“…The transition to a postcolonial world was accompanied by a rhetoric of antiracism, democracy, and self-determination that had roots not only in revolutionary movements but also in Wilsonian principles (Singh 1998).…”
There is a deepening and worldwide contradiction in the meaning and structure of race and racism. The age of empire is over; apartheid and Jim Crow have ended; a significant consensus exists that the concept of race lacks an objective basis; and yet the concept persists, as idea, as practice, as identity, and as social structure. This suggests that the global racial situation remains not only volatile but also seriously undertheorized.Five key racial problems of the 21st-century are stressed: (1)Nonracialism vs. Race Consciousness; (2)Racial Genomics; (3)The Nation and its Peoples; (4)Race/Gender/Class "Intersectionality"; and (5) Empire, Race, and Neoconservatism.I propose a radical pragmatist approach, which recognizes the ineluctable link between racialized experience and racialized social structure. Drawing on the Duboisian legacy as well as racial formation theory, I argue that racial hegemony has not been secured. Because racial rule is essential to rule itself, these contradictions are destined to deepen, not diminish. The article concludes with some preliminary programmatic ideas for contemporary racial justice movements.
“…The transition to a postcolonial world was accompanied by a rhetoric of antiracism, democracy, and self-determination that had roots not only in revolutionary movements but also in Wilsonian principles (Singh 1998).…”
There is a deepening and worldwide contradiction in the meaning and structure of race and racism. The age of empire is over; apartheid and Jim Crow have ended; a significant consensus exists that the concept of race lacks an objective basis; and yet the concept persists, as idea, as practice, as identity, and as social structure. This suggests that the global racial situation remains not only volatile but also seriously undertheorized.Five key racial problems of the 21st-century are stressed: (1)Nonracialism vs. Race Consciousness; (2)Racial Genomics; (3)The Nation and its Peoples; (4)Race/Gender/Class "Intersectionality"; and (5) Empire, Race, and Neoconservatism.I propose a radical pragmatist approach, which recognizes the ineluctable link between racialized experience and racialized social structure. Drawing on the Duboisian legacy as well as racial formation theory, I argue that racial hegemony has not been secured. Because racial rule is essential to rule itself, these contradictions are destined to deepen, not diminish. The article concludes with some preliminary programmatic ideas for contemporary racial justice movements.
“…It was in this context that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching funded what was to become one of the foremost studies of race in US history, Gunnar Myrdal's () An American dilemma: the Negro problem and modern democracy . The connections between domestic race‐related issues at home and foreign policy concerns abroad were evident in speeches made by Myrdal himself, who ‘repeatedly confirmed the idea that his project aimed at nothing less than the national and international legitimation of the American state’ (quoted in Singh , 486). It was also manifested in the writings of Frederick Keppel, president of the Carnegie Corporation from 1923 to 1941.…”
Section: Pax Americanamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the US became increasingly immersed in global affairs in the 1940s and 1950s, the aspirations of its leaders to provide a strong moral, as well as economic example of universal freedom, opportunity and democracy, were hampered by the clear un‐freedoms and disenfranchisement of African Americans at home (Singh ). African American intellectuals were increasingly making the connection between the Nazi campaign of Aryan supremacy and racial hatred against the Jews, with traditions of racial superiority in the US; at the same time, they were discovering a greater racial kinship with other ‘colored peoples of the world’, who were similarly engaged in colonial struggles against white oppression (Singh ). Harlem journalist Roi Ottley wrote, for example:Events abroad have lifted the ‘Negro Problem’ out of its limited orbit of a strictly domestic issue.…”
Much of the recent scholarship in critical philanthropy and humanitarianism focuses on the relationship between the origins of humanitarian governance and the development and expansion of imperialism. Imperial exploitation and dispossession were frequently linked in paradoxical ways with the protection and management of colonised populations. This paper explores these types of connections as they pertain to the relationship between humanitarianism, imperialism and the governance of African Americans in the United States (US). I focus, in particular, on how humanitarian initiatives in black education were mobilised in relation to differing moments of international and domestic colonialism, nation‐building, national security and global aspirations at the heart of American empire. The paper advances this line of inquiry through a genealogy of humanitarian reasoning and webs of belief about the proper intellectual development of African Americans at three historic moments of national development: the periods of Reconstruction, the Efficiency Movement and Pax Americana. In each different context, philanthropic foundations and humanitarians sought to provide education to African Americans, who were disenfranchised and disconnected in different ways in each period. But although the specific moral reasoning and techniques of care employed in the provision of education were particular to time and place, the underlying rationalities of a ‘progressive imperial agenda’ connecting African American enfranchisement and connection to national development and imperial aspirations, was manifest. The paper employs a genealogical method in order to link the excavations of the past to the present, indicating some of the ways that these interconnected logics continue to affect humanitarianism in the US today.
“…In addition, educators and researchers in both South Korea and the U.S. have pointed out the benefits of multicultural education for a multicultural society as well as the challenges that come with implementing the concept (Grant, 1981;Grant & Sleeter, 2008;Hong, 2010;Kang, 2010;Singh, 1998).…”
Section: Multicultural Education Trends In Asiamentioning
The global immigration of people has increased the call by governments for multicultural education. Across the globe, in country after country, multicultural education have come to represent the theory and practice to teach majority and minority citizens and immigrants and to explore issues of policy and practice as it relates to: ethnicity, religion, gender, immigration, language and race. This article is concerned with the approach to multicultural education that the South Korean government has employed to meet the needs of its people and those of immigrants and South Korean citizens. Using framework of "politics of difference" and five different approaches of multicultural education discussed by Grant and Sleeter, the article examines how South Korea's multicultural education policy treats new comers as "different." This article argues the significance of movement from a discourse about cultural difference to multicultural social justice education that challenge oppression and structural inequality and illuminate the politics of difference.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
