States differ between those tolerating racism and those founded on it

Evidence

We might usefully bear in mind here the distinction Etienne Balibar insists upon between “(official) State racism” and “racism within the State,” between what Balibar characterizes as the “exceptional state” and “exceptional moments” of the normal state (Balibar and Wallerstein, 1991:39; Balibar’s emphasis). A state may license racist expression within its jurisdiction simply by turning a blind eye, by doing nothing or little to prevent or contest it, by having no restricting rules or codes or failing to enforce those on the books. By contrast, a state like Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, or Jim Crow Louisiana may assume racism as a state project, definitive of state formation, articulation, in a word, (national) state identity. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1702

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Balibar’s official-state-racism vs. racism-within-the-state distinction is a precise definitional tool sharpening racial-state vocabulary used elsewhere in the vault.
  • XREF: Connects to the vault’s racial-state discussions (Goldberg’s ‘racist state’ lineage) and Foucault’s state-racism genealogy; also parallels levels-of-racism taxonomies commonly cited in legal CRT summaries. — connects to: State racism ranges from passive tolerance to explicit state project; States possess character that is shaped in racial terms — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on
, 256; Racisms form regional typologies tied to specific state formations but travel across borders — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on
, 347 (+1 more)

Broader Connections