As BIack women we find any type of biological determinism a particularly dangerous and reactionary basis upon which to build a politic
Feel as though this still holds true today, but is often ignored. This leads to the "pale, male, and stale" complex often seen in American politics throughout time.
that’s what they preaching, white nationalism. They got Jesus white, Mary white, God white, everybody white – that’s white nationalism.
This interests me because the idea of white nationalism has mostly stayed the same over the years. The fact that Malcom x was able to spot it during the civil rights movement in the same way we see it today means theres a problem.
It was the fact that you threw 80 percent of your votes behind the Democrats that put the Democrats in the White House.
IS this before or after the parties switched?
The political philosophy of black nationalism only means that the black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community. The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone.
This is why I've always found Malcom X so interesting, his ideas seemed so far out, but he typically had them founded through facts and logic. He was an extremist, however, he was intelligent.
To insure the first set of rights, a government must so order its functions as not to interfere with the individual.
This statement may seem ideal, but it seems mostly impossible to me. Of course the ideal government would have little to no interference, but this relies on the idea that people are inherently good. However, because many times it is people that cause corruption, we cannot have no governement interference.
We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in defense of our homes, our families, and posterity
I feel as though this is a pretty good statement regarding democracy generally. It's a peaceful assembly of people trying to fight for what they feel is fair and equal- the foundations in which this country was laid on.
They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers.
Very effective argument in the sense that Douglass is using what the country was founded on in order to prove to the people of the United States that African-Americans deserve the same rights that were endowed upon White Americans years prior.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.
While King applies this to only nonviolent campaigns, I feel as though this can be used in a democracy in general. Especially the first and last steps, which are basically foundations of democracy.
is either one already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under the existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish.
I disagree with this in the sense that an idea can definitely occur if there is nothing there at the start. The idea of democracy had to come from somewhere at some point, it had to be invented upon ideas that weren't yet created. Ideas can come from nothing
THE END
This man rants on and on about how Americas system of democracy is so bad for this reason and that reason, but I don't see him offering any solutions. He's just complaining about something without offering a better plan.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.
I have to disagree with this. While a democracy is somewhat unfair to the minority, the idea of a democracy is to allow everyone to have a voice. It is up to the minority to become the majority through influence and freedom of speech.
By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained
While I'm not sure of the exact definitions of Republican vs Democrat in this period of time- or if they even exist in the same sense as they do today. I'd definitely say Lincoln shows a more Rebuplican point of view throughout this
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. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation
Sets the precedent for the justice system in the united states. Makes it so there is a fair trial and the judge is unbiased.
there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given.
This demonstrates the value of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mentions in the Declaration to the people of early America. It shows that they fear too much government control could impede on that if not checked by the people.
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. I
It's interesting to see that even hundreds and hundreds of years ago, legal jargon that is still in use today was used in the same context. Theres so many words that go obsolete, but you can really tell that much has perservered.
at the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same tranegressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.
I feel like this is basically the 20th century way of telling men to make their own sandwich. It implies that men should learn to live without a women to accomodate their everu need.
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,
First "Laws of nature:" one can see a direct connection from locke to jefferson in terms of natural rights that come from being a human. Second, "Natures God:" Americas founded on the idea of freedom of religion- the original reason America was colonized- yet when forming THE founding document of our nation, God is brought into it as if there must be a God in order for a nation to function.
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.
Utilitarian approach to democracy, whatever makes the most people the most happy regardless of the minority it upsets.
But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
The basis for checks and balances in the constitution? We added more to it, with the judicial branch, however the "kings" can be seen as the executive branch, the "commons" is represented by the legislative branch.
our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court. And if any of the said assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, let there remain of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as many as may be required for the efficient making of judgments, according as the business be more or less.
They only get four days every yer to present cases? And if they can't make it to those four days or run out of time the judgement gets passed to common knights? Doesnt seem very fair at all?
we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty.
This portion resembles the first amendment. It's saying that your neighbors are free to do as they please so long as it doesn't cause actual harm to others, which goes hand in hand with freedom of speech. This sentence is basically saying "everyone is equal, even if you don't agree with what other people may do, it doesn't mean you can look down upon them,"
Whatever the despot does, he does with knowledge; but the people have not even that; how can they have knowledge, who have neither learnt nor for themselves seen what is best, but ever rush headlong and drive blindly onward, like a river in spate?
This description really reminds me of James Madisons reasoning for creating the electoral college. The "common folk" were uneducated, therefore they shouldn't have all the power.