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.