Earl Sweatshirt's mom is really smart

    First off, this was some of the best academic writing I have ever read. Professor Harris's ability to communicate such a precise argument, while retaining such beautiful prose was so refreshing. "Comparison is the thief of joy" but this was a much better read than the Locke and Hobbes (Apparently Teddy Roosevelt quoted that?????). 

    Throughout Whiteness as Property, Harris grounds her argument in various historical case rulings that serve to essentially uphold white supremacy. These rulings are basically teh empirical evidence that demonstrate the entrenchment of white supremacy in our systems of governance. Two moments from the paper that I found to be fascinating was the logic of "passing," and her dismantling of the Bakke case. 

    Harris's narrative of her passing grandmother clearly shows how the demarcation of whiteness is a determinant of opportunity, privilege and ease. The fact she would consciously choose to shrink her blackness out of sight and mind, despite her very black life experience, because she knew that it was "the price of her family's wellbeing" is a testament to the fact that the possession whiteness unfurls a more desirable set of life options for you as an American citizen (1711). Harris goes on to say that "becoming white increased the possibility of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). With this comes an increased sense of agency, hence the gravitational pull that the possession of whiteness has on people. But, the function of whiteness, as we know it now, is contingent on the subjugation of the "others" (aka nonwhite people). This premise of exclusion is what makes whiteness similar to the way we, in the United States, conceive of property. 

    Her reading of the Bakke case highlights one (of many) instance of our legal system enshrining whiteness, and its inherent social benefits, as a fundamental privilege. The fact the plaintiff (Bakke) failed to mention the five seats that were reserved for children of prominent alumni or donors, or his rejection from other med schools on the grounds of his age, shows that the ruling (which was in his favor) was not in favor of a more "equal" admissions process but rather one that would protect the property interest of whiteness.

Other thoughts:

- I like the concept of whiteness, or even the entire construct of race, as being akin to the type ideology that Marx references. In America's case it's interesting because poor white people use the ideology to create a hierarchy positions themselves above other poor people despite the fact that rich white people are quietly oppressing them. This pretty much seems like Trump's strategy for mobilizing his base. 

- I don't think that Harris was necessarily suggesting this in her affirmative action solution, but I question the notion that the solution to systemic racism (and other systemic issues) is only to be found in specific policy/structural change. For something as entrenched in our country as white supremacy there needs to be a shift in consciousness that happens at an individual (dare I say grassroots) level. This is just something that I don't see a lot of emphasis of in popular discourse regarding this type of societal transformation. 

- I loved her description of affirmative action as "moving toward the reallocation of power and having the right to say" (1791). What are other ways we can reallocate power? Is the reallocation of the current power structures even a good thing? Does the reallocation of power result in a different structure of power (Harris seems to allude to this)? If so, how?