Blog post 01/26

 Harris bases her argument in Whiteness as property on the idea that the problematic relationship between property and race comes from the law understood as the set of rules that we must follow. These laws were later on ratified and given particular explanations but, in her opinion,  it was “the law [that] established and protected an actual property interest in whiteness itself, which shares the critical characteristics of property” (1724). The problem is seen in the law itself sharing similar characteristics as law, which involves property. 

 

In my opinion, the law itself does not bring that much change. One example of it is when it is not exercised it just becomes a dead direction to the society. Just because certain laws which are created share similar characteristics, it does not automatically make them create the same regime for both of the objects involved. I think that we should rather put more emphasis on the institutions that create and execute the law. Harris mentions the damaging effects for Native Americans when possession was defined. This illustrates the issue of when the law is created by mostly a privileged/ dominant group of people in order to benefit another privileged group or the group itself.  However, even defining how certain legal terms should be understood is not enough for the law to create significant damage to the society.

 

The destructive force are the institutions that acknowledge and welcome the laws which are created. US institutions have always displayed bad institutional character, which is an idea put forward by Christopher Lebron, who gives that title to institutions that distinctively marginalise certain groups of citizens and they do it under the auspices of democratic values. As law is exercised by such institutions in the US, it justifies the idea of whiteness as property and, at the same time, marginalises the black communities. However, the law itself could be interpreted differently and used in various way so not to perpetuate these prejudiced. Therefore, to stop connecting the idea of whiteness and property, an institutional change is required which cannot be grounded in the heavy legacy and that demands a change in the people who create the law as well. The law cannot be again created by the majority or the privileged group but rather by people who are directly involved in the issues. For that to happen again huge institutional changes has to happen and might not even be possible. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more