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)

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

DIFFERENCE
S ,
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 DIFFERENCES
1. 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 DIFFERENCES
1.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 change
a) 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.

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

democracy and diversity

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to democracy and diversity

Recently uploaded

In this document

democracy and diversity