Racial governance splits between naturalist and historicist modes into distinct policy forms

Evidence

Fourth, racial states manage economically. They oversee economic life, shape the contours of racially conceived labor relations, structure the opportunities or possibilities of economic access and closure. To these ends, racial states will intervene to secure the conditions for the reproduction of capital, not least by ordering resources and attempting to ameliorate tensions threatening the conditions for capital’s expansion externally and internally. Thus states will open or stem the flow of the racially figured labor supply in response to the needs of capital, but delimited also by political demands and worries. Racial governance accordingly assumes different forms under naturalist and historicist presumption, for states insisting on the claim to inherent inferiority, in the first instance, and reproducing historical immaturity, in the second: most notably, slavery, segregation, and forced labor in the former mode; assimilationism, indirect rule and developmentalism in the latter. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1691

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the naturalist vs. historicist racial presumption distinction into concrete governance forms (slavery/segregation vs. assimilation/developmentalism).
• XREF: Connects to vault-wide CRT claims distinguishing biological racism from cultural/historical racism (historicist mode undergirds later ‘cultural racism’ arguments). — connects to: Naturalistic racial governance treats racialized people as extractable natural resources — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1691; Liberal racial historicism held in cities while naturalist racism dominated frontiers — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 1414; Naturalist law legitimizes repression while historicist law constitutes racial order — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 78 (+2 more)
• ADDENDUM: The naturalist-vs-historicist governance split could qualify claims in the immodesty/self-presentation articles about how sumptuary and sartorial rule operated differently on colonized versus home populations.

Broader Connections

• Racial historicism held sway in colonial cities while naturalism dominated the frontier #corroborates (0.90) — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 1414
• Naturalistic racial governance treats racialized people as extractable natural resources #exemplifies (0.85) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1691
• Historicist regimes govern race by constituting it through law itself #expands (0.80) — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 78
• Liberal racial historicism held in cities while naturalist racism dominated frontiers #expands (0.78) — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 1414
• Naturalist law legitimizes repression while historicist law constitutes racial order #expands (0.75) — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 78