The Racial Contract
So the story has been told, it has been agreed upon by many, and the origins of a civil polity is as follows: In the beginning, humanity lived in a horrible state of nature. Man wandered hither, taking from here, and taking from there. All around, you could examine a pure, and unadulterated state of chaos. To your left, you could see one hunting a buffalo, and in the next, the kill is stolen by another. To your right, you could examine one being ravaged, and in the next, being sacked, or worse killed. Indeed, the life of early man, according to philosophers such as, Hobbes, and a many more, is one that was in a constant state of war. Man can be described as being a sort of beast, where life is nasty, brutish, and short(Mills, 1997, P.64). “How then did humanity leave this brutish way of life?” You may ask. Well, the answer is simple, they left. According to Philosophers such as Rousseau, man, took upon himself to leave his animal-like nature behind, leaving the …show more content…
But this social contract between man is not what it appears to be. Come, on what basis determine civility and un-civility? And so a corollary to this question is as follows: “the crucial metamorphosis is the preliminary conceptual partitioning and corresponding transformation of human population into “white” and “nonwhite” men(Mills, 1997, P.13).” So it is in this light that gives way to the following argument: The social contract that claims to place all men on a plane of equality, is in fact, a lie; it is a contract that serves to bind nonwhites within the proposed “state of nature,” thus giving way to a social polity that is riddled with racial inequalities, a white versus “them” world view, and the spacing and normalizing (although normalizing does not exist for those that are being spaced) of persons (sub-persons) and their environment. With that being said, humanity is faced with a racial, rather than a social
So the story has been told, it has been agreed upon by many, and the origins of a civil polity is as follows: In the beginning, humanity lived in a horrible state of nature. Man wandered hither, taking from here, and taking from there. All around, you could examine a pure, and unadulterated state of chaos. To your left, you could see one hunting a buffalo, and in the next, the kill is stolen by another. To your right, you could examine one being ravaged, and in the next, being sacked, or worse killed. Indeed, the life of early man, according to philosophers such as, Hobbes, and a many more, is one that was in a constant state of war. Man can be described as being a sort of beast, where life is nasty, brutish, and short(Mills, 1997, P.64). “How then did humanity leave this brutish way of life?” You may ask. Well, the answer is simple, they left. According to Philosophers such as Rousseau, man, took upon himself to leave his animal-like nature behind, leaving the …show more content…
But this social contract between man is not what it appears to be. Come, on what basis determine civility and un-civility? And so a corollary to this question is as follows: “the crucial metamorphosis is the preliminary conceptual partitioning and corresponding transformation of human population into “white” and “nonwhite” men(Mills, 1997, P.13).” So it is in this light that gives way to the following argument: The social contract that claims to place all men on a plane of equality, is in fact, a lie; it is a contract that serves to bind nonwhites within the proposed “state of nature,” thus giving way to a social polity that is riddled with racial inequalities, a white versus “them” world view, and the spacing and normalizing (although normalizing does not exist for those that are being spaced) of persons (sub-persons) and their environment. With that being said, humanity is faced with a racial, rather than a social