Today in 1955 in Houston, musicians Ella Fitzgerald, Dizzy Gillespie, Illinois Jacquet, personal assistant Georgiana Henry, and concert promoter Norman Granz were arrested, ostensibly for the crime of illegal gambling. Five undercover cops had barged into the backstage area at the Houston Music Hall during a mid-set break and caught Jacquet and Gillespie playing craps. Fitzgerald was having a snack. Henry was nearby, as assistants tend to be. And Granz was arrested for blocking the cops' access to Fitzgerald's private bathroom because he feared they might plant drugs—a trick he'd seen before. The photo shows Fitzgerald and Henry. The despondent singer told gathered reporters, “I have nothing to say. What is there to say? I was only having a piece of pie and a cup of coffee.”
The gambling charge was, of course, just a pretext. Ella and company were actually arrested for playing to an integrated audience. Segregation had been made illegal the year before, but local authorities weren't budging in their attempts to keep the city divided, and jazz music, because of its popularity and tendency to elevate black culture, was feared by the old guard as the thin edge of the wedge of equal rights. Back then, opponents of equality called non-segregated shows such as Fitzgerald's “forced integration,” because whites had no option to partake without mingling with blacks. The phrase is eerily similar to “forced diversity,” which you hear a lot in 2022, and will continue to hear in upcoming years.
The UK fucked their whole economy because someone working at Tesco had an accent. Also, who do you think was importing slaves to the American Colonies? They have no room to talk.
Pretext arrests are really about plausible deniability. Even today on fact-checking websites like Snopes, the arrest is not fully labeled an incident of racist harassment. They were actually gambling, goes the logic.
The term “integrated” implies that separate facilities for black and white people were simply combined, without acknowledging the systemic racism and discrimination that necessitated segregation in the first place. By framing the situation as an issue of integration rather than addressing the root causes of segregation and inequality, it minimizes the harm and oppression that black people faced and continues to face.
This white washing of history and reality serves to downplay the struggles and experiences of black people, making it seem like their fight for equality and civil rights was simply a matter of integration rather than a battle against deep-seated racism and prejudice. It overlooks the violence, discrimination, and resistance that black individuals and communities had to face in order to gain equal access to basic rights and amenities.
Furthermore, the term “integration” can also imply a form of assimilation, where black individuals are pressured to conform to white norms and standards in order to be accepted. This erases the distinct cultural identities and lived experiences of black people, and reinforces a hierarchy where whiteness is the default and superior norm.
In conclusion, the use of the word “integrated” in regards to black people being allowed to use the same facilities as white people is a form of white washing that minimizes the struggles and experiences of black individuals, perpetuates a narrative of assimilation, and fails to address the systemic racism and oppression that continue to impact black communities today. It is important to recognize and challenge this kind of language in order to promote a more accurate and inclusive understanding of history and social justice.
You’ve lost me on this one. In this case, “integrated” is used because it is the antonym of “segregated”. It doesn’t erase the history of segregation, it repudiates segregation in a way that simpler (and perhaps newer & more popular) terms like “mixed” or “diverse” do not.
the term “integration” can also imply a form of assimilation, where black individuals are pressured to conform to white norms
I do agree with that. If one were to use “integrated” in the wrong context, it could imply the old colonial idea of cultural assimilation. In this specific context, though – as a refutation of “segregated” – there’s no risk of invoking the wrong connotation.
I fail to see how changing it to “racially diverse” fixes any of these issues. In fact, it’s impossible to define “integration” in this context without bringing up segregation and the systemic racism that wrought it, I’d argue your phrasing is much more euphemistic.
No, words have meaning derived from context. No one in their right mind thinks "integration" sounds benign as you suggest.
If you don't understand the historic connotations of any word you could make the same mistake you do above. For instance why pick on "integrated" when you have no qualms about "segregated"? Your logic could apply there too:
The term “segregated” implies that separate facilities for black and white people simply existed equally, without acknowledging the systemic racism, inequality, discrimination, and violence that this system was part of in the first place.
I remember going on a serious old jazz kick and downloaded so much ella fitzgerald and other jazz after playing (replaying?) some of the fallout games.
Add comment