 | The examples and perspective in this articledeal primarily with the United States and do not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this article, discuss the issue on thetalk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate.(December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Racial integration, or simplyintegration, includes desegregation (the process of ending systematicracial segregation), leveling barriers to association, creatingequal opportunity regardless ofrace, and the development of aculture that draws on diverse traditions, rather than merelybringing a racialminority into themajority culture. Desegregation is largely a legal matter, integration largely a social one.
Morris J. MacGregor Jr. in his paper "Integration of the Armed Forces 1940–1969", writes concerning the wordsintegration anddesegregation:
In recent years many historians have come to distinguish between these like-sounding words... The movement toward desegregation, breaking down the nation'sJim Crow system, became increasingly popular in the decade afterWorld War II. Integration, on the other hand, ProfessorOscar Handlin maintains, implies several things not yet necessarily accepted in all areas of American society. In one sense it refers to the "levelling of all barriers to association other than those based on ability, taste, and personal preference";[1] in other words, providing equal opportunity. But in another sense integration calls for the random distribution of a minority throughout society. Here, according to Handlin, the emphasis is on racial balance in areas of occupation, education, residency, and the like.
From the beginning the military establishment rightly understood that the breakup of the all-black unit would in a closed society necessarily mean more than mere desegregation. It constantly used the terms integration and equal treatment and opportunity to describe its racial goals. Rarely, if ever, does one find the word desegregation in military files that include much correspondence.[1]
.jpg)
Similarly, Keith M. Woods writes on the need for precision injournalistic language: "Integration happens when a monolith is changed, like when a black family moves into an all-white neighborhood. Integration happens even without a mandate from the law.Desegregation," on the other hand, "was the legal remedy to segregation."[2] In 1997, Henry Organ, who identified himself as "a participant in theCivil Rights Movement on the (San Francisco) Peninsula in the '60s ... and ... an African American," wrote that the "term 'desegregation' is normally reserved to the legal/legislative domain, and it was the legalization of discrimination in public institutions based on race that many fought against in the 1960s. The term 'integration,' on the other hand, pertains to a social domain; it does and should refer to individuals of different background who opt to interact."[3]
In their bookBy the Color of Our Skin (1999)Leonard Steinhorn and Barbara Diggs-Brown also make a similar distinction betweendesegregation andintegration. They write "... television has ... give[n] white Americans the sensation of having meaningful, repeated contact with blacks without actually having it. We call this phenomenon virtual integration, and it is the primary reason why the integration illusion – the belief that we are moving toward a colorblind nation – has such a powerful influence on race relations in America today." Reviewing this book in thelibertarian magazineReason, Michael W. Lynch sums up some of their conclusions as "Blacks and whites live, learn, work, pray, play, and entertain separately..." Then, he writes:
The problem, as I see it, is that access to the public spheres, specifically the commercial sphere, often depends on being comfortable with the norms of white society. If a significant number of black children aren't comfortable with them, it isn't by choice: It's because they were isolated from those norms. It's one thing for members of the black elite and upper middle class to choose to retire to predominantly black neighborhoods after a lucrative day's work in white America. It's quite another for people to be unable to enter that commercial sphere because they spent their formative years in a community that didn't, or couldn't, prepare them for it. Writes [Harvard Universitysociologist Orlando] Patterson, "The greatest problem now facing African-Americans is their isolation from the tacit norms of the dominant culture, and this is true of all classes."[4]
Although widespread, the distinction betweenintegration anddesegregation is not universally accepted. For example, it is possible to find references to "court-ordered integration" from sources such as theDetroit News,[5]PBS,[6] or evenEncarta.[7]These same sources also use the phrase "court-ordered desegregation", apparently with exactly the same meaning;[8][9] theDetroit News uses both expressions interchangeably in the same article.[5]
When the two terms are confused, it is almost always to useintegration in the narrower, more legalistic sense ofdesegregation; one rarely, if ever, seesdesegregation used in the broader cultural sense.
