Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism, when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think?

Gilmore argues that capitalism started racial in Europe, among groups whose descendants became white. It relies on inequality, which racism locks in. Whiteness forms as the “not-race” pole in this hierarchy. It justifies exploitation by marking some as lesser. Remove white people, and racial capitalism endures. It needs hierarchy, not specific races. You see this in how prisons target surplus labor, regardless of skin. I think the link ties whiteness to inventing racial difference for profit. It hides class war as natural division. Undo one, you must undo both.

Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view?

The system needs constant criminals to feed prisons. It expands the pool. Add more behaviors as crimes. Lengthen sentences. Mark people as “criminal” forever. Reentry fails because labels block jobs, housing. Barriers push recidivism. You cycle back in. This perpetuates the category. Gilmore ties it to slavery’s unfreedom, reborn in U.S. racial order. I agree.

Describe how your understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”?

Gilmore calls liberation struggle place-based action. You fight where you stand, for your needs. Scale varies, but roots stay local. In Cova da Moura, residents organized against eviction. They formed study groups on colonialism, racism, EU borders. Debates built “pop-up universities.” This sparks consciousness. It forges radical dependency. You rely on each other for life. Solidarity remakes itself through talk and work. It’s deliberate, material. Not abstract. You create communities that sustain, not just survive.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to block the massive class-action lawsuit brought by over 1.5 million women against Wal-Mart for sex discrimination in pay and promotions. The Court held that the proposed class failed the “commonality” requirement under Federal Rule 23(a)(2), which demands common questions of law or fact whose answers will drive the litigation for all members. Justice Scalia wrote that Wal-Mart’s policy of giving local managers broad discretion over pay and promotions provided no “glue” linking millions of individual decisions; without a company-wide discriminatory policy, no single trial could resolve the core question “Why was I disfavored?” for everyone at once. The Court also noted the plaintiffs improperly sought monetary back pay under a rule designed only for injunctive relief. This lack of commonality destroyed the class certification and forced each woman to sue individually, shielding large employers from nationwide discrimination challenges.

In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.

Courts protect individuals through independence from elections. Judges serve long terms or lifetime appointments. They face no pressure from voters. Elected officials seek reelection. They often prioritize majority interests over minority rights.

Courts enforce constitutional protections. They review laws and actions for violations of individual rights. Elected branches pass laws reflecting popular will. Those laws sometimes infringe on personal freedoms.

Courts provide due process. They require evidence and fair hearings before depriving liberty or property. Elected leaders make quick decisions based on politi

Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.

The Establishment Clause prevents the government from creating laws that establish an official religion or prefer one religion over others. You see this rooted in the First Amendment, protecting your right to practice faith without state control. It stops public funding or actions that promote religious practices, such as mandatory school prayers.

The Lemon Test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), offers a three-step evaluation to assess Establishment Clause violations. First, you check if the law serves a secular purpose. Second, you confirm its main effect neither promotes nor hinders religion. Third, you ensure it avoids excessive government involvement with religion. A law fails if it misses any step, helping you judge issues like funding religious schools for neutrality.

Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

Burning the U.S. flag falls under First Amendment protection as symbolic speech. The Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson (1989) confirms this. Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag during a protest, leading to his arrest. The Court ruled 5-4 that his act expressed political dissent, protected as free speech, despite public offense. You understand this upholds the right to protest, even controversially, unless it incites imminent lawbreaking.

What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. You recognize this means they refuse to answer questions in a legal setting, like a trial or police interrogation, to avoid providing evidence that could convict them. This protects you from being forced to testify against yourself.

P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?

Patricia J. Williams calls the war on terror a new conflict in her 2002 lecture. You note its uniqueness in moral framing and legal shifts. It differs from traditional wars by labeling enemies as pure evil, unlike state armies with rules. Williams says it demands “rooting out the Evil-doers among us.” You see this turns it into a domestic purge. It skips due process for symbolic justice, unlike conventional wars with Geneva rules. Williams notes it subordinates justice to “casting-out-of-demons.” You recognize this allows detention and torture. It invades daily life, unlike wars on fronts. Williams ties it to urban fears of “personal choice to side with darkness.”

In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?

Roving wiretaps under the Patriot Act track multiple devices without specifics. You spot violations. It breaks the Fourth Amendment, requiring precise warrants. The ACLU calls it a “violation of the Fourth Amendment’s explicit requirement that warrants be written ‘particularly describing the place to be searched.'” You see this risks innocent data. It indirectly hits the First Amendment by chilling speech through surveillance. You note self-censorship follows.

What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

Sneak and peek warrants allow secret searches with delayed notice. You identify issues.

It violates the Fourth Amendment, needing prompt notice. The ACLU says, “The notice requirement enables the person whose property is to be searched to assert her Fourth Amendment rights.” You see this enables unchecked entry.

1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.

Citizens of a federal government vote for representatives on several levels local, state or national levels. Thus, power is divided between the central government and the regional government which perform their separate duties. The citizens have the power to influence both by voting and managing local affairs. Examples are The United States and Germany. In a confederation, citizens interact mainly with their own state or regional governments. The national government is weak and the states have the majority of the power. The citizens vote for state leaders and they represent them in central decisions. Confederations are rare now but the early U. S. was one under the Articles of Confederation. In a unitary system, citizens deal largely with the central government, which has the most power. Local governments exist, but they must do as the central government directs. Citizens vote for national governmental leaders and have but little say in local affairs. Examples of this are France and Japan

1. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.

Power division assigns authority to various branches or levels of government in different hands in order that no one group can dominate. In a federal state, power is divided between several groupings of national and state governments, each assigned specific responsibilities. Within each grouping, as in the U.S.A., powers of legislation, executive and judicial function are separated, each exercising checks and balances, so that no branch is allowed to overstep its bounds. Citizens control these governmental functions by voting, as indicated above, although to a limited extent at each level of government.

1. How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal government dictates state and local actions through funding, guidelines, and mandates. You can see this with clarity in New York during the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal assistance and rules directed the actions of New York state and localities, whether in testing capabilities or ways to spend recovery funds. Federal money allowed states to take significant actions. Congress passed the CARES Act in 2020. It provided New York state with $5.1 million from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Local governments received $2.4 million in addition. The state used $4.5 million to hire public health personnel. You hear examples like purchase of PPE or ventilators. These funds paid for overtime and resources which the states could not afford by themselves. Other funds under the American Rescue Plan provided $5.88 million for New York City. New York City spent the funds on 10,000 jobs to clean streets and aid in rent payments for 10,000 families. These funds provided the requirement to promote equity. These funds were directed to neighborhoods of Black and Latino residences especially hit by the loss of jobs. The guidelines from federal agencies dictated ways to respond to the need. The CDC pushed for containment measures. As a result, it delayed the response in New York City that included such measures as social distancing until March 2020. You learn from the reviews that the federal rules concerning testing limited the kits to those in transit, therefore New York City waited for final approval from the FDA prior to expanding the tests. Later on the guidelines from the CDC relating to masks were incorporated into the mandates of the city in April of 2020. The mandates and funds were established to enforce compliance. FEMA unlocked the doorway to reimburse certain expenses for testing done in New York City. In April of 2020, ventilators went to the localities via the use of federal stockpiles. The Javits Center became an alternative hospital as a result of that federal assistance. The arrival of vaccine doses came direct from the CDC to New York City. The state and local rules caused delays in administering the vaccine manufacturers supply, but the quantum of vaccines given to the localities with a total of 4.8 million vaccinations by New York City by midway through 2021 due solely to the supplies from the federal government. The tools just described were used to show how the federal priorities can be turned into action in local areas. New York realized they were able to avoid deeper cuts to service mainly resulting from this type of assistance. Additionally indicates reductions in mortality were attained as a result of the assistance. Each $1000 expended on a per capita basis showed deaths from 38 per 100,000 statewide. This process is a way to establish resilience. States lead the way pursuant to the federal levers established directing what should be done in terms of overall objectives.

Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings

The U.S. Constitution was crafted by the propertied elite-a fact that is clear in both readings. They had their wealth in property, securities, and commerce. Propertyless laborers and small farmers were left out, their capacity to vote and hold office being blocked by state rules.

Parenti emphasizes how class power shaped early America, and Beard shows how the Framers designed for a system that would protect the interests of the wealthy from “an insurrectionist spirit” emerging from below. Beard uses evidence to support Parenti’s claim. Among the 55 delegates, 40 owned public securities and expected to profit from the funding of public debt.

Drafting Class: Propertied Elite

Wealth: Large amounts of personal property-owning speculative lands and public securities. Beard cites Robert Morris, who owned public securities valued at $26,000 during 1792; Morris was also speculating millions of acres.

Occupations: Merchants, lawyers, and financiers. Beard gives the example of Alexander Hamilton, a financier in New York, took up tariffs on behalf of manufacturers.

Participation: They were elected via property tests in state legislatures, and they met secretly in Philadelphia.

Excluded Class: Propertyless Masses

Wealth: Little to none, primarily small farms or in debt. Parenti cites those who were enslaved comprised one-quarter of the population, with no vote and no say.

Occupations: Farmers, laborers, mechanics. Beard gives the example of the fighters in Shays’ Rebellion, who were farmers driven by debt and opposed ratification of the Constitution.

Participation: Participation was blocked by freehold rules. For instance, in Massachusetts, property tests restricted suffrage to only one-fifth of males 21 and older.

All this creates a system that locked power with the elite. Both readings teach readers that the economic interests served as motive for drafting the document. The Framers were concerned with “the tyranny of the majority” and sought “checks” such as indirect elections, among others.

Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

Early US class structure differs from today’s. Property and race defined classes then. Income and education shape them now. Wealth still holds power.

Early US (1780s-1800s)

• Elite: Owned land, controlled politics.
• Middle: Farmers, artisans, limited voice.
• Poor: Laborers, slaves, no rights.
• Features: Property rules blocked voting. Women, non-whites excluded.

Today’s US (2025)

• Elite: Wealthy influence policy.
• Middle: Professionals, shrinking from wage issues.
• Poor: Service workers, gig laborers.
• Features: Universal voting. Wealth skews influence.

Differences

• Early US had legal barriers. Today allows mobility.
• Race, gender exclusion total then, less rigid now.

Similarities

• Wealth drives power. Early elites shaped laws. Today’s rich dominate policy.

You see more access now, but elites still rule.

Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.

Framers of the Constitution, wealthy elites, feared democracy. It threatened their property and power. Lower classes could disrupt their control.

• Elite Fears: Landowners like Hamilton worried about losing wealth. Masses might demand redistribution. Parenti highlights their distrust of popular unrest.
• Class Conflict: Poor farmers, like those in Shays’ Rebellion, sought debt relief. Beard notes most framers held securities, tying them to stable rule.
• Response: Framers added checks, like indirect elections, to curb mass power. This secured elite interests.

You see their fear stemmed from class divides. They valued control over broad democracy.

What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?

The concept of “faction” reminds me of social class. Both describe groups with shared interests that compete for power.

• Faction in Context: Madison, in Federalist No. 10, defines factions as groups united by common economic or social goals, often clashing with others. He feared their influence on governance.
• Link to Social Class: Parenti and Beard show social classes, like the propertied elite versus propertyless masses, drove conflict during the Constitution’s framing. Elites formed a faction to protect wealth, while farmers and laborers pushed their own interests, like debt relief.
• Connection: Factions reflect class divisions. Each class acts as a faction, pursuing its agenda, often at odds with others.

I see factions as expressions of class struggles, shaping early American politics.

According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….

James Madison, ties wealth to private property. He blames unequal “faculties” for why some own property and others stay poor. Faculties mean individual talents and efforts.

• Wealth Source: People gain property through skills like intelligence or hard work. Stronger faculties lead to more wealth.
• Inequality Cause: Differences in abilities create gaps. Some use talents to gain property. Others, with less skill or opportunity, stay poor.
• Class View: Framers saw wealth gaps as natural. Parenti shows they built the Constitution to shield elite property from the masses.

You see the framers viewed class divides as inevitable. They focused on protecting wealth, not reducing inequality.

Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

I agree with Madison’s take that wealth and poverty come from unequal “faculties,” meaning individual talents. Still, I think it’s only part of the story.

• Madison’s Point: I see how personal skills, like being a sharp merchant or hardworking farmer, lead to wealth. People with stronger abilities often end up with more property.
• My Hesitation: Madison misses structural barriers. Elites rigged the system to keep their wealth, like Parenti shows with property tests that blocked the poor from voting.
• Today’s View: I notice talent matters, but systemic issues, like access to education or inherited wealth, shape outcomes more. In 2023, the top 1% owned 32% of wealth, per Federal Reserve data, often due to advantages beyond skill.

I back Madison’s idea that effort drives wealth. But I think systems, not just talents, explain why some stay poor.

James Madison says the US government’s “first object” is to protect the “diversity in the faculties of men,” meaning individual talents that lead to property rights and wealth gaps. I see it as prioritizing the security of private property.

• Core Mission: I understand the government’s job was to guard unequal outcomes from people’s abilities, keeping the wealthy secure. Madison thought this ensured stability.
• Surprise Factor: This shocks me. It focuses on elite property, not equality or public good, which feels off compared to what I hear today.
• Today’s View: I notice people now expect the government to focus on welfare, fairness, or justice. Think of 2020 BLM protests pushing for racial equality or calls for better healthcare. These suggest serving everyone, not just the rich.
• Contrast: Madison’s goal was about protecting wealth. I see today’s push for reducing inequality, like with 37 million Americans below the poverty line in 2023, per Federal Reserve data, driving demands for change.

I think Madison’s mission feels outdated. It doesn’t match my sense of government as a tool to tackle inequities, not just protect property.

Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…

I’m not shocked that James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, likes a republican government better than pure democracy. As a rich guy, he worried about the poor messing up his wealth, which connects to social classes.

• Madison’s View: I get that he wants a representative system to control factions, which are like class groups fighting. He thinks elected officials stop crazy majority ideas.
• Why He Hates Pure Democracy: I see Madison’s fear that pure democracy lets the poor have too much say. Parenti says the framers, including Madison, thought the masses might take their property. Beard points out most framers owned securities, so they cared about keeping things stable.
• Class Link: I understand why Madison, a wealthy elite, wants representatives, usually rich guys, to act as a shield. Pure democracy could let poor people, like those in Shays’ Rebellion pushing for debt relief, take over.

I figured Madison wouldn’t like pure democracy. His focus on saving rich people’s property matches the elite’s class goals. A republic keeps their stuff safe.

Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

The statistic from page 29 of Michael Parenti’s Concentration of Capital: Who Owns America? that struck me most is that the wealth of the richest 400 Americans grew by nearly $700 billion from 2001 to 2008, totaling $1.6 trillion surpassing the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of the U.S. population, or about 150 million people.

This figure stands out because it vividly illustrates the extreme concentration of wealth in a tiny elite, dwarfing the resources of half the nation during a time when many faced economic hardship due to the Great Recession. I find this disparity interesting it highlights how capital accumulation can outpace broader societal well-being, undermining fairness and stability. It underscores the urgency of using data driven insights to challenge such imbalances and advocate for equitable solutions.

What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

Extreme wealth inequality in the US has serious consequences. It shapes your daily life. Here are the key impacts and examples, supported by data.

• Social unrest rises. Billionaires warn of public backlash from distrust.
• Economy slows. Inequality cuts GDP by 2-4% yearly.
• Mobility stalls. Your chance to advance shrinks, locking in class divides.
• Politics tilts. Wealthy shape policies, widening gaps.
• Health worsens. Only 8% of top earners struggle with medical bills, unlike lower-income groups.
• Environment suffers. Rich prioritize profits, harming poorer areas.

Example: Your rent eats half your paycheck, forcing tough choices. Nearby, a billionaire’s empty condo highlights the gap