How did the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement reduce racism in the US?

Research Paper

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to highlight the impact of racialism on indigenous people on inequality and to present public policy information that helps to remove racism and bridge inequality gaps. This study aims to approach a conceptual framework, which is interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional, which takes into account theoretical and methodological factors which make it possible to understand the dynamics and complexities of institutional racism as well as the importance of theorizing racism, to demonstrate the powers of government and economic, social and political inequalities.

Racism as Social Structure

Most analyses of racism did not take a historical approach and were absent so that racism, pigmentocracy, and whiteness could not be seen as a social and historical structure. Authors who treat race 4 or racism from a historical perspective and as a social structure are employed to fill this gap, allowing us to comprehend how society has been classed, hierarchical, and separated. In accordance with Quijano (2014), the population has been imposed in order to justify a system of dominance by a racial/ethnic classification as a pattern of power that acts in the planes, the regions, and dimensions of human and subjective existence. In Cumes (2004), in Guatemalan society, the term race has traditionally been used to distinguish and build hierarchies and relationships of power. The author also states that while the phrase ‘breed’ is often rejected and that terms such as ‘culture,’ ‘ethnicity’ are preferably used, this does not indicate that ‘race’ naturalization is not possible in the imagination, in daily practice in politics. Some authors talk about racism and history and socioeconomic classes. For Martínez (2009), races are social buildings that identify or distinguish human groupings from other groups, based on the relations between them. The races, for this author, are also creations developed in a specific historical environment, intimately connected with the social relationships, the social classes, and the cultural accumulations of the society. Martínez (2009) acknowledges that Darwinism and Evolutionism have been involved in building the concept of races from the lowest to the higher ones that respond to the hypothetical progressive human scale. Racism has been established and imposed to legitimize subjection with the development of colonial imperialism. The author also believes that it is necessary to evaluate a relationship between racial groupings and several macros and micro-social elements based on history, culture, economy, community enclaves, and family. As a social construction and as a power of domination, Pop (2000) explores racism as its impacts. It is a complicity of silence and legitimized impunity. It is based on the illusion of more than one other, it is overshadowed, nuanced, ignored, or rejected by the power of domination. It is a brutal manifestation of hostility. And its psychic effects are the alterations of life, anguish, and conflict The author states that racism is a manifestation of extrusion. Similarly, Samá (2009) aims at eradicating the structures of domination, in order to understand the cry of the oppressed and not to understand it as extremism, eccentrics, or exaggeration, based on the experience of racism, on an experience of dependence, poverty, and settlement history and racial segregation. Samá (2009) proposes to look back at history in order to learn about the development of concepts such as race and racism, the use of which has led to segregation, exclusion, belief in the superior and lower races, and a disregard for the invaded and colonized people. It emphasizes the necessity to focus on the affirmation of the subject and its cry against the refusal that occurs in social, structural, or macro spatial relations, but also how relationships with life occur. The method of thinking and acting is daily, with other people and the body itself. The dominating system, on which racism resides, has not been abolished, and the institutions have legitimized, reproduced, and upheld power relations.

There are questions to evaluate identities that let us be who I am, from where I originate, and where I go. These questions can be asked collectively, namely, who we are, where we are, and from where we are. The answers enable differences to be identified and human diversity to be located with diverse faces, experiences, and histories that call into account the homogenisation of the dominant systems and sectors to reproduce Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism justifying exploitation, oppression, and social injustice. 

Intersectional Oppression

In Guatemala, Mayan women have made great contributions from the perspective of oppression. Pop (2000) combines two repressions – racism and machismo, affirming that racism and machismo are phenomena exploited as symbolic or real and physical pathways for the conservation of advantages and authority. These phenomena should be examined through patriarchal, educational, socio-economic, political, religious, family and couple systems from the relations between power. Pop (2000) says that these occurrences must be examined parallelly because people and groups are defending a cause, but oppressing other claims, i.e.) they make one oppression apparent and they do not intersectionally investigate other oppressions. The author’s interest is how machismo and racism can be analyzed and countered, using degradation and aggressive tactics and exercising power (Pop, 2000). Velásquez (2004) addresses racism in this perspective on oppression, saying that it is not only an ideology, an individual behavior or individual behaviour but also collective and social oppression, as a collection of relationships, structures, and social institutions. The concept of intersectionality demonstrates how diverse oppressions are and functions as a tool to fight oppression and exploitation. Crenshaw (2005) believes that intersectionality is inherent in any domain and that it limits or undermines efforts to resist as a framework of domination. In view of women’s experiences of oppression, isolation, and invisibility, she recommends the analysis of racism, sexism, and classism to be intersecting. The junction of the numerous relations of power that are enticed into threads that cause oppression is vital, according to this author. In addition, specific political instruments are necessary to combat various forms of domination. 

Racial Hierarchies in Guatemala

Taracena (2004) shows the evolution that the concept of ladino has had through different historical-social phenomena linked to miscegenation. He affirms that since the 16th century in Spanish the term Ladino was linked to America, when it was applied to Spanish-speaking Indians and blacks, he considered Ladino Indians and Ladino Negroes as opposed to those who did not speak Spanish and who were considered as Indians and Negroes. muzzles. The command of Spanish includes Ladinos playing the role of intermediaries in colonial society. Along the same lines, Rodas (2004) affirms that the term Ladino began to be used towards the end of the 16th century and throughout the 17th century. This term identified indigenous people who have acquired certain Western habits – among which was the use of Spanish – to rearticulate within the new social scheme of the Colony, a period in which valuation was associated with the ability to associate efficiently with society. through the use of another language. This does not imply the loss of their belonging to their community. Taracena (2004) found that in the 16th century the so-called Aladdin Indians became part of the Ladino group. In the eighteenth century, the ladino villas were created, and by this time the word ladino designated mestizo, Spanish, mulatto, and black inhabitants. It is important to mention that there were also the mulatto and black villages. Rodas (2004), meanwhile, describes how a group of heirs to the privileges of the conquerors of the 18th century became part of the population contingent recognized as Ladino. According to Rodas (2004), this group of Spaniards was not the only one that became part of the colonial ladinos, as they also joined this group of mestizo and uprooted indigenous peoples from the Indian villages. The meaning of the word ladino originated with the dynamics of land accumulation and invasion of communal lands at the end of the 18th century, to locate and differentiate a certain group from the indigenous people. The liberal project of 1871 established an identity binomial based on Indians and Ladinos that aimed to make the existence of other identities and peoples invisible to ensure submission and exploitation. Guatemala became a country divided by the State into ladinos and indigenous people (Taracena, 2004). At this time, a Latinization policy was built that consisted of an attempt to homogenize the disparate Ladino group, rather than systematic assimilation of all indigenous people (Taracena, 2004). Gradually, the Ladinos assumed the identification of non-indigenous; Creoles, whites, Europeans, Chinese, blacks, and Arabs were included in this group. This homogenization pursued, on the one hand, the privileges that Ladino citizenship should have – all non-indigenous people were exonerated from being forced and taxed, political and educational segregation – and on the other, the ladino became synonymous with the Guatemalan. The Latinization policy promoted the assimilation of the indigenous people to deny or annul their indigenous origin. The liberal state favored the increase of Ladino power at the local, regional and national levels. The white man, Creole or foreigner, assumed himself as a ladino in the public sphere and rejected this condition in the private sphere. The liberal Guatemalan state not only favored ladinos to power but also gave land and power to some German families. Moreover, the whitening process has been linked to the ideas of modernity and progress, and for this reason, eugenics was privileged. Being modern as in Europe implied the mixture of races and, therefore, successive generations had to be whitewashed for Guatemala to become a modern nation. González (2014) analyzes the capitalist modernization project (coffee / exporter) in the farm space. In the farm culture, not only exploitative relationships are forged, but also sexual relationships through the right to pernada, when the children of farmers appropriate the bodies of indigenous women to satisfy their instincts or to ensure the bleaching process. that is to say, to “improve the race.” For the farm authorities this offspring was identified, in some cases, as “natural children”, “illegitimate”, and in others, “bastards”. According to González (2014), in the imaginary farmer the children of a German, who were “crossed with a good breed”, were mixed, they were little dogs, therefore, bearers of social prestige and with a certain position of power in the administration of the farm. The idea about the purity and the crossing of the races has not only materialized in the farm world but also in the minds of several Ladino families when they select their friends. In marital relationships, it is common to hear the phrase “it is necessary to improve the race.”

Having a racist state does not mean being tied down and head down. Indigenous peoples are always on the move and they are changing something, not at a structural level, but there have been processes of change. In this perspective of movement and resistance, the indigenous movement has had the capacity for the institutionality to gradually change, but something changes. Fifty years ago it was inconceivable that a policy was generated for indigenous peoples that considered cultural and political diversity. 

Taracena (2004) explains how numerous historical-social processes related to miscegenation have evolved into a concept of ladino. He claimed that since the XVIth century, the term Ladino has been related to America when it was used for Spanish-speaking Indians and Blacks, as opposed to those who did not speak Spanish and who were considered Indians and Negroes. Ladino was a Spanish-speaking term. He said it was related to America. muzzles. The Spanish control includes the function of Ladinos in colonial society as middlemen. In line with it, Rodas (2004) says that at the turn of the 16th and 17th century the term Ladino began to be employed. The term defined indigenous people who adopted certain western practices – including Spanish – in order to articulate a time in which assessment is linked to the ability to efficiently identify themselves and society with the use of a different language. This does not mean the loss of their membership. The so-called Aladin Indians became part of the Ladino group in the 16th century. Taracena (2004) discovered out. The 18th century saw the creation of Ladin villas which were then called mestizo, Spanish, mulato, and black. There were also mulatt and black villages. It is vital to remember. While Rodas (2004) shows how a group of descendants of Ladino conquerors’ rights became part of the demographic contingent. The Spanish group was not the only one that was part of colonial ladino peoples according to Rodas (2004) because these groups also joined the group of mestizos and indigenous people who had been uprooted from the Indian communities. At the end of the 18th century, the word ladino came from the dynamics of accumulation of land and invasion of municipal lands to locate and distinguish a certain group from the indigenous people. The liberal initiative of 1871 produced a binomial identifying Indians and Ladinos with the objective of invisible presentation and exploitation of other identities and peoples. The state split Guatemala into Ladinos and indigenous people (Taracena, 2004). At that time, a policy was developed to homogenize the heterogeneous Ladino group rather than systematically assimilate all indigenous peoples (Taracena, 2004). The Ladinos were gradually recognized as non-Indigenous people, including Creoles, whites, Europeans, Chinese, black people, and Arabs. This homogenization pursued the rights Ladino should have – all non-indigenous peoples were exonerated from forced and imposed segregation – on the one hand, and the Ladino became associated with Guatemalan on the other hand. The strategy of Ladinisation fostered the indigenous peoples’ assimilation to reject or invalidate the indigenous origin of these people. Ladino power on the domestic, regional, and national levels was promoted by the liberal state. The white person, Creole or stranger, took on himself as a public ladino and rejected this situation in private. Not only did the liberal state of Guatemala encourage authority for ladinos, but also awarded a few German families land and power. In addition, the whitening process was associated with the concepts of modernism and development. The mixing of the breeds was to be modern as in Europe and hence Guatemala had to be turned into a modern nation via many generations. The capitalist project for modernization (coffee/exporter) in agricultural space is being analyzed by González (2014.) In farm culture, not only exploitative relationships are established, but also sexual relations are built through the right to pernada when farmers’ children take the corpses of indigenous women into account in order to satisfy their instincts or to ensure the blanching process. This offspring was, in some situations, recognized as ‘natural children,’ ‘legitimate or in certain cases as ‘barbarians’ among agricultural authorities. The German children who were “crossed with a nice breed” in the farmer’s imagination, according to González, were mixed in 2014, consequently, they were little dogs, bearers of social prestige, and with some powerful position in the farm management. Not only in the farming world has the idea of cleanliness and crossing races taken shape but also in a number of Ladino households when choosing their acquaintances. The sentence “it is necessary  to improve race” is commonly used in marital relationships.

Conclusion

In brief, in this essay, I tried to reach a theoretical framework that is interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional, and that takes into consideration theoretical and methodological elements to allow understanding of the complexity of institutional racism, while also emphasizing the necessity of theorizing racism.

References 

Quijano, Aníbal (2014), Questions and horizons. From the historical-structural dependence to the coloniality / decoloniality of power 

Cumes, Aura (2004), “There is no racism here, there is interculturality here …”, Racism in Guatemala, Guatemala, Siglo XXI Editores.

Martínez Heredia, Fernando (2009), “The racial question of Cuba and this issue of Caminos”, Caminos. 

Pop Bol, Amanda (2000), “Racism and machismo: unraveling oppression”, Identity: faces without a mask, Morna Macleod and M. Luisa Cabrera Pérez-Armiñan (comps.), Guatemala.

Velásquez, Irma Alicia (2004), “Costume, folklorization and racism in post-conflict Guatemala”, Racism in Guatemala: from the politically correct to the anti-racist struggle, Meike Heckt and Gustavo Palma (eds.), Guatemala, Asociación para el Avance de Social Sciences in Guatemala

Crenshaw, Kimberlé (2005), “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics”

Taracena, Arturo (2004), “Guatemala: the historiographic debate around miscegenation, 1970-2000”

Rodas, Isabel (2004), From Spaniards to Ladinos: Social Change and Kinship Relations in the Guatemalan Colonial Central Highlands, Guatemala, Instituto Centroamericano de Prospectiva e Investigación

González Aróstegui, Mely (2001), “Culture of resistance. Theoretical and methodological concepts for its study “