Modernist segregation: Difference between revisions

From Segregation Wiki
(Creating page)
(Creating page)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:
<references />  
<references />  
{{NoteAI}}  
{{NoteAI}}  
==Modernist Segregation appears on the following literature==  
==Modernist segregation appears in the following literature==  
 
Dovey K., Pafka E. (2017). Functional mix. ''Mapping Urbanities: Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities'', 19-40. Taylor and Francis.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315309170


Duric M. (2017). Transit assemblages. ''Mapping Urbanities: Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities'', 129-142. Taylor and Francis.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315309170
Duric M. (2017). Transit assemblages. ''Mapping Urbanities: Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities'', 129-142. Taylor and Francis.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315309170
Dovey K., Pafka E. (2017). Functional mix. ''Mapping Urbanities: Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities'', 19-40. Taylor and Francis.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315309170

Latest revision as of 16:17, 25 September 2024

Date and country of first publication[1][edit | edit source]

2017
Australia

Definition[edit | edit source]

Modernist segregation refers to the practice of segregation and discrimination based on modernist principles and ideas. It refers to the segregation of different racial, ethnic, or social groups based on modernist beliefs in superiority and racial hierarchy.

In the early 20th century, modernist ideologies arose that supported social and intellectual progress and sought to create a more efficient and rational society. Some proponents of modernism believed in the idea of racial or cultural superiority, arguing for the separation of different races or ethnic groups in order to maintain social order and preserve cultural purity.

This ideology was used to justify policies such as the segregation of schools, housing, public facilities, and even entire neighborhoods based on race or ethnicity. In many cases, these policies were implemented through legal means, such as Jim Crow laws in the United States or apartheid policies in South Africa.

Modernist segregation had devastating consequences, perpetuating inequality and marginalization of certain social groups. It led to unequal access to resources and opportunities, limited social mobility, and reinforced stereotypes and prejudices. It also created an environment of hostility and division between different racial or ethnic groups.

Over time, modernist segregation has been widely discredited and rejected as an unjust and discriminatory practice. Civil rights movements and legal reforms have sought to dismantle segregation and promote equal rights for all individuals, regardless of their race or ethnicity. However, the legacy of modernist segregation continues to impact society, with lasting effects on patterns of racial and social inequality.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. Date and country of first publication as informed by the Scopus database (December 2023).
At its current state, this definition has been generated by a Large Language Model (LLM) so far without review by an independent researcher or a member of the curating team of segregation experts that keep the Segregation Wiki online. While we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee its reliability, completeness and timeliness. Please use this content with caution and verify information as needed. Also, feel free to improve on the definition as you see fit, including the use of references and other informational resources. We value your input in enhancing the quality and accuracy of the definitions of segregation forms collectively offered in the Segregation Wiki ©.

Modernist segregation appears in the following literature[edit | edit source]

Dovey K., Pafka E. (2017). Functional mix. Mapping Urbanities: Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities, 19-40. Taylor and Francis.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315309170

Duric M. (2017). Transit assemblages. Mapping Urbanities: Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities, 129-142. Taylor and Francis.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315309170