Wost 3002 Blog

One thing that I really responded positively to was his reference to Japan,
and how it had escaped this global colonization (31). I am really
interested now to see a societal comparison between a conquered country and
Japan, especially centered on its relationship with people of different
colored skin. Also, this idea that all white skinned people have no choice
but to be ‘beneficiaries’ of the racial contract, even if they are not
‘signatories’ interests me because it ties in with my personal goal of
being consciously aware of the actions I take, and how they may make
another person feel marginalized (11). My favorite line of the Mills
article is “One of it’s complaints about white political philosophy is
precisely its otherworldiness, its ignoring of basic political realities,”
which of course to me sounds exactly like the Bush agenda (and most other
ridiculous republicans) (11). Mills’ vivid descriptions of the
colonization of different societies, and the inherent assumptions built in
with the “establishment of society” are so often overlooked when speaking
of racism (13). Also, when he goes into the free labor and goods that the
U.S. got from slave labor in its early years in fascinating; I never
thought about how much of a boost to a colonial power that could be (at
least, not in the sense of the U.S., Europe of course). Especially in the
sense of the spread and impression of Christianity on the people colonized,
“rejection was proof of bestial irrationality” (22). Also, as far as
European colonization, the fact that Europe was seen by many to have
existed on it’s own, without need or help from any of the places in
‘civilized’, though, in fact, it basically stole from those countries goods
to help the colonization continue (34). My favorite part however, is the
contemplation of paying back to the ‘racial minorities’ the money stolen
from them in missed opportunities, slavery, and more!

This article was more a review for me because race, ethnicity and how they fit into the cultural and political heierarcgy of the country is one of the main tenets of American Studies Curriculum. There are a few things mentioned that I would like to highlight being that they are of central importance to my studies: we spoke briefly of State of Nature mentality in class. It is the philosophy that there is a basic way of life, a "preexisting objectivist morality" that supposedly is unchangeable because it is natural; what is more, it is considered rational, and every other movement that digresses from its doctrines (being that of the conservative right) is irrational and will not stand the test of time. The phiosophy is that the world and its inhabitants have followed an inherent way of life and will continue to do so. This also follows the idea that nature itself will continue being okay, leaving us to focus on other more important things (mainly keeping "others in line") while we ignore important issues such as the depletion of the environments'resources.
another thing I want to emphasize is the fact that the racial contract still exists. On page seventeen, Mills highlights a variety of descriptors for "subpersons": "niggers, injuns, chinks, wogs"... What is interesting is that even with the contmeporary embrace of cultural pluralism that list of racial slurs still exists in regular use. There is an online database that is basically a long list of all the racial slurs that are in existance today. when it began a few years ago, there were a couple hundred names listed; today there are thousands and growing -alot of these names were als recently created! if anyone is interested in seeing this list should contact Cherie Mazingo, a professor of Journalism at the U of M.

Well, this is a very interesting reading! Although it is kind of hard to read for me, since there were such big words that were used. What Mills has brought up is very important and what most people would not like to talk about or deny that it does not exsit anymore. He explains in the Racial Contract that what has made the modern world what it is today is through the political system of white supreme power. What he talked about in the reading has allowed me to see the problem with a more understanding about it. Like how racism exsits because it is really hard to reverse it, especially when we all play a role in it. Also, i agree with what Jenny says, that the way of life will continue to be so because we have always follow a inheriet way of life.

The Racial Contract was really interesting to read about because it's sadly true. Mill's says that the purpose of the contract is pretty much to always have whites having the privilege over nonwhites, which causes exploitation over other groups. Mills also says that European humanism means that only Europeans are human. I think this is something that causes racism to stay in existance today.
Another point which I found interesting was on page 20 where is says, " we live in a world which has been foundationally shaped for the past five hundred years by the realities of European domination and the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy." There is always this need for people to obtain this whiteness which encompasses being superior and understanding white social realities. I think this is something that is hard to dig ourselves out of because or society has been enforcing this concept for so long..
When Mill's says that the Racial Contract is something which benefits the Europeans and their descendants, and favors an economy structured around racial exploitation, I think this is also something that society will unfortunately enforce for years to come because its been part of our society for so long.

I found Mill's chapter's on the racial contract very interesting and very real. The US, as Mill's mentioned, is completely dichotomized. White/black, rich/poor, male/female, gay/straight...and the list continues. The racial contract, as with these dichotomies, are explotations of those without power, superiority or domination, as well as an exploitation of those who do not fit into the neatly constructed boxes. Reading this chapter made me think about how many of today's politicians would react to reading this. The only thing I imagined is outright denial. It's so easy for our government, which is wealthy-educated-white-male dominate, to overlook the racial contract estacblished by whites so many years ago. I really appreciated Mill's argument of misinterpretation. What the government is doing today is a "misunderstanding, misrepresentation,evasion, and self-deception on matters related to race."

I found the "racial contract' to be very interesting, because it puts many of the thoughts and realities in the U.S. into a stated theme. Many of the inequalities have not had labels to me until this article. I think there is an interesting bianary relationship that is discussed on page #13. On one side there is the white man = society = civilized, while on the other side of the bianary you have the non-white man = savage = nature. I can somewhat see this bianary coming from the stereotypical timeframe when Columbus settled west, yet this stereotype isn't true. The native american residents of the U.S. were much less violent (or savage) than the white settlers. The white settlers deemed it 'civilized' to destroy nature. To me, it appears that the white men were less civilized, because of all the violence and destruction that they caused. Although ironically the historical point of view is very different when it comes from a textbook written by a society that is known for empowering only the wealthy white members.

Understanding the 'Racial contract' is critical to any sort of national, international, global dialogue in solving the problems of todays third world countries and underclassed, oppressed peoples world wide. This article, and the understanding of the theory of a 'racial contract' in a practical sense, applying it and using it to be a catalyst in global peace accords, changing economic structures so that more people of all colors races and genders are allowed to participate in their own self-determination as well as being major players in economic growth within their countries in globally. Can probably be utilized more so than some of the other articles and different theories we've read so far. One of the huge problems I have with the dominant discourse of our present regime, and other dominant European regimes is a total lack of any historical understanding of how Europe and of late, America, has shaped our world as we know it today. For example on pg. 20 Mills writes, "...the Racial Contract...is clearly historically locatable in the series of events marking the creation of the world by European colonialism...foundationally shaped for the past five hundred years by the realities of European domination and the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy ..." He goes onto support this by discussing colonization of the Americas, the occupation of Africa, Asia and the Pacific to support the European and/or white male global dominance of the past 500 years, but also goes historically further in discussing the role of the Catholic church (pg.22) as well, in shaping the the 'Racial Contract' and global dominance of Europe. Mill supports his theory further by breaking down the 'real' distribution of wealth and ownership of property between whites and non-whites on pg.38. An we all know wealth is power. As I was saying before, America and other European countries 'regimes' and/or political leaders and those who support them seem to feel the problems of these countries that are afflicted with massive desease, poverty, despotic corrupt leaders as in the case of Africa, and Latin American countries, that it is their failure of not being white, of not being like us, that their natures are inately savage and they are unable to govern themselves without our intervention. Not understanding historically of how our conquering and colonizing and our continuing sucking of these countries resources to maintain our power and wealth, created these situations to begin with.

I found this article to be more like a review for me because in my fall english class we already talk about racism. This article is more interesting and it goes more in depth on the sources of racism in this world. Mills think of racial contract as a seek for the way things are and how they came to be that way(the desciptive) and as well as the they should be( the normative) basing on white political(p.10). In his article, he mentions a lot about how white are more of the dominant race, which mean that white are not being pibked on. Other color people are the subject of racism. Since white was given white previliage, they can used to tortured other race. In his article, he made a good point that I really agree with. In page 13, where he quoted that white men who are already part of society encouter nonwhite who are not, who are " savage" residents on a state of nature characterized in terms of wilderness, junglw, and wasteland. I agree that society does think of people of color in that way, but who give them the right to think like that. Was there ever like a right that say, this type of people are not allowed in our society popluarity? For the rest of the article which talk about the different races facing racism in the historical content..I like it a lot because it give us a view into how this race are being judge differently depending on thier race and class status. This article is very fun to read, but at the same time, it can anger the reader becasue it made me wonder to why are people racism. when a person is being racism, did they do it unconscious or are they conscious about what come out of thier mouth and face expression?

Mill's article "The Racial Contract" was quite interesting. From what I understand the racial contract differentiates whites from non-whites. Meaning that anything else other than white was a part of the non-white group and therefore not recognized nor respected but rather exploited. In talking about the history on page 30 he mentions that "....the histories of offical racist ideologies,......the formal and informal structures of discrimination, are all within recent historical memory and, of course, massively documented in other disciplines and nonobvious, since most whites don't think about it or don't think about it as the outcome of history of political oppression but rather as just the way things are." This makes such a point about how changing history is very difficult. Sadly I would have to agree with him that we as a society cannot see racism or discrimination as something that is tangible and therefore cannot change but will always exist. On page 29 Mills mentions that " As European, as white, one knew oneself to be a member of the superior race, one's skin being one's passport." I think that still is an issue whether people admit to it or not. Generally speaking, being a particular race or color one holds superiority depending on the situation. For example, I work as a volunteer for an Asian-focused summer program for kids. Being that I was Asian I was automatically hired without any doubt. If I happened to be of another color or race I think things wouldn't happen that way.

Mills does an impressive job situating contemporary white supremacy in light of five centuries of European colonial philosophy and rule. Mills interrogates the historical white bias of human nature, civil rights, and governance that dehumanizes 'the other' nonwhite and rationalizes racialized slavery, invasion, expropriation, cultural hegemony, etc. Mills asserts that white philosophy with its "objective moral foundation" enables whites to authoritatively and qualitatively evaluate nonwhites and their cultures for the purpose of subordination (15). I found Mills most interesting point was that to be white is to consent to a misinterpretated worldview that is ignorant to the various social realities of nonwhites; using a colonial lens that that views the unequal positions of nonwhites as 'just "the way things are" thereby blaming the victim.(18, 30).

Charles W. Mills is a genius. His philosophy on being white and being powerful is right on. I was particulary intrigued with his talk on the fact that most whites do not even know their own power and the advantages they have over nonwhites. He states on page 30 that "since most whites don't think about it [the power they have] or don't think about it as the outcome of a history of political oppression but rather as just 'the way things are.'" It is such a scapegoat to answer difficult questions like that. I believe white people may know their power they just don't know what to do about it so they tend to play along with the system. I truly believe that. It's easier that way I guess for people that do not want to admit that their race is the cause of such major oppression in the world. So instead of trying to change they just continue to feed the beast. I believe that all whites must and should tell themselves daily that their skin color has given them privilege and to admit that they are only complimenting the system unless they do something directly to change it. It is in their hands.

Said-Orientalism:
So it seems Said is saying that power/politics permeates everything social, including (systems of) knowledge production. The West’s historical conceptualization of the Orient should therefore consider the white man’s overall interest for empire, subordination, and exploitation. Orientalism is a code that the West uses and needs to classify this ‘other’ society by comparing it with its own, thereby also hierarchically defining the West itself. The West’s code manifests in popular and academic discourse through authoritative representations/research of the Orient. So that this discourse can claim to be objective because in the West “’true’ knowledge is fundamentally nonpolitical (and conversely, that overtly political knowledge is not ‘true’ knowledge)” is bullshit, ie how mass news media portrays the Islamic male as a terrorist, the Islamic female as a passive victim to fundamentalist patriarchy, as our precious university undoubtedly does research and development for corporations profiting from war.

We should really be consciously aware of our actions. We should respect others' feelings and so we must be conscious of the way we talk. We must improve our communication skills more to be able to communicate effectively with other people.

Communication skills help a person become more tactful. It also helps him deliver messages effectively and in a way that is has no negative impact to others.