Racial segregation and its modern manifestations in Chile.

Racial segregation then: Apartheid -> CONSIOUS. Brief explanation of the concept
Aspects:
-Separation of determined race to specific areas of a city or country Nowadays
-No equality before the law Nowadays
-Discriminatory attitude towards determined racial group considered as inferior
Nowadays
Conclusion: answer three questions
1. Can Apartheid be compared to the racial situation in Chile?
2. How racial segregation is present in our reality?
3. Is the government concerned about the current situation in Chile?

Good Morning everyone, today Im going to discuss the following topic: Racial segregation
and its modern manifestations in Chile. This presentation will aim to answer this three
questions you see now.
Nowadays racial segregation expressions such as Apartheid might look far away from our
Chilean reality, since us, as opposed to Africa in the 50s, are in democracy and receive so
many foreigners every year that now live in our country like us. However, do they live
exactly like us? And what about the people that were here even before us? We will see.
Lets start revising the concept of Apartheid.
Apartheid means the state of being apart, that is, according to the issues narrated on the
book No Easy Walk to Freedom to take a group of people or race and deliberately and
compulsorily separate them from another in relation to law; rights; territory; education and
occupations by economic and political reasons. Before we go on, we must keep in mind
that Apartheid is a conscious type of racial segregation.
Some aspects that this kind of racial segregation present are the expropriation of territory,
the division of space within this territory, the inequality before law and discriminatory
attitude towards a race, considering it as inferior.

Concerning the separation of the territory, Apartheid divided South Africa into two different
types of areas, ones for Whites and other for coloured Africans. According to the book,
most of the country was occupied by the minority, which were Europeans, and a little part
of the country was allowed for African occupation.
the workers, businessmen, and professional men and womenare to be
treated as outcasts, not even as settlers. Everywhere outside the Reserves an
African will be tolerated only on condition that he is for the convenience of the
Whites. (54)

The places where Africans where bound to settle were known as Reserves, Ghettoes, of
Townships. Nowadays, in the Chilean reality, Township occurs in a different way.
Immigrants from Asia, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia come to Chile, but here there are no
programmes of inclusion and integration for immigrants, so many of them have to content
with the lifestyle of a new culture by their own. Then, when they search into Chilean
regular people to accept them as a peer inhabitant, most Chileans treat them differently or,
what is more, discriminate them, so they never feel totally Chilean, thus, they look for
people like them and settle in specific neighbourhoods, forming what can be considered as
an unconscious and spontaneous Township, formed by Chileans closed attitude and the
immigrant wish to be part of a community *Berrys model*. Then we can notice that they
do not leave that neighbourhood again, and we have Koreans in Patronato, Peruvians in the
Plaza de Armas, etc.
Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in
their own ghettoes (169)

Regarding inequality before law, in Apartheid times, Africans could not vote or participate
in the creation of bills. They had no rights of any type in comparison with the status that
Europeans enjoyed. However, Mandela thought that this equality before law could be
achieved through representativeness in the courts and parliament, since, for him:
In its proper meaning equality before law means the right to participate in the
making of the laws by which one is governed (107)

In the modern Chilean reality, this situation is still present for a group of people that, as
Africans, were before anyone in the territory, Im talking about Mapuches. They are judged
in our tribunals, with our laws, and often treated as terrorists, being arrested in irregular
circumstances, violently and, in many cases, just for being Mapuche. Mapuches are not

represented in the House of Representatives or tribunals, and they do not participate in the
creation of the laws that are used to judge them.
Why is it that no African has ever had the honour of being tried by his own kith
and kin, by his own flesh and blood? (107)

This is a situation that Mandela complained about during his trial. especificar si es
conciente o noConcerning the last aspect, discriminatory attitude towards determined racial group
considered as inferior, Africans were discriminated in explicit ways, for instance, through
education. In the book, Mandela talks about Bantu Education, which basically encouraged
White supremacy over black people in relation to the quality of education received and the
occupations expected for each race. Additionally, Mandela speaks about the aggressiveness
and hostility towards his race by the hand of Europeans:
we were treated courteously by many officials but we were very often
discriminated against by some and treated with resentment and hostility by
others (129)

At the present time, we can see that the attitude towards a foreigner depends mostly on
his/her country of origin. Peruvians, Bolivians and Colombian people often experience the
worst cases of discrimination, being the object of satirical and cruel humour in the streets
(Peruvians) or asked to leave the country by means of demonstrations and posters as
occurred in 2013 (Colombians). This is clearly an implicit belief of race superiority, but
even if it is not recognised by authorities as their official attitude towards immigrants, the
only resource that people have to resort to law in cases of discrimination is Ley Zamudio.
In the past we have been astonished by the reaction of certain political parties
and philanthropic associations which proclaimed themselves to be antiapartheid butopposed positive action taken by oppressed people to defeat
this same policy (73-74)

The Chilean constitution lacks of normative structures towards immigration and racial
discrimination, providing insufficient support to the rights of immigrants and Mapuches.
Nowadays there are no programmes of inclusion regarding education for immigrants and in
the case of Mapuches, they are not enough teacher that are aware of their cultural and
language differences. There are no policies to regulate the growing immigration that our
country presents, dealing with this situation with decrees made up during dictatorship.

-------------Questions---------------------We can still see how these people are treated differently every day, being located in
restricted areas that make them feel part of a society among themselves, having less
representativeness in law, courts and government and little constitutional support of their
rights, being those treated just in conferences, associations or short programmes. It is in our
hands to be as inclusive as we can and to point out any kind of discriminatory act we see,
being this implicit and unconscious as many cases in Chile, or explicit and deliberate as
South African Apartheid.
I hate the practice of race discrimination, and in my hatred I am sustained by the fact the
overwhelming majority of mankind hate it equally (140)