I can help somewhat, as it's a pretty short answer: no. One of the oft-quoted lines about the difference between segregation in the North and the South: in the South if you were black you could get close, but not big. In the North, you could get big, but not close. The South had a very large black population and they often worked among the white population- but not as equals. A company might have black and white employees, but the black ones would never be supervisors of white ones, and they would not socialize with them as equals. A good example of this is the Ollie's Barbecue case Ollie's had mostly black cooks and waitresses, busboys, etc serving white customers. Black servers would be in the dining area, but if you were black and hungry and wanted to buy food, you couldn't sit down with them, would have to go to the back door of the kitchen, or go to the counter and get food to take away. When public places in the South became integrated, Ollie's owner said that integrating because of the Civil Rights Act would drive away their white customers and sued: and lost. His pretense was that it was just a matter of business, not bias. And you will notice his language, which was quite typical- we love our negro employees, some have been here a long time, etc. Control could be hidden in such paternalistic jargon; blacks described as though they were beloved children who were just not yet capable of full status.

It was a good example of the basic absurdity of the whole notion of "separate but equal". There was never any real question but that whites felt that blacks were indeed unequal, otherwise they would not have created the separation.