DEMOCRACY AND

DIVERSITY

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed

at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights in Southern

states. By 1966, the emergence of the Black Power Movement, which lasted roughly from 1966 to

1975, enlarged the aims of the Civil Rights Movement to include racial dignity, economic and political self-sufficiency

, and freedom from oppression by white Americans.

CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN THE U.S.A .(1954-1968)

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR

MEXICO OLYMPICS 1968

The Mexico Olympics of 1968 saw African-American protests reach a world-wide audience when two black athletes used a medal ceremony for the 200 meters to protest about the lack of

real civil rights in America.

One of the greatest sprinters in the world in 1968 was Tommy Smith. By the end of his athletics career, Smith had equaled or broken thirteen world records. Close behind him in the rankings was John Carlos. Both were team mates at San Jose State College. In the build up to the games, all

African-American athletes were urged to boycott the games by the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR). A member

of OPHR was Harry Edwards who was a friend of both sprinters and had influenced Smith and Carlos even before the Mexico games. Though a boycott never materialised, both Smith and Carlos agreed on a protest at the medal

ceremony for the 200 meters which both were expected to be at.  

"It (a protest) was in my head the whole year. We first tried to have a boycott (of the games) but not everyone was down with that plan. A lot of athletes thought that winning medals would supercede or protect them from racism. But even if you won the medal, it ain't going to save your momma. It ain't going to save your sister or

children. It might give you fifteen minutes of fame, but what about the rest of your life? I'm not saying

that they didn't have the right to follow their dreams, but to me the medal was nothing but the carrot on a

stick." John Carlos 

In the 200 meters final, Smith won the gold medal and Carlos took the bronze medal. Smith's time of 19.8

seconds equaled the world record. As both men climbed the medals podium, it became clear that they were

wearing one black glove; Smith on his right hand, Carlos on his left. Smith later stated that his right handed

demonstration was meant to represent Black Power in America. The left hand demo of Carlos was meant to represent unity in Black America. The archway that

their raised arms created was meant to represent black power and unity in America. The black socks that both

wore (and no shoes) represented black poverty in America. Both men also wore beads at the ceremony.

"We wanted the world to know that in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Central Los Angeles, Chicago, that people were still walking back and

forth in poverty without even the necessary clothes to live. The beads were for those individuals that were lynched, or killed that no-one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred. It was for those thrown off the side of the boats in the middle

passage. We were trying to wake the country up and wake the world up to.“ John Carlos

Their gesture was seen as a Black Power salute - and was watched by tens of millions of people world-wide. This

resulted in both men being expelled from the Olympic village and suspended by the American Olympic Committee and

being ordered to leave Mexico City. Their 'official' crime had been to bring in political issues to an apolitical event.

"The basic principle of the Olympic Games is that politics plays no part whatsoever in them. US athletes

violated this universally accepted principle....to advertise domestic political views." IOC statement after

the protest

Ironically - and missed by many at the time - the man who won the silver medal (Peter Norman of Australia) wore the

badge of the OPHR on his tracksuit .

When the two men returned to America, they were greeted as heroes by the African-American community and as

unpatriotic troublemakers by others. In fact, both men suffered threats against their lives. However, the stance they

took was publicised throughout the world. Polls have indicated that their demonstration was the 6th most

memorable event of the C20th - an astonishing achievement for athletes of whatever description. In 1998 both men were

honoured for the stance they had taken in 1998.

Thirty years after the event, Steve Holman, an Olympic athlete at the 1992 Games and America's fastest miler of the 1990-95 era, wrote a tribute to what both men had done in

1968 and what it meant to him.

DIFFERENCES ,

SIMILARITIES ,

DIVERSITY

By birth

By choice

ORIGINS OF SOCIAL DIFFERENCES

Some of the social differences are based on accident of birth.

We do not choose to belong to our community, we belong to it simply because

we are born to it.

We all experience social difference based on accident of birth in our everyday lives, it can be in the form of male-female, being tall-short, different complexions, or have

different physical abilities.

BY BIRTH

Some of the differences are based on our choices. For example, some people are atheists—they do not

believe in God or any religion, some choose to follow religion other than

in which they were born ; Some choose what to study and what occupation to takeup and which game to play or which cultural

activities to take part in.All these lead to formation of groups of our

choices.

Every social difference does not lead to social division.

BY CHOICE

Every social difference does not lead to social division.

Social differences divide similar people from one another but, they also unite

people very different people.

People belonging to different social groups share differences and similarities

cutting across the boundaries of their groups. Eg. Carlos & Smith joined hands

because as they both were similar but Peter supported them as they were

athletes.

It is common for people belonging to the same religion feel that they donot belong to the same community because their caste or sect is different. It is also possible for the

people from different religions to have same caste and feel close to each other.

Rich & poor persons from the same family often do not have close relations with each other for they feel they are very different.

Thus we all have more than one identity and can belong to more than one group.

OVERLAPPING DIFFERENCES1. When some social difference overlaps with

other difference.

2. Situations of this kind produce social divisions, when one kind of social difference becomes more important than the other and people start feeling

that they belong to different communities.3. Example—

a)difference between Black & White in the US becomes a social division because they tend to be poor & landless, and often face injustice &

discrimination.b) In our country Dalits tend to be poor &

landless and often face injustice & discrimination.

4. Overlapping differences create possibilities of deep social divisions and tensions.

OVERLAPPING & CROSS-CUTTING DIFFERENCES.

CROSS-CUTTING DIFFERENCES1.If social differences cross-cut one another, it is difficult to pit group of people against the other.

2. It means that group that share a common interest on the issue are likely to be on different

sides on a different issue.3. Example –

Northern Ireland & Netherlands both are predominantly Christians but divided between Catholics & Protestants. In Northern Ireland

class & religion overlap each other, if catholic one tend to be poor & have suffered

discrimination where as in Netherland, class & religion tend to cross-cut each other and both are equally likely to be rich or poor. It means

they have conflict in Northern Ireland and it is not so in Netherlands.

4. Cross-cut social differences are easier to accommodate.

Countries that were once highly Homogeneous are

now becoming Heterogeneous and are

undergoing a rapid changea) with the influx of people

from other parts of the world.

b) Migrants bring with them their own culture and to form a different social

community.

Q. MOST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD ARE MULTI-

CULTURAL? WHY? GIVE EXAMPLES.

POLITICS OF SOCIAL DIVISIONS

The combination of politics & social divisions is very explosive and

dangerous.a) democracy involves competition among

various political parties. Their competitions tend to divide society.

b) if they start competing in terms of some existing social divisions , they can

make social divisions into political divisions and lead to conflict , violence or

even disintegration of a country.c)social divisions affect voting in most countries, people from one community

tend to prefer one party more than others.d)in many countries there are parties which focus only on one community.--yet all this does not always lead to

disintegration.

Q. HOW DO SOCIAL DIVISIONS AFFECT POLITICS?

This has happened in many countries ---Examples(negative results)

1. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this region of UK has been for many years a sight of violence&

bitter ethno- political conflict.--Its population is divided into into two major sects of christianity: 53%--Protestants & 44%--Catholics.

--Catholics are represented by the Nationalist parties, who wanted Northern Ireland to be united

with the Republic of Ireland, predominantly catholic.

--Protestants are represented by the Unionist who wanted to remain with UK.

--hundreds of civilians and militants were killed in the fight of political parties till 1998, the UK govt. & the Nationalists reached a peace treaty after which

the latter suspended the armed struggle.2. In Yugoslavia the political competition along

religious and ethnic lines led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia into six independent countries.

--such examples lead some people to think that politics & social divisions should not be allowed to mix; if social divisions exists in a country they must

never be expressed in politics.

POSITIVE EXAMPLES:Every expression of social

division in politics does not lead to disasters. Social divisions of some or the other kind do exist

in every society of the world and are reflected in politics.

--in a democracy it is only natural that political parties talk

of these divisions, make different promises to different communities, look after their representation and policies to

redress the grievances of disadvantaged communities.

There are three factors which are crucial in deciding the outcome of

politics of social divisions.1. Outcome depends upon how people perceive their identities. If they see

their identities in singular and exclusive terms it becomes very

difficult to accommodate. As in India we think of ourselves as Indians as

well as belonging to a state or a language group or a social or

religious community.

THREE DETERMINANTS:

2. It depends on how political leaders raise the demands of any community. It is easier to accommodate demands that are within

the constitutional framework and are not at the cost of another community.

Example –the demand for only Sinhala was at the cost of the interest and identity of

Tamil community in Srilanka; in Yugoslavia also the ethnic communities presented their demands in such a way that these could not be accommodated with in a single country.3. It depends on how the govt. reacts to the demands of different groups. Example—In

Belgium and Srilanka if the rulers are willing to share power & accommodate the reasonable demands of minority community, social divisions become less threatening for

the country. But if they suppress such a demand in the name of national unity, the end result can be quite opposite & such a forced integration can sow the seeds of

disintegration.

In a democracy political expression of the social divisions is very normal and can be

healthy as….--It allows various disadvantaged and marginal

social groups to express their grievances and get govt. to attend to these.

--The expression of various kinds of social divisions in politics often result in cancelling one

another out and thus reducing their intensity. This leads to strengthening of a democracy.

--People who feel marginalized, deprived and discriminated have to fight against the injustices and such fights often takes the democratic path,

voicing their demands in a peaceful & constitutional manner and seeking a fair position

through the elections.--sometimes these social differences can take a

form of the unacceptable level of social inequality and injustice. The struggle against such inequalities sometimes take the path of

violence and defiance of state power.

Q. ARE SOCIAL DIVISIONS ARE DANGEROUS OR NORMAL & HEALTHY?

Thank you By – sneha

joy

THE END