This document discusses various perspectives on race and racism. It begins by asking questions about defining race and racism, and debunking common myths. Racism is defined as a system of domination based on racialization that constrains equality and considers human traits to be immutable. The document then discusses why studying race and racism is still important, as race is not a thing of the past. It examines theories that racism is natural or age-old and debunks these claims. The document explores Marxist and postcolonial perspectives on how racism intersects with politics, power, colonialism and the construction of identities. It concludes by discussing institutional racism and the social construction of racial identities.
4. Success in Cross-Cultural Business--Lesson 4--10 slidesJack Carney
Lesson 4: The Six Men and Models for Cross-Cultural Understanding. The last four: Terence Brake; John Mole; Fons Trompenaars; Richard D. Lewis.
10 slides with 4 linked videos
This week builds upon last week’s discussion of citizenship and whether everyone is included in so-called liberal democratic societies, such as those of Europe. Everyone (almost!) says they are a democrat but democracy has many different meanings: the popular, direct or participatory democracy of classical Athens, Rousseau, Marx and Lenin; the protective, representative and limited democracy of the Mills and many liberals; and ideas which see democracy as merely a means for revolving governing elites, ensuring efficient government or the means by which governing politicians are made accountable. There are many different ideas of democracy, some of which stress empowerment and others the minimising of, and protection against, power. What sorts of society do these different forms of democracy require for their success? Are some of these forms, or even democracy in general, only appropriate for some sorts of society – (e.g. is democracy specific to the west)? Are the types of democratic systems that we live in today really democracies? Some have argued that representative democracy, where a parliament is elected every number of years, is not as inclusive as a participatory democracy where there is an attempt to include the population in decision making. Still others argue that this is utopian and that it is impossible to run a country if everyone is involved. Moreover, elite theorists argue that this runs contrary to human nature! We will be contrasting representative, elitist and participatory democratic styles and relating these to theories about who governs. Is there a small elite that runs the country, or does everyone have an equal say in a truly pluralist manner?
This lecture critically analyses postcolonial thinking, decolonial thought and critical border thinking.
Reading
Decolonizing the Social
Core Readings
Rámon Grosfoguel (2008) ‘Transmodernity, border thinking, and global coloniality: Decolonizing political economy and postcolonial studies’, Eurozine.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2000) Provincialising Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference Princeton University Press Introduction and Chapter One (pp. 3-47). [Library]
Verges, Francoise (2004) 'Postcolonial Challenges', in Nicholas Gane (ed.) The Future of Social Theory. Continuum.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2007) 'Multiple Modernities or Global Interconnections: Understanding the global post the colonial', in N. Karagiannis and P. Wagner (eds.), Varieties of World-Making: Beyond Globalization. Liverpool UP.
Hesse, Barnor. 2007. ‘Racialized Modernity: An analytics of white mythologies,’ Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 30, Issue 4: pages 643 - 663.
Mignolo, Walter D (2006) 'Citizenship, Knowledge, and the Limits of Humanity'. American Literary History (Cary, NC; Oxford) (18:2): 312-321.
Further Readings
Susan Buck-Morss, 'Hegel and Haiti,' Critical Inquiry 26(4): 821-865.
bell hooks (1990) 'Postmodern blackness', Postmodern Culture 1(1).
Fanon, Frantz (1963) ‘Concerning Violence’, Chapter 1 of The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakrabarty (1988) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
On Decolonial thought
Ann E. Reuman and Gloria E. Anzaldúa (2000) ‘Coming into Play: An Interview with Gloria Anzaldúa’, MELUS 25(2): 3-45.
Arturo Escobar (2010) ‘Latin America at a Crossroads’, Cultural Studies 24(1): 1 — 65.
Arturo Escobar (2007) ‘Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise', Cultural Studies 21(2): 179 —210.
Enrique Dussel (2009) ‘“Being-in-the-World-Hispanically”: A World on the “Border” of Many Worlds’, Comparative Literature 61(3): 256-273.
Walter D. Mignolo (2002) ‘The Zapatistas's Theoretical Revolution: Its Historical, Ethical, and Political Consequences’, Review 25(3): 245-275
Walter D. Mignolo (2011) ‘The communal and the decolonial’, Turbulence
For arguments bringing in the colonial relationship to general understandings see:
Appadurai, Arjun (1990) ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’ Public Culture Vol.2, No. 2, Spring pp1-23.
Said, Edward W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism Chatto and Windus, London.
Dirlik, Arif (1994) ‘The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism’ Critical Inquiry Vol. 20, Winter pp. 328-35
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade (2002) ‘“Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles’, Signs 28(2): 499-533.
Bar On, Bat-Ami (1993) ‘Marginality and Epistemic Privilege’
This session will look at the politics of knowledge production and discuss the ways in which the establishment of the dominant discourses of legitimate knowledge relied upon the concomitant marginalisation of ‘other’ sources of knowledge. Mainstream approaches to the philosophy of social science have not, for the most part, been particularly concerned with the effects of epistemology on the racialized/ethnicized and/or the non-Western and non-white. This is because the West, as the location from which the majority of these viewpoints have been constructed, has either implemented a universalistic image of the world which proposes that it can be all encompassing, or because it has more directly ignored the world beyond Europe and the West. This session will critically discuss the emergence of ‘postcolonial studies’ and its positioning of the subaltern as the vantage point from which to critique these dominant discourses, as well as attending to the various problems present in such an undertaking, as identified in the writings of Spivak. It will also look at the problems of doing social research with or on ‘Other’ (non-white, non-Western) groups. We shall examine the problems of paternalism, tokenism, objectivism, victimisation and the intended or unintended abuses of power that can arise out of sensitive and highly politicised research situations. We also ask what a philosophy of social science would look like if it was purposefully dedicated to acknowledging the injustices borne of racism and colonialism and redressing them.
The talk examined the persistence of race in purportedly postracial times. Why do racial logics continue to underpin disparities in social, economic, cultural and political opportunities despite official commitments to the eradication of racism, not only within individual states but across them? Alana Lentin built on Barnor Hesse’s invocation of a ‘raceocracy’ which rules performatively and as a system for the management of human life. Zoning in on the global laboratory for the ‘production of horror’ that is the Australian system of mandatory detention for asylum seekers, she examined the co-dependency between the maintenance of the racialized border and professed commitments to a postracial future, a division which entrenches a divide between purified inside and the contaminants that lurk outside the contemporary racial state.
4. Success in Cross-Cultural Business--Lesson 4--10 slidesJack Carney
Lesson 4: The Six Men and Models for Cross-Cultural Understanding. The last four: Terence Brake; John Mole; Fons Trompenaars; Richard D. Lewis.
10 slides with 4 linked videos
This week builds upon last week’s discussion of citizenship and whether everyone is included in so-called liberal democratic societies, such as those of Europe. Everyone (almost!) says they are a democrat but democracy has many different meanings: the popular, direct or participatory democracy of classical Athens, Rousseau, Marx and Lenin; the protective, representative and limited democracy of the Mills and many liberals; and ideas which see democracy as merely a means for revolving governing elites, ensuring efficient government or the means by which governing politicians are made accountable. There are many different ideas of democracy, some of which stress empowerment and others the minimising of, and protection against, power. What sorts of society do these different forms of democracy require for their success? Are some of these forms, or even democracy in general, only appropriate for some sorts of society – (e.g. is democracy specific to the west)? Are the types of democratic systems that we live in today really democracies? Some have argued that representative democracy, where a parliament is elected every number of years, is not as inclusive as a participatory democracy where there is an attempt to include the population in decision making. Still others argue that this is utopian and that it is impossible to run a country if everyone is involved. Moreover, elite theorists argue that this runs contrary to human nature! We will be contrasting representative, elitist and participatory democratic styles and relating these to theories about who governs. Is there a small elite that runs the country, or does everyone have an equal say in a truly pluralist manner?
This lecture critically analyses postcolonial thinking, decolonial thought and critical border thinking.
Reading
Decolonizing the Social
Core Readings
Rámon Grosfoguel (2008) ‘Transmodernity, border thinking, and global coloniality: Decolonizing political economy and postcolonial studies’, Eurozine.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2000) Provincialising Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference Princeton University Press Introduction and Chapter One (pp. 3-47). [Library]
Verges, Francoise (2004) 'Postcolonial Challenges', in Nicholas Gane (ed.) The Future of Social Theory. Continuum.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2007) 'Multiple Modernities or Global Interconnections: Understanding the global post the colonial', in N. Karagiannis and P. Wagner (eds.), Varieties of World-Making: Beyond Globalization. Liverpool UP.
Hesse, Barnor. 2007. ‘Racialized Modernity: An analytics of white mythologies,’ Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 30, Issue 4: pages 643 - 663.
Mignolo, Walter D (2006) 'Citizenship, Knowledge, and the Limits of Humanity'. American Literary History (Cary, NC; Oxford) (18:2): 312-321.
Further Readings
Susan Buck-Morss, 'Hegel and Haiti,' Critical Inquiry 26(4): 821-865.
bell hooks (1990) 'Postmodern blackness', Postmodern Culture 1(1).
Fanon, Frantz (1963) ‘Concerning Violence’, Chapter 1 of The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakrabarty (1988) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
On Decolonial thought
Ann E. Reuman and Gloria E. Anzaldúa (2000) ‘Coming into Play: An Interview with Gloria Anzaldúa’, MELUS 25(2): 3-45.
Arturo Escobar (2010) ‘Latin America at a Crossroads’, Cultural Studies 24(1): 1 — 65.
Arturo Escobar (2007) ‘Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise', Cultural Studies 21(2): 179 —210.
Enrique Dussel (2009) ‘“Being-in-the-World-Hispanically”: A World on the “Border” of Many Worlds’, Comparative Literature 61(3): 256-273.
Walter D. Mignolo (2002) ‘The Zapatistas's Theoretical Revolution: Its Historical, Ethical, and Political Consequences’, Review 25(3): 245-275
Walter D. Mignolo (2011) ‘The communal and the decolonial’, Turbulence
For arguments bringing in the colonial relationship to general understandings see:
Appadurai, Arjun (1990) ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’ Public Culture Vol.2, No. 2, Spring pp1-23.
Said, Edward W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism Chatto and Windus, London.
Dirlik, Arif (1994) ‘The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism’ Critical Inquiry Vol. 20, Winter pp. 328-35
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade (2002) ‘“Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles’, Signs 28(2): 499-533.
Bar On, Bat-Ami (1993) ‘Marginality and Epistemic Privilege’
This session will look at the politics of knowledge production and discuss the ways in which the establishment of the dominant discourses of legitimate knowledge relied upon the concomitant marginalisation of ‘other’ sources of knowledge. Mainstream approaches to the philosophy of social science have not, for the most part, been particularly concerned with the effects of epistemology on the racialized/ethnicized and/or the non-Western and non-white. This is because the West, as the location from which the majority of these viewpoints have been constructed, has either implemented a universalistic image of the world which proposes that it can be all encompassing, or because it has more directly ignored the world beyond Europe and the West. This session will critically discuss the emergence of ‘postcolonial studies’ and its positioning of the subaltern as the vantage point from which to critique these dominant discourses, as well as attending to the various problems present in such an undertaking, as identified in the writings of Spivak. It will also look at the problems of doing social research with or on ‘Other’ (non-white, non-Western) groups. We shall examine the problems of paternalism, tokenism, objectivism, victimisation and the intended or unintended abuses of power that can arise out of sensitive and highly politicised research situations. We also ask what a philosophy of social science would look like if it was purposefully dedicated to acknowledging the injustices borne of racism and colonialism and redressing them.
The talk examined the persistence of race in purportedly postracial times. Why do racial logics continue to underpin disparities in social, economic, cultural and political opportunities despite official commitments to the eradication of racism, not only within individual states but across them? Alana Lentin built on Barnor Hesse’s invocation of a ‘raceocracy’ which rules performatively and as a system for the management of human life. Zoning in on the global laboratory for the ‘production of horror’ that is the Australian system of mandatory detention for asylum seekers, she examined the co-dependency between the maintenance of the racialized border and professed commitments to a postracial future, a division which entrenches a divide between purified inside and the contaminants that lurk outside the contemporary racial state.
This week we will look at the attempts made to fight against racism. Anti-racism has been a feature of both social movements in civil society, and governmental bodies such as the British Commission for Racial Equality. As such, anti-racism cannot be said to be a unitary phenomenon. The diverse range of discourses, practices and policies under the heading of anti-racism means that we can only talk about it in the plural. Broadly speaking, anti-racism can be seen as divided between those discourses and practices that are more closely allied with a state-based vision, focused on the rule of law and institutionalized measures, and those that, on the contrary, see the state as a source – rather than a solution – to racism. What is the difference between these two approaches and how have they developed. In Britain, what are some of the ways in which anti-racism has taken form, e.g. in the trade union movement, through the intersection with music, from different political standpoints, as ‘anti-fascist’, or as anti-colonialist in inspiration? Looking at anti-racism from the 1960s to the present day, we shall tease out the many guises of anti-racism and ask if it is enough merely to be ‘against’ racism?
The Racial State Week 7: From theft to apologyAlana Lentin
The practice of removing Aboriginal children from their families led to an estimated 25,000 children becoming part of the ‘Stolen Generations’. Almost all Aboriginal Australians were directly affected by the Stolen Generations. The issue of the Stolen Generations is a prime example of two competing conceptualisations of race discussed by David Goldberg, in The Racial State, discussed in Week 3 – racial naturalism and racial historicism. Some have claimed that Aboriginal children were taken because it would lead to the destruction of Aboriginality, whereas others have claimed that children were taken benevolently, for their own good. Questions of responsibility, social justice and pain are at the heart of the debate around the Apology for the Stolen Generations enacted by Kevin Rudd in 2008. Does the Apology uncover or further mask the dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? What version of Australian national identity does the Apology participate in in an era in which individual rights are prioritised over collective identities? How can a nation-state be ‘sorry’? Can nations have feelings? Through looking at representations of state policies and the discussion on ‘reconciliation’, this week will introduce ideas about emotion, recognition and belonging to the discussion on race and the state.
Why the call for French 'context' in the aftermath of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo was steeped in a whiteness that denied the significance of a 'black analytics'.
As a special topic, this week will look at the fine line between racism and ‘humour’. British film and television has long been a site for views of the other. Originally, these were represented by white actors and comedians whose interpretations of ethnic minority life were often perceived as insulting and patronising. More recently, British filmmakers, actors and comedians have introduced a new genre to the British cultural sphere, one that takes a playful look at minority ethnic communities from their own perspective. It has been suggested that these representation are non-racist because they come from those potentially affected by racism themselves. In light of the recent furore surrounding the Borat film by Sascha Baron Cohen and other examples, this session asks what counts as humour and what is merely racist. We will be examining this question through the use of clips from different films and television shows as well as classic jokes. We will be relying mainly on clips of various films and TV shows to be shown in the lecture.
The concept of citizenship tends to be seen as inclusive. Today, more and more emphasis is placed on education for citizenship and is a major part of the curriculum. However, different theories of citizenship conceive it in different ways. Different tiers of citizenship are created according to the extent to which a person is said to belong. In some states, citizenship is conferred according to birth (jus soli) whereas in others it is a question of inheritance (jus sanguinus). However, even if someone is nominally a full citizen, they can be excluded in different ways, for example, due to their sex, ethnicity, or class status. This week we will examine the concept of citizenship and look at who is included, and who is excluded by it. We will pay particular attention to the ways in which class and socioeconomic deprivation have an effect on the ability to be a full citizen by examining the role of education, the Welfare State, and political participation.
The title of this week’s session is taken from the famous study of ‘mugging’ by Stuart Hall et al. in the 1970s in which the authors note the racialised nature of the crime of mugging and the instigation of a public ‘moral panic’ in the association of young black men and violent street crime. Taking this as a starting point, we shall look at the way in which racialised people have been seen as having a natural propensity to crime and deviance that justifies the use of ‘special measures’ against them. We shall pay particularly close attention to the cases of disproportionate incarceration, the ‘prison industrial complex’ and of the suspension of law in the case of the ‘Northern Territory Intervention’.
There has been much academic debate over the relationship between race and gender as factors in social, political and economic inequality and oppression and whether a race or feminist gender-based framework is most effective for the study and analysis of inequality and oppression. Taking up feminist critiques of patriarchy, liberal feminism for failing to address the experiences and issues confronted by women of colour, anti-racist activism for failing to address the issue of gender, as well as the question of how racism and homophobia intersect we will examine the relationship between race and gender on several levels: Firstly, we will examine the role and significance of gender and sexuality within racist discourses. Secondly, we will examine how race and gender compare, complement one another, differ or conflict as sites of social-political identification, classification, division and struggle, as factors in inequality, as well as frameworks for analysis. Thirdly, we shall look at the ways in which sexualized stereotyping works in the ‘double discrimination’ of racialized women and/or LGBT people. We will engage with several academic debates on the issue and discuss whether gendered race issues could or should be subsumed under an anti-racist or feminist analysis or agenda or remain distinct in a third category, or alternately how the three frameworks and agendas could co-exist and compliment one another for the most effective analysis and fight against different forms of social-political inequality.
Racism in Our Society Essay examples
Essay on Environmental Racism
Essay about racism
racism speech Essay
Essay on Racism
Racism Synthesis Essay
Essay on racism and prejudice
Essay on Racism
Racialicious! When Race and Pop Culture Collidenewdemographic
WWW.NEWDEMOGRAPHIC.COM From the neo-minstrelsy of Flavor of Love to the racial segregation on Survivor, from the race-swapping families on Black.White. to the fascination with interracial sex, from Gwen Stefani’s use of Harajuku girls as mute human props to Angelina Jolie’s obsession with international adoption, from Michael Richards’ lynching tirade to Rosie O’Donnell’s “ching chong” remarks, race and pop culture are colliding more now than ever before.
What does pop culture reveal about our attitudes toward race and racism? Does pop culture’s treatment of race help or harm discussions about race? As consumers of pop culture, what kinds of stereotypes and assumptions should we look out for?
This week we will look at the attempts made to fight against racism. Anti-racism has been a feature of both social movements in civil society, and governmental bodies such as the British Commission for Racial Equality. As such, anti-racism cannot be said to be a unitary phenomenon. The diverse range of discourses, practices and policies under the heading of anti-racism means that we can only talk about it in the plural. Broadly speaking, anti-racism can be seen as divided between those discourses and practices that are more closely allied with a state-based vision, focused on the rule of law and institutionalized measures, and those that, on the contrary, see the state as a source – rather than a solution – to racism. What is the difference between these two approaches and how have they developed. In Britain, what are some of the ways in which anti-racism has taken form, e.g. in the trade union movement, through the intersection with music, from different political standpoints, as ‘anti-fascist’, or as anti-colonialist in inspiration? Looking at anti-racism from the 1960s to the present day, we shall tease out the many guises of anti-racism and ask if it is enough merely to be ‘against’ racism?
The Racial State Week 7: From theft to apologyAlana Lentin
The practice of removing Aboriginal children from their families led to an estimated 25,000 children becoming part of the ‘Stolen Generations’. Almost all Aboriginal Australians were directly affected by the Stolen Generations. The issue of the Stolen Generations is a prime example of two competing conceptualisations of race discussed by David Goldberg, in The Racial State, discussed in Week 3 – racial naturalism and racial historicism. Some have claimed that Aboriginal children were taken because it would lead to the destruction of Aboriginality, whereas others have claimed that children were taken benevolently, for their own good. Questions of responsibility, social justice and pain are at the heart of the debate around the Apology for the Stolen Generations enacted by Kevin Rudd in 2008. Does the Apology uncover or further mask the dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? What version of Australian national identity does the Apology participate in in an era in which individual rights are prioritised over collective identities? How can a nation-state be ‘sorry’? Can nations have feelings? Through looking at representations of state policies and the discussion on ‘reconciliation’, this week will introduce ideas about emotion, recognition and belonging to the discussion on race and the state.
Why the call for French 'context' in the aftermath of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo was steeped in a whiteness that denied the significance of a 'black analytics'.
As a special topic, this week will look at the fine line between racism and ‘humour’. British film and television has long been a site for views of the other. Originally, these were represented by white actors and comedians whose interpretations of ethnic minority life were often perceived as insulting and patronising. More recently, British filmmakers, actors and comedians have introduced a new genre to the British cultural sphere, one that takes a playful look at minority ethnic communities from their own perspective. It has been suggested that these representation are non-racist because they come from those potentially affected by racism themselves. In light of the recent furore surrounding the Borat film by Sascha Baron Cohen and other examples, this session asks what counts as humour and what is merely racist. We will be examining this question through the use of clips from different films and television shows as well as classic jokes. We will be relying mainly on clips of various films and TV shows to be shown in the lecture.
The concept of citizenship tends to be seen as inclusive. Today, more and more emphasis is placed on education for citizenship and is a major part of the curriculum. However, different theories of citizenship conceive it in different ways. Different tiers of citizenship are created according to the extent to which a person is said to belong. In some states, citizenship is conferred according to birth (jus soli) whereas in others it is a question of inheritance (jus sanguinus). However, even if someone is nominally a full citizen, they can be excluded in different ways, for example, due to their sex, ethnicity, or class status. This week we will examine the concept of citizenship and look at who is included, and who is excluded by it. We will pay particular attention to the ways in which class and socioeconomic deprivation have an effect on the ability to be a full citizen by examining the role of education, the Welfare State, and political participation.
The title of this week’s session is taken from the famous study of ‘mugging’ by Stuart Hall et al. in the 1970s in which the authors note the racialised nature of the crime of mugging and the instigation of a public ‘moral panic’ in the association of young black men and violent street crime. Taking this as a starting point, we shall look at the way in which racialised people have been seen as having a natural propensity to crime and deviance that justifies the use of ‘special measures’ against them. We shall pay particularly close attention to the cases of disproportionate incarceration, the ‘prison industrial complex’ and of the suspension of law in the case of the ‘Northern Territory Intervention’.
There has been much academic debate over the relationship between race and gender as factors in social, political and economic inequality and oppression and whether a race or feminist gender-based framework is most effective for the study and analysis of inequality and oppression. Taking up feminist critiques of patriarchy, liberal feminism for failing to address the experiences and issues confronted by women of colour, anti-racist activism for failing to address the issue of gender, as well as the question of how racism and homophobia intersect we will examine the relationship between race and gender on several levels: Firstly, we will examine the role and significance of gender and sexuality within racist discourses. Secondly, we will examine how race and gender compare, complement one another, differ or conflict as sites of social-political identification, classification, division and struggle, as factors in inequality, as well as frameworks for analysis. Thirdly, we shall look at the ways in which sexualized stereotyping works in the ‘double discrimination’ of racialized women and/or LGBT people. We will engage with several academic debates on the issue and discuss whether gendered race issues could or should be subsumed under an anti-racist or feminist analysis or agenda or remain distinct in a third category, or alternately how the three frameworks and agendas could co-exist and compliment one another for the most effective analysis and fight against different forms of social-political inequality.
Racism in Our Society Essay examples
Essay on Environmental Racism
Essay about racism
racism speech Essay
Essay on Racism
Racism Synthesis Essay
Essay on racism and prejudice
Essay on Racism
Racialicious! When Race and Pop Culture Collidenewdemographic
WWW.NEWDEMOGRAPHIC.COM From the neo-minstrelsy of Flavor of Love to the racial segregation on Survivor, from the race-swapping families on Black.White. to the fascination with interracial sex, from Gwen Stefani’s use of Harajuku girls as mute human props to Angelina Jolie’s obsession with international adoption, from Michael Richards’ lynching tirade to Rosie O’Donnell’s “ching chong” remarks, race and pop culture are colliding more now than ever before.
What does pop culture reveal about our attitudes toward race and racism? Does pop culture’s treatment of race help or harm discussions about race? As consumers of pop culture, what kinds of stereotypes and assumptions should we look out for?
Essay on Environmental Racism
Racism Research Papers
Racism In College Essay
Racism Essay On Racism
Essay on My Experience with Racism
What Is Racism Essay
Racism : Racism And Racism
Racism Essay On Racism
End Racism
Racism Term Report
Definition Essay: Racism
Essay about Racism: Then and Now
Essay on racism and prejudice
Racism Essay On Racism
Essay on Racism
Essay on Racism
Persuasive Essay On Racism And Racism
Racism Argumentative Essay
Racism And Systematic Racism
Argumentive Essay On Racism
Argumentative Essay On Race And Prejudice
Argumentative Essay On Reverse Racism
Argumentative Essay-Its Time To End Racism
Racism Argumentative Analysis
Persuasive Essay About Racism
Argumentative Essay On Racism
Arguments Against Racism In America
Arguments Against Racism
Persuasive Essay On Racism
racism speech Essay
Arguments Against Racism Essay
Argumentative Essay On Racism
Argumentative Essay On Environmental Racism
Argumentative Essay On Racism
Argumentative Speech On Racism
Argumentative Essay About Racism
Persuasive Essay On Racism And Racism
Racism Argumentative Essay
Racism And Systematic Racism
Argumentive Essay On Racism
Argumentative Essay On Race And Prejudice
Argumentative Essay On Reverse Racism
Argumentative Essay-Its Time To End Racism
Racism Argumentative Analysis
Persuasive Essay About Racism
Argumentative Essay On Racism
Arguments Against Racism In America
Arguments Against Racism
Persuasive Essay On Racism
racism speech Essay
Arguments Against Racism Essay
Argumentative Essay On Racism
Argumentative Essay On Environmental Racism
Argumentative Essay On Racism
Argumentative Speech On Racism
Argumentative Essay About Racism
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
46. Racism is an
68607
An English Defence League Supporter
47.
48. 2. Politics, power
“There is a plethora
of studies… which
are concerned with
‘attitudes’,
‘prejudice’ and
‘discrimination’…
What we need are
studies of the way
the race relations
issues enter into the
structures, strategies
and ideologies of
61. Being race
‘The physical bond is least
and the badge of colour
relatively unimportant save
as a badge; the real
essence of kinship is its
social heritage of slavery;
the discrimination and
insult.’
W.E.B. Du Bois (1940)
64. The Racial
"Institutional racism is
that which, covertly or
overtly, resides in the
policies, procedures,
operations and culture
of public or private
institutions -
reinforcing individual
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Take a few minutes in buzz groups to think about what you think race is.\n\nAfter discussion reveal each of the four areas representing different things we think about in relation to race.\n\nThe point is that race comes to stand for other things beyond what is supposed to mean directly. \n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Is race not a thing of the past?\nSince the end of WW2 and the discovery of the Holocaust, many people have argued that race should be seen as a thing of the past. Scientists and anthropologists, as well as many political leaders argued that the idea of race is based on a bogus scientific concept – that the human species can be divided into a hierarchical system of different races.\n\nThis is wrong. Regimes such as Nazism based themselves on this dangerous idea. Therefore, we must do all we can to banish the idea of race altogether.\n\n2. But racism is still here\nOthers have argued that although races do not exist, racism – e.g. the belief that human beings are divisible into different racial groups – is still with us.\n\nSociologists have tended to argue that race is a social construct – there is no objective truth to the belief in the existence of different races, but people do believe them to exist.\nMoreover, many people are disadvantaged by this belief because the idea of racial difference has become a part of the way in which we organise society.\n\nAlthough approaches differ, many people therefore agree that although you can talk about race making no sense, racism still exists (and may even be getting worse) so we have to explain it.\n\nIn the next part of the lecture, I want to talk about some different ways of explaining race and racism. \n\nI will then go on to propose that the most helpful way of understanding racism is from what is called a race critical perspective. This view sees race and racism as intimately bound up with other factors such as capitalism and the history of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, modern state systems and nationalism, and contemporary politics of immigration.\n\nRace can never be looked at as a stand-alone.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
Before we go on to looking at some of the different ways in which racism has been theorised, let us propose a tentative definition of racism.\n\nIt is important to note that this definition sees racism - I.e. the outcome of the belief in significant differences that divide human beings physically, mentally and, therefore, in terms of their possibilities in society - as being more important to look at than race itself.\n\nIt also sees the role of power relations and the nation-state, as well as other institutions such as colonialism, capitalism as important for making full sense of racism historically and in the present day.\n
\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Argument No. 1: Racism is just a fact of life.\n\nThis argument has three strands (to be followed up in the following slides).\n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
Racism is age-old. (picture links to article about Greek racism)\nMany people believe that racism has been a feature of all societies since time immemorial. For example, people cite the Ancient Greeks’ division of Greek society into the members of the Polis (Greek men) and outsiders (Barbarians) as well as slaves and women.\n\nBut whereas, fear of strangers and even being prejudiced against them almost certainly IS a feature of all societies, is this the same as racism? [ask students]\n\nRacism is based on the belief that human beings can be divided into different races that are inherently biologically different to each other and that these races can be ordered hierarchically along a scale with white Europeans at the top and blacks at the bottom.\n\nThe idea of race is first used in 1684 and the science of racism takes about 200 years to develop.\n\nThe politics of racism are bound up with the growth of the European nation-state in the 18th and 19th centuries and are linked to the colonial project.\n\nTherefore, I want to propose that racism - the belief in the absolute and categorical difference between groups of human beings originating in different parts of the world - is a modern phenomenon.\n\nIt is not the same thing as fearing or even hating others/strangers because it is underpinned by a scientific idea that proposes that each race is absolutely different to each other and this can never change. Such an argument can be used to propose that it would be wrong for people from different races should mix as was the case in Sth Africa, the Southern States or the US until segregation or under Nazism). \n\nRacism is not the same as prejudice because if you fear a stranger now you may change your attitude once you get to know the person. The belief in racism implies that even if you get to know the person you will always remains incompatible strangers to each other because that is simply what nature dictates. \n
2. Linked to the argument that racism is age-old is the argument that racism is inherent,\n\nMany people who see racism as being the same as fear of the strange or as prejudice believe that we are all a little bit racist.\n\nHow many people here believe this to be true?\n\nIn a way, it might be true to say that if we are honest with ourselves we might all be a little bit racist, but we need to look at where that comes from.\n\nSaying that racism is inherent turns it into a psychological state of mind or an attitude that some people have.\n\nOften when we say someone has racist attitudes we imply that this means that they are ignorant or have had a poor education.\n\nThis is a classist argument that assumes that racism is the preserve of the working class. Most middle class people do not like to think of themselves as racist because they see themselves as having superior knowledge.\n\nWhile, on an individual level it might be possible to argue that education does help to overcome racism, we cannot base the argument for anti-racist education on the idea that racism is inherent or a mere psychological attitude.\n\nThis approach formed the basis of Racism Awareness Training - a type of training used extensively in Britain in the 1980s. It involved getting people from work places to go to trainings to deal with their racism.\n\nRAT was based on the formula - racism=power+prejudice (click to reveal)\nIn other words: white people are prejudiced towards black people, they also have more power in society. This combination produces racism.\n\nRAT has been widely criticised because it fails to ask where this prejudice comes from. By seeing all white people as racist it turns racism into something banal, little more than an attitude that can be tamed with the right training. \n\nThis view of racism is highly apolitical because it fails to examine the structural reasons for why racism exists in society from historical, sociological and economic points of view.\n
2. Linked to the argument that racism is age-old is the argument that racism is inherent,\n\nMany people who see racism as being the same as fear of the strange or as prejudice believe that we are all a little bit racist.\n\nHow many people here believe this to be true?\n\nIn a way, it might be true to say that if we are honest with ourselves we might all be a little bit racist, but we need to look at where that comes from.\n\nSaying that racism is inherent turns it into a psychological state of mind or an attitude that some people have.\n\nOften when we say someone has racist attitudes we imply that this means that they are ignorant or have had a poor education.\n\nThis is a classist argument that assumes that racism is the preserve of the working class. Most middle class people do not like to think of themselves as racist because they see themselves as having superior knowledge.\n\nWhile, on an individual level it might be possible to argue that education does help to overcome racism, we cannot base the argument for anti-racist education on the idea that racism is inherent or a mere psychological attitude.\n\nThis approach formed the basis of Racism Awareness Training - a type of training used extensively in Britain in the 1980s. It involved getting people from work places to go to trainings to deal with their racism.\n\nRAT was based on the formula - racism=power+prejudice (click to reveal)\nIn other words: white people are prejudiced towards black people, they also have more power in society. This combination produces racism.\n\nRAT has been widely criticised because it fails to ask where this prejudice comes from. By seeing all white people as racist it turns racism into something banal, little more than an attitude that can be tamed with the right training. \n\nThis view of racism is highly apolitical because it fails to examine the structural reasons for why racism exists in society from historical, sociological and economic points of view.\n
The third component of the idea that racism is a fact of life proposes that, politically, racism is an aberration - or something that is completely abnormal, beyond the realm of ordinary mainstream politics and society.\n\nThis view sees racism as something that only extremists and mad people could ever really espouse.\n\nFrom a political point of view, according to this perspective, racism is the kind of thing that the far-right believe in, or people like those in this film (show film).\n\nFollowing the Second World War, many politicians were quick to show that Nazism and the Holocaust was completely alien from European politics. People painted the Nazi regime and its leaders as mad men intent on destroying the world. This was contrasted with the presumed rationality of the allied countries.\n\nHowever, as the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (Modernity and the Holocaust, 1989) has shown, the Holocaust should not be seen as something that only Germans were capable of carrying out. Indeed, people from all over Europe collaborated and participated in the genocide. Bauman argues that the Holocaust is a product of the particular history of modernity in Europe.\n\nTherefore, racism should not be seen as something that is pathological, i.e. the preserve of mad people. Racism manifests itself in many ways: it is not just about the extreme violence of far-right Neo Nazis. \n\nIndeed, racism can be more dangerous when it is not overt, but more covert and implicit in our institutions and social relations. For example, while it is no longer legal to bar ethnic minorities from going to certain places or entering particular professions, it may implicitly be more difficult for them to do so because of racist social conventions.\n
In Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, a group of sociologists began to be interested in what was known as ‘race relations’.\n\nBut, by the early 1970s people like Zubaida started critiquing their work because it was felt that these studies tended to individualise the problems rather than looking at it from a more global - and especially a more political - perspective.\n\nStudies of race relations tended to look at specific problems to do with racism - e.g. discrimination in the job market - and look at that problem in isolation from its interconnection with the overarching context in which they occurred - such as capitalism in general.\n\nOne of the main groups who critiqued the race relations perspective were Marxists. \n
In Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, a group of sociologists began to be interested in what was known as ‘race relations’.\n\nBut, by the early 1970s people like Zubaida started critiquing their work because it was felt that these studies tended to individualise the problems rather than looking at it from a more global - and especially a more political - perspective.\n\nStudies of race relations tended to look at specific problems to do with racism - e.g. discrimination in the job market - and look at that problem in isolation from its interconnection with the overarching context in which they occurred - such as capitalism in general.\n\nOne of the main groups who critiqued the race relations perspective were Marxists. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
The Marxist critique of the race relations approach centred on 3 main elements.\n\nThe failure of Marx and Engels to actually deal with racism.\n\nMarx and Engels mention slavery in the US in passing but fail to construct any meaningful theorisation of slavery or of the stratification of colonial societies according to racial hierarchies.\n\nTheir writing also contains racial stereotyping as well as some quite racist imagery (cf. Marx on the Jewish question). \nCritics have argued that Marx and Engels were so concerned with class that they were unable to see race or ethnicity as being important in their own right. Rather they became subsumed into wider social relations, becoming part of the superstructure.\n\n2. Marxist scholars of race and racism sought to redress the absence in Marx and Engels’s work.\n\nIn the US in the 1930s and 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox developed a class-based analysis of racism.\nCox saw class divisions as being the most significant reason for exploitation. He therefore believed that racial inequality was the result of the capitalist class’ interest to exploit the working class.\nCreating racial divisions among the working class operated as a strategy of divide and rule.\n\nTherefore, for Cox , racial exploitation was a special form of class exploitation. \n\nThis work had significant impact in the US and led to an analysis of the history of slavery from a Marxist perspective.\n\nSome of the debates that arose from this work included:\nwhether racism is autonomous from class relations\nThe impact of racism on working class struggle\nAnd how racist ideologies are produced and reproduced.\n\n3. Work by Marxist scholars in this direction had an affect on British sociologists, notably Robert Miles (interested in racism and migrant labour).\n\nMiles objected to the idea of a sociology of race and thought that the emphasis should be on racism alone.\n\nThis is because, for Miles, race is purely ideological. It is a human construct devised in order to regulate societies. Race has no objective truth, therefore, and should not be treated as such by talking about it. \n\nFor Miles, race is an ideology that serves to hide the way in which real economic relations work in society.\nThe belief that race exists makes real class consciousness difficult to achieve because workers believe that they are divided racially, they fail to see that the only thing that really counts is the economic imbalance of power that keeps white and black workers down.\n\nMiles sees the state as ultimately responsible for the production of racist ideology. Its purpose is to disunite and fragment the working class to ensure the maintenance of the power of the state and capital.\n\nMiles is therefore opposed to any anti-racist action that is based in the black community. He sees this as taking the movement away from class-based politics which is the only site where the fight against racism has any meaning in Miles’s view. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
In response to both the race relations and the Marxist approaches, in the early 1980s new work pioneered by black and Asian British theorists came on the scene.\n\nIt centred around the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham and figures such as Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy were prominent. The work of the Institute of Race Relations and the journal, Race and Class, was also central.\n\nThree points can be picked out.\n\nRace is not merely ideological as Miles claimed.\nRather, it is a complex construction. It is not merely imposed in a top-down fashion by the state in order to divide the working class.\nRather groups in society fight over the definition of race.\nThe experience of racism, for example during colonialism or in slave societies, leads those who face racism to reclaim race and use it as a means of strengthening their identity in order to counter racism.\n\n2. The work of these black and postcolonial scholars brought the experience of colonialism to the fore. Britain (and other European countries) could not be completely understood without looking centrally at their colonial pasts.\nBoth the identity of the formerly colonised peoples and of the former colonial powers (e.g. Britain) were shaped by this interrelationship between the colony and the metropolis - the Mother land.\nThis becomes even more important following mass immigration (post 1945) when these two populations come into contact with each other.\nBritain has been completely transformed by immigration - from everything from food, to culture and politics - but officially recognising this has been harder.\nBlack British scholars and activists claimed that the extent of the affect of colonialism and postcolonialism on European societies had to be taken fully into account.\n\n3. It was recognised also that the fight against racism was an important part of redefining the nature of a society like Britain post-immigration or the US post-civil rights.\nTheory was informed by the practice of anti-racist organisations who struggled for racism to be recognised by political institutions and the legal system.\nFor example, the ruling of institutional racism in 1999 - although in direct response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence - actually was the result of 20 years of campaigning by anti-racist organisations. \n
Race Critical Studies start from a similar perspective to that of the Birmingham School. \n\nThere are two important elements of this approach that I want to stress.\n\nWhile Race critical scholars agree that race is a social construction and has no objective basis in scientific fact, the experience of racism continues to be significant.\n\n(Reveal quote) As this quote from WEB Du Bois shows, it is not the physical bond created by belonging to a group known as a race that is important. Rather it is a mental bond, or a historical one, based on the fact that people who have been thought of as a race share a common experience of “discrimination and insult”.\n\nDu Bois was speaking about the US and the experience of slavery in particular.\nFrom a race critical perspective, what this means is that societies founded on slavery such as the US, or which had a history of colonial exploitation, such as Britain, cannot just do away with race. The fact that the idea of race as a means of dividing among people has been so historically significant means that it goes on to have a profound impact on the life chances of future generations.\n\nWe can see this most clearly in the US where the average African-American has an income of $24,000 as opposed to $33,000 for whites (e.g. of Hurricane Katrina). \n\nSo, race critical scholars have to be alive to the lived experience of racism. Our theorisations of race and racism have to be based on what those who face racism tell us about it and go forward from there. This is why it is impossible to discard race as ideology, as Miles does, and to see race as completely subordinate to class. \n
Race Critical Studies start from a similar perspective to that of the Birmingham School. \n\nThere are two important elements of this approach that I want to stress.\n\nWhile Race critical scholars agree that race is a social construction and has no objective basis in scientific fact, the experience of racism continues to be significant.\n\n(Reveal quote) As this quote from WEB Du Bois shows, it is not the physical bond created by belonging to a group known as a race that is important. Rather it is a mental bond, or a historical one, based on the fact that people who have been thought of as a race share a common experience of “discrimination and insult”.\n\nDu Bois was speaking about the US and the experience of slavery in particular.\nFrom a race critical perspective, what this means is that societies founded on slavery such as the US, or which had a history of colonial exploitation, such as Britain, cannot just do away with race. The fact that the idea of race as a means of dividing among people has been so historically significant means that it goes on to have a profound impact on the life chances of future generations.\n\nWe can see this most clearly in the US where the average African-American has an income of $24,000 as opposed to $33,000 for whites (e.g. of Hurricane Katrina). \n\nSo, race critical scholars have to be alive to the lived experience of racism. Our theorisations of race and racism have to be based on what those who face racism tell us about it and go forward from there. This is why it is impossible to discard race as ideology, as Miles does, and to see race as completely subordinate to class. \n
The second part of a race critical approach which should be stressed is the emphasis that is placed on the state.\n\nUnlike the Marxist view that sees race as a mere ideological tool of the state, the Race critical approach sees ideas about race as becoming integral to the ways in which western states in the modern era have ruled. \n\nRace becomes a feature of governance (Foucault). We can see it in our legal instruments and in our institutions.\n\nThe concept of institutional racism has been a powerful means of denying the idea (we looked at at the start of the lecture) that race is purely psychological - a question of having a bad attitude or the result of poor education.\n\n(Reveal quote) The focus on institutional racism draws out the way in which racism enters into our political culture and comes to inform the way in which society is organised in less obvious ways.\n\nTherefore, although formally there are laws against racial discrimination, it often continues because racism has become a social convention.\n\nA focus on the state means that we understand that it is primarily through politics that racism becomes institutionalised. \n\nFor example, whereas it is comforting to take the view that it is mainly the readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun who are vehemently opposed to immigration today, we need to look at where these ideas come from. \n\nIt is because it has become commonsense that too many immigrants are bad for the country that many people believe this. These ideas are not natural. Rather, they are instilled in us in a number of ways - including through the discourse used by politicians and the way in which this is interpreted by the media. \n\nUnderstanding racism in this way does not excuse individual racists. But it helps us to see that racism is neither a mere attitude, nor is it something that should be seen as marginal to mainstream political, social and economic structures.\n\nRather, a focus on the relationship between race and the modern state will help us to understand both racism and the way in which our societies function better.\n\nA race critical approach sees race as one of the main ways in which western societies have been ordered - along with gender as well as capitalism. It is therefore necessary to look at it in relation to these other ordering systems. It should therefore be foremost in our minds as students of sociology interested in better understanding the ways in which our societies are stratified.\n\n
The second part of a race critical approach which should be stressed is the emphasis that is placed on the state.\n\nUnlike the Marxist view that sees race as a mere ideological tool of the state, the Race critical approach sees ideas about race as becoming integral to the ways in which western states in the modern era have ruled. \n\nRace becomes a feature of governance (Foucault). We can see it in our legal instruments and in our institutions.\n\nThe concept of institutional racism has been a powerful means of denying the idea (we looked at at the start of the lecture) that race is purely psychological - a question of having a bad attitude or the result of poor education.\n\n(Reveal quote) The focus on institutional racism draws out the way in which racism enters into our political culture and comes to inform the way in which society is organised in less obvious ways.\n\nTherefore, although formally there are laws against racial discrimination, it often continues because racism has become a social convention.\n\nA focus on the state means that we understand that it is primarily through politics that racism becomes institutionalised. \n\nFor example, whereas it is comforting to take the view that it is mainly the readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun who are vehemently opposed to immigration today, we need to look at where these ideas come from. \n\nIt is because it has become commonsense that too many immigrants are bad for the country that many people believe this. These ideas are not natural. Rather, they are instilled in us in a number of ways - including through the discourse used by politicians and the way in which this is interpreted by the media. \n\nUnderstanding racism in this way does not excuse individual racists. But it helps us to see that racism is neither a mere attitude, nor is it something that should be seen as marginal to mainstream political, social and economic structures.\n\nRather, a focus on the relationship between race and the modern state will help us to understand both racism and the way in which our societies function better.\n\nA race critical approach sees race as one of the main ways in which western societies have been ordered - along with gender as well as capitalism. It is therefore necessary to look at it in relation to these other ordering systems. It should therefore be foremost in our minds as students of sociology interested in better understanding the ways in which our societies are stratified.\n\n