The reaction of Black men to feminism has been notoriously negative. They are, of course, even more threatened than Black women by the possibility that Black feminists might organize around our own needs.
I find it interesting how men in general are against feminism, no matter their race or what they identify with. They think feminism is this scary concept of women wanting to take over which is totally not true.
The fact that racial politics and indeed racism are pervasive factors in our lives did not allow us, and still does not allow most Black women, to look more deeply into our own experiences and, from that sharing and growing consciousness, to build a politics that will change our lives and inevitably end our oppression
Without being a feminist in this society especially as a minority women, you are going to be oppressed. Without fighting together for our rights that oppression is not going to leave us.
Black women’s extremely negative relationship to the American political system (a system of white male rule) has always been determined by our membership in two oppressed racial and sexual castes.
As a women, you are already a minority in this male dominated nation. But as a black women you are a double minority which puts you in a more vulnerable position.
Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election-time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party, you’re not only a chump but you’re a traitor to your race. [applause]
Malcom X says how the government isn't to be relied on because of every time we elect someone they can't keep the promises they made during elections, Malcom X urges people to take matters into their own hands
And once you and I go into business, we own and operate at least the businesses in our community. What we will be doing is developing a situation, wherein, we will actually be able to create employment for the people in the community.
Malcom X wants to create a secluded community for his people, he wants to provide jobs and education within the community, so people don't depend on the government or other people because that isn't helpful.
So the political philosophy of black nationalism only means that we will have to carry on a program, a political program, of reeducation – to open our people’s eyes, make us become more politically conscious, politically mature.
Malcom X explains that black nationalism's philosophy is all about reeducation, because the community might be not be fully educated or even accurately educated
We know that individual liberty and individual happiness mean nothing unless both are ordered in the sense that one man’s meat is not another man’s poison.
FDR here says that one ma's happiness shouldn't depend on another man's misery. FDR is advocating for equality for the individual and his freedom
The most brilliant, honest and able exponent of this point of view was Hamilton. He was too impatient of slow moving methods.
FDR saw Hamilton as a role model because of how brilliant his point of views were according to FDr. Hamilton was a strong federalist who believed in a strong central power and that's what FDR is trying to advocate for through this speech
The growth of the national governments of Europe was a struggle for the development of a centralized force in the nation, strong enough to impose peace upon ruling barons
the way the European union works and how it's grown into a centralized force makes the individuals feel better and safer
You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
Very interesting saying right here. It's a biblical illusion thta helps end the speech powerfully by making the audience think about unrestricting the currency and support "free silver"
I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing business.
A very democratic stand point in terms of economy, people complain about the government staying out of the money functions because it's an issue for the bank. William Jennings Bryan explains why he thinks that's wrong
Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party.
This was the beginning of a new era where people can voice their opinion about their political party, and whether they like something or not.
When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!
Powerful statement that Douglass makes here. Slaves are moral and intellectual beings not animals. They can read and write if they are taught as opposed to animals who can't.
I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait — perhaps a national weakness.
We as Americans, even to this day are perceived as arrogant people who know nothing about other places/people. Douglass is right in saying that might be a weakness because being perceived as careless arrogant people isn't putting us in the best position with other people surrounding us
Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it),
Douglass here is basically saying that no matter what there is always going to be haters. These people are going tp have a certain mindset and they are not going to want to change it because they think they're right. This comes from a place of arrogance and close-mindedness.
I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.
MLK makes a powerful statement here saying that he and his followers know better than to have bad and violent protests to achieve civil rights, because there is no point in achieving something moral if you are doing immorally
Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.
MLK argues that without nonviolent actions and protests, nothing would get achieved. Without brining light to issues our society is facing through peaceful protests, we are standing on the sidelines watching and not having a voice to bring change
e have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter
everyone keeps telling MLK to "wait" for the "right" time to protest and demand basic civil rights, but MLK says there is no "right" time for civil rights to happen and they have to happen now for change to happen.
Religion, the dominion of the human mind;
saying religion controls everything in our lives, which is very untrue especially today
Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage.
I disagree with this because everything that is illegal doesn't stand for "integrity, self-reliance, and courage." Actually many illegal acts are literally the opposed of these three adjectives.
Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.
Goldman argues that anarchism slaps man with common sense. A man doesn't need God or the government telling him what to, he can do whatever he wants
It does not educate
government does not educate, it imposes on us
Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was.
actions are revolutionary, what you do to make sure something is right is the only way to do the right thing
His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought.
someone who thinks their only role in society is to vote is no better than someone who is uneducated and bribed to vote for someone. Thoreau argues this because he thinks people should be more involved in their nation's affairs
It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump
its not about how good you are and think, but its about what you do with your "goodness"
This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
we have work on improving our rights and liberty for our fathers, ourselves, and to improve our species as a whole
That our government should have been maintained in its original form from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at. It had many props to support it through that period, which now are decayed, and crumbled away.
expecting our government to stay the same all throughout times is a little ridiculous because what worked then might not work now because of how different these times are
What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?” I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences.
the mobs and everything preventing slavery from ending has everything to do with how the political institution is perceived because it shows the evils of the government
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
the main differences between a democracy and a republic seem to be related to the people and how they are represented
To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.
the majority faction over ruling the minority faction seems to be a big concern and the way to prevent it seems to be by popular government
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
one shouldn't judge themselves on something they did because they could lie to protect themselves which is the case with many things and people
So far it is from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general constitution than in those of the states, the contrary is evidently the fact.
the bill of rights is the only thing that's going to help the people thrive with a strong central government
The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass.
having a central power that is going to control everything is going to make the people suspicious of those leaders that get to make all the decisions and thus not trusting and supporting them which could lead to the destruction of the country
It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.
federal legislative that takes all the power is going to destroy liberty because a strong central government is going to mirror Britain's tyranny that led to revolting in the first place
But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally; and on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised,
Plato asked questions that helped him look not guilty of any crime and he was successfully proving himself innocent
Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, wisdom such as may perhaps be attained by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom which I may fail to describe,
Plato knows he is in the situation he is in because he's regarded as being really wise by the people of Athens. People back then probably thought anyone with that much wisdom that isn't God must be evil or not normal.
All who from envy and malice have persuaded you—some of them having first convinced themselves—all this class of men are most difficult to deal with; for I cannot have them up here, and cross-examine them, and therefore I must simply fight with shadows in my own defence, and argue when there is no one who answers.
Plato knows he's being framed because his accusers are jealous and are feeling malice towards him, but he doesn't let that get to him and is very confident in representing himself.
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
Women throughout history were ruled over by men and they didn't let them do anything like voting or voicing their opinions. The author says enough is enough and it's time for change.
That woman is man’s equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.
This demands equality for women not just because it's right but because God wanted it that way. The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions uses the appeal of religion to convince the readers/listeners equality is the law of the land.
From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.
It's not about what form of government we have, it's about what the government does to help and make its people happy. That's the best form of government.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
in our declaration of independence, our founding fathers encourage us to rebel against any form of government that interferes with our rights and our liberty, which is what we need to remember about our government and politics now
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
society and government are so intertwined in the world we live in today, but they are very easily distinguishable according to the author. He has a very anti-government approach and thinks the people have the positive impact while the government has the negative impact on us the people
And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
i've noticed this reading shows how very anti-semitic that period of time was that even in a time were women had no rights or voice, they had rights to protect them from repaying Jews. All the anti-semitism came from Christians thinking that jews were less than they were
But what was the road by which we reached our position, what the form of government under which our greatness grew, what the national habits out of which it sprang; these are questions which I may try to solve before I proceed to my panegyric upon these men; since I think this to be a subject upon which on the present occasion a speaker may properly dwell, and to which the whole assemblage, whether citizens or foreigners, may listen with advantage.
Thucydides here asks valid questions that are very intriguing to me because they focus on how we got to where we are today and our government had to go through to get here. It's also important to note that the history of how we started our government is helpful to us figuring out how our government works today.
I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve; and, moreover, that we should not repeal the good laws of our fathers; that were ill done.
we should keep the laws of our fathers and make better laws for the future
but let us choose a company of the best men and invest these with the power. For we ourselves shall be of that company; and where we have the best men, there ’tis like that we shall the best counsels.”
we should choose the people who are going to voice us and make our laws
What right order is there to be found in monarchy, when the ruler can do what he will, nor be held to account for it?
one ruler having all the power makes the ruler too powerful and not accountable for anything
to all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he bids you give the power to the multitude, his judgment falls short of the best.
judgment is clouded by the power
This double cause is the root of all evil in him;
all the power gets to the rulers head and makes him evil
Otanes was for giving the government to the whole body of the Persian people
wants a fair government where everyone has a voice