The legacies of slavery and Jim Crow
Almost every Western nation practiced slavery to some degree, but with the new philosophies of the 1800s and abolition of slavery, the long journey towards racial equality began. In the United States, however, this goal was to be put on hold for almost a century, when an official policy of racial segregation was gradually adopted, beginning in 1876. One need only pick up a psychology textbook post-Zimbardo, to read of the dangers of splitting people into two seperate groups.
In Britain, after the abolition of slavery, black people had equal rights under the law. Not “separate but equal.” Just equal. Of course they faced discrimination, but it was not built into the very structure of the country. It was not a legitimate or acceptable theory, even if it was a practice. In Britain, the preoccupation was class. This, by extension, includes the issue of race, but is yet very different from an official policy of segregating people’s lives based solely on skin colour. The deep-rooted hatred was not present; large-scale murder, mutilation and intimidation of black people is, thankfully, not a part of British history.
A very obvious example of how differently countries without ‘Jim Crow’ equivalents developed from the USA is when black US soldiers met Europeans a century later, during the second world war. To be able to walk into any business just the same as somebody with white skin, mix with and even date white women, must have been a real eye-opener to how unnatural and wrong things were back home at the time (I would recommend ‘Mudbound’ by Hillary Jordan for a very poignant description of this).
When we come to the modern day, things get a lot less clear-cut. The USA still bears the scars of segregation; of that there is no doubt. Geographical and psychological divides still remain. US cities are well-known for their “black” and “white” areas, and through my personal experience of living in St Louis, I observed a real “them and us” mentality among people, the likes of which I had never witnessed before.
However, does this necessarily mean that the USA is “more racist” than those countries without such a turbulent racial history? Perhaps in the US, people talk openly about their prejudices, because it’s something that is literally imprinted upon the history and geography of the nation for all to see. In countries like Britain, it maybe lurks dangerously benealth the surface, only discussed when glaring cases of “institutionalised racism” are brought to light.
It’s a tough one, and the ‘Americanization’ of the world makes it even tougher. We’re no longer closed societies. We can’t compare “Society A – without Jim Crow” with “Society B – with Jim Crow.” People blame a recent surge in black-on-black violence in UK cities on young black males copying the American ‘gang culture.’ But surely this would never occur if there was not an underlying problem to begin with. There has been an increasingly vocal backlash against Chris Rock’s tour of the UK, with people saying his racist jokes are divisive and not welcome in Britain. Is there any truth to these statements, or is Britain racist too, but is just uncomfortable discussing it?
The impact of the Jim Crow laws not only upon the United States but on the world, is impossible to quantify. There is no doubt that it oppressed black people in the USA for the century that it reigned as law, and beyond. Does the USA suffer from deeper racial divisions than other Western nations because of it? Surely it does, for the horrors endured by black people in the United States are truly unmatched in other Western democracies. Yet, as our cultures become inextricably linked, the Jim Crow legacy is one that will be shared – hopefully to be conquered – by all.
—
This article was inspired by Shazale Ramsey on facebook.
A thought provoking assessment of the dejure segregation bestowed upon society. Well done.
Keep writing.
I encourage you to read “We As Freemen: Plessy v. Ferguson” by Keith W. Medley. You will enjoy the correlation between what I have just read in your words and many that you will find in this excellent reference.
you’ve just blamed all of the worlds racial issues on the united states. let’s talk about russia. let’s talk about the nazis. let’s talk about china’s approach to it’s “minority nationalities.” let’s talk about the south african apartheid. let’s talk about the whole supression of the African people, for crying out loud. oh wait i’ve got a better one, what about that british empire? the sun never sets on the british empire. the stealing of culture, the opression of the Indian population, who fought for their freedom. the handing over of Hong Kong in the early ’90s. the caribbean islands? what a history of racism and oppression. i think it’s childish to make such a statement. racism is not just about black and white. so you claim didn’t mistreat the African-British population on the mainland, but your government did a fantastic job abroad.
I am confused as to why you perceive this article to be blaming world racism on the USA.
My point was not that no other countries suffered racism – indeed, I argued directly against this notion – but simply that progress towards equality at home was held back in the United States by a LEGAL framework not seen in other Western nations, for such a prolonged period of time.
I have not denied in the article that descrimination existed and exists in Britain. I point out the serious problems Britain has faced with institutionalised racism, which may in itself be a consequence of NOT having the open debate that the USA does.
The article was meant as comparison between similarly developed societies with and without the influence of LEGAL support of racism at home. I did not conclude that the former produced a ‘more racist’ society than the latter, nor was it implied that the world’s racial problems are the fault of the United States.
Of course, much was left unsaid about the other topics that you raise – colonisation, apartheid in South Africa, and the like – but I intentionally limited the scope of this article to address one question only.