37 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. In our consciousness-raising sessions, for example, we have in many ways gone beyond white women’s revelations because we are dealing with the implications of race and class as well as sex. Even our Black women’s style of talking/testifying in Black language about what we have experienced has a resonance that is both cultural and political. We have spent a great deal of energy delving into the cultural and experiential nature of our oppression out of necessity because none of these matters has ever been looked at before. No one before has ever examined the multilayered texture of Black women’s lives.

      This paragraph is interesting to me because I had never examined feminism from a black woman's perspective. It is fascinating and empowering that this group is shining light on the multi-faceted oppression that black women specifically face that white women have not. Women in general have had similar struggles, but black and white women's oppression are different because class and race are factors for black women. They have more hoops to jump through and are under far more scrutiny and lack more resources and respect.

    1. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don’t see any American dream. We’ve experienced only the American nightmare.

      This paragraph reminds me a lot of Frederick Douglas' speech about what the fourth of july means to a slave. White people cannot see the pain that blacks have suffered in not being able to go after their american dream. This is the same as whites not realizing how hypocritical and painful the fourth of july was to slaves. Whites need to open their eyes and try to feel what african americans have felt to understand why segregation must end.

    2. Once you change your philosophy, you change your thought pattern. Once you change your thought pattern you change your attitude. Once you change your attitude it changes your behavior pattern. And then you go on into some action.

      Malcolm X, although usually seen as a radical who initially supported violence, is exercising intellectual, mature control about the topic of uniting to fight against oppression. He makes the wise point of having to change philosophy and attitude to then take action.

    1. So began, in American political life, the new day, the day of the individual against the system, the day in which individualism was made the great watchword of American life. The happiest of economic conditions made that day long and splendid. On the Western frontier, land was substantially free. No one, who did not shirk the task of earning a living, was entirely without opportunity to do so. Depressions could, and did, come and go; but they could not alter the fundamental fact that most of the people lived partly by selling their labor and partly by extracting their livelihood from the soil, so that starvation and dislocation were practically impossible.

      Roosevelt is making an argument for the country to move forward mentally as times have changed. There is less free land as before and farming has gotten more difficult to profit from. He says that from the depression, we need to make better economic policy that fits the country better now.

    1. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? If they come to meet us on that issue we can present the history of our nation. More than that — we can tell them that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance where the common people of any land have ever declared themselves in favor of the gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but not where the masses have.

      Bryan is saying that the gold standard is essentially for elites only and that no one from the general public, people on farms out west, the backbone of the country supports it. He wants a silver standard to help make money more accessible and help farmers pay debts and get more money for their crops. The gold standard, he says, is only in place for the wealthy.

    1. Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration.

      Douglas acknowledges that the founding fathers were great men with hopeful visions for the country. He does have a lot of respect for them because of their bravery and hard work to build a country and government out of nothing. He also acknowledges the hope they had for liberty and justice for all, but in this he also addresses hypocrisy. He tells the people he is speaking for how a slave must feel on the celebration of "Independence Day" when they are still ruled over.

    1. Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?

      Condemning people who are protesting or fighting for change to make unjust laws null or to better society is ridiculous because this is how we reform society! It must be done but it has never been easy disobeying the law for the betterment of society. You are going against the current, it will never be simple or painless.

    2. How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

      King argues on the side of Thoreau for sure when contemplating whether to follow law or conscience more strictly. He says that an unjust law is one which does not go along with conscience and the harmony of moral law. We should not be obligated to follow unjust laws if they are immoral and go against god and human goodness.

    1. The individual and social instincts, — the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being.

      She completely takes government out of the equation that helps society achieve things. She says essentially all growth comes from the individual and society but I would have to disagree. She says it is our autonomous instincts which allow for growth and self-realization. She also says that the main goals of life are mutual helpfulness and social well-being which I do understand. Government helps with those things though.

    2. Government, what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instance losing its integrity; it has not the vitality and force of a single living man. Law never made man a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well disposed are daily made agents of injustice.

      Relating to Civil Disobedience. She pulls upon Thoreau who pulled from Emerson who's ideas snowballed from just regulating government to full anarchy.

  2. Oct 2019
    1. Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation?

      This reminds me of the Declaration of Independence, which outlines the idea that when the government is no longer working for the benefit of the people, the people have a right to rebel or change it.

    2. But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect,

      Thoreau is not an anarchist, and is not calling for the annihilation of government altogether, but is calling upon men to disobey when they find that the government is really doing something wrong.

    1. By this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice, incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength, were, for the time, in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive; while the deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive of revenge, instead of being turned against each other, were directed exclusively against the British nation.

      I believe with this statement Lincoln is reflecting on how the American people were able to rise up against Britain and gain independence. He identifies hate and the powerful motive of revenge as vehicles for revolution. He also makes an important point, these two things are powerful and violent and when channelled outwards against Britain they aided us, but when these vices fester within our one nation, it is destructive. He is describing the dangers that hate and revenge can inflict with our internal race war; the question of slavery. A civil war if you will.

    2. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings.

      Taking about unalienable rights, a reoccurring theme in the argument about slavery. "Fundamental blessings" of "civil and religious liberty", related to the idea that civil liberties are from God. ALL humans are born with this just for being human, these rights cannot be traded, taken away, or minimized in any way. Foreshadows the argument for slaves as being human and suffrage.

    1. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

      Protecting the minority from the constant rule of the majority through votes is another crucial part of checks and balances.

    2. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other — that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

      The checks and balances of each of the three branches of the federal government will protect against tyranny. Argues FOR the ratification of the constitution. We need a central government but it must check itself. Each will have separate powers and each be able to stop each other from doing something, without a single one having too much power.

    3. The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

      Madison was notorious for warning about the dangers of factions within government. He understood however that we cannot remove the causes of factions because we would also be removing liberties of free speech and political opinion. He instead vouched for the control of the effects of factions. The diverse opinions of people must be protected through voting and popular government.

    1. But rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with which they are vested for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed, as individuals in a state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as proper that bounds should be set to their authority, as that government should have at first been instituted to restrain private injuries.

      This reminds me about the earlier readings talking about the dangers of monarchy. This is why we need government protections to prevent from human nature. The separation of the federal government and state governments are an important protection for the liberty of the people. Having the extra check on federal government can prevent and hinder negativity from a king-like president.

    2. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.

      A strong anti-federalist viewpoint. Brutus addresses the necessary and proper clause as being potentially detrimental to the state governments. "Necessary and proper" is so broad that it could be used to completely undermine the separation of powers and precautions taken to have a weaker central government.

    1. I dare say, Athenians, that some one among you will reply, ‘Yes, Socrates, but what is the origin of these accusations which are brought against you; there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All these rumours and this talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, what is the cause of them, for we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.’ Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavour to explain to you the reason why I am called wise and have such an evil fame.

      Revels in the fact that many people in Athens think that he is wise. He believes the rumors being spread about him are because other powerful men feel threatened and humiliated. He is going to try to explain to the court how his true wiseness became contorted into "evil fame".

    2. For I am more than seventy years of age, and appearing now for the first time in a court of law, I am quite a stranger to the language of the place; and therefore I would have you regard me as if I were really a stranger, whom you would excuse if he spoke in his native tongue, and after the fashion of his country:—Am I making an unfair request of you? Never mind the manner, which may or may not be good; but think only of the truth of my words,

      Socrates is apologizing not knowing the proper oration for the court of law, but has not apologized for his beliefs or words he was spreading that angered the powerful in Athens so much.

    1. the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty

      Oxymoron. The indisputable laws of the United States of America, the Constitution, that which we have a Supreme Court whose sole purpose is to interpret and protect states that everyone has liberty. This says the current law gives man the power to deprive this inalienable right from woman.

    2. That the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience, comes with a very ill grace from those who encourage

      The men hearing women speak at the convention and prior to it have such a miniscule view of women innately that the thing they notice foremost is that the very act of public speaking makes women seem indelicate and shows their disregard for the status quo. Are they even listening to the grievances?

  3. Sep 2019
    1. Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

      Stating why America will not take another king or tyrant. Fear does not work anymore. They need a virtuous leader and a whole new form of government.

    2. For forms of government let fools contest, That which is best administered is best

      Does this mean, the ruler with the most absolute power over his people is doing the best job? This reminds me of Machiavelli. Is it better to be feared than loved in the instance of ruling?

    1. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

      Civil disobedience at first, later used by Gandhi.

    2. certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      Thomas Paine, Common Sense. We have rights simply for being human. They are life, liberty, and so forth. No one gives us these rights, they cannot be taken away.

    1. Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to be trusted, weak men who CANNOT see, prejudiced men who will not see, and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this Continent than all the other three.

      Calling on the general population not to give in to Britain and the king. We cannot be complacent and weak - every person must fight the tyranny to succeed in gaining independence.

    2. England since the conquest hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones:

      Commenting directly against England's tyranny over the colonies in America.

    3. 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.

      Paine is essentially saying that due to the inherent wickedness of man, we need government to bear over us to preserve happiness and society. Humans cannot be trusted to rule over themselves.

    1. whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay.

      Establishes that even the governing men must be held accountable for their actions, they do not escape consequences or laws because of closeness to the king or occupation - equality under the law as a big idea.

    1. Marathon, who for their singular and extraordinary valour were interred on the spot where they fell.

      Marathon is named after a greek (or possibly roman) soldier who ran 26.2 miles back to the base camp of his army when they defeated their enemies on the coast, only to drop dead from exhaustion when he got there.

    2. I could have wished that the reputations of many brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth of a single individual

      This is the dynamic of the violence of states - referencing international studies.

    1. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service sometimes engenders bitter enmity among them;

      Oligarchy would seemingly be a happy medium - not the case

    2. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; to save ourselves from the insolence of a despot by changing it for the insolence of the unbridled commonalty — that were unbearable indeed.

      After just reading a powerful argument in the first paragraph about the danger of monarchs and how power can turn them greedy, evil, and insolent men, it is interesting to see arguments against democracy. The argument that the people being in power are akin to a useless mob is nearly worse than a single tyrant.