we became more aware of the need for us to understand our own economic situation and to make our own economic analysis.
Going to these national conventions helped their group understand what THEY needed to focus on. They found that they needed to look inward and that they needed to focus on themselves first before being part of the larger group.
Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don’t hang you because you’re a Baptist; they hang you ’cause you’re black. [applause] They don’t attack me because I’m a Muslim. They attack me ’cause I’m black. They attacked all of us for the same reason. All of us catch hell from the same enemy. We’re all in the same bag, in the same boat.
being black is the overriding characteristic. It doesn't matter what job someone has or what their religion is. If someones is black then they (the whites?) only see them as black. Not what they truly are.
s I say, if we bring up religion, we’ll have differences, we’ll have arguments, and we’ll never be able to get together
I agree with Sadie's comment below. Because the only way to truly make a change is if everyone sets their differences beside. I think it is interesting that Malcolm X brings this up about religion. Because he is obviously very religious and realizes others may not agree with him. I think as a nationalist it is only necessary to know that people will disagree and have different opinions from time to time.
we are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy, if we are not there already.
The way we as a nation are going to completely begin to have a small group of individuals be in charge of the effects on the economy. I see this as incredibly true in todays day and age. The argument of the 1% holding 99% of the money is a great connection to this. FDR said were "steering" our way to this and he is correct because we most certainly have made there.
There came a growing feeling that government was conducted for the benefit of a few who thrived unduly at the expense of all.
We must ask the question of who this is benefiting? If these ever growing new centralized governments will benefit the whole public or will it create a sense of an elite culture? Where it is truly only benefiting the top of society when the overall majority is worse off.
instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it
Ripping on England, always a way to gather American support. USA! USA! USA!
bimetallism
going from gold standard to gold/silver being allowed as currency
When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.
If you don't support the government, you don't deserve the government. If you don't help whats protecting you, why should you be protected at all.
Andrew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood
Rough choice...
There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
Douglass believes that America is the worse nation in the world of these horrible practices (slavery). This statement is a strong statement in his speech, This paragraph seems to be one of the most important parts of his speech where douglass calls out the wrong doings of American and the entire holiday that is supposed to celebrate this country which Douglass at this time is one of the worse countries
Fellow-citizens,
Douglas address everyone as "fellow-citizens" yet he doesn't refer to America as his/our county. He says it's yours. So Douglass is making a point to show how he too is a citizen and he understands that he's earned his citizenship, but it is not his country. Beacsue of his slave pasy he can not truly accept America as his country, but the white citizens country.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.
King is showing why non-violent action works. He believes that with non-violent action the city will be forced to take action. They are forced to negotiate and confront the issue. This is why King believes that non-violenti the way to bring about negotiation within the most segregated city in america.
storm raging within the individual
Similar to Thoreau's giant within him? Is the storm a negative thing that is within everyone, which makes society evil? Unlike the giant within that is supposed to be somewhat of a moral concise?
all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one
The economy is the main evil of today. And the only way to solve the problem of the evil economy is to look at every aspect of life. Similar to INT Studies when were are talking about the economy focused on "mass production and mass consumption". Which has cause for a complete divide in our country
If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves
Very interesting analogy. To save yourself you must drown another. He uses this in comparison to slavery, that those people holding the lives of others, should be controlled themselves. Because they must do justice whatever cost it may be.
“That government is best which governs least”
RIght away, Thoreau shows exactly what he believes and it's clear what he will be supporting throughout this piece. Interesting how blunt and straightforward he is. It seems to be that he'll have a negative outlook on government in this piece
this Government cannot last.
Lincoln can see our country falling apart. There are many protests and problems going on in our world. Most being ruthless hate crimes, and knowing that if these don't come to an end, lincoln beliefs the government will not last.
some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!
We will not allow any political nation of across the globe to come in and take over. They will not be able to "take a drink from the ohio" or "track on the blue ridge" . No army too big will take over
it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.
This is basics in separation of powers. It means that each department or branch should have its own powers within their own department and no one in the departments should be able to overstep into their other department. This is basic seperation of power, but not yet have checks and balances be introduced.
the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
Isn't this somewhat of an argument between liberties and equalities? You either strip everyone of their liberties- which won't make the public happy at all or you ensure the same opinions, passions and interests to each person- which sounds pretty much like equalities.
a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens,
Folk group?
It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States.
The question and concern over the state rights vs. the central government has been a argument for years. Later down the road, there was even a war started over it. It seems that "brutus" was for a overriding powerful central government. That the states should have no say and congress should be the sole body to intervene and interact with the people.
was not really wise
boom roasted but also this is interesting. He truly believes that he is the smartest and he is the one, so he goes out in search of someone wiser, and leaves believes he's the one better off. I don't know how this benefits him. What is he getting out of this. I understand he is a philosopher that questions everything but I don't see what he'll get from questioning this.
if a man were really able to instruct mankind, to receive money for giving instruction would, in my opinion, be an honour to him
As a teacher/ philosopher why was he not being paid? I thought this was a respectable profession at the time.
in obedience to the law I will now make my defence.
In a way i feel this is somewhat honorable. In this formal setting he will stand here and defend himself with honor.
He
The repetition of "He" at the beginning of these frases really hit home the impact that men have had over women in the past
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines
straight from declaration of independence, trying to rewrite the declaration with the inclusion of women
We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form
Bold strategy, Kinda a pessimistic view but he makes a good argument. You got to find whats not gonna work in order to know what would work. I think Adams knows this could be a work in progress and obviously have seen many other forms of government fail. So in order to find something that works, you'd need to know what doesn't
we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signing this was such a big deal. The men that wrote and signed this gave up everything. If the revolution wouldn't have worked, all these men would have been tried with treason and all would have been killed
For
Repeating " For ....." at the beginning of every sentence is just showing the long list of things the british gov did that drove the colonists to revolution
Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.
Normally easy for a country like britain to rule over a small island, say in the Caribbean, but for a island country to rule over almost a continent in America, absurd.
necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
I do agree with what others have through, that Paine believes that forming relationships are important. But i think it's interesting how Paine thinks that no matter what, Government will happen, That government is needed. Even though he said it was "evil" earlier.
out of two evils to choose the least
I really enjoy this line, it just strongly stands out. Paine was setting up this ideal of what "man" would go through, and his final option has no success. It is either bad or really bad. So Paine uses this argument that government makes life worse for the citizens.
and others, our liegemen.
What were they getting at here? This long first paragraph, or preamble, is basically just a long list. Seems to me it was a list of important people. and I don't exactly know what the point is of this? Anyone know?
we have forced every sea and land to be the highway of our daring, and everywhere, whether for evil or for good, have left imperishable monuments behind us.
The way of which the Athenians force themselves upon others is a way of showing thier "hard power" and their global influence. Hard Power is something we just read about in our International Studies course and makes a connection to this reading.
As concerning the making of a king, they resolved that he will be elected whose horse, when they were all mounted in the suburb of the city, should first be heard to neigh at sunrise.
Wait what? Whom ever horse neighed first at sunrise got to be king? Like after all the arguments and different ideas they decided on that? Wow
the end of bloodshed is monarchy
The argument here seems a little confusing. He claims that all forms of government, specifically oligarchy, will always fail because there is too many people trying to gain power. which would then lead to only allow monarchy to work and be the best form of government. Why is it that monarchy is the only one without flaws?