This is undeniably an empowering and valid philosophy, but it is saddening that the stance is unique enough from universal acknowledgement to create its own distinction. Everyone should hold this philosophy, whether they are part of the Black woman community or not.

Oppression brings people together. Throughout history it has continually plagued society, but out of it, people have found one another and grown to fight against a system against them.

Similar to Malcolm X's Black Nationalism, but more centrally focused to a specific oppressed group.

I really like this ending. It is empowering and encouraging to take action and live as conscious, involved citizens. I think this is essential in progression, though the underlying aggression in his conclusion is not my ideal way of progress.

This is a very interesting take and connection of the Civil Rights movement of the Jim Crow era to the period of European colonization of Africa and Asia. I never made this connection but I could surely see the similarities in the ideology.

This sentence goes against his argument of the condescending result of "Sit ins". In this, Malcolm X emphasizes the inclusive nature of these protests and how it could involve anyone that identifies with the "Black Nationalist" philosophy.

Is this the same on the global scale with trade?

This idea is applicable to all of society. Of course there will always be ignorance and negligence to stay informed in the issues of politics. However, if we can find more universal ways to uniformly inform citizens in an unbiased nature the importance of their political voice, current issues/candidates in elections, and make them mindful of the true power they hold in voting, we can advance our democracy and broad representation of all citizens.

Emphasis on the prevalent debate and pressing issue of the separation between church and state.

To what extent can we define comfortable living? I feel like these broad claims and the lack of explanations are part of the reason why we never have a cohesive trajectory for the well being of our citizens.

Claiming that democracy was not founded in justice or equality but instead had to gradually gain it over time. Are we still attaining this full accommodation of government? Can we ever reach it because of the original ill-intended goals?

I really like this idea of constant progress and change weaved into the fibers of democracy. Since it is ever-flowing in changes in administrations, relevant issues, representatives, political dramas, it truly is always flowing in a motion toward bettering the present and hopefully future society.

Is this truly attainable? Maybe the discussion of it, but is legitimate governmental change possible without partisan power?

However, the individuals and unique consciousness of all citizens are what make up the principle's ideals.

It is interesting how currency can cultivate such a prominent aspect of national identity. It certainly does but we don't always realize it because of how accustomed we are to the world's leading currencies.

Representatives should always speak for the underrepresented or oppressed

Everyone is equal under the law and under the innate principles of democracy. No profession or individual should deserve more praise or representation than another

He is coming from a very understanding, thoughtful place with a patient tone which is interesting and notable.

Relating the same oppression the colonists felt under the British crown to the oppression and unjust inequality experienced by slaves in the young United states.

The separation of possession phrases is very powerful. Coming from a former slave living in the young nation contrasted by the hierarchal stance of the attendees who have been granted to privilege of consistent freedom and opportunity from the country is heavily emphasized. Yet, he still acknowledges that they are all citizens of the same nation, thought they have been faced with vastly different circumstances.

Deep care accompanies true passion, only through genuine care can one feel the extent of inequalities and deeply rooted social wrongdoings.

The laws should never be universally accepted without extensive consideration. Legalities are not always legitimate or morally acceptable.

As people of our democratic society, we are innately given the right and obligation to stand for our protections and the protections of our fellow citizens. Thoreau touched on this idea of disobeying certain laws in preservation of individual thought, but he did not hold the same powerful, moral defense as King does. Ethically, some laws must be consciously broken to make a stand and ensure that our society is a community that includes and protects all. Unjust laws deserve to be broken.

Consciousness: being mindful and searching for the root causes is absolutely necessary in understanding issues, instead of floating through the words of the media and government without constructing your own thoughts

David Foster Wallace: mindfulness

conscience vs. mindless acclimation

Easy to punish, much more difficult to stand up and re-consider any system or thought..should this be take into account in our criminal justice system?

People trying to go against the grain simply to be different, standing for things that they don't actually believe or care about.

Contradicting himself....this is annoying

Constitution is too restrictive for anything to happen or for any progress to ever be made.

The act of not participating or advocating for oneself grants permission and allows wrongdoings of the government. We must always know our rights and stand up for ourselves as citizens and as people. Ignorance could also be viewed as an evil of this sort. Blindly drifting through society as a free rider unaware of the realities and problems facing all.

Issue of efficacy?

The protection of morality and human worth is worth sacrificing pride or even life itself. Definition of life in its worth and full substance, it it worth it if it's vain?

Can this identity be fused together and work simultaneously? Does this further assume that government officials are leaders first and real people second? I would hope that all are presently thinking and living through both senses.

It seems a bit ignorant to say that regulations/checks/legislative barriers are put in place as frivolous obstacles that government officials have to try to get over and citizens can just be angry at. Makes the legislative process seem like a game solely motivated to "win".

Is the government losing its integrity or slowly fading away the facade and displaying the initial corrupt nature that it was born with?

When people feel the government has failed them, they find joy in its inability to function. This vicious cycle of societal gridlock defeats the fundamental purpose of democracy because it is no longer working for the people.

Connection to school shootings today: people grow to be numb to the extent of tragedy of each event because it becomes so common that the sadness and empathy from individuals fade, this is an incredibly saddening reality.

When we choose which violences are more notable than others, are we in a way excusing the horrors of each individual act? Some violent events slip through the cracks of acknowledgement, hence allowing them to get away with their wrongdoings without public condemnation.

This idea is so interesting to ponder. Only through the acceptance and support of allowing violence or destruction can it occur. War comes from within, if we consciously avoid it, can we escape the reckless destruction of our nature?

Federalism: overhead, end power in the federal government though the states still hold their own autonomous sovereignty, central will have last say in collective laws

Representatives are proportional to size of republic: people being given equal voice no matter big or small, check on the ability of the powerful to get too powerful, hide in the large republic

Similar ideology in controlling most things. Humans are innately granted the liberty to do whatever they please, government must just be created to control the effects of their actions.

Even in the most important political debates, the infusion and everlasting presence of self interest is undeniable and inescapable. If parties are the biggest and most powerful factions, yet the government is made up of these factions that must exist to check and debate each other, is it ever possible for an outside, unbiased, source to see policy/legislation through a strictly pragmatic lens? I feel like our whole system is somewhat corrupt and soaked in selfishly motivated elite, as it seemingly was in this time, and I wonder if that is ever escapable?

If liberty is absolutely necessary for faction, is the reverse true as well? Are factions inherently necessary to ensure liberty and thus needed in a democracy?

Isn't the clashing of opinions inevitable when creating a government that captures the needs and wants of such a broad spectrum and depth of citizens?

Idea of a raw democracy in which the absolute, direct rule of the people is superior to the modified, more typical version, of democracy of which the representatives and elites of a society rule and hold the power.

People are the fountain of all power in a democracy, what is the water? Elite/governmental policy and work? I really like this idea as it emphasized the everlasting flow of constituent power and the importance of their voice. But a fountain can be controlled: the water can be turned off, the shell can crumble, much like the power of the people can if negatively influenced by governmental authority.

We do not own this land nor the world for ourselves, we are borrowing it from our children, and their children, the generations to come will live in the world we presently create.

The essential idea of loyalty: to our country, leaders, and those around us. This is the rooted idea of patriotism.

Everyone has someone that they want to look up to or give them direction. Even when Socrates is that person for the people of Athens, he finds himself wanting that image of a noble leader to give him hope and something to look towards. I feel like this same idea creates the basis of the fundamental desire for religion and government. Wanting someone/something to create a purpose for you/define/provide wisdom so that you don't have to yourself.

Is it in the self-awareness of the innate human lack of wisdom that true intelligence, perception, and thus "wise" title derives? I really like Socrates' genuine tone of naturally questioning everything, and then reversing to ask why he is questioning everything. He does not try to defend his intellectual abilities but instead addresses the reality of him being inquisitive.

Childhood is full of such formidable years, with the children and students growing up in the present world/society today, I wonder how their perceptions differ even from ours of five years older.

Empowering "conventions" such as the Seneca Falls still thrive and exist today all around the world and U.S.

Non-existent in government or society without the status of a husband.

Equal opportunity, representation, and participation of the sexes is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Therefore, the government should do everything in its power to protect all of the citizens it represents. How is it then that there is still such a presently inferred power imbalance hidden in the fibers of government and society? If the government was made for all of the people shouldn't it be made by all of the people?

We are all created equal upon the fundamental rights of being human, however, society construes this equality and contorts the purposeful level nature of our being. Since democracy stems from this society where we must actively fight to equalize, is it innately unequal as well?

Elitist Democracy

Can genuine morality be maintained in government? I feel like it cannot because everyone holds their own moral/ethical code, and most of the universal ideas of virtues cannot withstand the unfortunate evils that accompany the reality of government.

In this, is he stating that when people find contentment they disregard the need for structure because they have foud their own individual purpose? Thus, we can never all truly find happiness and government will always find a need to prosper?

How did the colonists truly develop this power? They initially had nothing but their mothering country's rule and occasional devolution of power; it is really amazing that they came together, stood up, and defied this unrepresented rule. It is empowering and displays the fundamental power of the people.

The overall theme running through the frustrated, defiant declaration is that the colonists have been stripped, or rather never granted, the freedom to exercise their rights and sovereignty. In addition, the colonists were aggravated by the unequal representations in English Parliament as well as in the attempted British control/regulation over the colonial government. This accentuates the underlying need for citizens to have the ability to to represent, advocate, and govern freely within a state. Can this need truly be fulfilled in representative democracy? Or because of the indirect nature of the governmental structure, will there be chronic animosity among the governed?

No taxation without representation!

Government created to protect and represent the governed, not for the elite to cultivate a society that they wish

Interesting how the rights are intrinsic in being a citizen yet people should still declare them.

Government of the people is natural liberty, natural right that is necessary to democracy

Original goal for legislature to be most powerful branch

Is this true with international relations today? Chronic resentment/hate leaving us in gridlock as a globe?

America born with the ideals of open doors and asylum protection in immigration

Not antiquities: privilege and proclaimed entitlement still a very serious issue in present society/government

Does government create/reinforce these inequalities or do they naturally emerge from society and it is the government's job to combat them?

Only pays to know who is at the top because that is the only place where real change can occur. Reason for federalism: so that these changes and progress can be felt at all levels, from local to national?

Is the government designed to protect these ideas, or by virtue of its existence built to abandon them?

Federalist 10: factions=good

Equality innate to government? Every white man of good standing will have a seat, what about the rest of society?

Government only emerges as a result of society being unable to deal with conflict or unsolvable issues that arise. We need structure and laws to tell us how to act or anarchy will come and we will lose any sense of unity. Seen when the Articles of Confederation were not enough to hold the colonies together.

Humans yearn for a collective group: when given freedom to roam, they form together.

If human nature could contain itself and be motivated by good and self sovereignty then there would be need to regulate people within the confinement of a government. Yet, this same innate evil is infused within the government so is there any way to escape it?

Right to Due Process

Importance of separation of states and respect to borders/other cultures' customs--opposite imperialist selfish thirst to conquer

Stance on land debate: separates government from individual's freedom to control own property/ personal funds.

Freedom of individual to carve own chosen course of life.

Emphasis on the undeniable, absolute, importance of freedom in all governmental and societal exercises of liberty. Fundamental necessity weaved into the basis of all generations of citizens.

Public v. private land debate: does the government have overhead jurisdiction to control land ownership and the treatment of land? Is there such thing as free land or private property? Should regulations be put in place to protect the Earth/land in this process? Can we even standardize that?

Absolute devotion to your country: is this extreme sense of nationalism and pride still identifiable today?

Paving the way for European imperialists to feel this same sense of dignity and entitlement to "bless" the world with their presence and monuments?

Collaboration from different perspectives with the goal of progression and to support the common good is essential to a high functioning Democracy. In the U.S we do not currently have this mutual respect in discussion and we are forced to gridlock because of the blinding loyalty to party and political identification.

Taking ownership for duty to serve the people

Human nature to criticize, even in such mourning selfishness is infused somewhere

Different from Federalist 10 idea of faction? Factions separate, but bring likeminded individuals together, wouldn't the combatting groups make it harder for a monarch to emerge?

many: focus on number of many votes/participants in government as opposed to "multitude" of views and diverse society being represented

For whom is the government built to serve/protect? Can the innate human selfishness ever be separated from the powers of the government?