1.   The first part of this chapter is rough going. If the details are confusing, don’t worry too much about it.

2.   What is the basic structure of the Racial Contract?

3.   What does Mills mean when he says, "All whites are beneficiaries of the Contract, though some whites are not signatories to it". (p. 11)

4.   What are ‘white settler states’? How are they different from ‘sojourner colonies’?

5.   In the Racial Contract, how is the "state of nature" conceived? (pp.12-13) How does this work to establish a racial hierarchy?

6.   Mills outlines the mainstream view of how the social contract is founded upon principles of equality of all. He counters that, in reality, this equality was restricted to whites only. Why does he think this?

7.   "Thus in effect, on matters related to race, the Racial Contract prescribes for its signatories an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, a particular pattern of localized and global dysfunctions (which are psychologically and socially functional), producing the ironic outcome that whiles will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have made." (p. 18) [note: when Mills talks of epistemology, he is referring to how we ‘know’ things, how we make claims about facts and truth.]

This represents a central claim of Mills. Explain it. What is this ‘epistemology of ignorance’? How does it come about? Why is it psychologically and socially functional? Why can’t whites understand the world they have themselves made?

8.   Mills boldly claims that "The Racial Contract is a historical actuality" (p. 19) What historical evidence does he produce for this claim? (Trace the history from the early theological versions of the Contract to the more ‘culturally’ motivated rationale.)

9.   Another important claim appears on page 26, a point that readdressed throughout the book; that racism and white supremacy represent a central tenet of Western culture and philosophy. Mills refuses to accept that racist claims are the exception to the rule or can be easily expunged from the system. How does he use history to buttress his claim?

10.   "The whole point of establishing a moral hierarchy and juridically partitioning the polity according to race is to secure and legitimate the privileging of those individuals designated as while/persons and the exploitation of those individuals designated as nonwhite/subpersons." (p. 32) What evidence does Mills present here to suggest that this economic exploitation has (and is still) occurring?

11.   Explain Mills criticism of the idea that Europe has been somehow ‘blessed’ with superior science/culture/morality/character/genetics/etc.

12.   Mills has been highly critical of US race relations. In the last section of the chapter, he attempts to undermine claims that blacks in the US are more or less equal to whites. What is his attack?

1.   Discuss Mills claim from question 7. Is his claim about a racial epistemology persuasive? Why or why not?

2.   Mills claims that European history (at least since post-Mediaeval times) has been one of constant exploitation of nonwhites. Further, he thinks that all political theory and philosophy have been complicit in this racism – either the theory openly advocates white supremacy or it implicitly assumes it.

Methodologically, how could one go about proving or disproving this claim? Note: I don’t want you to address the truth or falsity of Mill’s claim; rather this question asks you about how one could go about trying to discover an answer. What sort of investigation is called for?

3.   At this point in the semester, you can choose your own topic but remember to keep it focused, stick to the principle of charity, and give me analysis, not rhetoric.