These notes are or could be key for this paper but I do not have time to fully understand them, since I must finish it now.
Mignolo 66: La idea de “América fue parte del “occidentalismo” y, más tarde, la idea de “América Latina” se volvió problemática cuando América del sur y el Caribe fueron alejándose de un occidentalismo cuyo locus de enunciación se identificaba cada vez más con Europa Occidental y Estados Unidos.
This has to do with Silva’s “other within” and with the criollo subject not knowing how to define self; note also that the more indigenous America gets, the less the term “Latin America” works.
Mignolo 70: La aparición de América trajo consigo tres grandes cambios: la expansión geográfica del mundo, el desarollo de diversos métodos de control del trabajo, y el establecimiento de poderosas maquinarias estatales en el extremo imperial del espectro colonial.
Race and state do go together, in this way as well.
Omi and Winant, meanwhile, in their chapter on the racial state, point out that the state has an interest in race and legislates it, manages it, but not just this: it is intervened in by race, and is the site of racial conflict; it manages and is structured by all sorts of relationships that are racial, and marked by difference.
Omi and Winant are talking, of course, about race as formation, and they are talking about the ways Gramscian hegemony works to shape things in particular relationships.
Finally, someone else’s post on Goldberg says, in part:
The racial state is a state of power, asserting its control over those within the state and excluding others from outside the state. Through constitutions, border controls, the law, policy making, bureaucracy and governmental technologies such as census categorisations, invented histories and traditions, ceremonies and cultural imaginings, modern states, each in its own way, are defined by their power to exclude (and include) in racially ordered terms, to categorise hierarchically, and to set aside. Goldberg posits two traditions of racial states: the first, naturalism, fixes racially conceived ‘natives’ as premodern, and naturally incapable of progress; the second, historicism, elevates Europeans over primitive or underdeveloped Others as a victory of progress.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
This summary also helps:
The Consortium on Race, Gender and Ethnicity
Database Entry #273
Click here to see this item on the web
Goldberg, David Theo. The Racial State. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
Title: The Racial State
Type: Book
Topic Keywords: Nation/Migration, Identity
Annotations:
The author theorizes how modern nation-states are racially ordered, administered, and regulated. Linking state theory and racial theory, the article posits that race is integral to the emergence, development, and the
transformation of the modern state. One of the main characteristics of the racial state is the power to define and mediate racial reality; naming, categorizing, separating, and excluding racialized peoples. The regulation
of racialized peoples and the maintenance of homogeneity are theoretically and materially linked. The author argues that heterogeneity or “difference” is located outside the parameters of the state, placing racialized peoples outside the homogenous (read: white) nation-state.
The author further situates the emergence of the modern racial state within the histories of mass migration/displacement of white and non-white peoples and racial and cultural mixing. The investment of European states in denying heterogeneity operates to exclude and deny the presence of non-white peoples in Europe. The author finds support for his discussion on “first modernity” and “planetary modernity” in two key explanations of racial rule: naturalist and historicist. Naturalist racial thought, emphasized the inherent biological superiority of whites and justified racial rule and racism through the “divine hand” and the logic of nature. Historicist racial thought, influenced by Enlightenment values of rationality and objectivity, argued that racial hierarchies were a natural outcome of history, firmly locating white people as agents of history.
Naturalist and historicists views of race and racism produced similar set of social circumstances for Black and Indigenous peoples. For instance, Blacks in the U.S. South and South Africa were socially segregated
because they were deemed “naturally” inferior to whites. For indigenous peoples, in the U.S. and Australia, they were simultaneously considered “unassimilable”, even as they were subjected to state imposed
assimilation programs such as boarding schools and adoption programs. This text is useful in thinking about the different types of racism that circulate in Latin American formulations of mestizaje.