If race is constitutive of the modern state, as Goldberg demonstrates (2002), or of modernity itself, as da Silva argues (2007), the liberal assumption that inequality can be addressed within the framework of the nation does not hold. How might this perception change our understanding of these and other texts that have been read as signs and symptoms of a mestizo or post-racial nation to come?
There is no intention of addressing inequality. Everyone is to be brothers, but racial and also class hierarchies will continue on. All that celebration of mestizaje is about culture and about insisting people have things in common and should get along; it is also an ideological move to obscure racial hierarchies (and thus to preserve them).
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
Does inequality have an equilibrium point beyond which it stops increasing or does it increase until there is a violent rebellion by the bottom segment?
See the video below for the current situation in America.
It keeps increasing until the starvation point … ? This of course is not sustainable as it ultimately stifles the economy. We get a general crisis, that will be more of a motor of change than the rebellion (I think, am not sure). Great video.
Exactly. We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
Yes!
The inequality in America has reached the point where the politicians in the employ of the plutocracy have introduced a bill (HR 1078) on March 12, 2013 that will make it much more difficult to measure the effect of the distribution of wealth in society.
“To make participation in the American Community Survey voluntary, except with respect to certain basic questions, and for other purposes”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1078/text
What you don’t know can still hurt you.
What is the real purpose of that bill and is it something about giving taxpayers’ money to churches?