The institutions that have managed the collection of prejudices which have valued and devalued one person from another are the core and center of society. In this country, the elites of business, government, education, religion, education, entertainment and so on are key. They maintain prejudices not merely because they are hateful bastards. Prejudices keep us proles from uniting against them elites.

The prejudices the elites maintain are revisable, editable, reformable, without dislodging the control of the elites, or their ultimate purposes of control. So, here we are today, June 15, 2020; the Supreme Court has affirmed that anti-discriminatory employment laws cover GLBT people. Does that mean that gay and lesbian people are now part of the elite? No, indeed! Other credentials are required: lots of money, the right pedigree, the right race, the right presentation, etc. I'm a 74 year old gay man. I've seen my status in society improve steadily since, say, Stonewall in 1969. But I don't have much money or a great pedigree, though I am white. I don't have the right friends in high places and my political ideas are way way out in subversive left field. No elite dinner parties for me!

Suppose tomorrow all the police departments were defunded, Trump, the Senate, the House, and all 50 states committed themselves to eliminating racism in 5 years (please don't try holding your breath) would you then be equal to the elite? No you would not. You would still need the large amount of money, the right pedigree, the right presentation, the right contacts, education, and so on. You'd still be some kind of a prole, like just about everybody else.

The elite's primary project is to remain the elite and keep the rest of us on edge with each other so we don't turn on them! They are good at this. They've been doing it for centuries, all over the world.

The elite's primary project is to remain the elite and keep the rest of us on edge with each other so we don't turn on them! They are good at this. They've been doing it for centuries, all over the world. — Bitter Crank

Do you really think there is some kind of consistent coordination amongst the super rich and politically powerful? Do Soros and Koch brothers and Putin all want the same things? Is Bill Gates in league with Xi Jinping? Are Oprah and the Saudi Prince on the same side?

Mr. Robot's a great show, but its global 1% of the 1% club led by a mastermind state Chinese hacker is a little on the conspiratorial side, as is the Illuminati. Sure, Jeff Bezos and Aliko Dangote want to keep their billions and strive to continue being successful, but that's a little different than a global effort by all the elites to keep everyone else out.

Also, they'd have to admit Trump is part of the plan.

Those complicit regarding matters of institutional racism and it's residual effects/affects will remain so as long as doing so poses no threat to their own lives and/or livelihoods.

Is that a good summary?

I mean, do I understand you correctly? — creativesoul

Well, it's not far off. What I actually believe is that people become very easily drawn into patterns of behaviour (whether that's a job, childcare, or socialising) where they adopt the social norms of that group, so it's not so much about something tangible like lives and livelihoods, but something slightly more intangible, the social role in their group. But this is not a crucial distinction here. The point is that it has been demonstrated over and again (see studies by Martin&Hewstone, Burgoon and Nemeth for examples) that the persuasiveness of messages from dissenting groups is carried by the extent to which they deviate from the accepted social norms. Basically, a message carried via some socially normal means get subsumed into the existing culture too easily, it takes one resistant to social norms to snap people out of standard thinking patterns so that they can engage with new ideas.

The accumulation of material wealth is a strong social norm in most groups, so it has a strong correlation with those most interested in maintaining the structures which promote it, but I think it's the social norms, not the money that does the driving.

Here in the UK, it's the rightwing media which drives racism, to boost their readership and make a bit of profit. Not to mention, as a driver for Brexit.

Please watch this and share your thoughts. — Tzeentch

Did someone already answer this? Or is this some kind of mine field trap? I'll give my thoughts anyway:

Shelby Steele is one of those few critics in the black community who point out things and do make a genuine point, but unfortunately are seen as giving ammunition to racists and hence are political incorrect, persona non grata or are seen as an uncle Tom, a person regarded as betraying their cultural or social allegiance. Has every program intended to improve the situation of African Americans failed as Steele says? I don't think that is the case, but surely not all have been a success. Just to give an example (from the interview you posted), when Steele says (22+ min forward) that "White guilt is based on the terror of being seen as a racist" and later "the black leadership have become hustlers who work this white guilt", that comment would be something that white supremacists would love to use.

I personally like more for example professor Glenn Loury, who does see the similar problems yet who can be critical even about himself. He comments a lot of various related issues on Bloggingheads Tv etc, yet here's a more prepared lecture from him (1h 30min) which is called "When Black Lives Matter: On the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America", which I thought was very good. The interesting story is when he as a young economist meets black leadership and Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King jr and how Loury now reflects on that meeting in the 80's. Yes, these issues and the criticism Loury (and Steele) make isn't anything new.

Here in the UK, it's the rightwing media which drives racism, to boost their readership and make a bit of profit. Not to mention, as a driver for Brexit. — Punshhh

Unlikely. Newspapers seem to respond to bias, not drive it. People are always looking for some external bogeyman to blame.

Here in the UK, it's the rightwing media which drives racism, to boost their readership and make a bit of profit. Not to mention, as a driver for Brexit. — Punshhh

You can choose to read the Guardian.

The bigger issue is that in present times the media chooses what group it wants to conform. It's back a hundred years or more to a time when one class read one newspaper and the other class another, which had news totally different from each other. Just like with the social media automata chooses just what you want to hear based on your earlier choices.

Journalistic objectivity is seen to be so lame and outdated. One has to "take a side" as things are so bad today, they say.

I don't doubt you. I do not doubt that there are those in the shadows pulling the puppet strings who are the 1%. But let me ask you though, what ethnicity are those pulling those strings? Thinking about this a quote by LBJ comes to my mind:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

22,000 children are killed at work every year in positions of slavery working to produce the crap that supports our 'peaceful society'.

I'm not advocating violence, but it's willful blindness to pretend that violence isn't already happening. Its just neatly hidden away. — Isaac

Great that you don't advocate violence. Me neither.

So let's enlarge this to the scope of the World, if just 330 million in the US isn't enough. With that enlargement it comes even more complex. Yes, how do you improve the working standards in Third World countries? Well, how has it become better in the UK, Japan, South Korea and so on? I would argue that there's a guideline and we can learn from the past on how countries have improved the situation of their workforce, but perhaps this is for another thread as it's quite far from the actual topic discussed here.

And if in Ethiopia a Chine factory uses child labor in miserable working conditions, that is the reason to burn down a McDonalds in Wyoming? That will really help the Ethiopian children or what?

Or is your question about just how much blood you and I have on our hands if we have a smartphone that has lithium battery using cobalt mined from the Republic of Congo? That's the willful blindness? Am I then better than you if my smartphone's battery uses cobalt dug up from the Murrin Murrin Mine near Laverton, Western Australia? I assume they have safety regulations, even environmental regulations and decent salaries there, so have I genuinely made the World a better place? Surely something has to be done, but how do we get the change we want?

Better to use these happy Australians...


...than him?

And if in Ethiopia a Chine factory uses child labor in miserable working conditions, that is the reason to burn down a McDonalds in Wyoming? That will really help the Ethiopian children or what? — ssu

No, but McDonald's using child labour in miserable working conditions is a reason to burn down McDonald's in Wyoming.

And if it wasn't that, they'd be getting their finance from a bank which makes money out of other companies linked to slave labour. Global finance makes most companies complicit unless they take care to avoid it.

if we have a smartphone that has lithium battery using cobalt mined from the Republic of Congo? That's the willful blindness? — ssu

That's certainly one of the issues, yes. If we think that we live in a 'peaceful' society where everyone has a phone which has been made with child slave labour, then yes, they are wilfully blind to the violence their society is built on. But it's much wider than that, the history of violence to minority ethnic groups and lower classes is what's allowed this prosperity, it's not a coincidence. The stress policing in America is just another example of a violent situation used to maintain the 'peace' of the more wealthy.

Surely something has to be done, but how do we get the change we want? — ssu

Well, as I mentioned to CS above, messages carried within the current social norms tend to get subsumed relative to messages carried in ways outside of social norms. So we protest. If McDonalds thinks it's OK to use child slaves to make their stuff, then a stiff letter isn't going to cut it. Burning them down might.

Yeah I see how they treated Meghan Markle

No, but McDonald's using child labour in miserable working conditions is a reason to burn down McDonald's in Wyoming. - If McDonalds thinks it's OK to use child slaves to make their stuff, then a stiff letter isn't going to cut it. Burning them down might. — Isaac

So you admit it won't help the Ethiopians Chinese child labor. OK.

Do they at McDonalds think it's OK? Do you think that they are irrelevant of an media article like that appearing? So there's no other way than to burn down franchising to get the message? (Btw. the article is 20 years old, but it doesn't matter, nothing has changed in twenty years in China, right?)

And why stop there then?

Because let's remember that you had that smartphone which uses cobalt dug up by that poor Congolese kid, then perhaps your house should be burned down. Wouldn't that send even a better message to smartphone producers? That their sales would go down because people would be terrified of buying their smartphones, because some lunatics can set fire to their homes? If you don't use anti-child labor eco-friendly 'happy cobalt', your house might be burnt down. Wouldn't that just change peoples behavior!??? Remember I'm using the 'happy cobalt' mined by those happy miners adhering to environmental regulations at the Murrin Murrin mine. So, have I really made things better with my anti-child labor choices?

Oh well, at least with burning down that McDonalds in Wyoming you have likely put one franchising entrepreneur in severe economic difficulty and few low paid workers (who might be poc) out of a job because you burned their workplace down at a time when the economy is very bad and a pandemic is going around. Guess all that makes the World a better place then.

Even if you say you don't advocate violence, you sure do seem OK with it.

A happier World for Isaac:

Do they at McDonalds think it's OK? — ssu

Of course they think it's OK. They didn't accidentally use child labour.

Do you think that they are irrelevant of an media article like that appearing? — ssu

Yes, seeing as the number of slaves is increasing, I'd say the media article might have had an effect, but a very slow and inefficient one.

So there's no other way than to burn down franchising to get the message? — ssu

According to most of the studies I've read on the matter (I've cited a few above), there's no other way than to break social norms (which usually means breaking some law).

the article is 20 years old, but it doesn't matter, nothing has changed in twenty years in China, right? — ssu

I don't think the factors governing the global economy have changed in 20 yrs, no.

Because let's remember that you had that smartphone which uses cobalt dug up by that poor Congolese kid, then perhaps your house should be burned down. — ssu

Yes, if I'm significantly associated with the act of complicity then arson is certainly one of the illegal acts likely to get media attention on an issue. But individuals are almost never significantly associated with the act of complicity. There are much more effective target which cause much less harm. Why would anyone deliberately choose a more harmful, less effective form of protest?

If you don't use anti-child labor eco-friendly 'happy cobalt', your house might be burnt down. Wouldn't that just change peoples behavior!??? Remember I'm using the 'happy cobalt' mined by those happy miners adhering to environmental regulations at the Murrin Murrin mine. So, have I really made things better with my anti-child labor choices? — ssu

I don't understand the connection to the argument here.

at least with burning down that McDonalds in Wyoming you have likely put one franchising entrepreneur in severe economic difficulty and few low paid workers (who might be poc) out of a job because you burned their workplace down at a time when the economy is very bad and a pandemic is going around. Guess all that makes the World a better place then. — ssu

Well yes, that's the point. You'd need some evidence to counter it, simply repeating an argument back sarcastically doesn't constitue a counter-argument.

Did someone already answer this? Or is this some kind of mine field trap? I'll give my thoughts anyway:

Shelby Steele is one of those few critics in the black community who point out things and do make a genuine point, but unfortunately are seen as giving ammunition to racists and hence are political incorrect, persona non grata or are seen as an uncle Tom, a person regarded as betraying their cultural or social allegiance. Has every program intended to improve the situation of African Americans failed as Steele says? I don't think that is the case, but surely not all have been a success. Just to give an example (from the interview you posted), when Steele says (22+ min forward) that "White guilt is based on the terror of being seen as a racist" and later "the black leadership have become hustlers who work this white guilt", that comment would be something that white supremacists would love to use. — ssu

Shelby Steele more or less says in that interview that "blacks" don't have the right value system to deal with freedom and the responsibility that comes with it, and that they only have themselves to blame for the lack of progress since the 1960s.

Typical "laissez-faire capitalist and individualist bullshit" where you're poor because you're not working hard enough. Poverty as a personal failing instead of a social problem.

I don't know when he studied sociology but either he wasn't paying attention or it was 30 years ago. I stopped reading after that.

Unlikely. Newspapers seem to respond to bias, not drive it. People are always looking for some external bogeyman to blame.

Well I suppose the media could have exploited an underlying xenophobia in the population. But once the ball was rolling they just threw more and more fuel on the fire. Just like they did over Brexit.

There was a small residual scepticism about the EU, (which the tabloid media had been drip feeding for decades) which the populists, who were in league with the tabloid media, exploited. Resulting in a 52% victory for leave. Whereas just a few years earlier the levels of people who were sceptical of the EU, enough to even think about leaving it, was very few.

Poverty as a personal failing instead of a social problem. — Benkei

The liberal and the neoliberal illusion of personal responsibility which in turn argues against determinism. Last I remember, determinism has been the dominant philosophical truth about the world, but somehow it doesn't apply within liberal and neoliberal worldviews, even among liberal and neoliberals who accept determinism philosophically. In my opinion, the liberal hypocrisy at the foundation of the liberal illusion of being a free society for all people.

There are much more effective target which cause much less harm. Why would anyone deliberately choose a more harmful, less effective form of protest? — Isaac

Because it's not less effective. Terrorism works. It gets huge media coverage and gets people truly afraid. Would you publicly use a smart phone if someone can takes a photo of you, tracks down where you live and puts your house on fire?

But individuals are almost never significantly associated with the act of complicity. — Isaac

Who decides that? You?

I don't understand the connection to the argument here. — Isaac

I only tried to make a point of how ludicrous the web you create of what is complicity and what isn't. Because if a small cabal protest the use of something as complicity to bad behavior, then the question rises that what then is "good behavior"? Hence the comparison between cobalt and "happy cobalt".

And if you protest the situation of child labor in Congo, is then the answer to put an embargo on it and make things worse the 12,5 million people or one fifth of the population that is employed by Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining, because the country is such a mess that only a few mining companies dare to operate there?

Well yes, that's the point. You'd need some evidence to counter it, simply repeating an argument back sarcastically doesn't constitue a counter-argument. — Isaac

Well, I think a person that starts up a franchising business and employs typically young people (who many times have that job as their first) are people that I would support in my community even if don't him or her personally. Why the employees and the entrepreneur have to lose their jobs for a media photo op is disgusting and their "complicity" in the problems global markets is rather dubious.

Shelby Steele more or less says in that interview that "blacks" don't have the right value system to deal with freedom and the responsibility that comes with it, and that they only have themselves to blame for the lack of progress since the 1960s. - Typical "laissez-faire capitalist and individualist bullshit" where you're poor because you're not working hard enough. Poverty as a personal failing instead of a social problem. — Benkei

I'm not so sure that he said they have "only themselves to blame" and that his argument is the "get a haircut and get a real job"-answer or some Ayn Randian libertarian response.

I see a lot of similarities here to the structural problems in class differences between poor and rich, between blue collar and white collar families which are present even if people share the same ethnicity and have the same skin pigment. Naturally there is the addition of racism and bigotry, which turns things more ugly. Yet there are a lot of the issues that are similar starting for example the attitude towards education etc.

Would you publicly use a smart phone if someone can takes a photo of you, tracks down where you live and puts your house on fire? — ssu

No, I don't suppose I would. I can't think of a group of people who would want individuals to be terrified of having their lives and all their family's possessions put at risk, but at the same time be terribly concerned about the welfare of Congolese children. But yes, if there were such a bizarre group then threatening arson probably would work. Why, do you know of such a group?

Who decides that? You? — ssu

It's just a sociological fact. Individuals are rarely ascribed responsibilty for actions which involves a collective, especially where there's a power imbalance.

Because if a small cabal protest the use of something as complicity to bad behavior, then the question rises that what then is "good behavior"? — ssu

I don't understand the question. Are you having trouble seeing why not buying your phone from a company who are willing to exploit child labour might be considered "good behavior"?

And if you protest the situation of child labor in Congo, is then the answer to put an embargo on it and make things worse the 12,5 million people or one fifth of the population that is employed by Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining, because the country is such a mess that only a few mining companies dare to operate there? — ssu

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Why the employees and the entrepreneur have to lose their jobs for a media photo op is disgusting and their "complicity" in the problems global markets is rather dubious. — ssu

They're making a profit directly out of the fact that the products they sell have been made using slave labour. How is that 'dubious'?

Do you really think there is some kind of consistent coordination amongst the super rich and politically powerful? — Marchesk

Yes, to some extent. The elites have common financial interests (and competing ones, as well), and common issues with respect to governance, taxation, and so on. Do they get together to discuss how to manage the world's populations so that they stay on top? Probably not, but as a low level prole I can only guess.

The most powerful (by dint of brute power) and the richest members of the elite are multinational, China, Europe, and North America contain most of the multi-billionaires.

I'm not so sure that he said they have "only themselves to blame" and that his argument is the "get a haircut and get a real job"-answer or some Ayn Randian libertarian response. — ssu

He couches it in rhetorical questions but it's pretty clear. Read the transcript. It's easier to spot bad argumentation that way.

But yes, if there were such a bizarre group then threatening arson probably would work. Why, do you know of such a group? — Isaac

I know a lot of groups from history like that. They are called dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Keeping people in fear was/is a control tool for them. They differ from ordinary mobsters in that they surely have great plans for the improvement of the World, at least in their own thinking. The World is going to be a better place, if only you eradicate the capitalists / the jews / the communists whoever from society. That's how they think. Bold dramatic moves have to be taken! And they don't believe in democracy.

Are you having trouble seeing why not buying your phone from a company who are willing to exploit child labour might be considered "good behavior"? — Isaac

Are you having trouble seeing that we use mobile phones? Or computers? You are using some kind of hardware to write on this site, aren't you? If so, then people generally ask then: "OK, if I'm not going to use this bad company (because they use cobalt from Congo), what will I do then?"

They're making a profit directly out of the fact that the products they sell have been made using slave labour. How is that 'dubious'? — Isaac

And what's the difference then if you buy a toy made by child labour?

Are you less complicit than the young student working on the counter at the fast food restaurant trying to get some income? So you might be against attacking families that have bought a Happy-meal, but Ok with the young employee losing his or her job and perhaps happy about the entrepreneur losing his business. And all because it gets into the local news!

I know a lot of groups from history like that. They are called dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Keeping people in fear was/is a control tool for them. They differ from ordinary mobsters in that they surely have great plans for the improvement of the World, at least in their own thinking. The World is going to be a better place, if only you eradicate the capitalists / the jews / the communists whoever from society. That's how they think. Bold dramatic moves have to be taken! And they don't believe in democracy. — ssu

Right. And I'm sure for those groups such terrorist tactics probably work, at least for a time. BLM want fairer treatment for minorities, not the extermination of the Jewish race. The allies used the same tactics as the Nazis on the battlefield (shoot the enemy), does that make them basically the same? Intent matters.

people generally ask then: "OK, if I'm not going to use this bad company (because they use cobalt from Congo), what will I do then?" — ssu

Use one which doesn't use child labour. Why are you finding this concept so hard?

Are you less complicit than the young student working on the counter at the fast food restaurant trying to get some income? — ssu

Yes.

So you might be against attacking families that have bought a Happy-meal, but Ok with the young employee losing his or her job and perhaps happy about the entrepreneur losing his business. And all because it gets into the local news! — ssu

Yes. The young employee's income and the entrepreneur's profit both came from the use of child slave labour. Under what ethical system are you holding their situation to be in any sense more important?

I agree. The battlefield is much larger than what we see our on home front

Use one which doesn't use child labour. Why are you finding this concept so hard? — Isaac

Because it is goddam hard and the choices are quite arbitrary! A Dutch company tries to your eco-friendly phones called Fairphones. It says it can reach 40% of the materials used would be ethically sourced or recycled (of dozens of materials used). Again, arbitrary choices about what is complicit and what isn't.

And then you could ask yourself, if a fifth of the population of Congo gets income from mining and the vast amount of this is from artisanal and small scale mining (ASM), why would you then be against one of the most poorest people in the World? Is an embargo the best way?

ASM supports 16 to 20 percent of the population of the DRC and is a critical economic driver in the country’s move out of war (World Bank 2008). Because women make up as much as 50 percent of the ASM labor force and are often their families’ principal providers (Hinton, Veiga, and Beinhoff 2003), what happens in the ASM sector has tremendous economic implications for the country as a whole.

And furthemore:

ASM represents a tangible—and, in the short term, valuable—economic opportunity for both men and women in the DRC. ASM needs little advance investment or lead time, and therefore has significant potential to provide quick economic returns. If the sector’s association with conflict and abuse could be removed, its potential to generate peace dividends could be great.

The reality is complex, but your answers are simple and arbitrary.

The reality is complex, but your answers are simple and arbitrary. — ssu

:100:

Because it is goddam hard and the choices are quite arbitrary! A Dutch company tries to your eco-friendly phones called Fairphones. It says it can reach 40% of the materials used would be ethically sourced or recycled (of dozens of materials used). Again, arbitrary choices about what is complicit and what isn't. — ssu

How is 40% ethical sources arbitrary? It's obviously 40% better than non-ethically sourced. Are you suggesting there's some measurable disadvantages to be weighed against using child slave labour? Do they not make it in your colour?

if a fifth of the population of Congo gets income from mining and the vast amount of this is from artisanal and small scale mining (ASM), why would you then be against one of the most poorest people in the World? — ssu

Why would you think that continuing to support exploitative labour practices is the only way to help the poorest people in the world?

The reality is complex, but your answers are simple and arbitrary. — ssu

If all you've got is conservative slogans to flag-waive over there's not much point in continuing. You were previously extolling the virtues of making my voice heard via an election. Tell how choosing a political representative is a way of bringing about positive change but choosing a phone is complex and arbitrary?

We're talking about choices here - the ethical product vs the non-ethical one, law-breaking protest vs political campaigning, politician A vs politician B... How does the complexity of the world have any bearing on which to choose, all it does is make the choice complicated and difficult to see the consequences of. This isn't somehow magically less true for one option than another.

So do we just stop trying to make progress, because the world is complex. Just leave things exactly as they are just in case we break something? There's been violent protests since civilisation began, so how can you rail against them? The world is complex, you know. By 1833 we'd had 200 years of slavery and our economic system was built on it, should we have not abolished it because 'the world is complex'?

And how exactly is supporting law-breaking protest and ethical consumer choices 'simple', but opposing law-breaking protest and ethical consumer choices is not? What exactly is the complexity you're taking into account here? All you've provided is a bunch of speculation as to the possible consequences of either which is no less arbitrary than the predictions of the consequences of taking those actions.

I don't mean to pick you out, but this has getting my goat for some time. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, it's not a fucking football match. What exactly is this cheer-leading supposed to achieve?

...the beliefs are attached to the person and unfortunately generational beliefs do not change easily. — Anaxagoras

No, they do not. However, they can and do change.

As a black man myself, despite my ideals of egalitarianism I am left with the memories of my mother, father, and grand-parents of their struggle and the affect of their wariness implanted on my soul. Because of that, I'm left with the reality that I may indirectly implant the wariness of "non-persons of color" upon my potential children despite also implanting upon them the love for all humanity. — Anaxagoras

I'm wondering something here. I'll grant everything you've said here, and further state - unequivocally - that implanting a wariness is both necessary and good. Yet, this seems like something that you're no proud of... as if it is something that you do not want to perpetuate.

Until those who devalue and/or otherwise discriminate against black people are stripped of the power to negatively influence and/or harm blacks, then I would say imparting a sense of caution when navigating a life within the United States of America is not only ok, it's something to aspire towards.

Black people ought always be on the lookout for racists.

I think my death would suffice in helping promote egalitarianism... — Anaxagoras

Well, I'll have to take your word on that.

Just understand that from where I sit, I've no reason to believe that. However, because you do believe that, and you know yourself much better than I, if you say your death would be better for an egalitarian society to flourish, I'll have no choice but to take your word for it.

...there is still the question of complicity despite those who do not share the racist mentality. That itself is just as dangerous as the racist mind. — Anaxagoras

I would concur.

The recent protests have given me hope for the future in that there are multi-ethnic people champion the cause of a minority group. To see LGBTQA+ community come out in solidarity with BLM, to see whites, Asians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, nurses, doctors, professionals, and even policemen and women themselves come out in solidarity gives me hope. — Anaxagoras

It is an undeniable sign of the times. We are all fed up with it. It has no place in a society built upon the founding principles of a representative form of government.