1.   This last chapter concentrates upon establishing the inadequacy of mainstream philosophy and history in coming to terms with European white supremacy. What evidence does Mills offer?

2.   Why would a visitor from Galactic Central be mislead by mainstream philosophical discussions about race?

3.   White suffer from a racialized moral psychology. What is this? Why are even well-meaning white liable to perpetuate the racist behaviour of the past?

4.   Mills offers some theories about why and how this racialized psychology comes about. In particular, he tries to adapt the work of Alvin Goldman to race. Outline how this is supposed to work.

5.   What is the Sartrean concept of ‘bad faith’? How does it apply to the Racial Contract?

6.   From pp. 98 to 101, Mills catalogues racist crime after racist crime; the sum of these atrocities dwarfs the Holocaust. Yet, they remain largely unknown or underappreciated. How can this explained?

7.   Mills suggests that white reaction to the Holocaust reveals a particularly disturbing racist attitude; in particular, he sees in the horror and disbelief at Nazi atrocities a double standard. Explain.

8.   What does Mills mean when he suggests that the Holocaust was a "blowback" reaction to European colonial policy?

9.  How is being ‘white’ different from being ‘White’. What is necessary for one to be the former rather than the latter?

10.   How are nonwhite philosophical concerns different from white ones?

11.   "If to white readers this intellectual world, only a half century distant, now seems like a universe of alien concepts, it is a tribute to the success of the Racial Contract in transforming the terms of public discourse so that white domination is now conceptually invisible." (p. 117) What is this ‘intellectual world’? How does it differ from the story that is usually told?

12.   Why does Mills consider the Nazis as merely ‘scapegoats’ for European culture and practice? What role do they play in the Racial Contract?

13.   How is the Racial Contract able to ensnare nonwhites (who can see its oppressive character)? What do nonwhites need to do to begin to escape the Racial Contract?

14.   Why does the "Racial Contract" provide a better basis for moral and political philosophy than mainstream accounts? In a related vein, what is wrong with dealing only with ideal theory (as is the standard practice in philosophy)?

15.   In the last section of the book, Mills sets out a tentative programme of action, outlining his conceptual commitments and distinguishing himself from other projects.

       a)   While the "Racial Contract" is committed to the reality of ‘race’, it denies  that race is biological What is ‘race’ then?

       b)   Why are white liberals sometimes uncomfortable with radical racial politics? How does the "Racial Contract" view of the ‘voluntariness of race’ overcome this aversion?

       c)   What does Mills mean when he says that there is nothing intrinsic to Whiteness, that we could have ended up with Brownness, Blackness, Redness, or Yellowness?

       d)   What is the significance of the document, "An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus" to the "Racial Contract"?

      e)   Why does Mills (like Taylor) reject postmodern race theory?