Why is the idea of a liberal citizen meant only in terms of political inclusion in society? I think that the word citizen should entail structural effects and social dynamics.

I think that there is too much of an emphasis on the categorization of historical periods. People give names to different periods of time to help categorize events, but I agree with Rana that historical periods fold into one another. The idea that there are clear breaks in history is dangerous because it leads to ideas / slogans such as "make America great again", which insinuates that there was a time period that was perfect. This idea is also perpetuated by school systems because we are taught the events of history as clear breaks on a timeline. School systems and teachers should put more of an emphasis on how history is intertwined and how it develops.

I think that the phrase necessary evil is simply a lazy excuse to do something morally corrupt. Is something truly necessary if it is deemed evil, especially in a time period where religion was incredibly important to people.

I feel as though this is a continuity throughout history; it is harder for those who are privileged to understand and want to help those without power. That is not to say that people who are privileged always ignore social issues such as this, but it is much easier to ignore something that is not perceived to be directly tied to you.

If the idea of the white worker is being discussed in terms of how it developed, why is the creation of whiteness being described as prehistory? Wouldn't anything that comes before a particular idea, white worker in this case, be simply referred to as history?