Hi D. I recognize that the terminology is very tricky indeed. The short answer to your question of "why this term" was that I consulted with some community members a couple of years ago (for a different project), and this term was the least contested of the options. That being said, I recognize that every terminological option is contested, particularly when we're talking about broad categories. Thanks for your feedback and link.
I was wondering what the rationale is for using the terms "racialized" and non-racialized" in the article? The contemporary usage of "racialized" is rather controversial amongst many activist groups because it strays from the original anthropological/sociological meaning of "assigned or categorized by race", rather than merely "racially discriminated against" (see this statement from the CARED collective: https://www.aclrc.com/racialization)
Hi D. I recognize that the terminology is very tricky indeed. The short answer to your question of "why this term" was that I consulted with some community members a couple of years ago (for a different project), and this term was the least contested of the options. That being said, I recognize that every terminological option is contested, particularly when we're talking about broad categories. Thanks for your feedback and link.
This was insightful read, thank you.
I was wondering what the rationale is for using the terms "racialized" and non-racialized" in the article? The contemporary usage of "racialized" is rather controversial amongst many activist groups because it strays from the original anthropological/sociological meaning of "assigned or categorized by race", rather than merely "racially discriminated against" (see this statement from the CARED collective: https://www.aclrc.com/racialization)