This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: cally informed
intelligence, and he picks a fight from the start. His title suggests that the study of multiraciality is some kind of plot, or at the very least an illegitimate enterprise. His
tone is angry and accusatory on every page. It is difficult to get to the grounds of his argument, because the cloud of invective is so thick, and because his writing is
abstract, referential, and at key points vague. For Sexton (as for the Spencers and Gordon) race is about Blackness, in the United States and around the world. That is silly, for there are other racialized relationships . In the U.S., native peoples were
racialized by European intruders in all the ways that Africans were, and more: they were nearly extinguished. To take just one example from many
around the world, Han Chinese have racialized Tibetans historically in all the ways (including slavery) that Whites have racialized Blacks and Indians
in the United States. So there is a problem with Sexton’s concept of race as Blackness. There is also a problem with his insistence on
monoraciality. For Sexton and the others, one cannot be mixed or multiple; one must...
View Full Document
- Spring '14