In the infancy of Hartford parks when they were just being created, the superintendent George A. Parker. called for the process of segregation on the basis of many different factors (Feeney). Age, activity, and genders were exclusively separated; but we cannot ignore the obvious factor, race. The northeast may not have had strict Jim Crown laws like the south, but racial tensions were still present. At the very least, de-facto segregation was common place; especially if innocent things like activities were being “segregated” and not simply separated.
This term “segregating” the park is commonly used to describe this practice, as it is heavily in line with the actual segregation practices in housing. In this era, housing policies were based on socio-economic class. Not as bad as racial discrimination, but the idea was to clearly create rich and poor neighborhoods. As history has shown, these policies had very racial undertones that manifested themselves blatantly as redlines. Among the qualities segregated by the parks, socioeconomic class was included; as with housing, this reflected a clear racial bias. Researcher Caroline Feeney also points out how unity was never an intention of superintendent Parker, as it wasn’t conducive to developing individual talents. By segregating activities and ages, people of similar lifestyle and interest would be able to practice their skills and talents in a vibrant public setting.
In the modern day, the practice of segregation in any form has proven to be more detrimental than beneficial. It has left divisions and cracks in our societal foundation that have yet to be repaired to this day. Some efforts are making progress, but it will be hard to fully rectify past discrimination.