1. When you spend time in the U.S., you learn racial categories and you learn to believe them. Glenn calls this "being raced." Greg calls it racialization and details the steps involved.
2. These racial categories are deeply entrenched in the culture, social practices, everyday conversation, social science data, etc.
3. They're both willing to acknowledge the reality of these categories
Where Glenn and Greg disagree:
1. Glenn is describing what is. Greg is envisioning what could be. As Glenn says, his argument is deliberately not normative; it's not evaluating how good or bad race-ing/racialization is. Greg is making an evaluation. He's saying: this isn't working, and here is what better looks like.
Question for Glenn: if you were to take a normative stance and ask what better looks like, setting aside the odds of bringing it to fruition, what do you think of Greg's vision?
2. In referencing these racial categories, Glenn is comfortable sticking with the conventions, e.g. black and white. Greg says: no, we need more accurate ways of talking about this. Hence his terminology "racialized as black."
Question for Glenn: using terms like "racialized as black" is obviously a bit more effort and even awkward when few other people say it, but you've never been one to shy away from standing apart from the crowd. If you set aside this verbal awkwardness, doesn't this terminology acknowledge the social convention of race-ing as well as, if not better than, the word "black?" I realize you don't see the upside gains of this shift, but can you name any downsides?
Where Glenn and Greg appear to agree:
1. When you spend time in the U.S., you learn racial categories and you learn to believe them. Glenn calls this "being raced." Greg calls it racialization and details the steps involved.
2. These racial categories are deeply entrenched in the culture, social practices, everyday conversation, social science data, etc.
3. They're both willing to acknowledge the reality of these categories
Where Glenn and Greg disagree:
1. Glenn is describing what is. Greg is envisioning what could be. As Glenn says, his argument is deliberately not normative; it's not evaluating how good or bad race-ing/racialization is. Greg is making an evaluation. He's saying: this isn't working, and here is what better looks like.
Question for Glenn: if you were to take a normative stance and ask what better looks like, setting aside the odds of bringing it to fruition, what do you think of Greg's vision?
2. In referencing these racial categories, Glenn is comfortable sticking with the conventions, e.g. black and white. Greg says: no, we need more accurate ways of talking about this. Hence his terminology "racialized as black."
Question for Glenn: using terms like "racialized as black" is obviously a bit more effort and even awkward when few other people say it, but you've never been one to shy away from standing apart from the crowd. If you set aside this verbal awkwardness, doesn't this terminology acknowledge the social convention of race-ing as well as, if not better than, the word "black?" I realize you don't see the upside gains of this shift, but can you name any downsides?