Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

Module 14 The last Powerful Module

1. Gilmore says capitalism won’t stop being racial capitalism even “if all the white people disappear from the story.” What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think?

According to Ruth Wilson Gilmore, the connection between whiteness and racism isn’t just about skin color or individuals who identify as white—it’s about a system. “Whiteness” here refers to a social position of power that developed historically through the structures of capitalism and colonialism. Over time, those in power created the idea of race to justify exploiting others, and whiteness became a symbol of dominance, entitlement, and protection under the law and economy.

Gilmore is making a powerful point: racism doesn’t need individual white people to function. Even if every white person were removed from the picture, the system itself would still produce inequality and division through racial hierarchies. That’s because capitalism depends on difference—it needs some people to be treated as less valuable, less deserving, or more punishable, in order to maintain power and profit for others.

In short, “whiteness” is not just a skin tone—it’s a position that gets defined and redefined over time to keep inequality in place. And racism is the mechanism that keeps that system running. That’s why Gilmore says we can’t end racism without confronting and dismantling capitalism itself.

2. Gilmore says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated.” How does the prison system create new “criminals”? Do you agree with her view?

Gilmore argues that the prison system doesn’t just punish existing criminals—it actually produces them. Here’s how:

  • Expansion of criminal laws: More behaviors are labeled as crimes, especially those linked to poverty, race, or survival—like loitering, trespassing, or drug use.
  • Longer sentences and harsher punishments: People get stuck in the system for longer, making it harder to reenter society.
  • Cycle of criminalization: Once someone is labeled a criminal, society treats them differently—jobs are harder to find, housing is restricted, voting rights may be taken. This increases the chance they’ll be arrested again.
  • Constant supply of “eligible” people: The system relies on having a steady flow of bodies to incarcerate, which means communities—especially Black, Brown, and poor communities—are constantly surveilled and targeted.

So in Gilmore’s view, the system needs people to be criminalized in order to justify its own existence. It’s not just reacting to crime—it’s manufacturing it through policy, policing, and economic inequality.

I personally agree with her analysis. When you look at who fills prisons in the U.S., it’s overwhelmingly people from marginalized backgrounds. Many are there for non-violent offenses or simply because they’re poor. That tells us the system isn’t just about justice it’s about control and profit. If we want to stop this cycle, we have to rethink how we define “crime” and who gets labeled as a criminal in the first place.

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

At the end of the video, Prof. Gilmore talks about “liberation struggle” as something that is deeply local, place-based, and rooted in real people’s lives. It’s not just about big slogans or national movements—it starts with people organizing in their communities to fight for dignity, safety, and freedom. She gives the example of Cova da Moura in Lisbon, where people built their own homes and resisted being displaced by the city government. Their fight wasn’t just about houses—it was about preserving their community, identity, and autonomy.

Liberation, in Gilmore’s view, means creating the conditions where people can live freely and fully, with access to resources, care, education, and safety. It’s about undoing systems that treat people as disposable—like prisons, racist policing, or economic abandonment—and replacing them with structures that support life, culture, and mutual support.

She also sees solidarity as essential to liberation. That means we can’t just care about our own struggles—we have to connect with others, listen, and learn together. She calls this “radical dependency”—understanding that we need each other, and that liberation is something we build with others, not just for ourselves.

So liberation struggle is both a political fight and a communal, emotional, and spiritual one. It’s about transforming the conditions of life so that people can not only survive, but thrive—together.

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

Module 13.1

According to Martin Luther King Jr., how can we tell the difference between just and unjust laws?


Dr. King teaches us that the difference between a just and an unjust law lies in its alignment with moral and divine law. A just law uplifts human dignity, reflects fairness, and is rooted in ethical and spiritual values. It’s not only legal—it’s morally right. In contrast, an unjust law degrades the human spirit. It creates division, sustains inequality, and is often imposed by a majority onto a minority without their input or consent. King reminds us that any law a group is compelled to obey but had no part in creating is unjust by nature. He famously stated, “an unjust law is no law at all,” reminding us that legality does not equal legitimacy. So to discern the difference, we must ask: Does the law honor or violate human dignity? Does it include or exclude? Does it serve truth and justice, or simply preserve power? If it strips someone of their voice, rights, or humanity, it cannot be just.

In your view, is this an important distinction (between just and unjust laws), and do you think it makes a difference in the way someone (as an individual, or our society as a whole) lives their lives? Can it affect our politics?

Yes, in my view, the distinction between just and unjust laws is not only important—it’s essential. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us, this distinction serves as a moral compass that helps both individuals and societies determine whether a law truly serves justice or simply preserves power. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right. Understanding this difference forces us to look beyond legality and examine whether a law respects human dignity and aligns with higher moral principles.

This awareness makes a profound difference in how people live their lives. It encourages critical thinking, moral courage, and resistance to blind obedience. When individuals recognize injustice, they’re more likely to take action, speak out, and stand up for what’s right—just as Dr. King and countless others did during the civil rights movement. They disobeyed unjust laws not out of rebellion, but out of deep respect for a higher law grounded in ethics and human rights.

On a societal level, this distinction inspires reform. It challenges lawmakers and leaders to create policies that reflect fairness, compassion, and equality rather than tradition or political convenience. Politically, this understanding is transformative. It pushes society toward justice rooted in love, truth, and inclusion—not just laws written to maintain the status quo.

Based on our discussion of Question 1, give an example each, of an unjust and just law in the U.S. today. Explain what makes it unjust or just (using MLK’s definition of those two types of laws).


An example of an unjust law in the U.S. today is the continued criminalization of homelessness in many cities. Laws that prohibit sleeping in public, resting in parks, or setting up temporary shelter do nothing to address the root causes of poverty. Instead, they punish people for being poor. These laws fail to uplift—they degrade. They treat the homeless not as human beings in need of support, but as problems to be hidden. By Dr. King’s standards, these laws are unjust because they undermine human dignity, silence the most vulnerable, and reinforce systemic neglect rather than compassion.

Another example of an unjust law is the use of strict voter ID laws that disproportionately affect low-income communities, the elderly, and people of color. While these laws are often framed as protecting election integrity, they function in practice to suppress votes. They create barriers to participation in a democracy that should be inclusive. These laws are unjust because they silence voices, especially those already marginalized, and reflect the will of the powerful—not the people.

A just law, by contrast, would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It affirms the dignity of every person and seeks to create equal opportunities in education, employment, and public life. It was a moral turning point in U.S. history because it dismantled legalized segregation and institutionalized respect for basic human rights. In King’s view, this law is just because it uplifts the human spirit, protects individual freedom, and aligns with a higher moral law.

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

DB 12.2

What is the difference between gender and sex? 

Sex refers to the biological aspects of a person, typically categorized as male or female based on physical characteristics such as body parts, hormones, and reproductive systems. Gender, on the other hand, is about personal identity—how individuals perceive themselves and how they want to be recognized by others. It involves how people feel inside and how they relate to societal expectations. Gender is not confined to male or female, and people can identify as non-binary, gender fluid, or other identities outside the traditional binary.

Describe the difference between cisgender and transgender person. 

A cisgender person is someone whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, someone assigned female at birth who identifies as a woman is cisgender. A transgender person, however, is someone whose gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender person may identify as the opposite gender or may identify as non-binary or gender fluid, and they might undergo a process of transition to align their appearance, pronouns, and name with their gender identity.

What is gender expression? 

Gender expression refers to the way individuals present their gender through their actions, appearance, and behavior. This includes the clothes they wear, how they style their hair, the pronouns they use (such as he, she, or they), and the way they interact with others. It is a personal and unique representation of how a person feels about their gender, and it can vary widely between individuals. Gender expression is fluid and can change over time, reflecting how a person feels about their gender identity at any given moment.

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

DiscussionBoard 9.2

1.P. Williams describes the War on Terror as a new kind of war because it doesn’t follow the traditional rules of warfare. The War on Terror differs from conflicts that were confined to specific battlefields and had clear start and end dates, as it is a global and continuous effort without a definitive endpoint.

The dynamics of the War on Terror focus on terrorist organizations rather than traditional armies, complicating the identification of a singular adversary or battleground. Another significant difference lies in the ways this war is fought. For instance, rather than engaging in conventional warfare with organized military forces, as seen in past conflicts, terrorist organizations often prefer ambush attacks and quick hit-and-run maneuvers, often combined with a heightened level of violence for added impact.

Attempts to prevent terrorist acts involve military action, intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and diplomatic efforts to find solutions. A major challenge in the ‘War on Terror’ is identifying who is a fighter and who is a civilian. This type of warfare often results in attacks on innocent people, and when the military responds, there is always a risk of harming civilians by mistake

2. 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?

The use of “roving wiretaps” under the Patriot Act has raised significant concerns regarding potential violations of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This silent clause  allows government agencies to monitor phone calls and emails without specifying what information they seek. It is controversial because it enables law enforcement to track a suspect’s communications across multiple devices without needing additional warrants for each one. Unlike traditional search warrants, which clearly specify the subject of an investigation and its purpose, mobile wiretapping lacks sufficient oversight, raising significant privacy concerns. This can be seen as a potential violation of Fourth Amendment rights, as it allows broad surveillance without proper justification, increasing the risk of government overreach in the name of national security. Additionally, this lack of oversight could result in innocent individuals who communicate with suspects being unfairly targeted

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” warrants, introduced by the USA Patriot Act, allow law enforcement to search someone’s property without notifying them right away. This raises serious concerns about the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Critics argue that the delayed notification—sometimes lasting months—violates the rights of those being investigated.

The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement, before they can conduct an active search, to get a warrant, that the communication must clearly explain what they’re searching for, where they’re searching, and why it’s necessary. The regulation order is that the person being investigated is informed at the time of the search, but with “Sneak and Peek” warrants, the authorities can search a home or business, leave, and not tell the property owner right away. This process raises privacy concerns and makes people worry about government overreach and secretive searches. One of the risk factors that can be looked at as a violation, the warrants could be abused, leading to innocent people being unfairly implicated. Since the individual isn’t notified, there’s a chance that evidence could be planted or belongings tampered with to make it look like the person is involved in criminal activity. The person won’t even know about it until much later, making it harder for them to prove their innocence.

In addition, these types of searches might weaken the “exclusionary rule,” which usually keeps illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The lack of transparency with “Sneak and Peek” warrants could lead to wrongful accusations or convictions based on evidence the person never knew was collected.

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

Discussion 9.1

 

 

 

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

 

The Establishment Clause is the part of the First Amendment that prevents the government from creating, endorsing, or favoring any religion. This means that there is a conflict of interest for the government to participate in any official national religion, and the government can’t promote religious beliefs over others, or even over non-religion. Historically, many European countries had official state religions, leading to conflicts and even wars. The U.S. founders wanted to avoid this by keeping religion and government separate.

As the U.S. became more religiously diverse, courts had to interpret “no establishment of religion,” leading to the Lemon Test in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman. This test assesses whether a law or government action involving religion is constitutional.

For example, if a state wants to fund school supplies for private religious schools, that might be allowed since books and transportation serve a non-religious purpose. But if the state were to fund religious teachings or salaries for religious instructors, that could violate the Establishment Clause because it would create too much government involvement in religion.

 

 

 

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

The First Amendment protects people’s right to express themselves, even in ways that may upset or offend others. This includes symbolic speech, which means actions that express an idea, like burning the U.S. flag in protest. The Supreme Court made this clear in Texas v. Johnson (1989) when it ruled that burning the flag is a legal form of protest because it is a way for people to express their opinions about the government.

Although some have viewed this form of symbolic protest to be offensive, the government cannot punish someone just because others were emotionally upset by their message, as it would limit free speech. The First Amendment ensures that people can criticize the government in powerful ways without fear of being punished, as long as they are not harming others. However, while the First Amendment protects symbolic speech like “flag burning,” it does not protect speech that incites violence, makes threats, or causes direct harm to others. 

 

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

When someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth,” they’re exercising their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent and avoid saying anything that could get them in trouble with the law. This amendment protects people from being forced to confess or provide evidence that could be used against them in court. For Instance, if you’re asked a question, especially in a legal setting, and answering might make you look guilty of a crime, you can refuse to answer by “taking the Fifth.” This became widely known after the Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling, which made it a requirement for police to inform people of their rights before interrogation.

 

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

Discussion 7.1

Citizens’ roles in government vary across different systems, such as federal, confederation, and unitary. In a federal system, citizens engage with the government at multiple levels—national, state, and local—giving them a broad range of influence. They can vote on various issues at different levels, which allows for more direct involvement in decisions. In a confederation, power is primarily with regional governments, and citizens typically interact with their state or regional leaders more than the central government. The central government has limited authority, so local governments hold more power in decision-making. In a unitary system, decision-making is concentrated at the national level, and local governments have less control. Citizens primarily engage with the national government, as the local governments simply follow its direction.

The division of power refers to how authority is distributed among different levels of government. In federal systems, for example, power is shared between the national government and state or local governments, with each level having its own set of responsibilities. This structure ensures that no single branch or level of government becomes too powerful. Each branch, such as the executive, legislative, and judicial, checks and balances the others, so power is more evenly distributed and monitored.

The federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments mainly through financial leverage and legal requirements. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the federal government strongly influenced New York’s response. The federal government set guidelines on travel restrictions, social distancing, and healthcare mandates, which states had to follow to receive federal funding. For New York, this meant implementing specific public health measures, including restrictions on large gatherings and the closure of certain businesses.

Additionally, the federal government played a role in managing the crisis through financial support. It provided aid to individuals who lost their jobs, businesses that were struggling, and hospitals facing increased demand. This funding often came with conditions, requiring states and local governments to adhere to federal guidelines. On the legal side, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, reviewed state decisions. For example, some of New York’s restrictions, such as limits on religious gatherings, were challenged in court, and federal courts intervened, showing the limits of state autonomy in times of national crises.

The federal government’s actions during the pandemic demonstrated how it can influence state and local governance through both policy mandates and funding. This interaction highlights the balance of power between the federal government and states, especially in handling public health emergencies.

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

Discussion 6.2

  1. Who Wrote the Constitution and Who Was Left Out?
     The Constitution was written by wealthy landowners, merchants, and investors—the upper class of the time. Ordinary workers, small farmers, enslaved people, and women were not included in the process. Reading 6.2 explains that individuals who didn’t own property or who were legally restricted, such as servants and slaves, had no representation in drafting the Constitution. The framers were primarily concerned with controlling factions, which James Madison defines in Federalist #10 as groups united by a common interest that could be harmful to the rights of others or the public good. The working class was often seen as one such faction, as they might push for economic policies that threatened the wealth of the elite. According to Reading 6.1, the framers believed that working people lacked the necessary faculties—or natural abilities and resources—to govern responsibly, justifying their exclusion from political participation.
  2. Is the Social Class System the Same Today?
     Yes, social class divisions today resemble those in early America. Wealthy individuals continue to control major industries, while the majority of people work to support themselves without accumulating much wealth. The capitalist class still believes that policies favoring them will benefit society as a whole, similar to what Reading 6.1 describes about the attitudes of the framers. Madison argued that factions would always exist because people naturally have different levels of wealth and power. He proposed two ways to control factions: removing their causes or controlling their effects. However, removing the causes would require eliminating freedom or enforcing equal property ownership, which the framers saw as unrealistic. Instead, they chose to control the effects by establishing a republic, where elected officials would make decisions, rather than a pure democracy, where people directly vote on every issue. This system helped ensure that economic elites remained in control of government policies.
  3. Why Were the Framers Afraid of Democracy?
     The framers feared democracy because they worried that the majority of people—who had less wealth—would push for policies that reduced the power of the wealthy elite. Madison argued that in a pure democracy, the majority could easily unite against the wealthy minority and make laws that redistributed wealth. In contrast, a republic would allow elected representatives—who were often wealthy themselves—to filter the public’s demands and ensure that laws protected private property. Business owners and landholders relied on workers for labor, and they wanted to keep control over economic and political decisions. Reading 6.1 mentions that the government was designed to limit direct participation by ordinary citizens. The framers believed that if too many people had a say in government, they might pass laws that favored workers over business owners, potentially redistributing wealth or challenging private property rights. To prevent this, they created a system that kept the most important decisions in the hands of a select few.
  4. What Does “Disenfranchised” Mean?
     “Disenfranchised” refers to being denied the right to vote or take part in government decisions. It applies to groups that have been excluded from political influence.
  5. Who Were the Disenfranchised?
     The disenfranchised included groups such as enslaved individuals, indentured servants, women, and people without property. These individuals had no say in government decisions and were often subject to laws created by the wealthy elite. Many of them lacked economic resources, legal rights, or social standing, which kept them from influencing policies that affected their lives. Beard’s analysis points to the lower-class population as the group left out of the political process. The framers feared that if these groups gained political power, they could form factions that would challenge the authority of the elite.
  6. Which Social Class Did Property Owners and Businessmen Belong To?
     Landowners, investors, and those involved in trade and finance were part of the upper class. Their status is clear because they controlled land, businesses, and large amounts of money. They were able to use their influence to shape the Constitution in a way that protected their economic interests and kept power concentrated among the wealthy. The framers argued that these individuals had the faculties—meaning the intelligence, education, and resources—to govern responsibly. This belief justified their control over government decisions while ensuring that the working class had little influence over policies that affected their lives.
Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson · 2 Comments

Discussion 6.1

Which Social Class Wrote the Constitution, and Which Was Excluded?
The Constitution was written by members of the wealthy elite—landowners, merchants, creditors, and plantation owners—who had significant economic and political influence. Beard argues in An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that the framers were primarily concerned with protecting their property and financial interests. The excluded class included small farmers, laborers, debtors, and enslaved individuals, who had little to no say in the drafting process. For example, property requirements for voting and holding office ensured that only the wealthy could participate in governance. Events like Shays’ Rebellion (1786–1787), in which indebted farmers protested unfair taxation and debt laws, highlight the growing divide between economic elites and the working class. The framers saw such uprisings as threats to stability, reinforcing their desire to create a system that limited the political influence of lower-class citizens.

Comparison of Early U.S. Social Class Structure to Today
While the specific economic and political structures have changed, social class divisions remain a defining feature of American society. In the 18th century, wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of a small elite, with limited social mobility for the working class. Today, although legal barriers such as property requirements for voting no longer exist, economic disparities persist. Modern policies still favor the wealthy through mechanisms like tax cuts for corporations, the influence of money in politics (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, 2010), and disparities in access to quality education and healthcare. Parenti’s critique of structural inequalities in early America remains relevant, as systemic factors continue to shape economic opportunity. The persistence of economic elites controlling political decision-making reflects Madison’s original intent of protecting property rights, ensuring that those with economic power maintain influence.

Why Were the Framers Afraid of Democracy?
The framers feared direct democracy because they believed it would allow the lower classes—who outnumbered the wealthy elite—to challenge economic privilege and push for policies that could redistribute wealth. Madison, in Federalist #10, explicitly expresses concern that a majority of non-property owners could unite to pass laws that threatened the interests of the wealthy minority. Historical examples, such as opposition to debt relief for farmers and resistance to paper money (which would benefit debtors), illustrate how elites sought to control economic policy. By designing a government with checks on direct popular influence—such as the Electoral College and the original system of appointing Senators rather than electing them—the framers ensured that decision-making remained largely in the hands of the wealthy. This aligns with Beard’s argument that the Constitution was created to serve the interests of property owners, rather than establishing an egalitarian democracy.

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

Discussion Board 5.3

The fact that most of the wealthiest 1% of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90% put together, which surprised me the most about wealth inequality in the US. Due to this extreme concentration of wealth, a small group holds the majority of financial resources, while the majority of people have much less. Such an imbalance raises serious questions concerning economic mobility, wages, and access to necessary resources. The widening wealth disparity may have long-term effects on political influence, educational opportunities, and social stability.

This disparity impacts society in numerous ways, including economic instability, limited social mobility, political divisions, and unequal access to critical services like healthcare and education. With so much wealth concentrated at the top, those in the bottom 90% often struggle to achieve financial security. One major effect is the inequality in education—schools in wealthier neighborhoods benefit from higher property tax revenue, allowing for modern facilities and experienced teachers. Meanwhile, schools in lower-income areas often lack sufficient funding, leading to overcrowded classrooms and outdated resources, putting students at a disadvantage.

This gap is also evident in the healthcare sector. While those with less money frequently do not have access to even the most basic medical services, which leads to worse health outcomes, the wealthiest people can afford high-quality insurance and preventive care. Naturally occurring disasters provide a vivid illustration of this discrepancy. Richer people can afford to rebuild, evacuate, or use emergency resources during hurricanes, wildfires, or periods of extreme heat. On the other hand, the worst effects are felt by low-income communities, which frequently have less stable housing and fewer financial safety nets. The housing crisis is yet another glaring illustration of wealth inequality. It is almost impossible for middle- and lower-class people to find affordable housing in cities like New York due to skyrocketing property prices, which are partly caused by wealthy investors. This results in rising Homelessness and displacement. 

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

C-Commodity M-Money C -Capitalist Cycle

C-M-C: Small-Scale Commodity Production
This cycle represents the economic activity of small producers, such as artisans and farmers, who create goods (C: commodity) to sell (M: money) in order to buy something they need (C). The primary goal is use-value, meaning production is driven by necessity rather than profit. For example, a shoemaker crafts a pair of shoes (C), sells them for money (M), and then uses that money to purchase food and materials needed for daily life (C).

M-C-M’: The Capitalist Cycle
This cycle represents capitalism, where money (M) is used to buy commodities (C) to sell them for a greater amount of money (M’). Unlike small-scale production, which focuses on personal needs, the primary aim of this process is profit through surplus value. The difference between M’ (the increased money) and M (the initial investment) comes from surplus value, which is extracted from workers as they produce more value than they receive in wages. This cycle enables capitalists to continually accumulate wealth by reinvesting profits and repeating the process.

Surplus Value and the Expansion of Capital
M’ (more money) represents the profit capitalists gain through the process of capitalist exchange, where money (M) is invested in commodities (C) and then sold for a greater amount (M’). This profit comes from surplus value—the gap between what workers produce and what they are paid. The extra, unpaid labor time, known as surplus labor, is the source of surplus value. Money becomes capital when it is invested in labor power and means of production to generate profit, primarily by extracting surplus labor from workers.

Capitalists sustain and expand their wealth by reinvesting profits (M’ – M) into further production. For instance, a business owner invests $500,000 (M) to hire workers and purchase supplies for building furniture. After production, the furniture is sold for $1,000,000 (C), and the company makes $1,000,000 in revenue (M’), resulting in a $500,000 profit. This process continues, generating ongoing surplus value for capitalists while workers remain dependent on wages. Capitalism, therefore, functions through the continuous extraction of surplus value from workers, ensuring that the capitalist class accumulates wealth while the working class sustains the system by selling their labor power.