Apartheid

Apartheid

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2)

________________________________________________________________________

What is apartheid?

Apartheid is segregation, the legal and political endorsement and institutionalization of discrimination. The term derives from the Afrikaans word for separateness. It involves the assigning of an Individual at birth into one or another class of citizen. In the case, for example. of the apartheid regime in South Africa, this classification depended on skin color, and four classes existed - white, colored, Asian, and black. Indeed, in the South African case, this distinction was made before birth, in so far as pregnant women could only he treated by doctors of their Own skin color.

In this chapter, we will, of course, discuss the literature on apartheid in South Africa, as well as its most obvious contemporary, racial segregation in the American South. However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that these are the only examples of apartheid which might be mentioned, nor that apartheid only targets black populations in countries with white majorities. Discrimination and prejudice are characteristics of many countries, and it is only the extent of the institutionalization of that discrimination which results in some countries being labeled as segregationist. Here, we will seek to expand our definition to include the anthropological and sociological literature which seeks to relate these forms of racial discrimination with such cultural Systems as caste. Thus, we will be entering a heated debate between those who seek to differentiate between the two systems, and those who view them both as forms of social stratification based on status. While it will become apparent that there are obvious differences between the two forms of social differentiation вЂ" a point made abundantly clear by Oliver Cromwell Cox and Louis DumontвЂ" we will ask not whether segregation can he understood as a form of caste (as some neo-Wcberians have suggested) but whether caste constitutes a form of apartheid. This neo Weberian pre-occupation with status actually takes us into another debate, concerning the role of women in the political sphere. In this chapter we will argue that it is not stretching the definition of apartheid too far to include situations where access to full citizenship is denied to certain members of a society on the basis of their gender. Finally, by way of a conclusion, we will consider the idea of equality as a human rights concern, and ask’ what relationship it might have with the idea of the state.

A brief history of apartheid

We could find any number of instances of apartheid, using the term in the broader sense advocated here, to make reference to in this history section. History is rife with examples of social exclusion, of the political o spatial separateness of certain groups in society. I will concentrate, though, on the two most famous examples of segregation: the Jim Crow laws in post-Civil War America, and apartheid in South Africa.

Segregation in the United States

In 1865, after the conclusion of the American civil war, slavery was officially abolished in the United States b the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. This was quickly followed by the j4t) Amendment of 1868, which guaranteed equal protection for all people under the Jaw, and by the 15th Amendment of 1870, which guaranteed voting rig1ts for all people. However, during the postwar reconstruction, many former slave-owning states experienced difficulties in adjusting to the different legal circumstances now allotted to those who had so recently been denied not only citizenship but basic freedom. Indeed, in many states, these former slaves made up the majority of the population. Agriculture and industry were also troubled by the sudden denial of their labor force. This matrix of uncertainties resulted in the passing of various laws in some of these states вЂ" called вЂ?Jim Crow’ Jaws вЂ" designed to segregate the white and non-white populations. Initially, these laws вЂ" named after a derogatory term used by whites to refer to blacks вЂ" applied to rail transport, but in a short time they had been extended to most areas of economic, political, and social life. In 1896, a challenge to these laws вЂ" the case of Plessey v. Ferguson, in which the charge was made that the laws violated the Constitution вЂ" was heard by the US Supreme Court. In making its majority decision of seven against one (with one abstention) on this case, the Supreme Court made the infamous claim that, while the Constitution guarantees equality, the Jim Crow laws were not about inequality, but separateness, about being вЂ?separate but equal’.

Of course, in practice, black people were treated as both separate and unequal. Public facilities were divided among white and black, access to political resources, to education, even to police protection, was constantly denied. Black people may have earned their equality in some legal sense, but they were still unable to reach positions of influence or authority because of the many other obstacles placed in their way. They could vote, but were discouraged from doing so, often through threat of violence, and few possessed a formal education. Assemblies of black people were monitored carefully by the white power structure, which feared dissent through association. Not only was equality denied, but freedom as well. These were the issues Homer Plessy, who had been arrested for sitting in a whites-only train carriage, made when his case reached the Supreme Court вЂ" that a вЂ?separate but equal’ policy violated legal equality by legitimizing the belief in the inferiority of blacks. These obvious consequences of the Jim Crow laws were clearly recognized by the one dissenting member of the Supreme Court, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan, a former slave-owner from Kentucky. His objection is famous for its clarity and conviction:

In the eyes of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,