1. 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?

Ruth Gilmore’s idea that racial capitalism will only end when “all the white people disappear from the story” is not about erasing people who are white. It’s about de-centering whiteness as the default lens through which society operates. In her work, “whiteness” is less about skin color and more about power, structure, and identity shaped through history to uphold racial hierarchies. The connection between whiteness and racism lies in how whiteness has historically been defined in contrast to “others” in order to maintain dominance, especially economically and politically.

Whiteness functions as a kind of invisible norm. It sets the standard and marks everyone else as different or deviant. That’s why it’s often left unnamed or unchallenged. This invisibility makes structural racism harder to identify because it’s embedded in systems that look neutral on the surface. Racial capitalism, then, depends on racial hierarchies to extract labor, criminalize certain communities, and distribute resources unequally.

When she talks about removing white people from the story, she’s calling for a reimagining of the world where racial categories don’t serve as mechanisms of control or exploitation. In that sense, ending racial capitalism means ending the narrative that ties whiteness to superiority and normalcy. It’s about dismantling a worldview that sees value and opportunity as the birthright of some and the burden of others.

2. 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?

Gilmore argues that the prison system doesn’t just contain crime, it manufactures and reinforces the category of “criminal” as a permanent identity. One way this happens is through how society labels people who’ve been incarcerated. After someone serves time, they carry that label (“ex-con,” “felon,” “criminal”) for life, which often limits access to jobs, housing, education, and even voting. These restrictions push people to the margins, making it more likely they’ll return to illegal activity just to survive. In this way, the system traps people in cycles of criminalization.

Another aspect is how policing and incarceration are disproportionately directed at poor and minority communities. Gilmore sees prisons not as responses to crime, but as tools of social control that target specific populations. These systems reinforce the idea that some people are inherently criminal, rather than questioning the policies and conditions that lead to crime in the first place.

I do agree with her. It’s easy to look at the criminal justice system as something that keeps society safe, but if you dig deeper, you see that it often creates more harm than it prevents. If someone is treated like a criminal long enough, and denied the resources to change their life, they’re more likely to internalize that identity. Instead of helping people reintegrate, the system isolates them. Gilmore’s view challenges us to rethink what we mean by justice and whether punishment really brings safety or just more suffering.

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

When Ruth Gilmore talks about “liberation struggle,” she’s not just referring to fighting against one specific system like prisons or policing. She’s talking about a much broader fight for freedom; freedom from all the structures that make life hard for certain groups of people based on race, class, or geography. Liberation struggle, in her view, is about building systems that allow everyone to live full, meaningful lives, not just survive.

What stood out to me is how she frames liberation not only as resistance, but as creation. It’s not enough to tear down oppressive systems; we also have to imagine and build better ones. That could mean investing in education, healthcare, housing, and jobs instead of prisons and punishment. It also means recognizing that the people most affected by these systems should be leading the struggle to change them.

She talks about solidarity as a key part of liberation struggle; how people from different backgrounds can work together when they recognize their shared interests. Gilmore isn’t calling for quick fixes or surface-level reforms. She’s advocating for deep structural change that can take generations, but she believes it’s possible through collective action.

To me, liberation struggle means organizing in ways that don’t reproduce the same inequalities we’re trying to eliminate. It means questioning what we’ve been taught about who deserves freedom, safety, and dignity, and fighting to make those things universal rather than conditional.

In the Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores Inc v Dukes, decided in 2011, the justices ruled against allowing what would have been the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history. The case was brought by around 1.5 million women who worked at Walmart and alleged that they faced gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The key issue in the case was whether these women could be treated as a single class for the purpose of a class action lawsuit. The Court ultimately said no, deciding that the group lacked what’s known as “commonality,” a legal requirement that all members of a class share common questions of law or fact.

The plaintiffs argued that Walmart had a corporate culture that permitted discrimination to flourish, and that the company’s policy of giving local managers discretion over hiring and promotion led to unfair treatment of women throughout the organization. They claimed that even though individual decisions were made by different managers, there was still a general pattern of discrimination that could be linked back to Walmart’s broader corporate policies. They used statistical data and expert testimony to show patterns of pay disparity and promotion gaps between men and women.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that because each employment decision was made at the discretion of individual managers, and there was no clear company-wide policy requiring or encouraging discrimination, the case did not meet the standard for class certification. In other words, just because many women may have experienced discrimination, that didn’t mean they all experienced the same kind of discrimination in the same way or for the same reason. That lack of a shared, central issue meant they could not proceed as a single class under the law.

The ruling had major implications for class action lawsuits going forward. It made it much harder for large groups of employees to bring discrimination cases against big corporations unless they could point to a specific, company-wide policy or practice that harmed everyone in the same way. It also highlighted how difficult it is to hold companies accountable for systemic discrimination when the discrimination is carried out through decentralized decision-making. In the end, the Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v Dukes emphasized that without a clear, unifying legal or factual thread linking all the claims, a class action cannot move forward.

1. 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.
   
   The court system is better at protecting individual rights because it is less influenced by politics and public pressure. Judges, especially at the federal level, are not elected, so they do not have to cater to what is popular at the moment. That gives them the freedom to make decisions based on the law and the Constitution, rather than what voters want to hear. This is huge when it comes to protecting people who are not part of the majority or do not have much political power. A recent example is the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. At the time, a number of states still banned it, and many elected officials were either against it or hesitant to support it because of political pressure. But the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, which was a major win for LGBTQ+ rights. That decision shows how the judiciary can act as a safeguard for individual freedoms, even when the political branches are slow to act or unwilling to take a stand.
   
2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.)
   
   Yes, I get why people say the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. The justices are not elected, and they serve for life, so there is no direct accountability to voters. But at the same time, that setup is kind of the point. The founders wanted the courts to be independent so judges could make decisions based on principles and the Constitution, not just on what is popular or politically convenient. If we think back to Federalist Number 10, Madison talks about the dangers of factions and majority rule. Basically, he was worried that the majority might use its power to suppress minority groups or individuals. By having an appointed judiciary, the idea was to create a branch of government that could act as a check against that. And to be honest, this system was also designed by and for the elites of the time. It reflects the idea that certain “qualified” people, usually wealthy, educated, and well-connected, should have a strong role in government. So while the courts might not be democratic in the traditional sense, they were designed to bring stability and long-term protection of rights, even if that means going against public opinion sometimes.

1. 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?
   
   P. Williams argues that the war on terror is different from traditional wars in a few ways. Unlike conventional wars, where you’re fighting a specific country or army with a clear beginning and end, the war on terror is against non-state actors, individuals and groups that don’t belong to a particular country. This means the war isn’t fought in the typical sense, with defined battlefields or enemy lines. Instead, it’s a global, ongoing conflict that doesn’t have a clear endpoint. The problem with this, Williams points out, is that it can blur the lines between wartime and peacetime, giving the government more power to act in ways that might infringe on individual rights. For example, actions like surveillance or detention may be justified in the name of national security even if we’re not officially at war, which could lead to abuses of power.
   
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 Roving Wiretaps provision of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to tap a suspect’s communications even if they switch devices or phones without needing a separate warrant each time. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also requires that warrants be specific, meaning they need to list exactly what’s being searched and where. With roving wiretaps, there’s no need for that level of detail, which could lead to overreach. The government could potentially listen in on people who aren’t even suspects or gather information beyond what’s necessary, thus invading privacy rights. While it’s meant to help in national security, it opens the door to possible misuse and violates what the Fourth Amendment is meant to ensure.
   
3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?
   
   “Sneak and peek” warrants allow the government to enter a home or property and conduct a search without notifying the person being investigated until later. The concern here is that these kinds of searches violate the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be informed about searches and seizures. Normally, if the government wants to search your home, they need to tell you and provide a reason. But with “sneak and peek” warrants, you’re not aware that a search has even taken place. The idea behind them is that they help prevent suspects from fleeing or destroying evidence. But critics argue that it’s a slippery slope; if these warrants become too common, they could be abused, leading to unwarranted government invasions of privacy. It also kind of undermines the principle of due process, because you’re not being notified of the search in a timely manner.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.
   
   The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment, and to me, it basically means the government can’t create or support a religion. It’s about keeping a clear line between religion and the state so that everyone, regardless of their beliefs, is treated fairly. To help courts figure out if a law crosses that line, they use something called the Lemon Test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman). It has three parts: the law has to have a non-religious purpose, it can’t promote or hurt religion, and it shouldn’t create too much interaction between the government and religious groups. If a law fails any of those, it’s likely unconstitutional. It’s basically a filter to prevent religious favoritism by the government.
   
2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.
   
   Yes, it is, although it’s definitely controversial. The Supreme Court made that clear in Texas v. Johnson (1989). In that case, a guy named Gregory Johnson burned an American flag during a protest and got arrested under a Texas law. But the Court said his actions were protected under the First Amendment because they were a form of symbolic speech as he was expressing a political opinion, even if it offended people. The takeaway is that free speech doesn’t only protect speech people agree with, it also protects the kind that makes people uncomfortable or angry. So yeah, flag burning, as a political statement, is legally protected.
   
3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?
   
   When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they’re using their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. It means they don’t have to answer a question if doing so could get them in legal trouble. You hear it a lot in legal dramas or during congressional hearings, but it’s a real legal protection. It’s meant to prevent people from being forced to testify against themselves in criminal cases. So if someone says that, they’re basically saying, “I’m not going to answer that because it might be used against me.”

1. Differences in the Role of Citizens in Government Systems: 
In a federal system, power is divided between national and state governments, with citizens having roles at both levels. They elect representatives for both state and federal offices, influencing policies at multiple levels.  
In a confederation, the central government has limited power, with most authority resting in individual states. Citizens primarily engage with their state governments, which have more control over laws and policies.  
In a unitary system, power is centralized in the national government, and local governments operate under its authority. Citizens primarily influence government through national elections, as local governments have limited autonomy.  

2. Understanding the Division of Power: 
The division of power refers to how responsibilities and authority are distributed between different levels of government—federal, state, and local. In a federal system like the U.S., the Constitution outlines which powers belong to the national government (for example defense, foreign policy), state governments (education, public safety, etc.), and shared responsibilities (taxation, law enforcement, etc.). This structure helps balance power and prevent government overreach. 

3. Federal Influence on NY During COVID-19:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government influenced New York’s state and local policies through funding, mandates, and public health guidance. The federal government provided financial relief through the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan, helping businesses, schools, and healthcare systems. Federal agencies like the CDC and FDA set health guidelines on mask mandates, vaccinations, and social distancing, which NY adapted into state policies. Additionally, vaccine distribution was largely managed at the federal level, with New York implementing local strategies for administration. However, there were also tensions, such as debates over school closures and business restrictions, showcasing the complexity of federal-state interactions in crisis management.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?
   
   The concept of “faction” reminds me of social class divisions and conflicts. In particular, it relates to the idea of competing interests between the wealthy elite and the lower classes. Factions, as described by Madison, are groups of people united by a common interest that may be opposed to the interests of others. This is similar to how we discussed class struggle—where different groups in society (like rich and poor, landowners and laborers) have competing goals.
   
2. 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….”
   
   According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth (private property) comes from the “diversity in the faculties of men”—which means that people have different talents, abilities, and skills. Madison argues that because people are born with different faculties (meaning their natural abilities, intelligence, work ethic, and opportunities differ), some will accumulate wealth while others will not. He suggests that this is a natural and inevitable outcome, implying that social class divisions are a result of inherent differences among individuals rather than systemic inequalities.
   
3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?
   
   I would argue that this explanation is problematic because it ignores how historical and structural factors contribute to wealth inequality. While individual talent and effort do play a role, systemic barriers—such as access to education, discrimination, inheritance, and economic policies—have a much greater impact on determining who becomes wealthy and who remains poor. Madison’s view assumes a meritocratic society where everyone has a fair chance, but in reality, power and wealth are often concentrated among those who already have advantages.
   
4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.
   
   The core mission (“first object”) of the U.S. government, according to Madison, is the protection of private property. This is surprising because today, many people think of government’s role as ensuring rights, freedoms, and general welfare, rather than primarily protecting the economic interests of property owners. This focus on property protection shows that the Founders were more concerned with safeguarding the interests of the wealthy elite than with promoting economic equality or social justice.
   
5. 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…
   
   No, I am not surprised that Federalist #10 does not support pure democracy and instead favors a Republican (representative) government. Madison feared that in a direct democracy, the majority (poor and working-class people) might unite against the wealthy elite and pass laws that would threaten their property and power. A representative government, on the other hand, ensures that the ruling class remains in control by filtering decisions through elected officials—who, at the time, were primarily wealthy landowners themselves. This reflects the broader theme that the Constitution was designed to limit the influence of the lower classes while protecting the interests of the elite.

1. 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 written by the elite landowning class, primarily wealthy white men who were property owners, merchants, bankers, and slaveholders. These individuals, often referred to as the Founding Fathers, had significant economic and political power. They were influenced by Enlightenment ideas but were also concerned with maintaining their privileged status. Some notable figures from this class include James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington—all of whom were well-educated and came from prosperous backgrounds. In contrast, the working-class, poor farmers, enslaved people, women, and Indigenous peoples were completely excluded from the process. These groups had little to no political voice and were not allowed to participate in shaping the new government. For example, Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787)—an armed uprising by debt-ridden farmers in Massachusetts—highlighted the growing tensions between the wealthy elite and the struggling lower classes. The rebellion was a direct response to heavy taxation and economic hardships, and it terrified the ruling class, reinforcing their fear of too much democratic influence from the lower classes.
   
2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.
   
   The social class structure of early U.S. society was similar to today in the sense that economic inequality played a major role in determining political power. The wealthiest individuals had the most influence, while the working class and marginalized groups had little say in government decisions. However, there are differences as well—today, voting rights are more inclusive, and legal protections exist for marginalized groups, though economic disparities and political influence of the wealthy remain significant.
   
3. 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.
   
   The Founders were afraid of democracy because they feared that if power were placed in the hands of the common people, they would challenge elite interests. Many of the Founders were influenced by the idea that pure democracy could lead to “mob rule” and threaten private property. James Madison, for instance, warned in Federalist No. 10 that factions (especially those of the poor majority) could unite to redistribute wealth or pass laws unfavorable to the wealthy class. As a result, they created a government structure—including the Electoral College and the Senate—that would limit direct democratic influence and ensure that decision-making remained largely in the hands of the elite.

1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?
   
   “The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth (stocks, bonds, investment funds, land, natural resources, business assets, and so on), more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.”
   
   This is the statistic thar made the most impression on me because of the unbelievably large gap between those who have and those who do not have, and the comfort gap for these two groups of people. It is really hard to fathom the amount of wealth and money that the top 1% of this nation have. 
   
2. 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?

It is heartbreaking to see people trying their hardest just to survive and get by, living from paycheck to paycheck while others don’t have to worry about a thing and would never have to work another day in their life; their grandchildren might as well not need to work a day in their life. It is sad to know that many people are having to deal with health issues just because they cannot afford seeing a doctor or buying a medicine, while others take medical care for granted. It is sad to know that some people never left their county/state because it is too expensive for them, while others can hop on their private jet and fly just about anywhere they want, whenever they want to.

It is also not so hard to imagine the influence and power that these amounts of money can get you. Politics have always been influenced by the wealthy, and many wealthy people trying to shape policies and have it their way so that they can benefit from them, making the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer. Money and politics were always seen entangled with each other ever since the greatest civilizations arose.