It questions what forces are driving draconian migration control policies and why it is that, despite its success in mobilizing millions, the Latino migrant movement and its allies have not been able to more successfully defend the rights of migrants. Gonzales argues that the contemporary Latino migrant movement and its allies face a dynamic form of political power that he terms "anti-migrant hegemony". This type of political power is exerted in multiple sites of power from Congress, to think tanks, talk shows and local government institutions, through which a rhetorically race neutral and common sense public policy discourse is deployed to criminalize migrants. Most insidiously anti-migrant hegemony allows for large sectors of "pro-immigrant" groups to concede to coercive immigration enforcement measures such as a militarized border wall and the expansion of immigration policing in local communities in exchange for so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Given this reality, Gonzales sustains that most efforts to advance immigration reform will fail to provide justice for migrants. This is because proposed reform measures ignore the neoliberal policies driving migration and reinforce the structures of state violence used against migrants to the detriment of democracy for all.
|Published (Last):||3 March 2017|
|PDF File Size:||7.15 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.46 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
He himself gives a rather brilliant paragraph summary of the point: How is it possible to have this tremendous degree of racial inequality in a country where most whites claim that race is no longer relevant?
In this book I attempt to answer both of these questions. I contend that whites have developed powerful explanations which have ultimately become justifications for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them from any responsibility for the status of people of color.
These explanations emanate from a new racial ideology that I label colorblind racism. This ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late Os, explains contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics.
He is clear about how he defines his foundational terms. Accordingly, the task of analysts interested in studying racial structures is to uncover the particular social, economic, political, social control, and ideological mechanisms responsible for the reproduction of racial privilege in a society. Although all the races in a racialized social system have the capacity of developing these frameworks, the frameworks of the dominant race tend to become the master frameworks upon which all racial actors ground for or against their ideological positions.
This I find quite a uesful and very practical breakdown, though I feel that there is surely other levels to analysing ideology He writes: And because the group life of the various racially defined groups is based on hierarchy and domination, the ruling ideology expresses as "common sense" the interests of the dominant race, while oppositional ideologies attempt to challenge that common sense by providing alternative frames, ideas, and stories based on the experiences of subordinated races.
I think this is a good foundational book on how a majority of whites think. There is an outline of the four major frames: - abstract liberalism - "involves using ideas associated with political liberalism e. By framing race-related issues in the language of liberalism, whites can appear "reasonable" and even "moral," while opposing almost all practical approaches to deal with de facto racial inequality.
For example, whites can claim "segregation" is natural because people from all backgrounds "gravitate toward likeness. For style he relies on a much more traditional discourse analysis, but one which really resonate with my own interviews of people when it turns to the subject of race. Second, I analyze the central "semantic moves" see below whites use as verbal parachutes to avoid dangerous discussions or to save face.
Fourth, I show the role of diminutives in colorblind race talk. Finally, I show how incursions into forbidden issues produce almost total incoherence in many whites. He found four major story lines, though there were variations and combinations: "The major racial story lines of the post-Civil Rights era are "The past is the past," "I did not own slaves," "If other ethnic groups have made it, how come blacks have not?
I never did think academics and educated people were necessarily any less racist, just better at not being obvious, and definitely better at rationalising it. But Bonilla-Silve found in fact, that it is working class white women who are the most likely to be non or even anti-racist. They are the most able to empathise and to understand what other races go through and to be able to see through the rhetoric of colour-blindness.
I would have said myself that geography is very important here, that is an aspect that is mostly missing here in an intentional sense. He notes that segregation allows whites to sequester themselves, and that negative stereotypes grow stronger the more segregated whites are. In terms of breaking down these stereotypes, growing up in mixed neighborhoods tends to help. This is a foundational book in terms of what people actually think, how they frame and understand things.
And I liked that Bonilla-Silva is trying to think of how we improve things, change our world. He gives a list of 5 ways which I quite like: 1. That mirror must reflect the myriad facts of contemporary whiteness, such as whites living in white neighborhoods, sending their kids to white schools, associating primarily with whites, and having almost all their primary relationships with whites 5.
Changes in systems of domination and their accompanying ideologies are never accomplished by racial dialogues-the notion of "Can we all just get along? What is needed to slay modern-day racism is a new, in-your-face, fight-the-power civil rights movement, a new movement to spark change, to challenge not just color-blind whites but also minority folks who have become content with the crumbs they receive from past struggles.
This new civil rights movement, as I have mentioned elsewhere,24 must have at the core of its agenda the struggle for equality of results.
Progressives cannot continue fighting for "equality of opportunity" when true equality cannot be achieved that way. It is time to demand equality now.
Racism Without Racists
He himself gives a rather brilliant paragraph summary of the point: How is it possible to have this tremendous degree of racial inequality in a country where most whites claim that race is no longer relevant? In this book I attempt to answer both of these questions. I contend that whites have developed powerful explanations which have ultimately become justifications for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them from any responsibility for the status of people of color. These explanations emanate from a new racial ideology that I label colorblind racism. This ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late Os, explains contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics. He is clear about how he defines his foundational terms. Accordingly, the task of analysts interested in studying racial structures is to uncover the particular social, economic, political, social control, and ideological mechanisms responsible for the reproduction of racial privilege in a society.
Racism Without Racists- an analysis
They showed people a photograph of two white men fighting, one unarmed and another holding a knife. Then they showed another photograph, this one of a white man with a knife fighting an unarmed African-American man. When they asked people to identify the man who was armed in the first picture, most people picked the right one. Yet when they were asked the same question about the second photo, most people -- black and white -- incorrectly said the black man had the knife. Even before it was announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict a white police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, Missouri, leaders were calling once again for a "national conversation on race.
The new threat: 'Racism without racists'
Be the change you wish to see in the world…. I have heard the 4 frames that he breaks down for us used by so many whites who claim not to be racist, but could never figure out why a clarifier was needed by someone claiming not to be racist, if they were indeed not racist. These frames are ways in which the dominant racial group whites in America understand and articulate our social world as if race is no longer a factor. Yet, when we look we can still see racial disparities. Hence, this underlying ideology of abstract liberalism works as the little voice inside our heads telling us that we all have the same opportunities, allowing whites to blame poverty on communities of color and minorities rather than looking at the structures of whiteness and white privilege that benefits.