voluntary separation is defended as a pathway to self-respect and cultural preservation, allowing groups to maintain distinct identities free from dilution or resentment in multicultural contexts. In cases of irreconcilable value systems, proponents argue that coerced integration breeds conflict, whereas enables tailored institutions, as seen in historical separatist movements advocating separate development to escape perceived white dominance. Such arrangements, when consensual, avoid the pathologies of imposed diversity, prioritizing empirical compatibility over ideological unity and recognizing that homogeneous polities historically achieve higher stability and welfare metrics. The enhancement of life satisfaction and mental well-being through reduced social comparison stress. When individuals live in segregated environments where socioeconomic or ethnic similarities predominate, they may experience less alienation or unhappiness from comparing themselves to those in markedly different circumstances. For instance, research indicates that socioeconomic segregation can positively influence subjective well-being by minimizing the psychological strain of upward social comparisons, leading to higher reported life satisfaction levels. This effect aligns with the "ethnic density hypothesis," which posits that residing in areas with higher concentrations of one's own group can protect mental health by fostering stronger social networks, reducing exposure to discrimination, and bolstering self-esteem through shared identity and mutual support. In practical terms, this might manifest as lower rates of psychosis, suicide, or common mental disorders in racially homogeneous settings, as individuals feel a greater sense of belonging and resilience against external prejudices.

Criticisms of Integration Policies and Their Failures

Forced busing programs implemented in the to achieve desegregation often provoked significant enrollment declines in affected urban districts, a phenomenon known as . In cities like and , student populations dropped by 40-60% within a decade of mandatory busing's introduction, with researchers attributing 30% to 60% of these shifts directly to opposition against the policy rather than broader demographic trends. These outflows exacerbated fiscal strains on public schools, reduced diversity in integrated settings over time, and failed to yield proportional improvements in black academic performance, as score gaps between black and white students remained largely unchanged from pre-busing levels. Economist has critiqued forced integration measures, arguing that busing generated social backlash and residential relocation without delivering measurable educational benefits for minority students. In his analysis of civil rights policies, Sowell contends that such interventions overlooked behavioral and cultural factors contributing to disparities, instead prioritizing structural changes that disrupted community stability and provoked resistance, ultimately leading to resegregation through private school enrollment and suburban migration. Empirical reviews support this, showing that while initial desegregation reduced overt racial isolation in Southern schools, Northern busing experiments correlated with heightened interracial tensions and no sustained narrowing of achievement gaps, which hovered at 1.5-2 standard deviations through the and beyond. In higher education, affirmative action policies intended to promote racial integration have faced scrutiny under mismatch theory, which posits that admitting underqualified minority students to selective institutions harms their outcomes. Legal scholar Richard Sander's data from law schools indicate that black students placed via preferences at elite universities graduate at rates 20-30% lower than peers at matched-ability institutions and achieve bar passage rates 10-15% below expectations based on credentials alone. This mismatch effect, evident in dropout rates twice as high for preferentially admitted black students compared to non-preferred admits, suggests that integration via lowered standards isolates beneficiaries academically, reducing overall minority representation in professions like law by diverting talent from attainable success paths. Residential integration efforts, such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, have similarly underperformed in dismantling segregation, with black-white neighborhood dissimilarity indices declining only modestly from 70% in 1970 to around 60% by 2020 in major metros, per analyses. Critics attribute this stasis to unaddressed economic disparities and voluntary clustering preferences, where policies enforcing mixed overlook rate differentials and cultural incompatibilities that deter sustained integration. Resulting projects often concentrate poverty, perpetuating cycles of underperformance rather than fostering upward mobility, as evidenced by persistent 20-30 point gaps in homeownership and wealth accumulation despite decades of antidiscrimination enforcement.

Alternative Approaches and Future Considerations

One alternative to coercive desegregation policies emphasizes expanding mechanisms, such as vouchers and charter schools, which enable parents to select educational environments aligned with their preferences rather than mandating racial balancing through busing. Empirical analyses indicate that such programs often result in greater parental satisfaction and academic gains for participants, though they may exacerbate segregation if families prioritize racial or ethnic homogeneity. For instance, a review of ten studies found that nine reported school choice reducing segregation in public schools by facilitating transfers from more segregated settings, attributing this to increased options for low-income and minority students. However, other research highlights risks of heightened sorting, as seen in simulations where choice amplifies segregation even absent explicit racial preferences, due to socioeconomic and informational disparities among choosers. Proponents like economist argue that forced integration, exemplified by post-Brown v. Board remedies, failed to deliver educational improvements and instead provoked backlash, including and declining school quality in urban areas, without closing racial achievement gaps. Sowell contends that pre-1954 segregated black schools in some regions achieved comparable or superior outcomes through community investment, suggesting that and cultural factors, rather than proximity to whites, drive success—a view supported by historical data on voluntary black institutions. This perspective advocates prioritizing quality in separate systems over integration mandates, allowing communities to foster self-reliant institutions. Voluntary ethnic enclaves represent another approach, where self-selected communities preserve cultural cohesion while yielding economic advantages, such as accelerated job placement for immigrants and refugees. A Stanford study of Danish asylum seekers from 1986–1998 demonstrated that proximity to co-ethnics boosted employment rates by providing networks for information and support, countering isolation in diverse settings. Such enclaves mitigate integration pressures by enabling parallel development, with evidence from global migrant patterns showing reduced and higher in homogeneous groups. Looking ahead, rising segregation—evident in U.S. schools, where racial isolation has increased since the despite antidiscrimination laws—signals potential policy recalibration toward and color-blind incentives. Researchers project continued trends driven by residential sorting and parental choice, prompting calls to abandon quotas in favor of targeted investments in underperforming districts, akin to race-neutral postsecondary strategies like socioeconomic preferences and programs. Future considerations include leveraging technology for preference-based matching in and , while addressing causal drivers like economic disparities to avoid perpetuating unequal outcomes under any spatial arrangement.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.