Recognizing racism requires unstated normative knowledge of how an event should have gone.

Evidence

This category gives information about the participating actors, the time, place and social circumstances in which racism events are situated: A mixed couple registers at the President Hotel. A white male receptionist handles the registration. … In the particular event the receptionist refused to register the woman of color, and showed disbelief about a white man and a woman of color sharing a room. In order to know why this was unacceptable you need to have knowledge of how it should have been: the receptionist is supposed to file both names in the computer upon demand, and is not supposed to question, let alone disapprove of, a couple. Later complication upon complication adds to the racism already active: lies about the phone call, rudeness against my colleague when she calls for me in vain, a badly-behaving night manager, who grows aggressive when we criticize the hotel for racial discrimination. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1503

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Shows that identifying an act as racism depends on decoding a breach of implicit expectations, not on explicit color reference.
  • XREF: Relevant to vault-wide accounts distinguishing overt racial ideology from the social knowledge required to recognize racial exclusion. — connects to: Identifying racism requires prior knowledge of how a situation should have gone — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1503; Recognizing racism requires knowing normal nonracialized expectations; Racism transmitted through normal routine practices goes unrecognized and unacknowledged — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1515
  • QUESTION: Potential example for contrasting how victims vs. courts vs. researchers establish ‘racial discrimination’ in mixed-descriptor cases.

Broader Connections