Latinx and Asian Engagement/Complicity in Anti-Blackness

Reviewer Comments / Suggestions

Our Edits / Responses

Reviewer 1

This paper has mulitiple ideas. I suggest the authors focus on Latinos first and then on Asians as a second paper. This will help be with organization. This paper need to be more concise.

Also, avoid using so many back to back quotes. The paper needs to follwo APA.

While we can understand the magnitude of what we are trying to do here (each topic could be a book in and of itself!), the purpose of this piece is to become a teaching tool- a simple introduction into ideas, terminology, histories of Latinx and Asian communities and where anti-Blackness is present. Therefore, while we acknowledge there are gaps, we can’t do everything, however, that is not our purpose. Our purpose is to “call out” anti-Blackness in our communities and work to find ways to build consciousness for more solidarity work. This project is our stepping stone to other projects that will further explicate what we are trying to do, and is representative of our entry point as multiracial scholars, as praxis, for other scholars (regardless of discipline) to enter this work since it is not an explicit topic in contemporary research. It is meant as an invitation to others to be on this journey.

Do not use first-person, use third-person when writing. For example, the authors state “Our US system…” who is our? Do “our” own the US system?

By using first-person language, we are intentionally positioning ourselves within these systems, as active participants and disruptors of anti-Blackness. This is a disciplinary difference of scholarly work, that is perfectly acceptable in our respective education and social work disciplines, and an intentional practice of ours.

Page 1, This statement was unclear, how is it relevant to the paper and your argument to the US. “like in the example of Ukraine refusing African and South 27 Asian students evacuation in the midst of the Russian invasion”

We have removed this to not cause additional confusion.

Page 1, the last sentence, I think, needs to be formatted differently. Also, for the authors, avoid stand-alone quotes. 

We re-formatted it. Our submission made it seem like the formatting was weird, but the quote belongs, and we are choosing to keep the stand-alone quote. In our edits, though, we are noting that it may not be properly formatted (indented). The quote itself is 38 words, so we cannot separate it into its own indented section, therefore it is a part of the larger paragraph, and thus ends the paragraph as a standalone quote.

Page 3, line 108, when stated “related to America’s wealth accumulation” – do you mean US or America as South and North America? Depending on where one learned geography, there is only one American; and why is the US called America and not South and North America?  In the same sentence, then you use US. Again, is this America as US, and if so, then is repetitive. 

We changed this. All references to “American” throughout now reflect a qualifier like “Mexican American.” All other references reflect “U.S.” We choose to keep both references to the U.S. to contextualize that we mean the “U.S.’ wealth accumulation” and the “U.S. origin story.”

Page 3, starting on lane 111, the block quote needs a better introduction and transition. 

We added a few sentences to introduce and transition.

Page 3, line 117, what are “These daily assaults…” – is that in reference to the block quote? Needs clarity 

We added “mentioned in the definition of anti-Blackness can” after “these daily assaults” so that the reader can more explicitly connect to the immediate previous quote.

Page 3, line 123, who is “she”? 

The “she” was a direct reference to the previous sentence’s authored/cited quote. We changed it to “ross,” who is the author. On another note, ross’ name is intentionally lower case (ross’ author decision).

Page 4, line 148, what is this? Be clear. 

We edited it to read “Therefore” instead of “this.”

Page 4, line 149, “to summarize” what? What are you trying to summarize? 

We just removed “to summarize.”

Be consistent when capitalizing Black people vs black people. This includes “nonblack people” page 4, lin3 150. Also, same with Blackness vs. blackness. – be consistent. 

We went back through and capitalized all instances of “Black” or “Blackness” where they are our words. We maintain that the other inconsistencies are due to us preserving direct quotes from other authors’ spelling choices, keeping their direct quotes.

Page 4, the authors provide a question.. is this the question for this paper? Provide the research question and purpose of this paper in the introduction. Outside of the research question that you are aiming to answer, do not ask more questions. 

The last two paragraphs of the Introduction (section 1) addresses the purpose of this writing project (the paper IS the project). In our disciplines, this is a valid research approach, and this particular paper project will be a precursor to firsthand data collection. We are creating an argument to be used in future frameworks. This project sets the scene for this cross-racial comparative inquiry into our communities. It is necessary that we look at the two contexts together in order to do comparative research in the future. In our disciplines, our questions throughout are indicative of not only our research process, but also for the reader to be directly engaged in similar questioning and to do their own explorations of these questions. We will keep the questions, as a disciplinary AND intentional practice of inquiry-based scholarly learning. We as the researchers and authors intentionally and explicitly position ourselves as knowledge- and power-sharers, as liberatory practices.

Page 4, line 162, why “for example” in parenthesis? Unclear. 

We removed the parentheses.

Page 4, para. lines 174- 186, the authors provide a new question. Also, how is this connected to the previous para.  

In our disciplines, our questions throughout are indicative of not only our research process, but also for the reader to be directly engaged in similar questioning and to do their own explorations of these questions. We will keep the questions, as a disciplinary AND intentional practice of inquiry-based scholarly learning. We as the researchers and authors intentionally and explicitly position ourselves as knowledge- and power-sharers, as liberatory practices.

Page 4, 3.1 section, why is there a question? Unclear. 

In our disciplines, our questions throughout are indicative of not only our research process, but also for the reader to be directly engaged in similar questioning and to do their own explorations of these questions. We will keep the questions, as a disciplinary AND intentional practice of inquiry-based scholarly learning. We as the researchers and authors intentionally and explicitly position ourselves as knowledge- and power-sharers, as liberatory practices.

Page 4, line 188, is the first time Latino is used, and line 190, Latino/a/x is used for the first time. All other times, Latinx was used. If this paper is critiquing the US system, then build a case to why Latinx, or why Latino/a/x. Furthermore, the US Census used Latino/Hispanic. I suggest that the authors define Latinx. Read the work of Cristobal Salinas and Adele Lozano on the complexity of the term Latinx. Or, if the authors are trying to be inclusive of all, then I encourage them to consider using Latin* - this includes Latina/o/x/e/i/u – I suggest you read the work of Cristobal Salinas on how Latino/a/x student use, understand and identify with the term Latinx.  Also, if this paper is about race-mixing… by using Latinx, how are the authors language-mixing? Gender-mixing? How are the authors misgendering communities, and erasing or forcing languages by using Latinx?  Page 5, line 208, it is unclear how the authors are “disrupt traditional binary notions of gender” – provide more context. Is this paper about race or gender? Is Latino a race or an ethnicity? Throughout the paper, the authors used Latino or Latinx. It needs clarity and consistency. 

The first paragraph of section 3.1 details a brief history of terminology related to Hispanic/Latinx identity. Reviewer 1 suggested we read Cristobal Salinas- when in fact we already did, and we already cited this piece:

“Important to note, there have been critiques regarding a lack of understanding of the origins of the term- Latinx- and also the Indigenous connections to the use of “X” (Salinas, 2020).”

The Reviewer has a different opinion of what terminology should be used (i.e. Latin*), however, we explained why we are choosing to still use Latinx in our writing (for consistency and coherency, both while recognizing its limitations, but using it for readability). Additionally, a language analysis of all the possible terms we could use, is beyond the scope of this work and distracting from our main argument. We acknowledge language is messy and power-ridden, but again we are not engaging in a discourse analysis of terminology for this current piece of work.

In reference to the reviewer’s final comment, we noted that we cite scholars using the language they use. We as the authors, however, are using Latinx, as succinctly explained within our paper.

Page 5, line 231, add in parenthesis the page number. 

We added parentheses.

Page 5, line 237, what is “these”? be clear. 

On page 5 line 237, there is no “these” for us to clarify. The sentence begins with “there,” and we will not change this sentence as it introduces the relationship between whiteness and blackness.

Page 6, line 262, the dot need to go after the (page number). Follow APA. 

We kept the period where it was because it is a part of a long quote, which means according to APA, we needed to keep the parenthesis with the page number coming after the period. Therefore, we did not make this particular suggested revision. In the original formatting, we didn’t properly indent our long quotes because we were not aware of Genealogy’s formatting requirements. We have properly indented our long direct quotes, clearing up a few of the concerns made in some of the feedback.

Page 6, line 282, “Irizarry’s et al., (2022)” should be “Irizarry et al. (2022)..” Follow APA. This paper needs to be edited and copy-edited.  I will stop making comments regarding APA.

We fixed this.

Page 7, lines 345-346, another question. as a reviewer I do not understand the purpose of the question. Especially when they are listed without an introduction and explanation. This is the last time I make comments about questions. However, as stated early, only stay true to your research question of the paper. New questions make me believe that you were not able to answer your original question. 

In our disciplines, our questions throughout are indicative of not only our research process, but also for the reader to be directly engaged in similar questioning and to do their own explorations of these questions. We will keep the questions, as a disciplinary AND intentional practice of inquiry-based scholarly learning. We as the researchers and authors intentionally and explicitly position ourselves as knowledge- and power-sharers, as liberatory practices.

Also, as a reviewer, I am unclear to why some headings are listed as research questions.

The questions are an active engagement and connection with the reader to also engage past our paper, and to internalize the weight of the questions. This is a disciplinary difference. In our disciplines, our questions throughout are indicative of not only our research process, but also for the reader to be directly engaged in similar questioning and to do their own explorations of these questions. We will keep the questions, as a disciplinary AND intentional practice of inquiry-based scholarly learning. We as the researchers and authors intentionally and explicitly position ourselves as knowledge- and power-sharers, as liberatory practices.

Page 7, line 350, “22 Mar.” ???? this is not APA.

We made the edit to correct this.

Page 9, discusses the history of immigration briefly, and positions Asian communities. Can you provide an example of the Latin* community and its history of immigration in the US. Or, consider removing the immigration part, as this could be its own paper.

In order to be consistent across sections, we have removed the more detailed section of immigration within the Asian community vs. adding more to the Latinx community.

Page 10, line 471, so the authors are multiracial Latinx and multiracial? What is the difference between multiracial Latinx and multiracial?

We got rid of a space, bringing our paragraphs back together to be a complete sentence, which clarifies the question here. 

Page 10, line 497, “collective black” should black be capitalized? 

We capitalized according to the direct language that was being used by the Bonilla-Silva (2004) citation where the terms were from. Therefore, it must remain lower-case.

The authors use Latinidad on page 10. What is Latinidad? Is this in Spanish or English word?

We added a clarifying sentence.

Page 11,  the authors make the connection to Latinx Native American and Indigenous communities, what about those Indigenous communities that do not use the letter x in their language and community? How are the authors forcing a term into these communities? 

I appreciated reading about honorary whiteness.. something not too often discussed in the literature. 

The Reviewer has a different opinion of what terminology should be used (i.e. Latin*), however, we explained why we are choosing to still use Latinx in our writing (for consistency and coherency, both while recognizing its limitations, but using it for readability). Additionally, a language analysis of all the possible terms we could use, is beyond the scope of this work and distracting from our main argument. We acknowledge language is messy and power-ridden, but again we are not engaging in a discourse analysis of terminology for this current piece of work.

In reference to the reviewer’s final comment, we noted that we cite scholars using the language they use. We as the authors, however, are using Latinx, as succinctly explained within our paper.

Page 12, line 605, where did Kim “speak” ? – word choice for speak. 

The rest of the sentence addresses what C. Kim (2022) is speaking to. 

Page 13, the authors bring up “las nepantleras” – a great concept, but what is the connection? 

We indented the beginning of the 6th section, indicating that both quotes are standalone quotes. These quotes are framing the section, which explains why las nepantleras is stand-alone. However, in one of our edits, we added a little more of Anzalduan theoretical framing, including nepantlas and nepantleras. This should serve as a connection.

What are the positionality of the authors? They said early, “multiracial Latinx and multiracial” and “Latinx and Asian histories” – unclear. 

We introduce our positionality at the beginning of the paper, in not only a footnote, but as justification for our project by our statement “Thereby, we expand this project to inquire what we can build from our own multiracial standpoints, as we are rooted in Asian and Latinx communities where we face our own communities' engagements with anti-Blackness.”

Reviewer 2

It was my pleasure to read manuscript genealogy-2259571: Latinx and Asian Engagement/ Complicity in Anti-Blackness: Leaning into the Borderlands as a Site for Solidarity Building. The manuscript is listed as a “concept paper.”  Unfortunately, search as I might on the Genealogy website, I was unable to find a description of what that type of manuscript should include/cover (e.g., it is not described with all of the other manuscript types here: https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). My review below therefore simply describes three aspects of the manuscript that I found to be weak and offers suggestions to consider to revise it IF such revisions would improve the paper in line with the specifications of a “concept paper.”

We choose “concept paper” because none of the other descriptors fit. In education or social work, a conceptual piece typically means the authors are making an argument about a particular topic. This could be based on personal experience, other literature, theory, etc. It does not have to have a “traditional” literature review, nor will it necessarily include a “methodology” section because it’s not based on “traditional” empirical research. It is conceptual in nature, because it’s an argument about a concept. Perhaps there was a better fit for us to select for this special issue? The idea of this being a concept paper really seemed to throw Reviewer 2 off though. We contributed to the special issue because our topic was relevant, in our endeavors to explore the nuances of anti-Blackness among our respective Latinx and Asian communities.

Firstly, the manuscript is unlike any journal article I have seen. It is not based on data or empirical work, but neither is it a systematic review of a defined research literature. It reads like a postgraduate school seminar paper or doctoral special area written exam, which is:  it summarizes and draws connections between the seminal works (Anzaldua, Bonilla-Silva, Crenshaw, Omi & Winant, etc.) that one covers in grad level race/racism courses. So many theorists/theories are mentioned that is not possible to tell which is suppose to be the core of/ frames the manuscript/argument. For example, Anzaldua’s concept of borderlands is in the title, and yet the paper does not focus on this any more than theories that are not in the title such as Omi & Winant’s racialization. Moreover, the manuscript does not focus on borderlands at all until one paragraph at the very end. For a second example, the first lines of the abstract and Introduction are on mixed-race/multiracial people, but that topic is not in the title nor is it elaborated upon later in the manuscript (it feels included simply because the authors say they are mixed/multiracial). For a third example, solidarity building is in the title, yet there is no review of work on this topic and there is no mention of it in the manuscript until the very end. In sum, I went looking for information on the Genealogy website for what a “concept paper” was supposed to include because I could not figure out what the aim of the manuscript was given the multiple theories and topics covered, unintegrated personal connections, and misalignment between the title, abstract, and the rest of the text. It seemed like a summary of classic readings in race theory, applied to the authors’ identities/experiences, which again I’ve only seen as postgraduate school seminar papers or doctoral special area written exams not peer reviewed journal articles. If this is what a concept paper is, though, then my suggestion here would be to revise the title, abstract, and intro to focus on what actually is focused on most (not for one paragraph at the end) later in the text.

We’d like to first address one comment in Reviewer 2’s feedback that is inappropriate. Reviewer 2 suggested that this paper cites basic work covered at the “grad school classes” and reads as a “postgraduate school seminar paper.” For one, I (Author 1) can’t imagine ever sending this sort of feedback to any scholars! I am a tenured Associate Professor in the field who works at an R1 university- clearly I know something about research. And my co-author is a recently minted PhD who has accepted a tenure-track position. We are qualified scholars. Such a comment by Reviewer 2 is elitist at best, and how might this sort of comment shut down junior scholars?  Who determines which theories are sophisticated enough to be a part of an analysis? We have included an important body of knowledge- as Reviewer 2 mentioned (Omi & Winant, Bonilla-Silva,etc) because they are IMPORTANT to the genealogical story of scholars who documented how race and racism permeate the U.S. American society. It does not matter that these scholars are taught in doctoral level race seminars (as they should be)- their work is still important. The only part of Reviewer 2’s feedback here that is actually useful is the need to locate Anzaldua earlier in our theoretical review. This was an oversight on our part- and one that we do take seriously. We have reworked our theory section so that this is more cohesive throughout the paper.

We operate from a fundamental place of honoring lived experiences as valid empirical data. This project is not a systematic literature review, but that is outside the scope of this project. Otherwise, we would have labeled this project as a systematic literature review.

We introduced a little more from Anzaldua in the racialization section, as further explanation of the existence of middle spaces, and the justification for those of us who are multiracial, Latinx, and Asian, to be responsible for change.

Our impetus for this project stems from our multiracial experiences and our desires to confront the middle spaces, for our respective Latinx and Asian communities who do not neatly fit as white or Black. This is also a stance of de-centering whiteness in conversations about Blackness. There is absolutely no literature that is trying to put in conversation our Latinx and Asian with Blackness, when both are clearly intertwined. Adding more on Anzaldua allows us to make these connections of the middling experiences that we face, but also our larger Latinx and Asian communities that are constructed as between the white-Black binary.

We removed the last part of our title so as not to confuse the reader.

Secondly, the abstract says that “this project explores the history of Latinx and Asian racialization and engagement with anti-blackness.” Sections 3.1 and 4.1 open with historical information on Latinx and Asians, respectively, then they are both then followed with sections that asks What does anti-blackness have to do with Latinx and Asian communities, 3.2 and 4.2 respectively. While 3.1 and 4.1 achieve their goals, 3.2 and 4.2 feel weak. The Latinx section 3.2 focuses on self-identity, colorism, proximity to whiteness, and intra-racial Latinx disparities. That cover racialization, but there is no overt or clear connection to anti-blackness. For example, there is no summarizing (or even just passing citation) of empirical studies that have investigated anti-blackness in Latinx communities. Not that the following two studies need to be mentioned, but both Jasmine Mitchell’s book “Imagining the Mulatta: Blackness in US and Brazilian Media” and Ginetta Candelario’s book “Black Behind the Ears: Dominican Racial Identity from Museums to Beauty Shop” both are empirical studies (content analysis and ethnography/ interviews, respectively) that studied anti-blackness re: Latinx communities. Again, I am NOT saying these two exact books should have been noted; but I do maintain that a manuscript which purports to explore anti-blackness in a given community should, acknowledge previous works that have done just that. Re: Asians, section 4.2 includes historical information and information on honorary whiteness (ie racialization). This section does also include one paragraph on anti-blackness research on the bottoms of pages 8 and 9. Although very brief, these two paragraphs can serve as a model for expanding and strengthening the manuscript’s coverage of prior anti-blackness work beyond the authors’ own blinded self-citation.

We didn't necessarily include empirical studies b/c we weren't trying to do a literature review. This project is not a systematic literature review, and is outside the scope of this project. Otherwise, we would have labeled this project as a systematic literature review.

Part of the reason why sections 3.2 and 4.2 might seem weak are that there are virtually few resources, let alone empirical studies that cover antiblackness within the Latinx and Asian canon. What we have provided are the entry points as well as the historical backgrounds that give way to further building on antiBlackness in future studies.

Thirdly, throughout the manuscript the authors refer to “this project” (e.g., pgs 1, 4, 10); but no project is ever identified or described. As noted above, the manuscript is not based on either a systemic empirical or literature review effort. I acknowledge that I was unable to find what type of academic projects/efforts Genealogy published as a “concept paper,” however in ANY genre of writing an author should state, clearly, somewhere, what the “project” of it is. The references to the authors’ being “driven by” their “personal experience” (abstract, pg 8) and their admitting to having an “imperative to address anti-Blackness” (pg 13) make the manuscript feel more like personal reflection project than a traditional social scientific effort. As Black person myself, I whole heartedly agree with the aim to expose and eradicate anti-blackness; but as a social scientist and academic writer, I understand that there are different genres of writing that are traditionally published in different outlets. I am used to seeing systematic empirical or literature review work in Genealogy; however, perhaps “concept paper” is a departure from that or something like an attempt to break down that distinction between personal experience/agenda and science. Following activist-scholars like WEB DuBois, I would support that project, if that is what it is; however, such a manuscript must still follow standard writing conventions like 1) being sure the title and article are on the same topics and 2) being sure to acknowledge the researchers who investigated the topic before you.

Thank you for this feedback. We understand referring to this as a “project” might be another example of our disciplinary conundrum For us, this is a project- an intellectual one that is based on our lived experiences (the impetus), and situated in literature.

While we did not conduct a “traditional” literature review, literature is situated throughout the entire manuscript. And while our goal was not to conduct an empirical synthesis of literature, we do still have examples in the paper that might warrant such claims. For example we write: 

“Research shows that skin-tone and immigration factors can greatly influence one’s ethnoracial categorization (Irizarry et al., 2022), and ‘race shifting'' is mostly associated as a Latinx phenomenon (Liebler et al. 2017), with far less research supporting this sort of shifting along a Black/white axis. This complexity of “choosing” your racial identification enables many Latinx populations to maintain their proximity to whiteness, and further perpetuates anti-Blackness within the community. Irizarry et al., (2022) research of nationally representative longitudinal data found 60% of Latinx youth changed their racial classifications over time; specifically darker-skinned Latinx were more likely to identify as Black of over time, while those with the lightest skin tones identifying as white.”

This particular section is citing empirical literature to support our claims. We appreciate other suggestions such as to read ethnographies (Author 1 has noted the suggested books and is excited to dig deeper!), but again this is out of the realm of this work. 

We appreciate Reviewer 2 revealing their positionality to us and have the utmost respect for where they are pushing us to go. We do however find that there might be differences in what is considered “rigorous” or “academic” in our field’s vs. Reviewer 2.. It feels as if personal experience may not be valued as much in a “social science” field (we are also left asking- what then is education?). We respectfully disagree with this feedback. Personal experience is a valid entry point to making an argument and we have situated this work with research. In fact, it is the personal experience that reveals the structures of anti-Blackness, and are the entry points for research. Therefore, “whose knowledge is valid?” continues to be an ongoing power struggle. This engagement with the reader by sharing experiences as an intentional connection and positioning is a disciplinary AND intentional practice. We as the researchers and authors intentionally and explicitly position ourselves as knowledge- and power-sharers, as liberatory practices, as valid. This style of writing is not only our entry points to this work, but it reveals the challenges of neatly under-cutting and outlining anti-Blackness, which blurs into the more formalized and structured anti-Blackness. THIS is more representative of how anti-Blackness works in formal and informal ways, which are all valid functions of said systems.

We have edited the title, and made clearer connections among the topics. We have also acknowledged the researchers who are relevant to this project. Thank you for your feedback.

Reviewer 2

It was my pleasure to read manuscript genealogy-2259571: Latinx and Asian Engagement/ Complicity in Anti-Blackness: Leaning into the Borderlands as a Site for Solidarity Building. The manuscript is listed as a “concept paper.”  Unfortunately, search as I might on the Genealogy website, I was unable to find a description of what that type of manuscript should include/cover (e.g., it is not described with all of the other manuscript types here: https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). My review below therefore simply describes three aspects of the manuscript that I found to be weak and offers suggestions to consider to revise it IF such revisions would improve the paper in line with the specifications of a “concept paper.”

We choose “concept paper” because none of the other descriptors fit. In education or social work, a conceptual piece typically means the authors are making an argument about a particular topic. This could be based on personal experience, other literature, theory, etc. It does not have to have a “traditional” literature review, nor will it necessarily include a “methodology” section because it’s not based on “traditional” empirical research. It is conceptual in nature, because it’s an argument about a concept. Perhaps there was a better fit for us to select for this special issue? The idea of this being a concept paper really seemed to throw Reviewer 2 off though. We contributed to the special issue because our topic was relevant, in our endeavors to explore the nuances of anti-Blackness among our respective Latinx and Asian communities.

Firstly, the manuscript is unlike any journal article I have seen. It is not based on data or empirical work, but neither is it a systematic review of a defined research literature. It reads like a postgraduate school seminar paper or doctoral special area written exam, which is:  it summarizes and draws connections between the seminal works (Anzaldua, Bonilla-Silva, Crenshaw, Omi & Winant, etc.) that one covers in grad level race/racism courses. So many theorists/theories are mentioned that is not possible to tell which is suppose to be the core of/ frames the manuscript/argument. For example, Anzaldua’s concept of borderlands is in the title, and yet the paper does not focus on this any more than theories that are not in the title such as Omi & Winant’s racialization. Moreover, the manuscript does not focus on borderlands at all until one paragraph at the very end. For a second example, the first lines of the abstract and Introduction are on mixed-race/multiracial people, but that topic is not in the title nor is it elaborated upon later in the manuscript (it feels included simply because the authors say they are mixed/multiracial). For a third example, solidarity building is in the title, yet there is no review of work on this topic and there is no mention of it in the manuscript until the very end. In sum, I went looking for information on the Genealogy website for what a “concept paper” was supposed to include because I could not figure out what the aim of the manuscript was given the multiple theories and topics covered, unintegrated personal connections, and misalignment between the title, abstract, and the rest of the text. It seemed like a summary of classic readings in race theory, applied to the authors’ identities/experiences, which again I’ve only seen as postgraduate school seminar papers or doctoral special area written exams not peer reviewed journal articles. If this is what a concept paper is, though, then my suggestion here would be to revise the title, abstract, and intro to focus on what actually is focused on most (not for one paragraph at the end) later in the text.

We’d like to first address one comment in Reviewer 2’s feedback that is inappropriate. Reviewer 2 suggested that this paper cites basic work covered at the “grad school classes” and reads as a “postgraduate school seminar paper.” For one, I (Author 1) can’t imagine ever sending this sort of feedback to any scholars! I am a tenured Associate Professor in the field who works at an R1 university- clearly I know something about research. And my co-author is a recently minted PhD who has accepted a tenure-track position. We are qualified scholars. Such a comment by Reviewer 2 is elitist at best, and how might this sort of comment shut down junior scholars?  Who determines which theories are sophisticated enough to be a part of an analysis? We have included an important body of knowledge- as Reviewer 2 mentioned (Omi & Winant, Bonilla-Silva,etc) because they are IMPORTANT to the genealogical story of scholars who documented how race and racism permeate the U.S. American society. It does not matter that these scholars are taught in doctoral level race seminars (as they should be)- their work is still important. The only part of Reviewer 2’s feedback here that is actually useful is the need to locate Anzaldua earlier in our theoretical review. This was an oversight on our part- and one that we do take seriously. We have reworked our theory section so that this is more cohesive throughout the paper.

We operate from a fundamental place of honoring lived experiences as valid empirical data. This project is not a systematic literature review, but that is outside the scope of this project. Otherwise, we would have labeled this project as a systematic literature review.

We introduced a little more from Anzaldua in the racialization section, as further explanation of the existence of middle spaces, and the justification for those of us who are multiracial, Latinx, and Asian, to be responsible for change.

Our impetus for this project stems from our multiracial experiences and our desires to confront the middle spaces, for our respective Latinx and Asian communities who do not neatly fit as white or Black. This is also a stance of de-centering whiteness in conversations about Blackness. There is absolutely no literature that is trying to put in conversation our Latinx and Asian with Blackness, when both are clearly intertwined. Adding more on Anzaldua allows us to make these connections of the middling experiences that we face, but also our larger Latinx and Asian communities that are constructed as between the white-Black binary.

We removed the last part of our title so as not to confuse the reader. We agreed our title was not clearly aligned with what we are trying to do.

Secondly, the abstract says that “this project explores the history of Latinx and Asian racialization and engagement with anti-blackness.” Sections 3.1 and 4.1 open with historical information on Latinx and Asians, respectively, then they are both then followed with sections that asks What does anti-blackness have to do with Latinx and Asian communities, 3.2 and 4.2 respectively. While 3.1 and 4.1 achieve their goals, 3.2 and 4.2 feel weak. The Latinx section 3.2 focuses on self-identity, colorism, proximity to whiteness, and intra-racial Latinx disparities. That cover racialization, but there is no overt or clear connection to anti-blackness. For example, there is no summarizing (or even just passing citation) of empirical studies that have investigated anti-blackness in Latinx communities. Not that the following two studies need to be mentioned, but both Jasmine Mitchell’s book “Imagining the Mulatta: Blackness in US and Brazilian Media” and Ginetta Candelario’s book “Black Behind the Ears: Dominican Racial Identity from Museums to Beauty Shop” both are empirical studies (content analysis and ethnography/ interviews, respectively) that studied anti-blackness re: Latinx communities. Again, I am NOT saying these two exact books should have been noted; but I do maintain that a manuscript which purports to explore anti-blackness in a given community should, acknowledge previous works that have done just that. Re: Asians, section 4.2 includes historical information and information on honorary whiteness (ie racialization). This section does also include one paragraph on anti-blackness research on the bottoms of pages 8 and 9. Although very brief, these two paragraphs can serve as a model for expanding and strengthening the manuscript’s coverage of prior anti-blackness work beyond the authors’ own blinded self-citation.

We didn't necessarily include empirical studies b/c we weren't trying to do a literature review. This project is not a systematic literature review, and is outside the scope of this project. Otherwise, we would have labeled this project as a systematic literature review.

Part of the reason why sections 3.2 and 4.2 might seem weak are that there are virtually few resources, let alone empirical studies that cover antiblackness within the Latinx and Asian canon. What we have provided are the entry points as well as the historical backgrounds that give way to further building on antiBlackness in future studies.

Thirdly, throughout the manuscript the authors refer to “this project” (e.g., pgs 1, 4, 10); but no project is ever identified or described. As noted above, the manuscript is not based on either a systemic empirical or literature review effort. I acknowledge that I was unable to find what type of academic projects/efforts Genealogy published as a “concept paper,” however in ANY genre of writing an author should state, clearly, somewhere, what the “project” of it is. The references to the authors’ being “driven by” their “personal experience” (abstract, pg 8) and their admitting to having an “imperative to address anti-Blackness” (pg 13) make the manuscript feel more like personal reflection project than a traditional social scientific effort. As Black person myself, I whole heartedly agree with the aim to expose and eradicate anti-blackness; but as a social scientist and academic writer, I understand that there are different genres of writing that are traditionally published in different outlets. I am used to seeing systematic empirical or literature review work in Genealogy; however, perhaps “concept paper” is a departure from that or something like an attempt to break down that distinction between personal experience/agenda and science. Following activist-scholars like WEB DuBois, I would support that project, if that is what it is; however, such a manuscript must still follow standard writing conventions like 1) being sure the title and article are on the same topics and 2) being sure to acknowledge the researchers who investigated the topic before you.

Thank you for this feedback. We understand referring to this as a “project” might be another example of our disciplinary conundrum. For us, this is a project- an intellectual one- that is based on our lived experiences (the impetus), and situated in literature.

While we did not conduct a “traditional” literature review, literature is situated throughout the entire manuscript. And while our goal was not to conduct an empirical synthesis of literature, we do still have examples in the paper that might warrant such claims. For example we write: 

“Research shows that skin-tone and immigration factors can greatly influence one’s ethnoracial categorization (Irizarry et al., 2022), and ‘race shifting'' is mostly associated as a Latinx phenomenon (Liebler et al. 2017), with far less research supporting this sort of shifting along a Black/white axis. This complexity of “choosing” your racial identification enables many Latinx populations to maintain their proximity to whiteness, and further perpetuates anti-Blackness within the community. Irizarry et al., (2022) research of nationally representative longitudinal data found 60% of Latinx youth changed their racial classifications over time; specifically darker-skinned Latinx were more likely to identify as Black of over time, while those with the lightest skin tones identifying as white.”

This particular section is citing empirical literature to support our claims. We appreciate other suggestions such as to read ethnographies (Author 1 has noted the suggested books and is excited to dig deeper!), but again this is out of the realm of this work. 

We appreciate Reviewer 2 revealing their positionality to us and have the utmost respect for where they are pushing us to go. We do however find that there might be differences in what is considered “rigorous” or “academic” in our field’s vs. Reviewer 2.. It feels as if personal experience may not be valued as much in a “social science” field (we are also left asking- what then is education?). We respectfully disagree with this feedback. Personal experience is a valid entry point to making an argument and we have situated this work with research. In fact, it is the personal experience that reveals the structures of anti-Blackness, and are the entry points for research. Therefore, “whose knowledge is valid?” continues to be an ongoing power struggle. This engagement with the reader by sharing experiences as an intentional connection and positioning is a disciplinary AND intentional practice. We as the researchers and authors intentionally and explicitly position ourselves as knowledge- and power-sharers, as liberatory practices, as valid. This style of writing is not only our entry points to this work, but it reveals the challenges of neatly under-cutting and outlining anti-Blackness, which blurs into the more formalized and structured anti-Blackness. THIS is more representative of how anti-Blackness works in formal and informal ways, which are all valid functions of said systems.

We have edited the title, and made clearer connections among the topics. We have also acknowledged the researchers who are relevant to this project. Thank you for your feedback.