What modernity WAS in the nineteenth century WAS IN QUESTION. In Latin America, new policies were reducing democracy, around the same time as Jim Crow came in in the U.S. Sanders (Vanguard of the Atlantic world) says “Latin American republican modernity” arose in the 1840s – republican projects with citizens’ rights. This enabled subalterns to use the language of rights to promote their inclusion in the nation-state. This collapsed in the late 19C as Western nations become dominant, and was defeated by Western industrial modernity (see Taylor 2004, say my notes).
RACE FUSION was claimed in Mexico in 1868, and there were claims that race did not exist (were they Martí-like?). Vasconcelos was anti-colonial but only selectively de-colonial.
HOOKER on Latin American subaltern philosophy: European traditions, but must account for other things.
Relationship to: *scientific racism, *progress, modernization, whitening, *postcolonial statehood, *multiracial democracy — they are juggling all of these things and trying to create a valid nonwhite subject in the context of white supremacy … when philosophy was about how to INVALIDATE the nonwhite subject and theorize racial difference. This leads to all this ambivalence and shifting. The actual “Latin American subject” (if there is only one) is one that negotiates this. (Cf. notes on Sommer paper, that leads to da Silva — in my file on the red table — there is good writing there and I can use some of the ideas for this paper).
Key: This book, The racial order. I have a copy of it. The authors point out that WORK ON RACE IS EMPIRICALLY RICH AND THEORETICALLY THIN (that is very true in Lat. Am.) They say there has never been a systematic and comprehensive thoery of race, and they have one; by “theoretically thin” they mean theoretical presuppositions go unexamined. What is the connection between racial domination and race per se? They talk about race as FIELD [Bourdieu].
Wallerstein [and Mignolo] are other people to think of here.