I think the idea about AIDS that many people think it is embracing is a huge issue. Some times the person who have the disease is a normal person but he carried it from someone who did not tell that he has it.

So is he is trying to support the homosexuality campaigns and try to give them suggestions as well? I feel like this is a big issue around this topic that should be studied well since it does not just cause diseases, it affect the society negatively as well.

For me, I feel like the answer of this question should be , if god gave us brains to think, why do those people who practice homosexuality are still thinking of ways to avoid the diseases that results from this practice? we need to put in mind that anything outside of our primitiveness is going to cause tragedies.

These short sentences carry a heavy message that is found in today's society. We are all human. We all suffer. AIDS was affecting the lives of humans that lived normal lives. These gay men are pleading with the government to see them as people, not gay men. The tone of this is completely different from Falwell's speech. In Falwell's "Homosexual Revolution", gays are the bad guys who are trying to take over. This statement by Mr. Lyon holds more truth- whether gay or straight, we are all human and we all suffer. In the 1980's, the gay community was suffering from a new disease. They wanted help. They wanted to be taken serious. They wanted to be treated.

The politicized nature of this problem did a great disservice to those who suffered from AIDS. The inaction by the government and the act of people ostracizing those with the disease, only increased the epidemic. The American government routinely ignores issues that affect minorities or involve sex. In this case, unfortunately, both of those denominators were present. Each one of these patients felt like their pain was doubled because of the stigma associated with AIDS. If AIDS had been taken seriously, work could have been done to provide accurate information and support for this community. The handling of this situation is one of the biggest failures of our government.

This differs greatly from the statement from AIDS patients, who were gay men suffering. This message is hypocritical because of the lack of love.

Falwell calls out homosexuals with a hateful tone and uses the Bible to do so. Although the Bible does speak of the sins of homosexuality, Falwell uses this to his advantage with hopes of gaining something for himself. This is ironic because the typical Christian is not greedy and manipulative. This statement carries weight of false ideas of the homosexuals in America at the time.

It's interesting to see the goals people assume the LGBT community has for America. The rhetoric displayed by Falwell is very similar to statements made today about homosexuality. Outside of religious beliefs, he does not describe any specific effect the "homosexual revolution" would have on society. Falwell is essentially grandstanding and using fear tactics to avoid actually having to give information. It is impossible to glean what actual consequences would occur. America is far more accepting of the LGBT community now and nothing catastrophic has happened. Unfortunately, the worst part of the situation is the action heterosexual people take to degrade the homosexual community.

The New Deal had allowed the government to have too much control over the people. Reagan pushed for Americans to work hard and put into the government once helped, rather than continuously receiving. Reagan is saying that the government only has as much control over the people as the people let it to a certain extent. People took advantage of the programs and benefits of the New Deal. The time had come to stray away from handouts from the government.

Vietnam changed the landscape of broadcasting and activism regarding war. The mass media coverage allowed people to see the atrocities being committed by and against American soldiers. Kerry astutely points out that the involvement of American troops was not justifiable, if one knows what the political and cultural landscape actually was. While not everyone was aware of it then, the idea that America knows best and Western practices/democracy are the only way to go, falsely justified Vietnam. The threat was not great and the reaction was out of proportion. Studying this war can allow for people to understand the importance of understanding the complexities of other nations and how involvement can be incredibly detrimental.

Here I agree, the bulk of those who died during the Vietnam War were African Americans and poor white people. The only problem is this is not where the protest came from, the protest were made up largely of white people, from a middle to upper class background, and with a college education. So, the people they are protesting for are still going to Vietnam to die while they are back home undermining the efforts of those people.

Yes, I believe that the right place for is women is home. Women role in life is not politics. However, if men, who are in the power are neglecting the needs and rights of women, then actions have to be taken.

While reading the article, I asked myself that am I really busy with house work and having no leisure time, or in my case enough for my study. I am, in fact, a mother of two children and still have enough time and enjoying being a wife and a mother at the same time. Simply, because my husband feels the responsibility to share home duties with me. The article is depicted the life of mother as a piece of hell. However, the reality is life with being married and having children is a piece of heaven.

Marketing becomes the biggest deceptive business nowadays. The more deceptive you are, the better sales men you become. Best example is car industry. Cars become a piece of paper while it is used to be made of hard metal. Car industries are hungry of money.

It is hard to imagine going living through this period of time as a young girl. She didn't have the funds to complete her education, which I'm sure added to her trouble finding a job. You can hear the desperation through her writing and it portrays the reality of what most of these people were experiencing.

There should be strict rules for both blacks and whites since it'll reduce the amount of crimes.

Newspaper is one of the most effective ways that impacts on people, so I think they used to lie in the news meanly in order to erupt people.

It seems like people did not have any sympathy among each other. At least they should have had a sympathy among babies and mothers.

In my opinion, I think he is trying to send a message to people and convince them that the only way to solve this problem is to coexist and respect each other.

It is such a good behavior that the colored people did not do anything so they do not increase the problem. Also, it is a good sign that a white man was arrested since he broke the rules and it seems that people started to be kind of treated equally.

There is a big difference between the reaction of people after the movie of "Birth of a Nation" and the song of "Jump Jim Crow" when a lot of people used the word of "Jim Crow", in order to make fun of the colored people and on the other hand, because the colored did not have a power, the NAACP was trying to cut some of the raciest scenes in the movie.

Even though African Americans were oppressed, they should not have done such a thing since they did not have a power. They should have made something legal that can fix the relationships with the white people.

This can be compared to modern day politics. The idea that immigrants are taking American jobs, damaging the economy, and causing harm and worry is nothing new. This shows that history can be displayed throughout itself; maybe just in a different scenario.

This is a good response to the use of god in justifying expansion. By showing a man invoking god's name then showing what he was calling on god for really shows how ridiculous the religious argument was. Even though it seems ridiculous in the other reading William McKinley essentially did exactly this.

The patriotic and cheerful tone asserted by Twain in this story pointedly reveals the hypocrisy of the church when it comes to war. The earthly glories of war and the deep sense of patriotic duty being promoted by the church is in stark contrast to the reality of war. The "aged stranger" brings attention to the truth of what these men are going into. In the Mennonite religion, followers are discouraged from saying the pledge of allegiance because they believe ones loyalty should lie with God and not with one's country. I am not necessarily denouncing patriotism or loyalty to ones country, but there is a great divide between the Gospel and the actions in war and colonization. Twain's use of satire expertly highlights an age old issue.

William McKinley's second justification is far less rational. The religious argument is not a sound political justification but is an emotional one. Earlier he made the point that the world was zero sum and if we didn't exploit the Philippines someone else would. This seems far more like an excuse then the earlier point.

William McKinley's justification is more complex then I originally thought, it's two arguments. In this section McKinley actually makes a realistic foreign policy argument. We couldn't leave the Philippines to our international rivals to exploit, is actually sound justification for the time.

Americans justified expansionism back then by using the idea that they were a nation chosen by God and that they were the best one. They then needed to help every people seeking help. They felt like the Philippines was unworthy of being a self-governed territory and that is how they justified their willingness to take over it: by saying that Philippines needed their help

A few years ago, a successful life for me was be a good student, get good grades, study in a good school, and get a good job. However, successful life for me now is to be a good person, raise my children in a good way, be able to benefit the society.

Even though I agree with him to build hospitals, libraries, and universities, I do not agree with the halls since I think this is one of the country's tasks to provide such these things for people. I think, there are a lot of people who deserve to have charities more than building halls. The main idea for rich people to benefit the society by giving their monies is to benefit the society and reduce the poverty in the country.

I think this is one of the best ideas that can help the society. Since in my country we do not have much libraries that encourage the children or people to come and read, a lot of people are not used to read and they do not like reading. In my opinion, if someone gave this valuable gift in my country, he will definitely benefit the society and the number of readers may increase a lot.

I think in my opinion, there should be a specific amount of money that should be given for poor people and the rest is distributed between his family. In other words, the amount of money should be the same for any person and it should not depend on the person's wealth.

I really like the idea that there are taxes that are paid from rich people since if we think about it if a person dies, the money he has where is it going to be? it is not a good idea to leave it and there are many families who really need someone to support them.

Is a waddy another name for a cowboy? Maybe an unexperienced cowboy or something like that?

You just just sense the pride and excitement of this community. They're painting a beautiful picture of this settlement, almost as if they're trying to pitch the idea of moving there to other African Americans.

You can almost sense the desperation in the tone of this greeting. They're reaching out to the President of the United States to try to end this because they don't feel like enough is being done.

I believe that these statistics help argue for his petition. As the President listens on to this, I find it hard to imagine that he could hear the massive amount of his citizens being lynched and be content with that number. I think that these 10,000 Americans act as an eye opener that hopefully would bring about change (in at least policy towards lynching) in the White House.

Here he is explaining the message that the white man doesn't want to accept, that both races can prosper from each other and live without conflict if the whites would accept the help. They want to do the jobs that no one else wants to do and ultimately help the economy, a lot like the situation we see today with illegal immigrants.

The feeling of unimportance was more than enough to encourage African Americans to seek the highest level and be viewed as a person rather than an object. They made the most of their newfound freedom by chasing after a name for themselves.

My immediate thoughts went straight to the reading about George White's farewell address. In it, he argued about the potential the South and the United States as a whole had when both races came together and worked towards a common goal. Immediately here, Washington starts a call to action for both races to think about the potential they have working together and to use those thoughts a vision for the future.

I feel like this was extremely relevant and an amazing quote for the situation at hand. I also feel like this quote could be applied to my life, as well as many college students life's. We will start at bottom of our career field once we graduate. And with hard work we can soon prosper.

I felt like this quote meant that you need to deal with the things you are already surrounded with instead of reaching out for different things.

This quote means so much in today's world. The fact that no matter where you or what group of people you are around you can always make acquaintances and life long relationships. Learning to let go go of every thing else and just look at and listen the the type of person someone is makes life a whole lot easier and less stressful. I really wish that this quote was recognized by people in today's world more often.

The years just after the Civil War were great time for African Americans to run for political offices because of the lack of segregation that had not been established yet. It seems to me that in the African American community that political offices were one of the greatest accomplishments one could obtain. When he says that it was more sought after then learning trades or owning land really shocked me because in our current time having understanding or being part our political system is not considered important to us now.

Can we really say that the accommodations for each race were truly equal? No, we can not. The amount of resources provided to each may have very well been equal, but the quality of those resources is what I come to question. For example, both races could have working toilets, but that does not mean the quality of the "blacks only" one worked well or even all the time. I do not think the issue is a matter of quantity, but quality. Giving them the same resources that are valued at different prices is not equal. Continually, the court ruled in this case that segregation was not discrimination. However true that may be, segregation where one race is not as equally valued or cared for as the other is discrimination. The word explains itself, unjust treatment and singling out.

This is a great example of political correctness- relaying the statement in a positive manner yet contradicting this very statement by separating the races on the train.

This comparison shows us the unwillingness of the white man to accept African Americans as equal individuals.

This is evident in multiple parts of the court cases. One main point is when it discusses how Plessy is only 1/8th African American, which cannot be used against him in law yet Louisiana continued to argue against this. The state courts were inconsistent between their rulings and the rulings of the Constitution which should allow Plessy to be treated equal in the regards to his race.

When reading this information I am reminded of du Bois' idea of double consciousness and how, in this case, the petitioner lived with the privileges of a white man. It begs questions of what defines "blackness" and how someone who is culturally white can still be considered black due to a small proportion of his genetics. It seems incredibly backwards that any amount of blackness immediately makes you black due to something as trivial as aesthetics.

It's crazy to me that he didn't belong with the white race, according to the conductor, because he had 1/8th of African American in him. He's almost completely white but because of the 1/8th in him, he's considered different or not as good.

Interesting that the conductor was singling out a man who was only 1/8 colored... Not sure this would look like anything more than a nice tan. Conductor was obviously looking for a fight.

I feel like Plessy did not win anything from the court except adding the word "Equal". After adding the new laws, it seems like people, who added the new laws, were trying to make it seems nice but in my opinion it is not, since what I found when I looked in the internet is that anything for blacks was a low quality which did not support the word "equal but separate".

I feel as if the only reason Plessy was able to have a case is because of him only being one eighth black and that you couldn't tell that he was of mixed decent. If his mixture of decent would of weighted more towards the black side and he was a notably black then he would of not had a chance in court

In the middle of the first section, I having a hard time understanding it. He talks about how "the next morning... [he'll] be blazing up again." I read this as his persistence to keep moving forward. He talks about earlier his time in Mississippi where he is making the best of the worst situation. Is this that same type of persistence to keep moving forward even though no matter where he goes, they will "Jump Jim Crow?"

I am wondering why there was so much aggression on whether African Americans could or couldn't ride on passenger cars by the major. It would in turn give the city's increased revenue for the future growth of their city, so why he has let himself be blinded by his own ridiculous and outrageous beliefs to see the benefits of equality of all races.

An unresolved issue to this day... People then (and people now) were uneducated about the realities of slave life. Breaks my heart to see how they were treated.

There is obviously more emotion wrapped up in this lettter than I previously realized. I do not believe this has anything to do with the ordinary physical abuse, but more so to do with sexual abuse which leads to mental abuse. This is a big underlying issue that is playing a factor in their decision to move or not to move; the fear of their daughters being sexually itemized by the males present at the old master's home. I completely understand this fear and empathize more with their side of this on the hesitation to move. Reading between the lines here, we are able to get a deeper understanding of the type of treatment women and possibly even men went through while being enslaved.

He could tell him many things to get him to come there, but that does not mean he is making false promises. I guess I just don't understand why Jourdon would want to even go back to his old master if he is doing so well now and earning a sense of respect from others around him. I just don't know if I could go back and work for someone who has shot at me several times without the promise of pay. I would not have the trust in me to do so, no matter how much I was promised.

There is a lot of intensity here. There are obviously previous situations that are having a toll on him (Matilda and Catherine), making him hesitant to make any moves in an effort to protect his daughters. I can imagine this being his top priority.

Who is Miss Mary, Miss Martha, Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee? Are they relatives to Colonel P.H. Anderson or former slaves themselves?

I can definitely understand both sides. Being in their position I would be afraid to go back and work for someone whom had recently enslaved me. My main concern would be that my old master would revert back to his old ways of treatment and continue to view me as a slave instead of the human that I am. However, I can understand if the master is hesitant in sending the wages because there is the chance of him sending them and then never hearing from the Anderson's again causing him to lose a great deal. I do not believe that what they are asking could be considered a "real test of sincerity" as he puts it in his letter, because it could go bad for either side.

Hmm, interesting. I know that Lydia Maria Child was a pretty famous abolitionist and writer. I wonder how her editing of this book had to do with the selection of a letter like this one? Where do you think she got the letter?

What is he referring to here do you think? Who are Matilda and Catherine?

Wow, I'm beginning to think I was misreading this letter! This is clearly a shift in tone and Jourdon Anderson is obviously trying to get his former "master" to understand and respond to the injustice of having held him as a slave.

I guess I'm thinking a lot about this theme of respect and how people are addressed, but this just seemed really important to me. He's really emphasizing that he and his wife are better off, not only economically, but in terms of how they're treated by people around them.

While I understand why this is news (because it is Philadelphia in 1868) I can't help but laugh at the fact that it is news. I also find it interesting though how they add both the former and current mayor's of Philadelphia had some sort of input. McMichael was the mayor in 1868 so of course the people would find what he says to be how they should feel as well. Makes me wonder if that is why he didn't take a side?