废除制度性种族主义

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
A. Elliott-Cooper
{"title":"废除制度性种族主义","authors":"A. Elliott-Cooper","doi":"10.1177/03063968231166901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2020, anti-racist campaigns mobilising under the banner of Black Lives Matter challenged liberal reforms to policing as they made calls to defund the police. In the same year, the UK government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities rejected not just the radical demands of Black Lives Matter protesters, but even liberal analyses of institutional racism in policing. This article examines how these two political interventions, analysing the same place at the same time, arrived at such divergent conclusions. This is done by tracing critiques of institutional racism from the Black Power movements of the 1960s and ’70s, through to the more liberal interpretations of institutional racism following the 1999 Macpherson Report. It goes on to argue that the failings of Macpherson provided the impetus for the political developments of 2020. The dearth of political, historical and economic analysis by Macpherson helped embolden the government to denude interpretations of data on racial inequalities as constituting institutional racism. Simultaneously, the endurance of police racism in post-Macpherson Britain has served only to underline the necessity for more radical demands in challenging institutional racism. The author argues that this has spurred on present-day activists to draw on the radical Black Power politics of the twentieth century to complement their abolitionist demands.","PeriodicalId":47028,"journal":{"name":"Race & Class","volume":"65 1","pages":"100 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abolishing institutional racism\",\"authors\":\"A. Elliott-Cooper\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03063968231166901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2020, anti-racist campaigns mobilising under the banner of Black Lives Matter challenged liberal reforms to policing as they made calls to defund the police. In the same year, the UK government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities rejected not just the radical demands of Black Lives Matter protesters, but even liberal analyses of institutional racism in policing. This article examines how these two political interventions, analysing the same place at the same time, arrived at such divergent conclusions. This is done by tracing critiques of institutional racism from the Black Power movements of the 1960s and ’70s, through to the more liberal interpretations of institutional racism following the 1999 Macpherson Report. It goes on to argue that the failings of Macpherson provided the impetus for the political developments of 2020. The dearth of political, historical and economic analysis by Macpherson helped embolden the government to denude interpretations of data on racial inequalities as constituting institutional racism. Simultaneously, the endurance of police racism in post-Macpherson Britain has served only to underline the necessity for more radical demands in challenging institutional racism. The author argues that this has spurred on present-day activists to draw on the radical Black Power politics of the twentieth century to complement their abolitionist demands.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Race & Class\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"100 - 118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Race & Class\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968231166901\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Race & Class","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968231166901","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年,打着“黑人的命也是命”(Black Lives Matter)旗号动员起来的反种族主义运动,在呼吁削减警察经费的同时,挑战了自由主义的警务改革。同年,英国政府的种族和民族差异委员会不仅拒绝了“黑人的命也是命”抗议者的激进要求,甚至拒绝了对警务中制度性种族主义的自由主义分析。本文探讨了这两种政治干预措施是如何在同一时间分析同一地点,得出如此不同的结论的。这是通过追溯从20世纪60年代和70年代的黑人权力运动到1999年《麦克弗森报告》之后对制度性种族主义的更自由的解释对制度性的种族主义的批评来实现的。它继续认为,麦克弗森的失败为2020年的政治发展提供了动力。麦克弗森缺乏政治、历史和经济分析,这有助于政府大胆谴责对种族不平等数据的解释,认为这构成了制度性种族主义。与此同时,在后麦克弗森时代的英国,警察种族主义的持久性只会突显出在挑战制度性种族主义方面需要更激进的要求。作者认为,这促使当今的活动家利用20世纪激进的黑人权力政治来补充他们的废奴主义要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abolishing institutional racism
In 2020, anti-racist campaigns mobilising under the banner of Black Lives Matter challenged liberal reforms to policing as they made calls to defund the police. In the same year, the UK government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities rejected not just the radical demands of Black Lives Matter protesters, but even liberal analyses of institutional racism in policing. This article examines how these two political interventions, analysing the same place at the same time, arrived at such divergent conclusions. This is done by tracing critiques of institutional racism from the Black Power movements of the 1960s and ’70s, through to the more liberal interpretations of institutional racism following the 1999 Macpherson Report. It goes on to argue that the failings of Macpherson provided the impetus for the political developments of 2020. The dearth of political, historical and economic analysis by Macpherson helped embolden the government to denude interpretations of data on racial inequalities as constituting institutional racism. Simultaneously, the endurance of police racism in post-Macpherson Britain has served only to underline the necessity for more radical demands in challenging institutional racism. The author argues that this has spurred on present-day activists to draw on the radical Black Power politics of the twentieth century to complement their abolitionist demands.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Race & Class
Race & Class Multiple-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Race & Class is a refereed, ISI-ranked publication, the foremost English language journal on racism and imperialism in the world today. For three decades it has established a reputation for the breadth of its analysis, its global outlook and its multidisciplinary approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信