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?

In the video, Professor Ruth Wilson Gilmore makes the powerful statement that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism when “all the white people disappear from the story.” This isn’t a call for the removal of white individuals, but rather a critique of whiteness as a social and political construct that upholds systems of racial inequality. Whiteness, in this sense, refers to a position of privilege that has historically been used to divide people and maintain power, especially under capitalism. For example, in early American history, wealthy elites gave poor white people small privileges—such as land or legal rights—to keep them from uniting with enslaved Africans. This created a racial hierarchy that still influences how resources, safety, and opportunity are distributed today. In racial capitalism, racism is not just about individual bias, but a system that justifies the exploitation of people of color while protecting those who benefit from whiteness. Even poor white individuals can still be granted symbolic advantages that keep the system in place. Gilmore’s point is that unless we dismantle the racial hierarchy rooted in whiteness, the structure of racial capitalism will continue to operate. Understanding this connection forces us to ask whether capitalism can truly exist without racism, or if the two are fundamentally intertwined.

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?

Professor Ruth Wilson Gilmore argues that the criminal justice system doesn’t just punish crime — it actually produces criminals by reinforcing the idea of a “criminal person.” She explains that once someone is labeled a criminal, it becomes difficult for them to escape that identity, even after serving time. This label sticks with them in housing, employment, education, and even in how society treats them. For example, a person with a felony conviction may be legally barred from certain jobs or public benefits, which makes it much harder to reintegrate into society. As a result, some people end up returning to crime simply because their options are limited. Gilmore is saying that the system doesn’t just respond to crime — it creates the conditions for people to be seen as permanently criminal. I agree with her view because there’s a clear pattern of how the system punishes people far beyond their sentence. The more someone is excluded and marginalized after incarceration, the more likely they are to be pushed back into the system. Instead of helping people rebuild their lives, the system traps them in a cycle of surveillance and punishment, reinforcing the idea that they can never be anything more than a “criminal.” This shows how mass incarceration is not just a consequence of crime, but a system that manufactures and maintains it.

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

In the final part of the video, Professor Gilmore describes liberation struggle as a long-term, collective fight to transform the systems that cause inequality, violence, and oppression. She makes it clear that liberation isn’t just about reforming parts of the system — like changing a few laws or reducing prison sentences — but about completely rethinking the structures that produce suffering in the first place. For Gilmore, liberation means creating a world where people have what they need to live full, secure, and meaningful lives — including access to housing, education, healthcare, and dignity. It’s not just about freedom from cages, but about building systems that support life rather than punish it. I understand her use of “liberation struggle” as a call to take action beyond surface-level fixes and to work toward deeper justice — where safety doesn’t come from more police or prisons, but from strong, caring communities that meet people’s needs. This struggle is ongoing, collective, and rooted in love, hope, and imagination for something better. It’s not easy, but according to Gilmore, it’s necessary if we want true freedom for everyone — not just a few.

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).

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court ruled against the women plaintiffs, deciding that they could not proceed as a single class in their lawsuit against the company. The Court justified its decision based on the legal concept of commonality, a key requirement for class-action lawsuits under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure. According to the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the women suing Wal-Mart did not share enough common issues of fact or law to qualify as a class. Scalia argued that although all the women alleged sex discrimination, they experienced it differently across different stores and managers, meaning there was no single answer that would resolve every woman’s claim at once. He emphasized that without some glue holding their claims together—such as a clear, companywide discriminatory policy—the case lacked the necessary unity to be treated collectively. As a result, the Court concluded that the women’s experiences were too individualized and varied to satisfy the commonality requirement, and therefore the class-action lawsuit could not move forward.

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 Williams argues that the “war on terror” is fundamentally different from traditional wars because it lacks clear boundaries. There’s no specific nation, territory, or uniformed enemy to fight against. Instead, it’s a “war of the mind”, defined not by geography or armies but by fear and uncertainty. The enemy becomes anyone who makes us afraid, turning suspicion into a weapon and broadening the scope of government power without the usual checks. Unlike traditional wars, which involve battles between nation-states and are often governed by international law and treaties, this war justifies secret tribunals, surveillance, detentions without trial, and even discussions of torture. This is all in the name of preventing future attacks. Williams warns that this preventive, fear-driven approach undermines constitutional rights, erodes civil liberties, and opens the door to profiling, censorship, and unchecked executive power. In short, the war on terror is not just fought with weapons but with policy, secrecy, and the reshaping of law itself, often at the expense of the very freedoms it claims to defend.

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 appears to conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Roving wiretaps allow surveillance on a suspect across multiple devices (like phones, computers, or tablets) without needing a new warrant for each one. Critics argue that this lack of specificity can lead to surveillance of people who are not actually suspects, simply because they used the same device or network. This raises concerns that the government could spy on innocent individuals without proper judicial oversight. The vague targeting and potential for sweeping surveillance violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a warrant must be based on probable cause and must be particular in its scope. Without those limitations, there’s a risk of broad, unchecked surveillance, which undermines the very protections the Fourth Amendment was designed to uphold.

What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants

“Sneak and Peek” warrants also raise serious concerns under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that people be notified when their property is searched—except under specific, justified circumstances.With a “sneak and peek” warrant, law enforcement can search someone’s home or belongings without notifying them right away, delaying the notice for days or even longer. While supporters argue this helps avoid tipping off suspects during sensitive investigations, critics warn that this kind of delayed notice can easily be overused or abused, especially since the Patriot Act allows it not just for terrorism cases, but for any federal crime, even minor offenses.This undermines the transparency and accountability that the Fourth Amendment was meant to ensure. People may never even know their privacy was violated, and courts may have fewer opportunities to review or challenge those searches. Without strict limits and oversight, “sneak and peek” warrants can essentially become a form of secret surveillance, eroding constitutional protections that are supposed to safeguard individuals from government intrusion.

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

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from creating, endorsing, or favoring a religion, ensuring a clear separation between church and state. It requires government actions to remain neutral toward religion and protects against promoting one faith over another or religion over non-religion. To determine whether a law violates this clause, the Supreme Court established the Lemon Test in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). According to the test, a law is constitutional only if it has a secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not result in excessive government entanglement with religious institutions. If a law fails any one of these three criteria, it is considered unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

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

Yes, burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech. In the case Texas v. Johnson 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that Gregory Lee Johnson’s act of burning the flag during a political protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. The Court emphasized that the government cannot prohibit expression simply because it is offensive or disagreeable, even when it involves national symbols like the flag. Despite public outrage, the Court held that flag desecration laws were unconstitutional when applied to suppress political expression.

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

When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are invoking their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves in a criminal case. This means they are choosing not to answer questions or testify, because doing so might reveal information that could be used against them in court. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to provide evidence of their own guilt, and refusing to speak cannot legally be used as proof of guilt.

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

In a federal system citizens participate in the government on a national, state, and local electing level as representatives, influencing policies at each level. In a confederation citizens engage with their state or regional governments. In a unitary system, citizens mainly interact with a strong central government, which holds most of the power, while regional authorities operate under national control.

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

The division of power refers to the separation of governmental responsibilities among different levels or branches to prevent any one entity from becoming too powerful. In a federal system, power is shared between the national and state governments, each with its own authority. In a separation of powers, government functions are divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to ensure checks and balances. This system promotes accountability and prevents the abuse of power by distributing responsibilities across multiple entities.

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.

During the COVID-19 pandemic the federal government influenced New York’s state and local actions through funding, policy guidance, and coordination efforts. The federal government distributed substantial financial resources to state and local governments, including New York, to support pandemic expenses. For example, the American Rescue Plan provided direct fiscal relief through the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program

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

The concept of faction reminds me of the idea of social class divisions and economic interests. Just like the wealthy elites who wrote the Constitution feared democracy because it could lead to policies favoring the lower classes, Madison describes factions as groups driven by self-interest, often at odds with the rights of others or the common good. This connects to the concern that the lower classes, if given too much power, might push for economic changes that threatened elite property and wealth.

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)?

In Federalist #10, James Madison argues that the source of wealth and private property comes from the “diversity in the faculties of men,” meaning the natural differences in people’s abilities, talents, and intelligence. He suggests that these differences lead to unequal economic outcomes, where some individuals accumulate wealth and property while others do not. According to Madison, government exists to protect these unequal faculties and their resulting property, reinforcing a class divide between the wealthy, who own property, and the poor, who do not. This perspective shows that the framers of the Constitution viewed economic inequality as natural and inevitable, justifying a system that favored property owners over the working class

Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?

I agree to a certain extent with Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty, but I believe it’s more than just talent, intelligence, and ambition that separates the wealthy from the poor. While these individual qualities certainly play a role, factors such as culture, tradition, oppression, and upbringing also have a significant influence. People born into disadvantaged communities often face systemic barriers, including limited access to education, healthcare, and social networks, which can stifle their potential. On the other hand, those born into privileged circumstances may have advantages that allow them to develop their talents and ambition in ways that others cannot. Cultural values and historical oppression, such as racism and classism, also shape the opportunities available to individuals and can create an uneven playing field. Therefore, while personal faculties may contribute to one’s success, external factors are equally important in determining an individual’s ability to accumulate wealth.

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, or “first object,” of the U.S. government, according to Federalist #10, is the protection of private property. Madison argues that government exists primarily to safeguard the diverse faculties of individuals, from which property rights emerge, and to protect the various kinds of property that result from these faculties. This includes not only physical property but also wealth, labor, and the fruits of one’s labor. It is not surprising that the core mission of the U.S. government, according to Federalist #10, is the protection of private property. The founding fathers were wealthy land and business owners who prioritized safeguarding property as a means of maintaining social and economic stability. At the time, property ownership was closely tied to individual freedom, prosperity, and status, and protecting it ensured that the interests of the elite class were maintained. This emphasis on property rights is also reflected in the structure of the Constitution, which was designed to protect the status quo and limit the influence of the less wealthy majority. While modern society might view the government’s role as more focused on promoting equality, social welfare, or public good, the protection of private property remains a top priority to economic and legal frameworks today, making Madison’s viewpoint still relevant in modern society

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 surprised that Federalist #10 supports a republican form of government over a pure democracy. Madison and other framers were concerned that direct democracy could lead to majority rule, where the property-owning elite could be oppressed by the masses. They believed a republic, with elected representatives, would protect the interests of property owners by moderating public opinion and preventing the lower classes from gaining too much influence. This focus on safeguarding wealth and property reflects the social class structure at the time, where the elite sought to secure their own interests through a more controlled system of government

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 Constitution was written by the elite, property owning class, wealthy merchants, landowners, and slaveholders who sought to protect their economic interests. In Reading 6.1, it highlights how many framers, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were concerned about protecting property rights and preventing excessive democracy. In contrast, the working class, small farmers, debtors, enslaved people, and women were excluded, lacking political representation. In Reading 6.2, i discusses how events like Shays’ Rebellion, where struggling farmers protested debt and taxation, alarmed the framers, leading them to create a system that restricted direct participation by the masses. By establishing a strong central government with checks on popular influence, such as the Electoral College and indirect election of senators, the framers ensured that power remained in the hands of the elite.

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

I think theres similarities and differences between both time periods. The main similarity is both wealth and power are concentrated among an elite class that influences government and economic policy, while the working class faces systemic barriers to upward mobility. In early America, political power was explicitly tied to property ownership, and disenfranchisement was legal, whereas today, legal voting rights are broader, though economic inequality and political influence still heavily favor the wealthy. Modern corporations and lobbyists function similarly to the landowning elites of the past, shaping laws to protect their interests. However, social mobility has increased, and legal protections exist for marginalized groups, making today’s class structure more fluid compared to the rigid hierarchy of early U.S. society.

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 people who wrote the Constitution, primarily wealthy landowners, merchants, and elites, feared democracy because they saw it as a threat to their power and economic interests. They believed that too much political influence in the hands of the lower classes such as small farmers, laborers, and the poor could lead to policies that redistributed wealth, canceled debts, or undermined property rights. Readings 6.1 and 6.2 highlight how figures like James Madison worried about “mob rule,” where the majority might use government to challenge elite control. To prevent this, the Constitution included safeguards like the Electoral College and the Senate, which limited direct democratic influence and ensured that real power remained with the upper class.

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 statistic is shocking because it reveals just how concentrated wealth is in the hands of a small elite, highlighting the extreme gap between the richest and the rest of society. The fact that the top 1 percent control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined shows how unequal economic power is, meaning the majority of people have little financial security. This also means that the U.S. is not the land of equal opportunity.

Living in a society with massive wealth inequalities can lead to a huge disconnect amongst people that are disenfranchised and the people who are wealthy. This causes a lack of trust in institutions and the government. Additionally, wealth inequality can perpetuate cycles of poverty and hinder social mobility, as those born into less wealthy families may not have access to quality education, healthcare, or opportunities to build wealth, making it harder for them to improve their circumstances. In everyday life, this wealth inequality dynamic can be seen with the increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness even though they work full-time jobs reflects how the economic system disproportionately benefits the wealthy. People working multiple jobs to make ends meet while struggling to afford basic needs like healthcare, housing, or education as well.