An ideology is racialized by its impact even when it lacks racial references

Evidence

All ideologies are racialized because of the differential, often adverse, impact that they have on racialized populations. In some ideologies (including those without any racialized reference) it is often possible to identify the hostile intentions of those advocating them, or the likely adverse consequences of the ideology for people of color. Many supporters of Proposition 187 in California, while claiming they were interested in justice and equality for all legal residents of the USA, made it clear that they held stereotypical and despicable attitudes towards Mexicans. Many policies around policing exemplify this type of ideology. For example, the practice of police officers stopping African American car drivers, colloquially called “driving while black,” is defended by weakly veiled arguments about the need to act directly to deal with street crime. In others, the effect of the policy itself, even where no explicit mention is made, and where no clear hostile intentions can be established, can still be disadvantageous. For example, it is the law in the United States to deprive a convicted felon of the right to vote. That means that a significant number of black men will be unable to vote for the rest of their lives. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1836 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Colorblind mestizaje narratives re-suppress already marginalized racial subjects — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 1840; Gun control is racialized such that racial resentment decreases support for it. — Rachel Wetts and Robb Willer, Who Is Called by the Dog Whistle?…, 98; Post-2010 discourse racialized not only visible Muslims but Islam itself as an ideology — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 262 (+5 more)

Broader Connections