In terms of how democracy should approach identity, and in this case a black woman who is extremely vulnerable and oppressed in America, this article is explicitly acknowledging how belonging in these different social groups affect their experience and starting a political movement to address these issues. I strongly I agree with this approach, as you cannot create change without focusing on where the problem comes from (racism and marginalization).

This is a perfect breakdown of how black people have been historically systematically oppressed. White people take advantage of the power they have in the economy, stepping on black people to advance themselves. Due to their monopoly over businesses, black people are forced to feed into their success by purchasing their goods while they are unable to open their own businesses. Although I agree this could lead to further segregation, I can understand why Malcolm X would want to build a separate economy apart from white people.

So many things are wrong with America, and I think it has felt like this for a very long time. He is saying that despite our flaws, we still are valuable in our innovation. It is comforting to hear that we are not the first to feel as if everything in our country is going wrong, and that there are still good things going for America.

I don't really understand this article very well, but find it interesting that he gave an entire speech at the DNC about currency and coinage. Today, politicians mostly debate social issues and what they will do to mitigate them, and I would have a hard time believing that a modern audience would find this speech very exciting or compelling. I do think it is interesting how he states that in individual is insignificant, but the principles they stand for will last forever and that this issue is bigger than any single individual, it is about a principle (dealing w/ currency).

The fourth of July (aside from Thanksgiving) is definitely one of the most unjust holidays that America celebrates. We tote the freedom that our citizens have, how everyone is equal and has so much opportunity in this country, when our country is built on the oppression of minority groups and the exploitation of their labor. Even now, many people still feel very disconnected from the fourth of July because of how the American government has wronged them and excluded their groups.

MLK is saying that he will not save his activism for when it is convenient for others. He won't waste time answering the petty criticisms of others, because this would be a useless and unproductive waste of his time. I think this is very strong and courageous of him, and that this is how all activism should work. For example, if we waited until it was convenient for President Trump to protest climate change (which would be never), no change would ever happen.

He is saying that the old will do anything to stay relevant to the present no matter what cost. I agree with this, and have seen this idea demonstrated throughout history especially with political figures desperately trying to keep their power and influence. This often leads to corruption and other unjust actions.

this sounds almost cult ish

This could be problematic. I think that if a law is not working, it should be protested against and disobeyed. Looking back on history, that's how many laws have gotten repealed (i.e. Prohibition, laws against gay sex, abortion, etc.). In fact, Americans should understand that the most because that's how we got Britain to repeal some unfair laws, by rebelling against them and causing an uproar. Since when would a bad law be changed if everyone is just happily following it?

I wonder what North America would look like if we had never united, and existed as independent states completely separate from each other? Maybe somehow we would have less problems and progress could be made more quickly because there would be less people who would have to come to a consensus? At the same time, I wonder if we would have less widespread social progress and less of a democracy because sometimes these types of progress are made when states put pressure on each other (for example when same sex marriage was legalized throughout America before some states hadn't).

I love that he declares that he is not familiar with the law courts, and isn't going to try to act like he is. He is explicitly stating that all he's going to do is tell his own truth and communicate in the honest way that he is accustomed to. This is bold of him, and in my opinion, the best way to conduct yourself in a court of law (and in general throughout life). I also think it's funny that this is titled "Apology" but it's in no way an apology.

Actually according to research done by historians relating to the history of women in the bible, they were originally very holy, important, and considered just as valuable as men (if not more). Research has shown that this has been covered up and hidden from the masses in order to suppress and devalue women, giving men more power and dominance in society.

I find this funny because this very statement goes against the point it is trying to make. While advocating for equality, this statement is simultaneously perpetrating inequality by excluding women and people of color (although this is not explicitly stated). I have found that there are a lot of these types of statements in early texts about equality and independence that claim to want to promote equality but only for a very specific white male demographic.

It seems like we have been drifting very far away from these principles lately. However, the truth is we never really adhered to these ideas in the first place! Although they have been extensively discussed and encouraged by many texts and individuals, we have never truly had representatives that all think, feel, and reason just like their constituents because of inequalities.

the former is honor, the latter is virtue. honor is a part of virtue, but virtue is more important in the "scale of moral excellence"

America has long since been a place where everyone could seek freedom and asylum from persecution. We started out as a melding pot for all types of people, and were seen from the get go as a place everyone could come to regardless of religion, social standing, etc. Why is it that we are now turning back from the very reason we became a country?

better not to be connected with Britain and develop enemies in europe by association

so were there a lot of immigrants from elsewhere in england?

In short, entitled men

I don't understand why there would be hereditary succession following a king who as elected, why wouldn't they follow the first kings precedent and keep doing elections? It just doesn't make sense to me, unless I'm misunderstanding the text.

what does becoming king "by lot" entail

It seems like he is almost condemning colonialism, which is interesting for the time period he is in. Seems like Thomas Paine was ahead of his time in his thinking.

I am pretty confused by most of the Magna Carta, especially about what a “fief” is, but I can see how our constitution and the rights we associate as being granted by a democracy come from the Magna Carta. Even back in the day, everyone was granted the right to justice, and no one was to be punished without judgement by their peers or by the law. Although the human rights entailed in the Magna Carta are very bare bones and certainly not granted to everyone, it is interesting that certain rights have long been associated with democracy.

I think it’s so interesting and thought provoking how he comments on these (more toxic) ways of human nature that are often informally discussed. We often talk about jealousy and the situations he mentioned (such as when you think someone is exaggerating because you are too jealous to believe them) in more casual settings and in a more gossipy and petty way, which made it all the more interesting to see Thucydides mention this in such a formal, academic paper.

I find it interesting how Otanes, who is seemingly the best candidate for king, is withdrawing himself from consideration of that position. He clearly has a sound understanding of democracy, equality ("before the law"), and the unfairness that can occur when a single man has power over everything. However, he adhered his actions to his words and avoided the hypocrisy of becoming the very thing he condemned, displaying the soundness of his beliefs that there should be democracy. In a way, his actions are reminiscent of George Washington’s declination to run for president for a second term.