Antiracism Without Guarantees:
A Framework for Rethinking Racisms in Schools
Timothy J. Stanley
University of Ottawa
Abstract
Due to their dynamic nature, racisms are manifested in classrooms and in the lives of young people in complex ways. As a result, teachers need antiracist literacies. No single antiracist strategy can work for all times and all places. To facilitate these literacies, this paper proposes a framework for analyzing racisms and identifying possibilities for antiracist intervention. The framework builds on the analysis of racism developed by Robert Miles and reworked by David Theo Goldberg. It also builds on the author’s own experience in teaching antiracism. The framework proposes that racisms exist in the plural; that all racisms involve racialization, exclusion and consequences; and that the conditions for racism point to antiracist strategies of challenging racialization, fostering deracialized inclusions and mitigating consequences. The framework is illustrated with examples from Canadian schools. The results do not guarantee an end to racisms, but can help to open up antiracist spaces in the lives of young people.
Introduction
Confusion over racisms and their consequences is widespread. Depending on time and place, racisms vary in their effects, their public and academic representation and in the ways they are commonly understood (e.g., Herzog, Sharon, & Leykin, 2008; Silva, 2012). Writing in vastly different contexts, scholars note that public discourse often simply denies the existence of racism as a systemic feature of local societies (e.g., Comack & Bowness, 2010; Wasserman, 2010). Indeed, such denial is arguably central to the functioning of racisms in the first place and is itself an expression of their local configurations (Rajiva & Batacharya, 2010; van Dijk, 1992). Among other things, this situation poses huge educational challenges. It makes discussion of racist privilege extremely difficult, delegitimizes the testimonies of people oppressed by racisms, reduces the problem of racism to the supposedly isolated acts and expressions of a few flawed individuals and licenses the continued existence of racist systems (e.g., Dunn & Nelson, 2011; Lichtenberg, 1998). But as David Theo Goldberg (2009) reminds us racisms are not just prejudices or problematic categorizations, they are exclusions. The processes of colonialism, nationalism and capitalism that built modern societies created racist exclusions (e.g., Allen, 1994; Stanley, 2011). Thus racisms are not the result of innate, self-evident difference, but they are historical products that have been made over time and that have come to structure modern societies materially and symbolically (Hall, 1980).
some students from certain backgrounds, thus reproducing the marginalization and exclusion of specific communities (Varma-Joshi, Baker, & Tanaka, 2004). Even in apparently multicultural schools, students from historically excluded groups—such as in Canada First Nations, Inuit and Métis people and students of colour—can remain marginalized in school spaces and curriculum (James, 2007; Van Ingen & Halas, 2006). Over time, this contributes to forcing marginalized groups out of schools (e.g., Dei, Mazzuca, McIssac, & Zine, 1997). Meanwhile, teachers who are aware of the racisms surrounding them can often become isolated from their colleagues who are not. But as Mica Pollock and her colleagues note (2010), many teachers see racism as such a big issue, as so overwhelming, that they are simply paralyzed, unless they are given concrete specific things they can actually do in their classrooms (Pollock, Deckman, Mira, & Shalaby). However, given the complexity of racisms, that is, the ways in which different racisms can be at play differently in the same location, can change from one moment to the next and the different effects racisms have as they enter into other dynamics of oppression, no one technique or approach however effective in one context can address all manifestations of racisms. Thus, teachers need to be able to analyze the presence and effects of racisms in specific contexts and so identify suitable antiracist strategies. They need antiracist literacies (e.g., Skerett, 2011).
Anti-Essentialist Antiracism
In this context, I offer a framework for analyzing racisms and developing antiracisms. My hope is that this framework can help teachers and scholars alike to identify racisms in the everyday, to better understand their consequences on the lives of the people around them and to identify more effective strategies for challenging racisms and undoing their consequences in specific contexts. I have used this framework to analyze the dynamics of a particular historical racism (Stanley, 2011). I have also used it to trace the excluded knowledges arising from racisms and colonialism that shape contemporary taken-for-granted cultural formations (Stanley, 2009) and have argued that it provides a way of conceptualizing research more generally (Stanley, 2012). The framework itself emerges from my reading of the antiracism literature (e.g., Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1982; Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 2009) and from more than 30 years in antiracist education. During that time, I have found that avoiding essentialisms, teaching about the histories of the systems that bring about the current moment and acknowledging complexity and affect can lead to antiracist understanding. Today, scholars are calling this approach “reflexive antiracism” (Kowal, 2013; Spanierman, Todd, & Anderson, 2009). However, anti-essentialist approaches to antiracism have been long advocated by scholars and antiracist educators alike (e.g., Barzun, 1937/1965; Cohen, 1992). Anti-essentialist antiracism is not a magic solution to the problem of racism. Rather like Stuart Hall’s (1986) Marxism, it is deeply engaged with analyzing social formations and their consequences so as to understand and harness the forces that make change without presuming that this will produce an end to history. As Jennifer Kelly remarked, it is “antiracism without guarantees” (personal communication, October 21, 2006).
concrete of modern cities (Stanley, 2009). Thus, racisms do not only come into classrooms through the attitudes of those who enter them; they are already there in official curricula, the relations of power that exist between individuals whether students, teachers or administrators and above all in the nationalizing state systems that frame them (e.g., Goldberg, 2009).
The idea that racisms involve racialization, exclusion and consequences comes from the comprehensive analysis of racism developed by Robert Miles (1989). He argues that the term “racism” must be used rigorously if it is to keep its value as an analytic category. According to Miles all historic racisms have shared certain features in common. These features need to be analyzed to determine whether something is racism. Specifically, all racisms involve racialization, which he characterizes as the sorting of populations through the signification of alleged biological or cultural difference. To be signified, these differences do not have to be actual, but must only be represented as real. Racializations in and of themselves are not racist, but begin to be when they become the basis for exclusions. Miles further argues that to count as racism, racialized exclusions must produce significant negative consequences for the racialized and excluded. For Miles, racisms are ideologies, which he understands to be socially located ideas, i.e. belonging to a particular group or social class. For something to be racist it needs to be motivated by these ideologies. For example, he argues that institutionalized racism only exists when discourse about racist exclusion is present (Miles, 1989).
In his reworking of Miles, David Theo Goldberg (1993) argues that racism is more about effects than intentions. He argues that racisms need to meet certain conditions and that in the end these conditions are cultural. Thus, he accepts Miles’ characterization that racisms involve racialization, exclusion and consequence, but rejects the idea that they are merely ideologies. For Goldberg (1993) racisms are material relations, primarily seen in their effects on the racialized and excluded, and it is thus something that has little to nothing to do with the intentions of the excluders. Indeed, his more recent work (Goldberg, 2009) underlines that racisms are exclusions and that different societies have different configurations of racism even if they all share certain analytic features in common. Or as Stanley (2011) argues, racisms create what Arendt (1973) called organized textures of life.
One advantage of this approach is that it both recognizes that racisms are not a single thing or have a single “authentic” way of being. It recognizes that racisms can have different configurations—institutional, economic, epistemological, ontological and so on—but that these configurations change as specific features are challenged or questioned by the excluded. Racisms as a result are dynamic systems that are constantly changing. If they appear to be fixed, it is because someone is intervening to refix exclusions that would otherwise disappear over time (Stanley, 2011). Thus racisms are integral to modern state formations (Omi & Winant, 1994; Goldberg, 2002). Indeed, Foucault (2003) argues, they are their raison d’être.
bringing into circulation and engagement the knowledge and meanings of the racialized and excluded.
Racisms and Antiracisms are Plural
The framework begins by recognizing that racisms exist in the plural. Racism is not a single thing that takes some prototypical or essential form. Rather there are multiple racisms, each with their own histories and consequences. For example, anti-Semitism in Europe is a different racism from anti-First Nations racism in Canada. Thus, even though these two racisms might combine together in a certain context, such as by creating the double dominance of a racialized group, there are no automatic pre-determined connections between the racisms, and they can still enact different consequences. In Canada today, for example, histories of anti-First Nations racisms and of European anti-Semitism (along with many other racisms such as Islamophobia and anti-African Canadian racisms) have formed classrooms as material spaces, but at a given moment as power is exerted in the space of the classrooms, one racism may be more important than another.
These consequences are also changed, enhanced or reduced as particular racisms intersect with other social oppressions, especially those of gender, class, ethnicity, dis/ability and sexuality (Dei, 1996). That racisms have no essential or inevitable form implies that they vary in form and intensity with time and place. Just because a particular racism takes a specific form in one context, there is no automatic reason that it would take this form in another. Because there are different racisms in the world, it is possible for a particular racism to be at play in a specific time and place and in the next moment another racism to be at play (Goldberg, 1993, Chapter 5). Individual racism can exist in conjunction with, or be articulated through, other racisms. There are even situations in which one racism may be in direct opposition to another (Miles, 1989; Goldberg, 1993). Among other things, this also means that while racisms are continually being enacted in relation to and through other oppressions, there is no automatic connection between particular racisms and specific oppressions. If a racism is expressed through or in conjunction with another oppression (e.g., is linked to patriarchy), why and how this is so in a particular context needs to be investigated (e.g., Razack, 2004).
Finally, an anti-essentialist approach to racisms means that if particular racist configurations endure—such as, for example, white supremacy in Canada and the United States—it is because someone is continually intervening to refix meanings that would otherwise have slipped, to re-racialize and exclude yet again. Thus racisms are systems in which their different parts are articulated in relation to each other; as one part is moved, the whole system re-articulates (Omi & Winant, 1994). Left to their own devices, human beings have made common projects across the sharpest of social divides (e.g., Todorov, 1997; Agamben, 2002). If in particular contexts they do not, power is actively preventing them from doing so (Foucault, 2003). Thus, recognizing that there are racisms in the plural draws attention to the operations of power.
Consequences in Schools
some level anything that opposes a racism is an antiracism (Bonnett, 2000). The most confirmed of racists can have their antiracist moments and the most committed of antiracists, their racist ones. Indeed it is possible for someone to be strongly antiracist with respect to one racism and strongly racist with respect to another. Much the same holds true for most institutions and cultural systems; they can be both racist and antiracist at the same time and in different proportions in different contexts. However, if there are multiple racisms that can take different forms in different contexts, no one antiracist strategy or intervention can work for all times and all places. Racisms and antiracisms can come together in different combinations. Just because a strategy has addressed one racism in a particular time and place, it does not automatically follow that other racisms have even been affected. Further, the dynamic nature of racisms implies that even if a particular racist practice has been successfully challenged, the racism itself may not have disappeared, but have only changed shape. Here Marilyn Frye’s birdcage metaphor is disturbingly appropriate. If racism were a birdcage, each individual strand would not seem strong enough to hold anyone, but taken together all the bars are indeed strong enough. Even as people eliminate one bar, other bars come into existence (as cited in Coates, 2003, p. 235; see also Takaki, 1979). Thus, if racisms have no essential form, neither do antiracisms.
All of this has enormous implications for antiracist practices in schools. Schools are complex places where different racisms can come together, where in one moment one racism is at play and in another something completely different is at play. My analysis suggests that single-focused strategies are not likely to be successful, even if they are successful in challenging a specific expression of a specific racism. Despite this, much official antiracism still focuses on prejudice reduction as a global strategy. Variations of this include such things as “teaching tolerance.” The central idea behind these interventions is that if young people can be taught to identify and question prejudices, including their own, and also learn to “tolerate” differences, then they will reject racisms. In other words, they lead to approaches that are intended to repair the head of the prejudiced (read as damaged) person and are based on an understanding of racism as in the head, rather than as in the world (Lichtenberg, 1998).
An example of such a strategy can be found in the official Ontario Grade 10 Canadian History curriculum. All of Ontario’s required history curriculum focuses on Canadian history, except for a single Grade 10 unit on the Holocaust (Ontario, Ministry of Education [OMOE], 2013). This unit requires that students “analyse the impact of the Holocaust on Canada and on Canadian attitudes towards human rights” (OMOE, 2013, p. 117) and “explain the significance of the Holocaust for Canada and Canadians” (OMOE, 2013, p. 134). Teachers are encouraged but not required to teach this in terms of such things as “changes in Canadians’ responses to minority groups” (OMOE, 2013, p. 117) and “antisemitism in Canada in the 1930 and 1940s” (OMOE, 2013, p. 134). This is the only place in the curriculum that a history of racist exclusion is required to be taught.
p. 131). Racism apparently only affects “minorities.” Its role in shaping the dominant group is not mentioned at any time. The colonialism and white supremacy that created the country in the first place, the system of racially-based voting rights in Canada that deprived those racialized as Asians of the right to vote in British Columbia until 1949 and prevented so-called “Status Indians” from voting throughout the country until 1960 and even the federal Canadian government’s complicity in the Holocaust (Abella & Troper, 2000) magically disappear. The forced removal of Japanese Canadians from British Columbia during the Second World War and the Indian Residential Schools are mentioned (as optional examples of what can be taught), but are never signified as genocides. Dispersal destroyed the Japanese Canadian community as a community. Residential schools were deliberately designed to destroy First Nations people’s indigenous cultures, language and religions by forcibly removing children from their homes, a practice that Mr. Justice Murray Sinclair, the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, has correctly called genocide (Puxley, 2012; see also Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2012) and which continues to have devastating consequences for First Nations, Inuit and Métis people today.
Even if this unit provides students with transformative experiences that lead them to question prejudices and their consequences, it does not follow that they would be able to analyze actual racisms such as the treatment of so-called Status Indians by the Canadian state. Nor is it even clear that a unit on the Holocaust reduces modern antisemitism in Canada when contemporary expressions of antisemitism are often linked to developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Berenbaum, 2008; League for Human Rights, 2014). Indeed, as Raby (2004) has shown, many young people in Ontario high schools are unable to equate the term “racism” with the everyday racist violence that they experience and even perpetrate, while studies elsewhere have shown that racialized conflicts also get re-read through other lenses (e.g., Bucholtz, 2011). Thus, specific racisms need specific interventions that engage fully with the specifics of context; no single method can work for all time and all places.
To say that there is no one approach to antiracism that can work and that racisms have no essential form is not to say that anything and everything can be racist. Here I heartily endorse Miles’ (1989) project of defending the use of the term racism for purposes of analysis on the grounds that understanding what racisms are and how they work makes effective antiracist strategies possible. Central to Miles’ analysis as reworked by Goldberg (1993) is that all racisms meet conditions of racialization, exclusion and consequence.
Conditions for Racisms: Racialization
categories are in fact cultural inventions. For example, the American historian Theodore Allen (1994) has established that the idea of a white race was invented at the turn of the eighteenth century to preserve the system of plantation slavery in Virginia. As a representational or meaning-making process, racialization involves the representation of real or imagined human cultural or phenotypical difference in essentialized terms (Miles, 1989, pp. 74-75).
Racialization is always context specific. It is possible to be racialized one way in one context, and racialized differently in another. For example, historically in Britain until the 1980s, the term “Black” was used to refer to people of East Asian and South Asian origins as well as of African origins, and used by these people themselves as a term for organizing resistance (Hall, 1992), a practice that would have seemed nonsensical in Canada and the United States during the same era. In the nineteenth century United States, “Black” Irish Catholics became “White” (Ignatief, 1995). Even though racializing schemes are specific to particular geographic, historical and cultural contexts, all racializations involve systems of absolute classification. One can either be racialized as an “X” or a “Y”, or maybe even as a “Z,” but never both as an ”X” and a “Y,” let alone an “X” “Y” “Z.” In the ascriptive logic of racialization, Barack Obama is a “Black” president and Tiger Woods a “Black” golfer whatever their actual genetic makeup or self-definitions. Notice that racialization is always relational as one group is racialized in relation to another. In other words, if someone is racialized as an X, this racialization is being created in relation to at least one other category that is not-X. The sentence “Barack Obama is a Black president” is only meaningful in a social context in which people are sorted into racializaed categories of “Black”, “White,” “Asian”, etc., and in which the Blackness of a president is sufficiently unusual that it is worth mentioning (by contrast, few people would mention that Obama is a president who wears suits). The Whiteness of other presidents goes rarely mentioned as it is the unmarked, taken-for-grated and dominant category (Leonardo, 2004).
For many young people, name-calling is often the first direct experience of racism targeted specifically at themselves that they encounter, and this first experience often takes place in school. Racist name-calling is not only a common, everyday occurrence, but also, when teachers and principals respond inadequately, directly leads to disengagement from school (Varma-Joshi et al., 2004). Young people can also use racist name-calling strategically to win out in specific situations (Troyna & Hatcher, 1992), while school is also a site for trying on racialized ascriptions and self-definitions (Lewis, 2003). As the accounts of survivors of Indian Residential Schools show, schools have enacted extreme physical and psychic violence upon young people for no other reason other than their racialized identity (Legacy of Hope Foundation [LOHF], n.d.). Historically, schools have also been the place where “scientific” race classifications have been taught, while today they can be used to explore the complexity of human genetic variation and to undermine biologistic conceptions of social difference (contrast Stanley, 1990 to AAA, 2011). Thus, racializations can and should be challenged as part of an overall strategy including the promotion of new language that acknowledges racialized differences without re-inscribing the essentialized categories that are part of the problem in this first place. For example, in my own work I attempt to avoid unreflective racial categorization and am careful to specify how I use racializing terms. Thus I refer to “people racialized as white” rather than “white people” and identify whether I am using the term “Chinese” as a racialization, a national or ethnic identity or to refer to a civilization (Stanley, 2011). In classrooms, challenging racializations can be as sophisticated as helping students to spot essentializing language themselves or as simple as encouraging students to question whether all the people in the racialized group actually share the group’s alleged characteristic such as by asking whether Canadians, immigrants and minority groups are, in fact, mutually exclusive categories.
Racializations tend to be remarkably stable, even though the meanings associated with racializations should slip as people engage with each other. In this respect, racializations are no different that any other representations; once they enter into circulation their original meanings change as people remake and rework them for their own purposes (Hall & Jhally, 1996/2002; 2002). Even if particular racializations go in and out of fashion over time, their underlying grammars (Rizvi, 1993) remain the same (as with Canadian nationalist categories, see Francis, 1997). This suggests that racializations are not only anchored in representation, but in processes of power. Here Goldberg (2009) reminds us that much antiracist effort goes into challenging racializations, when the real effort needs to be addressed to the “too often overlooked threats and manifestations of violence and violations, disease, death, and destruction activated, represented, and rationalized in the name of race” (p. 28). This calls attention to the second and key condition for racisms, that of exclusions.
Conditions for Racisms: Exclusions
being excluded, someone else is being included. Therefore racist exclusions always exist in conjunction with equally racist inclusions. Creating such inclusions is the point of racisms. E.g., in North American today, creating the dominance of people of European origins over the territories of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people, of Native Americans and Mexicans, and keeping others out of the dominant position is not a side effect of the dominant racism. Rather, these exclusions exist in order to create that dominance (e.g., Leonardo, 2004). So too the exclusions of the Ontario History/Social Studies Curriculum are not simply products of the prejudices of the framers of the curriculum but reflect the wider articulations of dominance that constitute the Canadian nation state.
If racisms are predicated on racialized exclusions, antiracisms need to engage with creating or fostering deracialized inclusions. Creating inclusions that challenge large-scale exclusions is not easy. For example, no single change will undo the exclusion of people from the quality of life, the goods and services enjoyed by other people in the country for no other reason than that they are racialized under the Indian Act (see Cannon & Sunseri, 2011).
However, the micro-spaces of the school offer a rich curriculum of possibility. Possibility is especially evident when we consider how to respond to the ways in which racialized bodies are located in and around schools. How young people experience racialized social geographies plays an important role in their understandings of the world (Frankenberg, 1993). Carl James (2007) has shown that, even in highly multicultural contexts, marginalized students can still be excluded from most of the spaces of the school. In some high schools, marginalized boys take control over the middle of hallways, making it difficult for others to move around in the school, a situation that some teachers, especially women from the dominant group, find intimidating. These students then become the focus of the policing efforts of the staff, leading to their being bounced out of the school. However, as James points out, this grouping in the hallway reflects the fact that these students are excluded from the rest of the spaces of the school, both the symbolic ones of the curriculum and the physical ones of the classrooms. In effect, they belong nowhere. The hallway becomes the one space that they can control. Racialized groupings of this kind are not unique to urban schools, but affect First Nations children in schools throughout Canada (Van Ingen & Halas, 2006). Defusing such situations begins by recognizing the racialized mapping taking place, i.e., the material organization of racialized bodies within the school, with documenting the exclusion to bring it to people’s consciousness, followed by a series of projects to engage students and make all of the school’s material and symbolic spaces welcoming. This may not end the larger organization of exclusion in the rest of the world, but it can create a space that enables antiracist engagement.
Conditions for Racisms: Consequences
that are sought to be transformed (e.g., St. Denis, 2011). As a result this condition for racism rapidly leads to a condition for antiracism.
This condition alone has enormous consequences for teaching practices. Antiracist understanding necessarily starts with seeking out and bringing into knowledge the self-representations of the excluded. We can see this reality in the case of name-calling. Teachers and school officials need to engage with the actual hurt this behaviour does by engaging with the feelings and experiences of those who are excluded through such behaviour. A similar pattern is also evident in the effects of grouping. At a larger level, racist systems survive because the relations of power at work ensure that the meanings created by the excluded do not need to be engaged by those whom the racism empowers. Thus, the educational challenge is to remake classrooms and teaching practices so that the meanings of the excluded can be engaged and acts of power understood. Part of the challenge is to equip students to ask about who and what is excluded, to help them find where these people are and to begin the process of making sense of the meanings and experiences of those who are excluded. This is not just in terms of the people in classroom, but is even more importantly about opening the classroom to excluded knowledges.
No classroom can ever represent all of the meanings of all of the people of the world. However it is possible to move beyond the Eurocentric limitations of official curriculum by using as many spaces as possible to bring into our classrooms the meanings and experiences of as many people as possible and to engage students’ complex connections to people and places elsewhere in the world. Today as never before we have resources that allow young people to directly engage with the meanings of others. Thus, even the Ontario Grade 10 History Curriculum can be taught in antiracist ways. This involves meeting the curriculum’s expectations by bringing young people into contact with the stories and life experiences of people who are racialized and excluded. Today this can often be done through the internet. For example, the testimonies of survivors of Indian Residential Schools (LOHF, n.d.), of Chinese Canadians who lived through decades of institutionalized racism and forced separation from their families (e.g. Chinese Canadian Stories Project, n.d.), or the histories of African Canadians (Historica Canada, n.d.), can all be brought into any classroom.
A Strategy for Challenging Racisms
of attention to issues of racism and exclusion in the overall policies and legal frameworks that govern schools, or where those policies are present, the lack of political will to implement them. In the meantime, the young person racialized as not having a name worthy of being known is likely to be distanced from the learning activities taking place in the classroom. Even more importantly, not learning someone’s name silences, ignores and diminishes who they actually are. Recognizing this situation as a racism enables intervention. It invites discussion with other antiracist teachers to share ideas and to get feedback on practices. It begins with listening to the self-representations of all the students (including their body language), with talking to them and engaging their meanings and those of their significant others. It involves challenging racialization by learning and using all of the students’ names. It continues with making a deracialized inclusion, a classroom in which all students feel welcomed. This in turn starts to make safe places in which other people’s meanings and other people’s understandings can be engaged, laying the basis in the long term for ending their exclusion.
Strategies of challenging racializations, fostering inclusions and mitigating consequences do not guarantee the end of racisms. Exclusions end through the organized resistance of the excluded, not through education. But the young people in our classrooms cannot wait for a future free of racisms. My hope is that the framework proposed here offers a place to start the long and difficult work of rethinking racisms and our own teaching practices, of creating classrooms that welcome all young people and schools that allow them to start coming to terms with their complex relationships to the people and the world around them. None of this is easy. It takes all of our adult wisdom and experience as teachers to achieve. It is not done by making one or two huge changes in the ways that we teach but through hundreds of small ones that will transform our everyday practices. It is done by making mistakes and learning from them. To succeed in creating space in which all young people are welcomed is no small thing and can have lasting results in showing all the young people present that there other possibilities of being in the world. This will not end racisms overnight. Rather, it offers the possibility of transforming racisms, one classroom and one group of students at a time, the long, slow path of antiracisms without guarantees.
References
Abella, I. M., & Troper, H.M. (2000). None is too many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933-1948. Toronto: Key Porter.
Allen, T. (1994). The invention of the white race, 2 vols. London; New York: Verso.
American Anthropological Association. (2011) Race: Are we so different? Retrieved from http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html
Agamben, G. (2002). Remnants of Auschwitz: The witness and the archive. New York: Zone Books.
Arendt, H. (1944). Race-thinking before racism. The Review of Politics, 6(1), 36-73.
Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Beedy, D. (2012, August 17). Bank of Canada bans image of Asian woman from $100 bill.
Financial Post.
Berenbaum M. (Ed.) (2008). Not your father's antisemitism: Hatred of the Jews in the
twenty-first century. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.
Bonnett, A. (2000). Anti-racism. London; New York: Routledge.
Bucholtz, M. (2011). ‘It’s different for guys’: Gendered narratives of racial conflict among white California youth. Discourse & Society, 22(4), 385-402.
Cannon, M., & Sunseri, L. (2011). Racism, colonialism and indigeneity in Canada: A reader.
Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (1982). The empire strikes back: Race and racism in
70s Britain. London: Routledge.
Chinese Canadian Stories Project. (n.d.). Chinese Canadian stories: Uncommon histories from
a common past. Retrieved from: http://chinesecanadian.ubc.ca
Coates, R. (2003). Introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(3), 235-239.
Cohen, P. (1992). “It’s racism what dunnit”: Hidden narratives in theories of racism. In J. Donald and A. Rattansi (Eds.), ‘Race’, culture and difference (pp. 62-103). London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Comack, E., & Bowness, E. (2010). Dealing the race card: Public discourse on the policing of Winnipeg's inner-city communities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 19(1), 34-50.
Dei, G. J. S. (1996). Anti-racism education: Theory and practice. Halifax: Fernwood.
Dei, G. J. S, Mazzuka, J., McIssac, E., & Zine, J. (1997). Reconstructing drop-out: A critical
ethnography of the dynamics of Black students’ disengagement from schools. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Delacampagne, C. (1983). L’invention de racisme: Antiquité et Moyen Age. (T.J. Stanley, Trans.). Paris: Fayard.
Dunn, K., & Nelson, J.K. (2011). Challenging the public denial of racism for a deeper multiculturalism. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 32(6), 587-602.
Fanon, F. (1991). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press. (Original work published 1967)
Foucault, M. (2003). "Society must be defended": Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-76.
M. Bertani, F. Ewald, & A. Fontana (Eds.). (D. Macey, Trans.). New York: Picador.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.
Gilmour, R. J. (2012). “Too Asian?": Racism, privilege, and post-secondary education. Toronto: Between the Lines.
Gilroy, P. (2000). Against race: Imagining political culture beyond the color line. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Goldberg, D. T. (1993). Racist culture: Philosophy and the politics of meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Goldberg, D. T. (2002). The racial state. Oxford England: Blackwell.
Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The threat of race: Reflections on racial neoliberalism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hall, S. (1980). Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance. In Unesco (Ed.),
Sociological theories: Race and colonialism (pp. 305-345). Paris: Unesco.
Hall, S. (1986). The problem of ideology—Marxism without guarantees. Journal of
Communication Inquiry, 10(2), 28-44.
Hall, S. (1992). New ethnicities. In Donald, J. and Rattansi, A. (Eds), “Race,” culture and
difference (pp. 252-159). London: Sage.
Hall S., & Jhally S. (Directors). (2002). Race [videorecording]: The floating signifier. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation. (DVD of original 1996 recording)
Hall S., & Jhally S. (Directors). (2002). Representation and the media [videorecording]. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.
Herzog, H., Sharon, S., & Leykin, I. (2008). Racism and the politics of signification: Israeli public discourse on racism towards Palestinian citizens. Ethnic and Racial Studies,31(6), 1091-1109.
Hill, J. H. (2008). The everyday language of white racism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Historica Canada (n.d.). Black history Canada: An annotated guide to online resources on the history of Canada’s Black community. Retrieved from http://www.blackhistorycanada.ca
Ibrahim, A. (2003). Marking the unmarked: Hip-Hop, the gaze & the African body in North America. Critical Arts: South‐North Cultural and Media Studies, 17(1‐2), 52‐70.
Ignatief, N. (1995). How the Irish became white. New York: Routledge.
James, C. (2007). Negotiating school: Marginalized students’ participation in their education process. In R. Enomoto & G. F. Johnson (Eds.), Race, racialization and antiracism in
Kannen, V., & Acker, S. (2008). Identity ‘issues’ and pedagogical silences: Exploring teaching dilemmas in the northern Ontario kindergarten classroom. Pedagogy, Culture & Society,
16(1), 25–41.
Kelly, J. (1998). Under the gaze: Learning to be black in white society. Halifax, N.S.: Fernwood.
Kelly, J. (2004). Borrowed identities. New York: P. Lang.
Kohli, R., & Solórzano, D. (2012). Teachers, please learn our names!: Racial microagressions and the K-12 classroom. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), 441-462.
Kowal E. (2013). Reflexive antiracism: A novel approach to diversity training. Ethnicities, 13(3), 316-337.
League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada Ligue des droits de la personne. (2014). 2013
audit of antisemitic incidents: Patterns of prejudice in Canada. Retrieved from
http://bnaibrith.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Audit-2013-English.pdf
Legacy of Hope Foundation. (n.d.). Where are all the children? Healing the legacy of Indian
Residential Schools: Survivors tell their stories. Retrieved from
http://wherearethechildren.ca/en
Leonardo, Z. (2004). The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of “white privilege.”
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2), 137-152.
Lewis, A. (2003). Everyday race-making. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(3), 283-305.
Lichtenberg, J. (1998). Racism in the head, racism in the world. In N. Zack, L. Shrage & C. Sartwell (Eds.), Race, class, gender and sexuality: The big questions (pp. 43-47). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Miles, R. (1989). Racism. London; New York: Routledge.
Miles, R., & Brown, M. (2003). Racism (2nd ed.). London; New York: Routledge.
Montagu, A. (1964). The concept of race. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Montgomery, K. (2013). Pedagogy and privilege: The challenges and possibilities of teaching critically about racism. Critical Education, 4(1), 1-21.
Murji K., & Solomos J. (Eds.) (2005). Racialization: Studies in theory and practice. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the
1990s. New York: Routledge.
Ontario, Ministry of Education. (2013). Canadian and world studies: Geography, history and
civics (politics). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10. Toronto: The Queen’s Printer
Pollock, M., Deckman, S., Mira, M., & Shalaby, C. (2010). “But what can I do?”: Three
necessary tensions in teaching teachers about race. Journal of Teacher Education 61(3), 211-224.
Puxley, Chinta (2012, February 17). Residential schools called a form of genocide. The Globe
and Mail. Retrieved from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/residential-schools-called-a-form-of-genocide/article547129/
Raby, R. (2004). “There's no racism at my school, it's just joking around”: Ramifications for anti-racist education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 7(4), 367-383.
Rajiva, M., & Batacharya, S. (2010). Reena Virk: Critical perspectives on a Canadian murder.
Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
Razack, S. (2004). Dark threats and white knights: The Somalia Affair, peacekeeping, and the
new imperialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rizvi, F. (1993). Children and the grammar of popular racism. In C. McCarthy & W. Chrichlow (Eds.), Race, identity and representation in education (pp. 126-39). Routledge, New York & London.
Roediger, D.R. (1991). The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working
class. New York: Verso.
Silva, G.D. (2012). Folk conceptualizations of racism and antiracism in Brazil and South Africa.
Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(3), 506-522.
Skerrett, A. (2011). English teachers’ racial literacy knowledge and practice. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 14(3), 313–330.
Spanierman, L.B., Todd, N.R., & Anderson, C.J. (2009). Psychosocial costs of racism to whites: Understanding patterns among university students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 239–252.
St. Denis, V. (2011). Silencing Aboriginal curricular content and perspectives: “There are other children here.” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33(4), 306-317.
Stanley, T. J. (1990). White supremacy and the rhetoric of educational indoctrination: A Canadian case study. In J. A. Mangan (Ed.), Making imperial mentalities: Socialisation
and British imperialism (pp. 144-162). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Stanley, T. J. (2009). The banality of colonialism: Encountering artifacts of genocide and white supremacy in Vancouver today. In S. Steinberg (Ed.), Diversity and multiculturalism: A
reader (pp. 143-159). New York: Peter Lang.
Stanley, T. J. (2011). Contesting white supremacy: Anti-racism, Chinese Canadians and British
Columbia schools. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Stanley, T. J. (2012). Excluded narratives, antiracism and historical representation:
Methodological implications. In G. Cannella and S. Steinberg (Eds.), Critical qualitative
Takaki, R. T. (1979). Iron cages: Race and culture in nineteenth-century America. New York: Knopf.
Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1-24.
Taylor, E., Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Foundations of critical race theory in education. New York: Routledge.
Todorov, T. (1997). Facing the extreme: Moral life in the concentration camps. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Troyna, B., & Hatcher, C. (1992).Racism in children's lives: A study of mainly-white primary
schools. London: Routledge in association with the National Children's Bureau.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, (2012). They came for the children: Canada, Aboriginal People and residential schools. Winnipeg: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
van Dijk, T. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, 3(1), 87-118.
Van Ingen, C., & Halas, J. (2006). Claiming space: Aboriginal students within school landscapes. Children's Geographies, 4(3), 379-398.
Varma-Joshi, M., Baker, C., & Tanaka, C. (2004). Names will never hurt me? Educational
Administration Abstracts, 40(1), 0272.
Wagner, A. E. (2005). Unsettling the academy: working through the challenges of anti-racist pedagogy. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(3), 261-275.
