Past Segregation in the USA Question *Not asking for Debate*

Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

Epilefftic
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 350
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

24 May 2010, 12:50 am

I just need some clarification. This is a question posed to the older members of the forum, as I am too young to know, and am unable to find my answer. My intentions are purely academic.

My question is in regards to the Jim Crow laws, specifically drinking fountains. As many of you know, drinking fountains and facilities were divided into 'Whites' and 'Coloreds'.

First off, Did 'Coloreds' only apply to blacks, or did it apply to any 'non-whites'.

Second part, did 'Whites' apply to 'non-blacks', 'Caucasians', or 'WASPs' [White Anglo-Saxon Protestants] only?

I'm asking since segregation came up recently, and the exact rules of it are confusing to me. Take for example me. By today's standards, I count as Caucasian and in some cases white. But the definition of 'white' has changed over the years.

There was prejudice against Poles, Irish, Jews and other ethnicities, and in my case Sicilians and Southern Italians (My aunt/father even look Arabic) were not very popular in the south [In 1891, eleven Italian immigrants in New Orleans were lynched by an angry mob due to their supposed 'Mafia role' in murdering the police chief David Hennessy. This was the largest mass lynching in US history, and this all happened at a jail after they were found innocent]. There was even a former skinhead guest on Coast-to-Coast-AM, who said even today Italians aren't considered white, but that's the Stormfront crowd.


_________________
"In the end, Darwin always wins" - Me


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2010, 7:31 am

Epilefftic wrote:
I just need some clarification. This is a question posed to the older members of the forum, as I am too young to know, and am unable to find my answer. My intentions are purely academic.

My question is in regards to the Jim Crow laws, specifically drinking fountains. As many of you know, drinking fountains and facilities were divided into 'Whites' and 'Coloreds'.

First off, Did 'Coloreds' only apply to blacks, or did it apply to any 'non-whites'.

Second part, did 'Whites' apply to 'non-blacks', 'Caucasians', or 'WASPs' [White Anglo-Saxon Protestants] only?

I'm asking since segregation came up recently, and the exact rules of it are confusing to me. Take for example me. By today's standards, I count as Caucasian and in some cases white. But the definition of 'white' has changed over the years.

There was prejudice against Poles, Irish, Jews and other ethnicities, and in my case Sicilians and Southern Italians (My aunt/father even look Arabic) were not very popular in the south [In 1891, eleven Italian immigrants in New Orleans were lynched by an angry mob due to their supposed 'Mafia role' in murdering the police chief David Hennessy. This was the largest mass lynching in US history, and this all happened at a jail after they were found innocent]. There was even a former skinhead guest on Coast-to-Coast-AM, who said even today Italians aren't considered white, but that's the Stormfront crowd.


The U.S. has been in the past, and still is to some extent a racist country. The set of practices restricting negros or dark skinned people have been lifted to a great degree (everyone drinks from the same fountains and uses the same toilets), but there are more subtle forms of prejudice based on race (which is ridiculous) or religion (which might or might not be ridiculous) or sexual preference that are still alive in the country. Laws won't make attitudes go away. Laws can only affect practices in the public domain.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 May 2010, 7:58 am

First of all, before I answer, let me say that I'm a white, Protestant, evangelical conservative from Mississippi. There are some things we'd LIKE to forget, the issues you brought up being the main ones. I'll try to answer as best I can based on white I know as a southerner. Those laws were hideously, morally wrong and only came about as the result of southern resentment towards the response of the North to the "southern question."

"Coloreds" only applied to blacks and maybe (can't remember exactly) Native Americans.

"Whites" applied to non-blacks.

To give you an idea of the reach of these laws, let me tell you this story: I'm 32 years old, which means I was a child back in the 80's. My grandmother took care of me while my parents were at work. Every now and then she'd go to the GP doctor with me in tow. At this particular office, as soon you get past the front door, you're looking at a wall, and there's a door to the left and a door to the right. The room to the left was practically full, so I start to go into the room on the right. My grandmother pulled me back to the other room and explained that "we don't go in there." I didn't think to ask why, but in later years it made sense. We've largely abandoned those funny practices, but people still carry on the habit as late as the 1980's!

I'm not going to defend archaic southern attitudes, but I'll try to explain what's going on. Southerners and Yankees speak a whole different language. Yankees have a pattern of dictating what us backwards Southerners ought to do, yet they don't actually LIVE here or understand the culture. We're accused of being bigoted because the issue of race comes up at all. The reality is that a lot of the post-War of Northern Aggression resentment has faded from the southern mindset, but the resentment from the Civil Rights movement has not faded from the black mindset. That has led to a general mistrust on both sides, and it maintains a hold on racial distinction in the south even today. I finished my education in New York state and had some liberal attitudes towards education when I returned home. My first teaching experience was a disaster because, even though I was trying to be fair in dealing with a minority population, the resentment that these kids carried towards me as a white teacher was overwhelming. My second teaching job (also in a minority school) went a lot better, in part due to the lessons I'd learned earlier, but also the attitudes were a LITTLE more relaxed. The stereotypical idealistic liberal Yankee can't possibly understand this because of the predominantly white population of much of the Northern US. There IS no dialogue about northern minorities because minority populations do not exist in many of those areas the way the do in the south--they only seem (to me) to be concentrated in larger metropolitan areas. Southern resentment towards our Yankee neighbors has much to do with this hypocrisy.

The south of today is much more welcoming than the south of the 1960's. What you're seeing with discrimination against other European groups has to do with what southerners viewed as oppressive groups. Jews in particular shared the northern anti-slavery attitude, which to a southerner seems traitorous (Jews have good reason to oppose slavery). Their religious practices keep them a separate and distinct people, and Southern Jews and blacks as such identify well with each other. I'm sure, with that in mind, you can see where the resentment comes from. I think negative attitudes towards Jews is somewhat exaggerated, though. From the time Jews settled in the South, they mostly supported themselves with peddling (the equivalent of modern-day door-to-door sales). Back in those days, transportation was limited and rural southerners DEPENDED on Jewish peddlers for goods they didn't otherwise have access to, not even in the cities (like the GOOD kitchenware). My opinion is that there might have some prejudice against Jews, but this doesn't appear to be the norm for MOST southerners.

Other ethnic groups were associated with Northern attitudes. The more liberal north struggled with European immigration laws (you think Mexico is bad NOW?), and the concern within the South is that America isn't America anymore. Immigrants tended to settle in the north, so they typically brought their northern attitudes with them as they moved south. After the War of Northern Aggression, remember, southerners are wary of outsiders. You mentioned the Irish and Italians. A large part of the problem with Irish and Italians is the number of Catholics among them that displace other southerners politically.

For the most part, anyone moving to the south would do just fine if they weren't rude and contentious. It's less about race, more about Northern sympathy. In the early 1900's, much of the Mississippi Delta (where I live) was still frontier. Italian farmer THRIVED in this region and still comprise many of the largest families in the Delta (The Fiorenellis are HUGE where I live). Greenville, MS, at one time had large Jewish population during its Golden Age. As the Jewish peddlers settled down and adapted to the changes in the area, their sons and daughters went away, became doctors and lawyers, and never looked back. In the Delta, the same kind of thing is happening across the board now. The Italians don't really care to stay, either, and you have a few boys that MIGHT eventually come back and run daddy's farm. And the whites are all moving to Tennessee and further north! The "nicer" black families (meaning they haven't been tainted by hateful resentment) I've gotten to know are sometimes part of a "reverse migration," many coming back to their Mississippi roots after having spent most of their lives in Chicago.

Anyway... If all you're talking about are drinking fountains, this really only pertained to blacks and possibly Native Americans. A lot of the resentment had to do with what southerners felt was inequitable treatment on the part of northerners, and anyone associated with that (other European ethnic groups) was not to be trusted. Just to give you an example, many of us back then would hold up the Chinese as "model minorities" because of their powerful work ethic and willing (aggressive?) determination to assimilate into white society. Ethnic groups where I live STILL maintain their own sense of community and don't seem to WANT to lose their racial/ethnic identity--has nothing to do with racism. But with few exceptions ethnic groups here seem very friendly to each other.

When you're talking about skinheads, who are typically neo-Nazis, you're talking about white supremacy groups. The KKK would be included here. My opinion is that such groups perceive an irrational threat to racial purity and encroachment of protection of the rights of minorities upon their own rights. There IS no threat. From a Christian perspective, the only threat I can see is the imposition of secular/ecumenical ideas on our children through public education, discouraging and diminishing spiritual growth. Those groups maintain the same post-war attitudes, summed up as mistrust of outsiders. THOSE people might consider Italians to be of an incompatible ethnic group, but that is NOT the prevailing attitude of the south.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

24 May 2010, 9:19 am

Hard call. I know skin color was the major factor, but if you had a given percentage of "colored" blood in your family background, you could be light skinned and still be considered "colored" rather than "white."



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2010, 1:52 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Hard call. I know skin color was the major factor, but if you had a given percentage of "colored" blood in your family background, you could be light skinned and still be considered "colored" rather than "white."


That is the infamous "one drop" rule. It was in force in the U.S. through the 19th and early 20th centuries.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

24 May 2010, 3:08 pm

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/ ... _v1-13.pdf

For the 1890 Census, the "colored" population was classified as "Negroes, Mulattoes, Quadroons, Octoroons, Chinese, Japanese, and Civilized Indian."

Mexicans, although mostly of mixed race, are generally classified as "White" in modern censuses. I don't know about the 1890 Census.



Epilefftic
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 350
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

24 May 2010, 6:02 pm

Ahh, thank you all for replying. AngelRho, your post was a good read, and panda thanks for the census. Funny thing about Censuses and Ship manifests, is that they were really careful to make sure that they put "South" in front of "Italian" for my family.

Wow Octoroons? Can anyone be sure they're not 1/8 colored? My Paternal line were Catholics from Naples, Italy, and looking at them I'm sure they are partially either Arabic/African a few generations back (Thank you Hannibal). But Italy has a crazy enough history as it is. The Kingdom of Two Sicilies will rise again!!


_________________
"In the end, Darwin always wins" - Me


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

24 May 2010, 6:35 pm

Until the civil rights laws of the 1960s, even in the North, many communities had "protective covenants" which prohibited a homeowner from selling his home to a "colored" person.

In many states, the marriage of President Obama's parents would not have been recognized. In some states, they would have been run clear out of the state.

I remember having read an article about a black/white mixed couple in Virginia where the police entered their home and arrested them in the middle of the night. They had to move to the Distict of Columbia, where black/white marriages were allowed.



Francis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

24 May 2010, 7:07 pm

I think it may have varied depending on where exactly you we're in the US.

I went to college in Boston and there we're still signs around that said "irish need not apply" or "No Irish allowed- Irish not welcome." (they are just hung up as memorablia now, but it was real discrimination at one time.) Irish was considered a minority in Boston. I don't think they suffered that down south. So I think the labels we're interpretted differently at different places and at different times.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2010, 6:32 am

Francis wrote:
I think it may have varied depending on where exactly you we're in the US.

I went to college in Boston and there we're still signs around that said "irish need not apply" or "No Irish allowed- Irish not welcome." (they are just hung up as memorablia now, but it was real discrimination at one time.) Irish was considered a minority in Boston. I don't think they suffered that down south. So I think the labels we're interpretted differently at different places and at different times.


Some of the nastiest anti-black bigotry in the U.S. has flourished in Boston, the Land of the Bean and the Cod. If you wish to hear so choice anti-black utterances you can still do so to day. Visit any pub of on D street, in South Boston. Strangely enough some of the most virulent ant-black hatred has flourished among the Boston Irish, who ancestors were the victims of bigotry, themselves.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2010, 7:09 am

Strange. No mention of slavery in these comments. Blacks in the south and elsewhere were slaves. The discrimination is derived from slavery. For over a hundred years after slavery was eliminated the south and a good many places in the north such as New York and New Jersey prevented black people from being treated equally. in many very nasty ways and that has not yet been totally eliminated. There were race riots in all sorts of cities. Tulsa, Detroit, etc. DWB (driving while black) is still a police issue in many places. Black people were not only not permitted public drinking fountains, no southern hotels would accommodate them and no public toilets were provided for their use. And in many places blacks had to step off the sidewalk if a white approached. A kid was brutally murdered because he lisped and someone thought he whistled at a woman. In Hollywood blacks were not permitted major roles and always appeared as servants or perhaps, on occasion, entertainers in subservient roles. That the south treated blacks better is absolute crap. I know. I marched with CORE in Tennessee in the early 60's and the KKK burned a cross on my lawn and my neighbors threw mud on my wife's laundry out to dry and threatened my kids. The laws did help. It was stringent enforcement of the laws that made the change.And no mention of the poll tax?



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

25 May 2010, 11:48 am

Sand wrote:
Strange. No mention of slavery in these comments. Blacks in the south and elsewhere were slaves. The discrimination is derived from slavery. For over a hundred years after slavery was eliminated the south and a good many places in the north such as New York and New Jersey prevented black people from being treated equally. in many very nasty ways and that has not yet been totally eliminated. There were race riots in all sorts of cities. Tulsa, Detroit, etc. DWB (driving while black) is still a police issue in many places. Black people were not only not permitted public drinking fountains, no southern hotels would accommodate them and no public toilets were provided for their use. And in many places blacks had to step off the sidewalk if a white approached. A kid was brutally murdered because he lisped and someone thought he whistled at a woman. In Hollywood blacks were not permitted major roles and always appeared as servants or perhaps, on occasion, entertainers in subservient roles. That the south treated blacks better is absolute crap. I know. I marched with CORE in Tennessee in the early 60's and the KKK burned a cross on my lawn and my neighbors threw mud on my wife's laundry out to dry and threatened my kids. The laws did help. It was stringent enforcement of the laws that made the change.And no mention of the poll tax?


How do you deal with the fact that the blacks sold into slavery in early America had this done to them by their fellow black people back in Africa?



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

25 May 2010, 12:08 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Sand wrote:
Strange. No mention of slavery in these comments. Blacks in the south and elsewhere were slaves. The discrimination is derived from slavery. For over a hundred years after slavery was eliminated the south and a good many places in the north such as New York and New Jersey prevented black people from being treated equally. in many very nasty ways and that has not yet been totally eliminated. There were race riots in all sorts of cities. Tulsa, Detroit, etc. DWB (driving while black) is still a police issue in many places. Black people were not only not permitted public drinking fountains, no southern hotels would accommodate them and no public toilets were provided for their use. And in many places blacks had to step off the sidewalk if a white approached. A kid was brutally murdered because he lisped and someone thought he whistled at a woman. In Hollywood blacks were not permitted major roles and always appeared as servants or perhaps, on occasion, entertainers in subservient roles. That the south treated blacks better is absolute crap. I know. I marched with CORE in Tennessee in the early 60's and the KKK burned a cross on my lawn and my neighbors threw mud on my wife's laundry out to dry and threatened my kids. The laws did help. It was stringent enforcement of the laws that made the change.And no mention of the poll tax?


How do you deal with the fact that the blacks sold into slavery in early America had this done to them by their fellow black people back in Africa?


I think it came down to "bring us slaves for money, or be slaves yourself."

After all, Whites were far too willing to press gang their own people into navies. Thats slavery, you know?


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2010, 12:38 pm

How does black participation in slavery excuse whites massively holding slaves?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2010, 12:53 pm

Sand wrote:
How does black participation in slavery excuse whites massively holding slaves?


It doesn't. It just means that wrongdoing and injustice is wide spread.

ruveyn