| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
187071
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
It is widely accepted that race is socially constructed. Despite this, deference to race witnesses scholarship and activism becoming complicit in the reification of race and the reproduction of its effects. Gilroy describes ‘‘the pious ritual in which we always agree that ‘‘race’’’ is invented but then are required to defer to its embeddedness in the world and to accept that the demand for justice requires us nevertheless innocently to enter the political arenas it helps to mark out’. This article engages this contention through reflection on the political deployment of race in Southhall Black Sisters. Empirical data and postracial theory extend the analysis to examine an applied postracialism and to consider whether we have arrived at a new antiracist conjuncture. Ultimately, this theoretically informed and empirically engaged article examines the role of race in antiracist politics and reflects on its future as a tool for performing such principled labor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
096647
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At the beginning of 2008, a debate erupted in the Swedish media after members of the Swedish Arts Council (Kulturrådet) had, among other things, accused the left-wing journal Mana of anti-Semitism. Mana's reaction was a categorical denial of all allegations, while suggesting it was the victim of a politically motivated witch-hunt. Although a survey of the journal shows that the accusations were justified, Mana's claims that the criticism was policy-driven appealed to many of its defenders, and the support for the journal was strongest on the Left. It was mainly from there that accusations of "political censorship" emanated, along with claims that Mana's anti-Semitism was merely legitimate criticism of Israel. This inability or unwillingness of parts of the Swedish Left to recognize the gravity of some of Mana's content is disturbing, since it could lead to removing the taboo on, and legitimizing, anti-Jewish notions and sentiments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
178568
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Formal racial equality is a key aspect of the current Liberal International Order (LIO). It is subject to two main challenges: resurgent racial nationalism and substantive racial inequality. Combining work in International Relations with interdisciplinary studies on race, I submit that these challenges are the latest iteration of struggles between two transnational coalitions over the LIO's central racial provisions, which I call racial diversity regimes (RDRs). The traditional coalition has historically favored RDRs based on racial inequality and racial nationalism. The transformative coalition has favored RDRs based on racial equality and nonracial nationalism. I illustrate the argument by tracing the development of the liberal order's RDR as a function of intercoalitional struggles from one based on racial nationalism and inequality in 1919 to the current regime based on nonracial nationalism and limited equality. Today, racial nationalists belong to the traditional coalition and critics of racial inequality are part of the transformative coalition. The stakes of their struggles are high because they will determine whether we will live in a more racist or a more antiracist world. This article articulates a comprehensive framework that places race at the heart of the liberal order, offers the novel concept of “embedded racism” to capture how sovereignty shields domestic racism from foreign interference, and proposes an agenda for mainstream International Relations that takes race seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
158464
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This essay is offered as a tribute to Golden Hill Paugussett Chief Big Eagle and his defiance of the entrenched racism to which his tribal community has been subjected. I situate this analysis in Connecticut in the early 1970s at a moment of particular historical significance in tribal nations' centuries-long struggles to assert their sovereignty, defend reservation lands, and ensure their futures. I analyze how the racialization of Native peoples in Connecticut informed the state's management of “Indian affairs” in this period and argue that the virulent racism of the state's antirecognition policy in the late twentieth century reflects a long history of institutionally embedded racist policies and practices. In this essay, I call for politically engaged, antiracist research that is concerned with understanding the complexities of tribal sovereignty asserted in local contexts in which governmental control of Indian affairs reproduces and validates White-supremacist ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|