Promoting unequal access in South Africa? Contemporary assertions of community-based mental services and the legacy of community psychiatry from the 1940s to the 1960s
{"title":"Promoting unequal access in South Africa? Contemporary assertions of community-based mental services and the legacy of community psychiatry from the 1940s to the 1960s","authors":"Tiffany F. Jones","doi":"10.1080/00232080585380041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1 United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, 'Report by WHO', Geneva, 22 March, 1977 in Notes and Documents 11/77 (April, 1977), 25; International Committee of the Red Cross, 'Annual Report 1976' (Geneva, 1977), 18; and 'Annual Report 1977' (Geneva, 1978), 17; and C. Pinderhughes, J. Spurlock, J. Weinberg, A. Stone, 'Report of the Committee to Visit South Africa', American Psychiatric Association, 1978, 16. 2 In this article, I use terms such as 'non-European', 'European', 'Bantu', 'Native', 'White', 'nonWhite', 'Black', 'Coloured', 'Asian\" and 'Indian\" that psychiatrists, politicians, journalists and individuals used themselves. These terms are somewhat problematic because racial categories and labels consistently changed during apartheid. While the apartheid regime had attempted to classify all individuals in the categories of black, white, coloured or Indian, these categories are still used today, although they are no longer imposed on individuals. Instead, individuals are expected to classify themselves. It is important to note that in some government documents, the term 'black\" often includes those individuals who classify themselves as coloured and Indian. Nevertheless, I have chosen to use the original terms as they offer insight into the existing perceptions during each period. For example, during the early years of apartheid, the terms 'European', 'non-European', 'Bantu' and 'Native' were popular. By the 1970s, however the terms 'Black', 'White', 'Coloured', 'Indian' and 'non-White' had superseded these terms. This movement away from designations that described individuals in terms of their cultural origins (or in the case of 'non-Europeans', the lack thereof) towards more set racial classifications is indicative of the increased concern over racial segregation. 3 See Trath and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission q f South Africa Report (Basingstoke and Oxford, Macmillan Reference Limited, 1998), vol. 4.","PeriodicalId":81767,"journal":{"name":"Kleio","volume":"38 1","pages":"164 - 190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00232080585380041","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kleio","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00232080585380041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
1 United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, 'Report by WHO', Geneva, 22 March, 1977 in Notes and Documents 11/77 (April, 1977), 25; International Committee of the Red Cross, 'Annual Report 1976' (Geneva, 1977), 18; and 'Annual Report 1977' (Geneva, 1978), 17; and C. Pinderhughes, J. Spurlock, J. Weinberg, A. Stone, 'Report of the Committee to Visit South Africa', American Psychiatric Association, 1978, 16. 2 In this article, I use terms such as 'non-European', 'European', 'Bantu', 'Native', 'White', 'nonWhite', 'Black', 'Coloured', 'Asian" and 'Indian" that psychiatrists, politicians, journalists and individuals used themselves. These terms are somewhat problematic because racial categories and labels consistently changed during apartheid. While the apartheid regime had attempted to classify all individuals in the categories of black, white, coloured or Indian, these categories are still used today, although they are no longer imposed on individuals. Instead, individuals are expected to classify themselves. It is important to note that in some government documents, the term 'black" often includes those individuals who classify themselves as coloured and Indian. Nevertheless, I have chosen to use the original terms as they offer insight into the existing perceptions during each period. For example, during the early years of apartheid, the terms 'European', 'non-European', 'Bantu' and 'Native' were popular. By the 1970s, however the terms 'Black', 'White', 'Coloured', 'Indian' and 'non-White' had superseded these terms. This movement away from designations that described individuals in terms of their cultural origins (or in the case of 'non-Europeans', the lack thereof) towards more set racial classifications is indicative of the increased concern over racial segregation. 3 See Trath and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission q f South Africa Report (Basingstoke and Oxford, Macmillan Reference Limited, 1998), vol. 4.
1联合国反对种族隔离中心,“卫生组织的报告”,日内瓦,1977年3月22日,《说明和文件11/77》(1977年4月),第25页;红十字国际委员会,“1976年年度报告”(日内瓦,1977年),第18页;和“1977年年度报告”(日内瓦,1978年),17;和C. Pinderhughes, J. Spurlock, J. Weinberg, A. Stone,“访问南非委员会的报告”,美国精神病学协会,1978年,第16页。在这篇文章中,我使用了诸如“非欧洲人”、“欧洲人”、“班图人”、“土著”、“白人”、“非白人”、“黑人”、“有色人种”、“亚洲人”和“印度人”等精神病学家、政治家、记者和个人自己使用的术语。这些术语有些问题,因为种族分类和标签在种族隔离期间不断变化。虽然种族隔离政权曾试图将所有人分为黑人、白人、有色人种或印度人,但这些类别至今仍在使用,虽然不再强加于个人。相反,人们期望个人对自己进行分类。值得注意的是,在一些政府文件中,“黑人”一词通常包括那些将自己归类为有色人种和印度人的人。然而,我选择使用原始的术语,因为它们提供了对每个时期现有观念的洞察。例如,在种族隔离的早期,“欧洲人”、“非欧洲人”、“班图人”和“土著”等词很流行。然而,到了20世纪70年代,“黑人”、“白人”、“有色人种”、“印第安人”和“非白人”已经取代了这些术语。这种从根据个人的文化起源(或者在“非欧洲人”的情况下,缺乏文化起源)来描述个人的运动,转向更固定的种族分类,表明人们对种族隔离的担忧日益增加。3见南非真相与和解委员会,《真相与和解委员会:南非报告》(贝辛斯托克和牛津,麦克米伦参考有限公司,1998年),第4卷。