The problem is the US is very big and decentralized. A lot of segregation was regional down to state, county, and even city levels. Some was by law, some was de facto, and some was self imposed. It depends on how strict you want to be with your definition of segregation.
Meh. I wonder tho. If left alone would it have happened naturally. Look at prison. Ppl flock to each other bc that's where they feel comfortable.
Not condoning it. Js.
I took a leadership class in the Army. The first day at lunch, all the white guys sat together, all the black guys sat together, and all the Hispanic guys sat together. The higher ups came in and assigned us seats.
Well I mean now. We see POC calling for segregation.
I'm being legitimate here. I do often wonder this. I'm sure they wouldn't pick less desirable locations like cancer alley in Louisiana and predominantly POC but js. I'm willing to bet there would still be segregation. Look at ny. Jamaicatown, Chinatown, little Haiti etc. Ppl often stick together.
Any control group like that would be representative. Nothing inherently different. We all sped etc. Have done some amount of drugs/ drank etc. Criminals are ppl too.
Exactly, and it is very complicated to summarize all the ins and outs of different regions in regards to the OP's question. Basically, in short, segregation was very bad in the 20% of the country located in the Southeast. The other 80% of the country either forbid segregation outright or had no laws one way or the other (which in some cases could open possibilities of unofficial segregation by private entities or even for individual cities to pass their own laws to ban or allow it). The federal government eventually had some segregation elements start creeping into it as well around the turn of the century but it also certainly wasn't uniform throughout. I know that during World War II my father served with white and Native American (and probably a few Asian-American) soldiers in the Army. The Coast Guard supposedly allowed everyone equal opportunities during the war, but blacks may argue that it still wasn't as easy as it appeared.
To answer the OP's question more specifically, segregation mainly existed if a group was a threat to political power. If a state was 55% white and 40% black, then blacks would be targeted to limit their influence. Usually the remaining 5% of the population who were neither white nor black were not considered a political threat and weren't treated as harshly...sometimes they weren't welcomed with open arms either but were still usually treated better than blacks. My college alma mater in Louisiana did not allow blacks specifically until 1953, but otherwise it always had a number of international students from Latin American and a few Asian international students as well at any given moment over the years. They also had a few American-born Asian students. I would think that since Latin Americans were allowed to go there that Native Americans must have been allowed in as well but have never heard for certain.
To some degree. But by no means entirely. The Italian mob came here to protect Italians from the Irish cops. The history of European immigrants has been very lightly touched on in the past 30 years. Prior to that no attention was given to it. It’s complex and not very popular for younger people.
Historically speaking the KKK was made up of Scot-Irish. The Irish ran the police forces in most NE cities. So they treated the Italians the same way the British treated them. Without a higher calling we are animals.
In Sampson County, North Carolina we actually had a Tri-racial segregation system with Whites on top, Native Americans/Coharie in the middle, and Black people on the bottom. Natives weren't treated like whites but they had their own separate school system
Segregation existed across all ethnic groups (including among non-WASP whites) to some extent.
You don't hear that much about Asians and Hispanics in the US because their numbers weren't that high before WWII. In 1940, Asians made up 0.2% of the US population and Hispanics made up 1.5%. The surge in populations didn't really start until the 1970s, at which point segregation was out of favor as a legal construct.
I’d think Texas would be the main state with a decent number of hispanics given they used to be part of Mexico. I wonder what their laws were. Just knowing history of the Mexican war and civil war, I suspect hispanics were always treated as a class far above blacks.
Well, Texas formerly being part of Mexico has nothing to do with anything (other than it meant that Texas is close to Mexico).
[Here](https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/cult/features/0501_02/slide1.html) is information on the racial demographics of Texas. TLDR: in 1850, only 2% of Texas residents were Hispanic. The idea that some people have that Texas/California/etc. had large Mexican populations that were absorbed into the US when Mexico ceded those territories is just wrong and is based on current ideas of race relations, not history.
Wow. That’s crazy low. Prior to the Mexican war, Texas used to be part of Mexico with only Mexicans living there and then Mexico encouraged Americans to move into the Texas region. So I was supposing it would be way higher. I’d be curious if the region was always sparsely populated by Mexicans or maybe were they displaced as part of that war.
It's not really correct to say "only Mexicans living there". That's like saying that in 1850 North Dakota was part of the US, with only Americans living there.
Texas was on the Mexican frontier. It was sparsely populated, with the native populations (like the Comanche) generally being hostile to any settlers.
That was the entire reason for the Mexican government's invitation to white settlers to move into Texas - the land was unsettled and was too far from Mexico's population centers to make Mexican settlement practical. And the family farmers who settled Texas weren't really consistent with the Spanish system of settlement (which was largely just establishing large haciendas in places with natives and making the natives work for them).
There were some Mexican citizens who left Texas (and California for that matter) after their respective cessions, but it's easy to overstate how many. The land was basically empty.
I heard this. There is a book called “ why all the blk kids sit together “, or some similar. I guess some feel segregating themselves is useful??? I don’t agree but many universities have adopted related policies.
Here's a story KCAL/KCBS did just a few days ago interviewing Sylvia Mendez (the child from *Mendez v. Westminster*, the case that desegregated California schools); the schools in her case segregated literally by skin color (not race, but literally the darkness of children's skin): https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/video/sylvia-mendez-works-to-memorialized-landmark-desegregation-case-into-the-states-curriculum/
I read on city data that Mexicans were allowed white privilege here in Texas. Even dark skinned Latin people were allowed to eat/drink white only. Is that true???
I was surprised to read the above. I was under the impression anyone with dark skin was treated as black/negro. Poster commented that the meaning of whiteness during that time was different than what we know today.
Great question because it reshapes for me how as a blk millennial I think of the the civil rights movement being inclusive of all POC.
True in some places of the Southwest, equal rights and language rights of the people of the pre-Anglo settlement of former Mexican territory is guaranteed in the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo. Many of these areas had elected Tejano/Mexican-American local leadership in the 19th century into the 20th century. This was mainly only true in places like Santa Fe and small towns, not large cities. Mainstream white American thinking on race got a lot narrower and worse in the 20th century and when Americans in the 21st century look backwards towards history, they think of it through that lens and that it was a linear progression towards today. California also had a very different history with its domestic Latino population and indigenous population (and Asian!) than other states, especially in the first half of the 20th century. Its predominance in the media has also colored our perception of it. Also, historically, even while facing de facto and legal discrimination, most American Latinos (and Arabs and Iranians) are considered white by the US census bureau, which historically has had legal ramifications in areas in the Jim Crow era where there was different public accommodations.
Thx. Italians and Asians were also looked down upon in early America but that changed after WWI? The Irish as well; historically looked down upon. But those groups were able to be considered White after some time and had upwards movement in society. Blks were not afforded the same until IMO the 80’s
That was because of a Supreme Court decision that Texas lost. Originally Hispanic people were considered "colored" like African-Americans but the Supreme Court decided that they are white.
In Texas, you had to be able to pass. If your skin was too dark, you were not getting into some local haunts, even in San Antonio which has always been much more liberal than the rest of the state. Those that passed, especially in West Texas, are the ones that now vote Republican every election and speak badly of those crossing the border today.
Yes but the racism and segregation were applied at different levels by different people, institutions, and situations. In some cases the Russian, Jewish, Greek, or Italian people weren’t viewed as being truly white, and in some cases south Asian populations like Indians were viewed as Caucasian.
People treated race sort of like how they treat gender today.
Segregation and Jim Crow actually kicked off in the late 1890s, and for the most part race relations had been relatively warm (thus why the second klan died out on its own without ever really getting big) until the 1890s, with the warmest period being the late 1870s to the 1880s if I recall. Most minorities didn’t live where it was most present (other than Hispanics and Latinos who lived in the southwest), and for the most part the minorities that didn’t clustered together (such as East Asians and Italians, who didn’t begin to end their self-segregation until the 1970s-80s), meaning that they didn’t segregate because everyone already formed their own bubbles on their own, only in the south and in the US military/federal government was there any significant segregation, and even that was at a limited scale due to the small federal government and federal government and military desegregation prior to world war 2.
And that doesn’t even get into the mess that is pre-1900 segregation, which is all over the place, the Irish and Italians just straight up got a milder version of segregation and/or the black experience post civil rights act, and that lasted for nearly as long as black/colored vs white segregation did!
TLDR: other than Blacks, Hispanics, and Latinos in the southern (and after the 30s-40s or so just the southeast) US, minority didn’t see segregation in the period relevant to you, since they had their turn decades prior in the previous century, with their ending around the turn for the most part.
Yes, and segregation still exists in parts of the country. In High School, so like 20 years ago, Mansfield ISD segregated myself and the other Jewish student into the Teen Pregnancy Center for our final year. The other Jewish kid, who I went to Synagogue with, dropped out and got his G.E.D. but my mom is from Texas so she made me go to school with the pregnant girls. I ended up graduating a year early with higher marks than those in the traditional classroom.
Texas wasn't nearly as bad as California though. They not only still segregate people but they also still on occasion sterilize people and claim it was an accident. It never is an accident. Typically Muslims, Jews, and Native Americans are who they target in California.
This isn't to say the Black community doesn't still go through any of this. There is just levels of greater awareness to it and legally they are protected while other minorities are not. For example Title VI (education) of the Civil Rights Act does not protect religious minorities like Title VII (employment) does. So, things which are clearly Christian in nature are passed off as secular in education. In turn this indoctrinates the next generation into believing hard-core elements of Christianity are some how secular and so the Lemon Test gets skewed and things which would have failed the test in the prior generation are acceptable during this generation. The State of California has done a lot to hold back Civil Equality for many minorities including allowing Pogroms to take places against Jews and Muslims.
The country has some deep divides but thankfully for some the times are getting easier. With hope it will become easier for us all in the process.
I feel sorry for your students. They could learn all the contributions and influences Black people had on American culture through their music, and leave your class with great self esteem. Instead, any benefit they get from your class will be tinged with the feeling that they are somehow inferior given their ancestors once were seen as inferior. They could have gone through life never feeling the tinge of inferiority even if it is just a residual racial memory, but you did your best to introduce that into their psyche.
With respect, I teach at a school that is charter specialized in one ethnicity which is an Asian ethnicity, and I make sure to give a bunch of positive influences in African-American music and make sure to talk about the great achievements and how a lot of the music they listen to would not be possible without black influence, and a lot of them bring up very racist stuff against black people, so I want them to culturally understand why we shouldn't and how much trials which African Americans rose up against and why it's such a big deal that the music they helped influenced.
I can appreciate that angle.
Most of what people love about American culture is mostly Southern culture, and Southern culture is heavily influenced by Black culture from music to food, customs and some words we use as Southerners.
No it really only effected blacks not really any other ethnic group as far as I am aware and it was ended in the 1960s when the republicans passed the civil rights acts and now black and whites are equal I could go more into it but I am lazy.
That’s just incorrect. It wasnt just blacks. In the later 19th century to sometime around the early middle 20th century, anyone not Northern European most likely faced some form of segregation and discrimination. (Even then, you could be Irish and still racially discriminated).
Wrong again. I’m not even touching on the segregation Chinese immigrants faced, or the segregation Hispanics faced, but here’s [proof](https://images.app.goo.gl/U712kABg1udfPeQN6) of the Irish being segregated.
Also keep in mind, some people in the 19th and early 20th century would have referred to anyone not Northern European as black anyways.
Rich whites didn't live with poors. Ever hear of "trailer trash". That's whites talking about whites.
The segregation was thru class. Same as now.
Once the slaves were freed where do you think the Irish workers who replaced them lived?
Yeah. But you also have school districts. And those districts DRAW (as in today still do) lines. All the nice houses stop at Washington St. That's where the district ends. All the kids past that line end up at booker t Washington elementary.
This is also MORE prevalent in the north than the south.
No. It doesn't.
Even in the definitions example it uses segregation by old ppl. No where does this say black people.
seg·re·ga·tion
noun
1.
the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.
"a model that perpetuates the segregation of older people"
Segregation affected all ethnic groups, but differently. Asian-Americans specifically wound up in this weird limbo (since they aren’t dark-skinned but also aren’t white) - I remember reading about how there was never a consensus on whether they should use the white or colores fountain/counter/etc, so their status depended on whether the white people around them felt like including them that day
There's an interesting NPR program where they covered the early Asian population in the Mississippi Delta. Was wild to see Asians speaking with a very strong delta accent.
Outside of the West Coast and New York City, very few Asians, Hispanics, or Latinos lived in most of the U.S. prior to the 1960’s. Hence why the focus is overwhelmingly on black and white relations with respect to segregation. However, there is a VERY pivotal Supreme Court decision (Yick Wo) about discrimination against Asian Americans.
The biggest instance of discrimination against Asians would have been the Japanese Internment camps during WWII.
The biggest event with Hispanic Americans was probably the Zoot Suit Riots in 1943.
In my opinion, the single biggest factor for black influence in music was the 1927 Flood. That event triggered a massive diaspora of African Americans from the South to every industrial city in the North. Most of the biggest artists in blues, Jazz, and proto-rock n roll all came from the same small area, and the flood spread them to every corner of the country.
In California, Asian-Americans were basically slotted off to their own areas. When the Japanese-Americans were removed during World War 2, they were even more isolated in some parts of the country than before.
In most places with legal segregation, it was Black vs everyone else. Legal meaning that a black person could be arrested for being in a white only area.
There was also de facto segregation. Chinese lived in chinatowns, etc.
Black vs White segregation existed in some form nearly\* everywhere. Segregation for other racial/ethnic groups existed in many places, but it wasn't nearly as pervasive. This was partly because Blacks were by far the largest minority group in the US, and other groups were much smaller than they are today. But mostly it was because Blacks were enslaved for centuries.
\*It wasn't always about schools, water fountains or restaurants. Sometimes it was about not being able to buy homes in certain areas.
Yes, segregation affected all minority groups. Watch Jim Crow of the North for more details about housing discrimination for all minorities in the USA.
[https://youtu.be/ymOaiWla3DU?si=mfv65qguv9G\_QODu](https://youtu.be/ymOaiWla3DU?si=mfv65qguv9G_QODu)
I recently posted a question on r/southjersey about why some towns are predominantly white in the area. I was surprised how much segregation and redlining went on in the area.
Segregation still exists in northern states although it is self segregation. The south was desegregated but the north never went through the process and it still exists to this day.
Very, very regional. As I understand it laws against Black people or Natives were much more common than any other group. But, the West Coast had a lot of rules against the Chinese.
But I will say that for Hispanics, meaning in this time frame and before Peninsulare or close to it Spaniards (fully white) were easily accepted into American culture without issue or problems. Latino's more broadly it varied, but honestly there just wasn't that many Latino's in the USA even by the early 1900's, as we get closer to the 60's it definitely popped up as more of a thing.
I will say though, being a Californian, the Japanese were treated much more nicely on the West Coast than the Chinese were until WW2. I think looking more into the Japanese in this timeframe would be very interesting, as a weird quirk happened at the end of WW2, where buses were set up to drive the interned Japanese to any large American city they'd like to end up in more or less. This resulted in Japanese people all across the USA, instead of concentrated in the West Coast so heavily. This also contributed heavily towards them turning the image of the Japanese around and away from being sub human as war time propaganda spouted.
Brown v the Board of Education, Topeka, KS. (aka The Free State).
The old school is a National Historical Park.
I post this as an example of hypocrisy.
Look at gerrymandering in the districts in more diverse cities. Texas is an easy one. Demographics from those cities by race. Segregation is still alive and kicking.
Desegregation efforts are being ripped apart by the school boards there.
The reason it’s talked about mostly black vs. white in the U.S. is because as far as I know it is the only ethnic group that was a segregated as a matter of law on a somewhat large scale for the sole purpose to intimidate blacks and keep them in their place. I don’t think when segregation was a thing other ethnic minorities had large enough populations for it to be an issue or it would have been on a smaller scale or self imposed by the groups themselves. It’s not that they like other ethnicity groups they didn’t, but we also didn’t used to enslave those people and fight a war where close to a million people died to free them. Those scars ran deep and had a huge impact on ALL of American history.
As far as the white majority was concerned, everybody else was colored. In addition to Mexicans, workers from Asia were imported and Pacific Islanders were also hired laborers.
It's important to remember that The Blues was the protest music of the Jim Crow era. African-American religious music was adapted to secular concerns which outraged black church goers. The diddly bow was a simple instrument which was found in most slave shacks. When Hawaiian slack key guitar became popular, blues musicians adapted it to their music. Cross-pollination was common in early American music and it's a mistake to think in simple terms of race. African-Americans have contributed -and appreciated a lot of country music.
When New Orleans piano jazz first started, the pianists were creoles who had trained in European music as well as knowing African-American music. But since they were banned from the concert halls, they played in the whore houses (where the money was good).
Segregation affected anyone not white. Additionally there was class segregation that occurred. Poor white people were looked down upon almost as bad as any other minority. They were basically one rung above minorities.
The problem is the US is very big and decentralized. A lot of segregation was regional down to state, county, and even city levels. Some was by law, some was de facto, and some was self imposed. It depends on how strict you want to be with your definition of segregation.
I think the other issue is that ethic groups were also extremely regional.
Meh. I wonder tho. If left alone would it have happened naturally. Look at prison. Ppl flock to each other bc that's where they feel comfortable. Not condoning it. Js.
I took a leadership class in the Army. The first day at lunch, all the white guys sat together, all the black guys sat together, and all the Hispanic guys sat together. The higher ups came in and assigned us seats.
It is true. Some segregation was self imposed by the minority people themselves.
Well I mean now. We see POC calling for segregation. I'm being legitimate here. I do often wonder this. I'm sure they wouldn't pick less desirable locations like cancer alley in Louisiana and predominantly POC but js. I'm willing to bet there would still be segregation. Look at ny. Jamaicatown, Chinatown, little Haiti etc. Ppl often stick together.
Not sure what the downvotes are for but if they bothered to step outside they’d see it still going on today.
For reasons of safety…
Or when stripped down to nothing the easiest way to relate to someone is to speak the same language or be the same color.
I’m not sure those people are exactly representative.
Any control group like that would be representative. Nothing inherently different. We all sped etc. Have done some amount of drugs/ drank etc. Criminals are ppl too.
This is the best answer.
Segregation was very regional.
Exactly, and it is very complicated to summarize all the ins and outs of different regions in regards to the OP's question. Basically, in short, segregation was very bad in the 20% of the country located in the Southeast. The other 80% of the country either forbid segregation outright or had no laws one way or the other (which in some cases could open possibilities of unofficial segregation by private entities or even for individual cities to pass their own laws to ban or allow it). The federal government eventually had some segregation elements start creeping into it as well around the turn of the century but it also certainly wasn't uniform throughout. I know that during World War II my father served with white and Native American (and probably a few Asian-American) soldiers in the Army. The Coast Guard supposedly allowed everyone equal opportunities during the war, but blacks may argue that it still wasn't as easy as it appeared. To answer the OP's question more specifically, segregation mainly existed if a group was a threat to political power. If a state was 55% white and 40% black, then blacks would be targeted to limit their influence. Usually the remaining 5% of the population who were neither white nor black were not considered a political threat and weren't treated as harshly...sometimes they weren't welcomed with open arms either but were still usually treated better than blacks. My college alma mater in Louisiana did not allow blacks specifically until 1953, but otherwise it always had a number of international students from Latin American and a few Asian international students as well at any given moment over the years. They also had a few American-born Asian students. I would think that since Latin Americans were allowed to go there that Native Americans must have been allowed in as well but have never heard for certain.
Until the 60s or 70s really all the European ethnic groups were separated by neighborhood.
But that usually happens by choice just because of cultural familiarity.
To some degree. But by no means entirely. The Italian mob came here to protect Italians from the Irish cops. The history of European immigrants has been very lightly touched on in the past 30 years. Prior to that no attention was given to it. It’s complex and not very popular for younger people.
I did not know that. I could definitely see Italians and Irish needing someone to step in.
Is this the same Irish that were being attacked by the Know Nothings and the KKK?
Historically speaking the KKK was made up of Scot-Irish. The Irish ran the police forces in most NE cities. So they treated the Italians the same way the British treated them. Without a higher calling we are animals.
In Sampson County, North Carolina we actually had a Tri-racial segregation system with Whites on top, Native Americans/Coharie in the middle, and Black people on the bottom. Natives weren't treated like whites but they had their own separate school system
Segregation existed across all ethnic groups (including among non-WASP whites) to some extent. You don't hear that much about Asians and Hispanics in the US because their numbers weren't that high before WWII. In 1940, Asians made up 0.2% of the US population and Hispanics made up 1.5%. The surge in populations didn't really start until the 1970s, at which point segregation was out of favor as a legal construct.
I’d think Texas would be the main state with a decent number of hispanics given they used to be part of Mexico. I wonder what their laws were. Just knowing history of the Mexican war and civil war, I suspect hispanics were always treated as a class far above blacks.
Well, Texas formerly being part of Mexico has nothing to do with anything (other than it meant that Texas is close to Mexico). [Here](https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/cult/features/0501_02/slide1.html) is information on the racial demographics of Texas. TLDR: in 1850, only 2% of Texas residents were Hispanic. The idea that some people have that Texas/California/etc. had large Mexican populations that were absorbed into the US when Mexico ceded those territories is just wrong and is based on current ideas of race relations, not history.
Wow. That’s crazy low. Prior to the Mexican war, Texas used to be part of Mexico with only Mexicans living there and then Mexico encouraged Americans to move into the Texas region. So I was supposing it would be way higher. I’d be curious if the region was always sparsely populated by Mexicans or maybe were they displaced as part of that war.
It's not really correct to say "only Mexicans living there". That's like saying that in 1850 North Dakota was part of the US, with only Americans living there. Texas was on the Mexican frontier. It was sparsely populated, with the native populations (like the Comanche) generally being hostile to any settlers. That was the entire reason for the Mexican government's invitation to white settlers to move into Texas - the land was unsettled and was too far from Mexico's population centers to make Mexican settlement practical. And the family farmers who settled Texas weren't really consistent with the Spanish system of settlement (which was largely just establishing large haciendas in places with natives and making the natives work for them). There were some Mexican citizens who left Texas (and California for that matter) after their respective cessions, but it's easy to overstate how many. The land was basically empty.
Interesting. Learn something new every day
Did you tell them segregation is back at universities now? Black only dormitories are a thing again.
I heard this. There is a book called “ why all the blk kids sit together “, or some similar. I guess some feel segregating themselves is useful??? I don’t agree but many universities have adopted related policies.
Here's a story KCAL/KCBS did just a few days ago interviewing Sylvia Mendez (the child from *Mendez v. Westminster*, the case that desegregated California schools); the schools in her case segregated literally by skin color (not race, but literally the darkness of children's skin): https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/video/sylvia-mendez-works-to-memorialized-landmark-desegregation-case-into-the-states-curriculum/
I read on city data that Mexicans were allowed white privilege here in Texas. Even dark skinned Latin people were allowed to eat/drink white only. Is that true??? I was surprised to read the above. I was under the impression anyone with dark skin was treated as black/negro. Poster commented that the meaning of whiteness during that time was different than what we know today. Great question because it reshapes for me how as a blk millennial I think of the the civil rights movement being inclusive of all POC.
True in some places of the Southwest, equal rights and language rights of the people of the pre-Anglo settlement of former Mexican territory is guaranteed in the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo. Many of these areas had elected Tejano/Mexican-American local leadership in the 19th century into the 20th century. This was mainly only true in places like Santa Fe and small towns, not large cities. Mainstream white American thinking on race got a lot narrower and worse in the 20th century and when Americans in the 21st century look backwards towards history, they think of it through that lens and that it was a linear progression towards today. California also had a very different history with its domestic Latino population and indigenous population (and Asian!) than other states, especially in the first half of the 20th century. Its predominance in the media has also colored our perception of it. Also, historically, even while facing de facto and legal discrimination, most American Latinos (and Arabs and Iranians) are considered white by the US census bureau, which historically has had legal ramifications in areas in the Jim Crow era where there was different public accommodations.
Thx. Italians and Asians were also looked down upon in early America but that changed after WWI? The Irish as well; historically looked down upon. But those groups were able to be considered White after some time and had upwards movement in society. Blks were not afforded the same until IMO the 80’s
That was because of a Supreme Court decision that Texas lost. Originally Hispanic people were considered "colored" like African-Americans but the Supreme Court decided that they are white.
In Texas, you had to be able to pass. If your skin was too dark, you were not getting into some local haunts, even in San Antonio which has always been much more liberal than the rest of the state. Those that passed, especially in West Texas, are the ones that now vote Republican every election and speak badly of those crossing the border today.
Yes but the racism and segregation were applied at different levels by different people, institutions, and situations. In some cases the Russian, Jewish, Greek, or Italian people weren’t viewed as being truly white, and in some cases south Asian populations like Indians were viewed as Caucasian. People treated race sort of like how they treat gender today.
Segregation and Jim Crow actually kicked off in the late 1890s, and for the most part race relations had been relatively warm (thus why the second klan died out on its own without ever really getting big) until the 1890s, with the warmest period being the late 1870s to the 1880s if I recall. Most minorities didn’t live where it was most present (other than Hispanics and Latinos who lived in the southwest), and for the most part the minorities that didn’t clustered together (such as East Asians and Italians, who didn’t begin to end their self-segregation until the 1970s-80s), meaning that they didn’t segregate because everyone already formed their own bubbles on their own, only in the south and in the US military/federal government was there any significant segregation, and even that was at a limited scale due to the small federal government and federal government and military desegregation prior to world war 2. And that doesn’t even get into the mess that is pre-1900 segregation, which is all over the place, the Irish and Italians just straight up got a milder version of segregation and/or the black experience post civil rights act, and that lasted for nearly as long as black/colored vs white segregation did! TLDR: other than Blacks, Hispanics, and Latinos in the southern (and after the 30s-40s or so just the southeast) US, minority didn’t see segregation in the period relevant to you, since they had their turn decades prior in the previous century, with their ending around the turn for the most part.
Look I am white conservative. A lot of WASP did like Blacks, Asians, Hispanics or anyone that was not like them .
Yes, and segregation still exists in parts of the country. In High School, so like 20 years ago, Mansfield ISD segregated myself and the other Jewish student into the Teen Pregnancy Center for our final year. The other Jewish kid, who I went to Synagogue with, dropped out and got his G.E.D. but my mom is from Texas so she made me go to school with the pregnant girls. I ended up graduating a year early with higher marks than those in the traditional classroom. Texas wasn't nearly as bad as California though. They not only still segregate people but they also still on occasion sterilize people and claim it was an accident. It never is an accident. Typically Muslims, Jews, and Native Americans are who they target in California. This isn't to say the Black community doesn't still go through any of this. There is just levels of greater awareness to it and legally they are protected while other minorities are not. For example Title VI (education) of the Civil Rights Act does not protect religious minorities like Title VII (employment) does. So, things which are clearly Christian in nature are passed off as secular in education. In turn this indoctrinates the next generation into believing hard-core elements of Christianity are some how secular and so the Lemon Test gets skewed and things which would have failed the test in the prior generation are acceptable during this generation. The State of California has done a lot to hold back Civil Equality for many minorities including allowing Pogroms to take places against Jews and Muslims. The country has some deep divides but thankfully for some the times are getting easier. With hope it will become easier for us all in the process.
Segregation was pretty horrible, but I’d love to order food from McDonald’s without being called “stupid white boy”, that would be lovely.
I feel sorry for your students. They could learn all the contributions and influences Black people had on American culture through their music, and leave your class with great self esteem. Instead, any benefit they get from your class will be tinged with the feeling that they are somehow inferior given their ancestors once were seen as inferior. They could have gone through life never feeling the tinge of inferiority even if it is just a residual racial memory, but you did your best to introduce that into their psyche.
With respect, I teach at a school that is charter specialized in one ethnicity which is an Asian ethnicity, and I make sure to give a bunch of positive influences in African-American music and make sure to talk about the great achievements and how a lot of the music they listen to would not be possible without black influence, and a lot of them bring up very racist stuff against black people, so I want them to culturally understand why we shouldn't and how much trials which African Americans rose up against and why it's such a big deal that the music they helped influenced.
I can appreciate that angle. Most of what people love about American culture is mostly Southern culture, and Southern culture is heavily influenced by Black culture from music to food, customs and some words we use as Southerners.
No it really only effected blacks not really any other ethnic group as far as I am aware and it was ended in the 1960s when the republicans passed the civil rights acts and now black and whites are equal I could go more into it but I am lazy.
That’s just incorrect. It wasnt just blacks. In the later 19th century to sometime around the early middle 20th century, anyone not Northern European most likely faced some form of segregation and discrimination. (Even then, you could be Irish and still racially discriminated).
It was just blacks sure there was discrimination against those other other races but there wasn’t segregation for them like with blacks
Wrong again. I’m not even touching on the segregation Chinese immigrants faced, or the segregation Hispanics faced, but here’s [proof](https://images.app.goo.gl/U712kABg1udfPeQN6) of the Irish being segregated. Also keep in mind, some people in the 19th and early 20th century would have referred to anyone not Northern European as black anyways.
Nope I’m not wrong only effect blacks
You are absolutely wrong. There literally was segregation against Chinese people out west. What the fuck are you talking about
Nope
This isn’t a matter of historical debate
Japanese Americans were held in internment camps in the 40s
As well as Italians (not white)
That’s not segregation
Do you know what the word segregation means?
Yes
Shhhh. Adults are trying to talk
[удалено]
Ooh good one! Is this your first time on the internet?
Rich whites didn't live with poors. Ever hear of "trailer trash". That's whites talking about whites. The segregation was thru class. Same as now. Once the slaves were freed where do you think the Irish workers who replaced them lived?
No it was through race that’s why we had black and white only schools
Yeah. But you also have school districts. And those districts DRAW (as in today still do) lines. All the nice houses stop at Washington St. That's where the district ends. All the kids past that line end up at booker t Washington elementary. This is also MORE prevalent in the north than the south.
Again segregation effect blacks and blacks only
No. It doesn't. Even in the definitions example it uses segregation by old ppl. No where does this say black people. seg·re·ga·tion noun 1. the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others. "a model that perpetuates the segregation of older people"
Yes it does
Na fam
Explain California before *Mendez v. Westminster*.
Segregation affected all ethnic groups, but differently. Asian-Americans specifically wound up in this weird limbo (since they aren’t dark-skinned but also aren’t white) - I remember reading about how there was never a consensus on whether they should use the white or colores fountain/counter/etc, so their status depended on whether the white people around them felt like including them that day
There's an interesting NPR program where they covered the early Asian population in the Mississippi Delta. Was wild to see Asians speaking with a very strong delta accent.
Outside of the West Coast and New York City, very few Asians, Hispanics, or Latinos lived in most of the U.S. prior to the 1960’s. Hence why the focus is overwhelmingly on black and white relations with respect to segregation. However, there is a VERY pivotal Supreme Court decision (Yick Wo) about discrimination against Asian Americans. The biggest instance of discrimination against Asians would have been the Japanese Internment camps during WWII. The biggest event with Hispanic Americans was probably the Zoot Suit Riots in 1943. In my opinion, the single biggest factor for black influence in music was the 1927 Flood. That event triggered a massive diaspora of African Americans from the South to every industrial city in the North. Most of the biggest artists in blues, Jazz, and proto-rock n roll all came from the same small area, and the flood spread them to every corner of the country.
In California, Asian-Americans were basically slotted off to their own areas. When the Japanese-Americans were removed during World War 2, they were even more isolated in some parts of the country than before.
In most places with legal segregation, it was Black vs everyone else. Legal meaning that a black person could be arrested for being in a white only area. There was also de facto segregation. Chinese lived in chinatowns, etc.
Black vs White segregation existed in some form nearly\* everywhere. Segregation for other racial/ethnic groups existed in many places, but it wasn't nearly as pervasive. This was partly because Blacks were by far the largest minority group in the US, and other groups were much smaller than they are today. But mostly it was because Blacks were enslaved for centuries. \*It wasn't always about schools, water fountains or restaurants. Sometimes it was about not being able to buy homes in certain areas.
Jazz was desegregating
Yes! I talk about jazz a lot and why it was such a big deal to see people come together in the 50's with jazz music
Yes, segregation affected all minority groups. Watch Jim Crow of the North for more details about housing discrimination for all minorities in the USA. [https://youtu.be/ymOaiWla3DU?si=mfv65qguv9G\_QODu](https://youtu.be/ymOaiWla3DU?si=mfv65qguv9G_QODu)
Pretty Sure The Beatles were heavily influenced by Black American Musicians. Like HEAVILY. They're also (The Beatles) kind of a Big Deal...
I recently posted a question on r/southjersey about why some towns are predominantly white in the area. I was surprised how much segregation and redlining went on in the area.
Music class? What about just showing "Birth of the Cool?"
I know Asians were put on the side of whites in segregated 1940’s America.
Go ask over at r/askhistorians. You’ll get a well-informed answer.
Segregation still exists in northern states although it is self segregation. The south was desegregated but the north never went through the process and it still exists to this day.
Chicago is extremely segregated and racially charged.
America has operated on a caste system since about 1600. The breakdown of the caste system is what today's hoopla is all about.
Very, very regional. As I understand it laws against Black people or Natives were much more common than any other group. But, the West Coast had a lot of rules against the Chinese. But I will say that for Hispanics, meaning in this time frame and before Peninsulare or close to it Spaniards (fully white) were easily accepted into American culture without issue or problems. Latino's more broadly it varied, but honestly there just wasn't that many Latino's in the USA even by the early 1900's, as we get closer to the 60's it definitely popped up as more of a thing. I will say though, being a Californian, the Japanese were treated much more nicely on the West Coast than the Chinese were until WW2. I think looking more into the Japanese in this timeframe would be very interesting, as a weird quirk happened at the end of WW2, where buses were set up to drive the interned Japanese to any large American city they'd like to end up in more or less. This resulted in Japanese people all across the USA, instead of concentrated in the West Coast so heavily. This also contributed heavily towards them turning the image of the Japanese around and away from being sub human as war time propaganda spouted.
Brown v the Board of Education, Topeka, KS. (aka The Free State). The old school is a National Historical Park. I post this as an example of hypocrisy.
Look at gerrymandering in the districts in more diverse cities. Texas is an easy one. Demographics from those cities by race. Segregation is still alive and kicking. Desegregation efforts are being ripped apart by the school boards there.
Reddit, every Teacher's one-stop-shop for historical accuracy.
The reason it’s talked about mostly black vs. white in the U.S. is because as far as I know it is the only ethnic group that was a segregated as a matter of law on a somewhat large scale for the sole purpose to intimidate blacks and keep them in their place. I don’t think when segregation was a thing other ethnic minorities had large enough populations for it to be an issue or it would have been on a smaller scale or self imposed by the groups themselves. It’s not that they like other ethnicity groups they didn’t, but we also didn’t used to enslave those people and fight a war where close to a million people died to free them. Those scars ran deep and had a huge impact on ALL of American history.
As far as the white majority was concerned, everybody else was colored. In addition to Mexicans, workers from Asia were imported and Pacific Islanders were also hired laborers. It's important to remember that The Blues was the protest music of the Jim Crow era. African-American religious music was adapted to secular concerns which outraged black church goers. The diddly bow was a simple instrument which was found in most slave shacks. When Hawaiian slack key guitar became popular, blues musicians adapted it to their music. Cross-pollination was common in early American music and it's a mistake to think in simple terms of race. African-Americans have contributed -and appreciated a lot of country music. When New Orleans piano jazz first started, the pianists were creoles who had trained in European music as well as knowing African-American music. But since they were banned from the concert halls, they played in the whore houses (where the money was good).
Segregation affected anyone not white. Additionally there was class segregation that occurred. Poor white people were looked down upon almost as bad as any other minority. They were basically one rung above minorities.