Antiracist movements admitted the excluded without ceding defining power over criteria

Evidence

What the movements ended up doing in each instance, not insignificantly but also revealingly, was to admit, all too often begrudgingly, those hitherto excluded into social arrangements and conditions the definitions of which continued to be dominated by those who had held racial power in the first place. This nominal admission was, for the most part, principally legal. Political, social, and cultural recognition and access were much less compelling and so more ambivalent. What changed little or less so were the criteria of incorporation and the defining power over those criteria. — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 114

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels the critique of formal legal equality in Milgrom’s law-merchant work — access to a system whose rules remain set by incumbent power. — connects to: Community-led housing commons exclude people through classed and racialised decision-making processes. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 88; Movements admit excluded groups legally without surrendering control of incorporation criteria. — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 114; Freedom of association was defined negatively as the right to exclude, not positively — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of…, 373