what is a slave to the forth of July ( Yarisa Figueroa)

What is a slave to the fourth of July?( Frederick Douglass)

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!


This frederick Douglass speech is personally one of my favorite speeches from this powerful man. He made this speech allowing the American people to see that the Forth of july was not a celebrtion for him and all the slaves that were capitive in slavery. he did the speech first congradulating America on the Fourth of  July but got into the indepth of how he sees Independence day.He said that there are problems between us. he siad he isnt included in the celebration that they are celebrating. he siad he doesnt have that justica and healing that they have. he tells them that the sunlight that brings them the healing brings them stripes and death> they never been slaves and they were never beatin but he was. His whole life he was treated unfairly becaus eof the color of his skin in being in slavery . he expresses to them that he is not like them and he cant not celebrate the fourth of july the way they do.

A lecture on the Anti Slavery Movement (Yarisa Figueroa)

                         A lecture on the Anti Slavery Movement (Frederick Douglass)

One anti-slavery movement nearly died out fifty years ago, and I am not prepared to deny the possibility of a like fate for this one. The elements of discord and deterioration are already in it, and working their legitimate results.And yet I am not gloomy. Present organizations may perish, but the cause will go on. That cause has a life, distinct and independent of the organizations atched up from time to time to carry it forward. Looked at apart from the bones and sinews, and body, it is a thing immortal. It is the very essence of justice, liberty and love. The moral life of human society—it cannot die, while conscience, honor and humanity remain. If but one be filled with it, the cause

ives.…If there be but one such man in the land, no matter what becomes of abolition societies and parties, there will be an anti-slavery cause, and an antislavery movement.

In this paragraph Frederick douglass discusses how the anti slavery movemnet  nearly diesd fiffty years ago and he ddint want that to happen with this one. He was prepared to make a difference and do whats right and what he believed in.  He stated that even if things persih , dissapered are no longer there he will still go on and what he wants to achive as the cost  will go on as well. he wanted everyone to have the justice,  the love and liberty they suppose to recieve just because there are human and that is everyones right . He felt that this things is everyone divines right. He felt that no matter if people dont fall through thee will alwyas be an anti slavery movenment.

 

Trans-National America ( Yarisa Figueroa)

Trans-National America Randolph S. Bourne
To face the fact that our aliens are already strong enough to take a share in the direction of their own destiny, and that the strong cultural movements represented by the foreign press, schools, and colonies are a challenge to our facile attempts, is not, however, to admit the failure of Americanization. It is not to fear the failure of democracy. It is rather to urge us to an investigation of what Americanism may rightly mean. It is to ask ourselves whether our ideal has been broad or narrow -- whether perhaps the time has not come to assert a higher ideal than the 'melting- pot.' Surely we cannot be certain of our spiritual democracy when, claiming to melt the nations within us to a comprehension of our free and democratic institutions, we fly into panic at the first sign of their own will and tendency. We act as if we wanted Americanization to take place only on our own terms, and not by the consent of the governed. All our elaborate machinery of settlement and school and union, of social and political naturalization, however, will move with friction just in so far as it neglects to take into account this strong and virile insistence that America shall be what the immigrant will have a hand in making it, and not what a ruling class, descendant of those British stocks which were the first permanent immigrants, decide that America shall be made. This is the condition which confronts us, and which demands a clear and general readjustment of our attitude and our ideal.

Randolph Bourne discusses the “failure of the ‘melting pot.'” According to Bourne, Americans at the time had been trying to assimilate the cultures of immigrants into their own. America was supposed to be the melting pot, where everyone was allowed to come and “melt” into the large American culture. But they overlooked the fact that not everyone wants to be assimilated, and forcing the issue only makes immigrants’ nationalistic feelings towards their countries of origin more intense.Bourne then states “Americanization,” for he argues that it can no longer mean that the United States is a so called “melting pot” waiting for new people to come and embrace the new, larger culture. Americans, he says, need to account for the wishes of the immigrants: how they want to become part of America, not how we want them to become part of the country. He tells Americans that in all actuality, are they are  descendents of immigrants. These people came over not to be part of the Native American culture and adopt all its ways, but in search of freedom. People should regard new immigrants like their ancestors, like people who are searching for freedom instead of new cultural customs to follow.

---

The Atlantic Monthly; July 1916; Trans-national America; Volume 118, No. 1; pages 86-97. 

The diffusion of Innovations among American states(Yarisa Figueroa)

3/16/16
The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States  
Jack L Walker    


Demographic Factors: After studying the acceptance of technological innovations by both individuals and organizations, several writers have concluded that the decision maker's relative wealth, or the degree to which "free floating" resources are available, are important determinants of the willingness to adopt new techniques or policies.'4 If "slack" resources are available, either in the form of money or a highly skilled, professional staff, the decision maker can afford the luxury of experiment and can more easily risk the possibility of failure.'5 Other studies, especially in the areas of agriculture and medicine, have also shown organizational size to be a strong correlate of innovation.

I think that when Walker speaks of innovation, he doesn't refer to anything more than adopting a new program. Even if a state adopts a new program begrudgingly and appropriates only $1000 to it, the state has adopted the new program. Furthermore, Walker refers only to programs adopted by state legislatures (not by bureaucrats). He thinks that when the program gets adopted by a state it will be  more recognized every where else and it will actually be known. It states that its difficult for states decision makers to want to resist even the weakest plans but  they don't want to make the public all arouse. I like that he states its is important for people showed encourage change and their social value, because most of  societies social value is based on ignorance. 

Another Stabbed at the US Constitution (Y.F)

The New York Times Article ( Another stabbed at the US Constitution) Revisiting the Constitution: we need term limits for Federal judges.

In this article there was one particular paragraph that stood out too me.

"But the average life expectancy of an American in 1787 was about 36, less than half of what it is today. the 21st century reality is that when the supreme court vacancies arise, one of the criteria for selection is that the judge be young enough to serve for several decade. Many of our most distinguished jurist, judges like  J. Harvie Wilkinson and Diane Wood , both in their sixties, are by now too "distinguished" for our highest court.


I think that the average life expectancy is still kind of the same as it was back than. the only reason that the life expectancy was so low back than because in the 1700s there was a high rate of infant mortality. In addition today in the modern world their has been a lot of discoveries, so i think that has something to do with the difference. In our society today, there has been a lot of medical cures that has been brought to society today compare to 1787.  I do think that the retirement age for judges should be 70 years old or so not reaching 80 years old. I think that when people get to a certain age their are things that start to diminish and they wont serve as they used to.