Commonsense racist assumptions make legal complicity in subordination seem logical

Evidence

Here, Professor Capers suggests that within texts there are underlying assumptions and reliance on commonsense anti-Black ideas. Because they are commonsense, everyone knows them, and they do not have to be stated. The problem for raced groups is that these assumptions make the law’s complicity in their subordination seem entirely logical. What Professor Capers terms “reading Black” is a particular deconstructive move that, in this article, is analogous to distilling the racist tropes and discursive strategies from the text. It is the practice of reading for the underlying armature of inequality, subordination, racism, and racial sexism, homophobia, and more. “Reading Black” renders the anti- Blackness or the erasure of race in the legal text more visible; this article’s method renders any specific racism more visible by showing the similarities in the abstract. — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 368

Categorization

• XREF: This “reading Black” deconstructive method recalls the earlier book claim that “reading black is a skill detached from the reader’s own race” (ch57) and echoes racecraft’s core move of exposing hidden commonsense racism. — connects to: Racialized legal categories are contradictory yet persist as common sense — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims…, 141; Racialized reasoning’s coherence rests on narrative force, not logical sense — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims…, 138; Race-neutral justifications easily mask biased peremptory jury strikes (+7 more)
• DEFINE: Defines Capers’ “reading Black” as a generalizable deconstructive technique, not limited to anti-Blackness.
• recurring: this claim recurs 3 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Reading Black means decoding commonsense assumptions that make legal subordination seem logical. #responds-to (0.90) — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 368
• Racialized legal categories are contradictory yet persist as common sense #corroborates (0.85) — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 141
• Racialized reasoning’s coherence rests on narrative force, not logical sense #expands (0.80) — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 138
• Legal reasoning about discrimination merely validates popular misconceptions #corroborates (0.75) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 680
• Race-neutral justifications easily mask biased peremptory jury strikes #exemplifies (0.70)
• Legal reinforcement of racial distinctions worsens their harmful effects #expands (0.70) — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 4385