The Family, The Freedom, The Equality

As the aftermath of the Paris attacks continues tocover mass media, The United States has not changed their position on accepting Syrian refugees,but some of the states have. With the relocation of refugees becoming reality, states like Texas have declared that they will not be accepting refugees. In the article; Syrian Refugee Families Will Still Come to Texas, Despite Effort to Stop Them, by Vice News reporters explain the measures that Texas politicians have made in their attempt to keep the refugees out. The claim is that the refugees  raise "concerns and safety issues" to Texians. State politicians have went as far as to hold a hearing for an injunction on the resettlement of refugees, something that the US has deemed unconstitutional. As problematic as Texas is, they do question the role of the family in politics.

The people who are immigrating are families. These refugees are children, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers and yet states like Texas are looking at them as individuals. The neglect of the family coincides with Susan Okin's perspective about democracy needing the family to progress. The continuation to look at Syrian refugees as just refugees and not struggling families keeps freedom and equality from working on a political level and holds bak society in its entirety 

Proudhon vs. Rand

Proudhon's ideas were a revolt against communism, as it created a "stupid uniformity" among men, where men are meant to be free, active, and unsubmissive.  Communism requires obedience where men are meant to exercise their free will.  Communism is commonly thought of as being progressive, however, Proudhon's idea is arguably more progressive, considering its ability to free all man of chains.  Communism creates a necessity for man to labor for the good of the community rather than according to his own will.

Rand also revolted against communism, believing that it imprisoned the individual and forced him to act as a slave to the community.  Both seemed to agree that such a government would be restrictive and suffocating.  Rand would applaud Proudhon's assertion that "communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak."  However, Rand could not agree with the first part of the quote, that "property is the exploitation of the weak by the strong."  She argued that it was the right of the individual to be able to take ownership over their labor, and that the individual should be able to own property.

This is one difference between libertarianism and anarchism.  The libertarian advocates a small government, whereas the anarchist favors the abolishment of all government.  Rand's theory comes close to anarchism, but does nothing for the weaker in society.  She is willing to let the strong take over, based on the idea that the strong will produce more and therefore deserve more.  Proudhon doesn't seem to care as much about having so much incentive for production, but believes that it is up to the individual to find the will to produce.  This makes man freer, as it is easier for him to determine his own fate.  Rand's idea forces man to strive for property, while Proudhon seeks the abolishment of property all together.

As woman's rights gains more awareness in the modern world. The classic criticisms of the old and oppressive traditions are mixed with new beliefs emerging from the modern world. The idea of gender as well as family to some is now seen by many as just another means of oppression directed towards women. While the idea of a "family" has been seen as a means of oppression since the days when Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. News ideas have been added on and have been updated to better integrate with the modern world. The article also discusses how gender is a burden to the advancement of modern women's right issues. To some feminists, gender places a human into a predetermined role created by society. In these roles, women cannot escape the boundaries set in the roles they are expected to play in society. The article's main focus is discussing the different types of feminists observed in the world.

http://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/feminist-perspectives-on-the-family/

When looking at the different types of feminists and their arguments displayed in the article link displayed above. There are many similarities to the arguments seen in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Karl Marx argued against the institution of the family as it served as just another vessel to the continuation of property and succession. Marx touches less on the suffrage of women under the institution of the family set in place by bourgeois society. While what Karl Marx wrote is important, in reality to the issue of woman's rights. It simple is just some of the brick and mortar used in the construction of the federations of modern feminism we see today. Modern feminists have taken aspects of what Marx wrote and have transformed and altered it so that it can be used agains the issues seen in the modern world of today. While Marx argued for the abandonment of the family, some feminists to today wish to see the use of "gender" abolished as it simply impedes the rights and equality of woman. As the abolishment of "family" would help stop the practice of succession and property. The destruction the social construction of gender would help women break away from the restriction placed on them and expected of them. Also some feminists argue that once women are economically treated as equal can the advancement of woman's rights truly begin. While Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is influencial to aspects of the political world today, it would act as a useful part of the foundation of the advancement of woman's rights.

True Change

Recently in class we discussed the Black Lives Matter movement. This discussion lasted the entirety of class, being based on what the movement was and what it hoped to accomplish. The discussion also addressed what was going on at other college campuses around the country, specifically those involving evidence of racism, and what should the solutions include. The biggest problem the class conflicted about was how to solve the problem of racism without racism itself. For instance, designating a place for minorities to go on campus to discuss race issue includes racism as it is meant to be into place to hear issues of a specific group. Periodically, Mills was brought into the discussion to bring up hypotheticals in what he might think about to situation or what the solution should be. Mill is the author The Racial Contract, which goes into how the well known social contract is at its core, based on racism. This shows and has shown in our society as African Americans are and have been suppressed in almost all areas of life.      

  https://gotchasnuffles.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/picture-24.png

This is a link of then presidential candidate and now current President Barack Obama campaigning in 2008 on the platform that he is a “Change We Can Believe In”. This change was not only based on his political views but also on the fact that he was the first African American candidate to be nominated from either major political party. Many believed that by becoming elected there would a significant change is race relations, as America had just chosen an African American to its highest elected office. However, in recent years this has shown to not entirely be the case. With several murders seemingly based on race, Trayvon Martin, Freddie Grey, Michael Brown and many more, racism does still exist in America. Although it was thought that Obama’s election and presence in office would be a “change” and while it did make enormous strides politically, it is not the change we thought it was would be. The true change, relating to what Mills went into, is changing the cores of all the American people. We can not expect race relations to reside in one man and his accomplishments, as it does not fix the complete problem. What will fix the problem, is trying to change the core of the social contact. Obama showed that one person, even the most powerfull one of the country is not enough to do this. What will accomplish this is we the people, working together with one another, working against the basis of the core Mill describes in The Racial Contract. The problem is not one that can be fought by few or small groups, by one that needs to support and backing of all those that believe it in.

In "The Problem With Political Correctness", BJ Gallagher explains how the recent fad to jump to conclusions on someones opinion is harming the right to free speech. Particularly on college campuses, students have increasingly labeled piers and faculty racist, sexist and/or homophobic due to their opinions or support for historical figures and events. Gallagher explains how obtaining one of these labels can quickly destroy the reputation of someone and simultaneously lead to an expulsion or leave of absence. Due to the threat of being labeled racist or sexist, many have fear to voice their opinions on social justice issues that are becoming increasingly prevalent on college campuses and other institutions throughout America. Gallagher believes that this is hindering the discussions on diversity issues causing further tension between minorities and whites as well as the far right and the far left.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-gallagher/the-problem-political-correctness_b_2746663.html

In Charles Mills book The Racial Contract, Mills explains how social contracts are founded on racism and he believes that racism is at the base of institutions.I think Mills has a very compelling theory because if one were to look at the constitutions of most western countries (including the United States), one would find that the authors are predominantly white males who most likely saw minorities as lesser people. However, I do not believe that this should cause for the extermination of studying the texts that these men have created. Many students have been arguing for more diverse course work and more diverse symbols on campus. For example, students at the College of William and Mary are calling for the removal of the statue of Thomas Jefferson, while students at Princeton want the name of Woodrow Wilson to be removed from all buildings. I do not believe that we should be forgetting the history of our country's Founding Fathers because most of them were racist. We cannot forget the extraordinary things that the white males of history have done due to the common ideology of earlier centuries. Should we forget the extraordinary authors and philosophers of the Enlightenment, which has been so essential to the ideology of our country? Should we remove the President who established the idea of nations coming together to form a peaceful and more perfect world with his Fourteen Points? I do not believe that it is right or even sane to remove the authors that have shaped classrooms for decades due to the heightened and soft sensitivity issues our generation has embraced. Furthermore, students and professors should not fear being labeled racist or sexist for wanting to discuss and teach such influential and remarkable works of literature, philosophy and history.

Crack Cocaine VS Powder Cocaine: Disparities shown in the Sentencing

The Fair Sentencing Act, which aims to reduce the disparity in sentencing between crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine had gained approve from the Congress and signed by President Obama. “This bill would help right a long-standing wrong by narrowing sentence disparities between those convicted of crack cocaine and powder.” Stated by President Obama. According to the statistics provided by US Sentencing figures, the Controlled Substances act established a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for a first-time trafficking offense involving only over 5 grams of crack cocaine, as opposed to 500 grams of powder cocaine. Furthermore, more than 79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were African American, whereas White and Hispanic only counts 10 percent respectively for the crack cocaine offender.This form of disparity can also be shown from the length of incarceration: 115-month average imprisonment for crack offenses versus an average of 87 months for powder cocaine offenses.This kind of variation directly ended up with African-Americans spending far more time in the prison system.


When we talk about racially division and discrimination, people usually blame it for individual’s imperfections and unconsciousnesses; few of them would look at the state and institutional structure as a whole. As Charles Mills revealed in his book The Racial Contract, racism was formed as the core of the social contract, racial problem is deep and institutional; society itself is structured on racism. Mills theory here had helped to explain why there has been a long appearance of mass incarceration in the United States that targeted specifically at African Americans. One reason was because of the disparities that deeply rooted within the legal system; African Americans endure more frequent and longer imprison compared to offenders of other races on average. Racism is still the de facto practice and ideology among political and economic institutions in the world. Moreover, the report also tells that it is so much harder to change the institutional racism, which requires more time and efforts. In order to vary the current situation, people need to begin from the bottom of the society and all the way up to the top— the houses and executive office; this also further added to the prevalence of racism  in the current world.


News Link:  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-racial-disparity-in-crack-sentencing

Colonial Mentality in Hong Kong

Hong Kong is a prosperous and multicultural city that once had colonized by Britain for more than 150 years before sovereignty was handed back to China in 1997.  However, according to Lahtoo, a reporter from The South China Morning Post, we can easily trace the marks of British colonization even at today’s  Hong Kong. He pointed out, Caucasian people have a larger advantage for finding jobs in Hong Kong compare to people of other races with the same qualification simply because of being “White”. Meanwhile, though Hong Kong’s motherland People’s Republic of China now is the second largest economy in the world: millions of mainland Chinese traveled to Hong Kong every year with incredibly strong purchasing power that contributed Hong Kong’s economy largely, nonetheless, Hong Kong people still are unwilling to call themselves Chinese and admit their Chinese identity. 

From Frantz Fanon’s book The Wretched of the Earth, we can find possible explanations for those scenarios that Lahtoo mentioned in his report. In an advanced society like Hong Kong, such obvious job inequalities based on employee’s races would not expect to happen. However, according to Lahtoo, Hong Kong people do not feel weird by that. Fanon states that Colonization caused indigenous people’s inferior status and Settler’s superior status in the social relations. Meanwhile, besides physical inferiority, indigenous people would also feel they are mentally inferior to the settlers; this mentality can be hardly washed away unless there is a violence clashed, in this way can liberation be truly gained. Fanon also states that violence is a cleansing force that is able to free  the natives from the inferiority  complex and from their despair and inaction. However, When we trace back to Hong Kong’s handover history, there was no sign of such a “cleansing power”. Both British and Chinese government agreed mutually through negotiations and talks. This would also give Hong Kong people the mindset that that Hong Kong is still not fully and forcefully liberated and humanized from the century-long Colonization.

Report Link: http://m.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1873833/white-worship-hong-kong-you-cant-end-it-if-you-refuse