February eighteen.
Where did I leave off last time? My mind is blank in here.
Did I finish up on words and federal, confederal, unitary? And
then I talked about parliamentary and presidential systems, but
I did not start democracy right? Right. I always distrust the
memory, which is the first thing to go. I can remember, finally,
the interface sheet. Now if any of you turned it in after I did
this, and I did it on February sixth, then it's not up here.
Which explains why it may not be if you turned it in late or
absent. So this is February sixth, it should indicate all the
interfaces and the grades. If you have any questions on the
grades you received, you can talk to me after class. I would
appreciate it if you sign the back to let me know you saw it and
someway of keeping attendance once in a blue moon.
I have another sheet that I'll give here before I forget.
And these are a little chart on democracy that I would like to
talk to you about a bit. I would like to tell you this right
away. Oh, I saw some eyes which means some of you are paying
attention. Ninety percent of you are going to screw up on the
exam even though I tell you this, so pay attention. I don't
know why I have to say this, but I do. I try to get you a good
a grade as possible. I'd love you all to get good grades. It
makes me feel good to be happy. You never are happy when you
flunk. There are some of you who were convinced you're failures
and I've said that
before. There are certain things you learn about taking
commands. Certain things you learn about doing any kind of
course. Some people do it naturally. Others simply don't
know how to do it. Maybe it has to do with intelligence. I'm
not convinced it does.
Years back when I first started this -- I don't know how
many years it's been now -- I put a question on the exam and I
said to the student, well, you know, why didn't you use the
chart in your head that you learned the chart? And she said, but
I didn't use it because you didn't ask me conditions of a
democratic government. And I
thought for a second and I realized
how anal retentive students can get. If you don't ask it the way
the words are, they don't know how to synthesize sometimes. The
point is that being a good student means the realization that
materials that you've gotten from other sources can be used if
you think about them. They don't have to have the exact wording.
What I'm actually saying here is that if on the mid term
exam the word democracy appears on the essay question, this
chart is usable. It doesn't matter what the hell is the
question. I don't mean you take it out of your book. I don't
mean you have to memorize it. I mean the concepts in the chart
are usable and if you study and you study the chart, then you
should be able to use it and what's the chance the word
democracy will appear? Probably eighty percent on one of two
questions on the mid term because it
is a major section in this course. It may not, however the
fact, that I am giving you an outline of the conditions of a
democratic government almost any question I asked you
pertaining to democracy could be usable.
Somebody want to give me a fast question or do I have to do
that? Is anybody want to ask a question pertaining to
democracy? Nobody wants to try one, huh? What are some of the
principles? All right. What are some of the principles and
practices of democracy? That's listed there, so you can take
that and of course that's direct. I'm thinking words that
aren't quite as direct.
For instance, do you believe in democracy? Explain. Yes,
no, or maybe. How would you use this chart with that question,
do you believe in democracy? Some of the benefits we get from
it? Where is there a benefit from it? On the right column. Right
to vote. Why is that a benefit? Because we have a choice. Some
dictators would think it was not right, right? Because you have
a choice. Do you believe in democracy? Well, I have a choice. Do
you believe in democracy? I mean it's usable but it will be
usable near the end of the essay. How would you use this chart?
You would just, besides reasons, the reasons to believe in
democracy, so what are your reasons for believing in democracy?
Does that appear in the chart? I believe in democracy. I believe
people. To believe in democracy is to believe in people.
I also believe that since we're dealing with democracy we
must understand that to have involvement and that means
majority rule, but you can't ignore the minority so therefore
you have to give them rights. I also believe in democracy
because -- you can't have it. Or I don't believe in democracy
because I don't believe any government can weight people's
positions. They're going to rise to -- well this and therefore.
It's everybody's position isn't going to be weighted equally.
It's not hard, really. Okay? If you're willing to go, I don't
know the step of, you know, anal retentiveness. Looking for
exact words. Following me? Scary? Of course. Any exam is, but
that's what I'm saying this chart gives you the -- okay let's
take another one. Do you think the United States is a
democracy? How would you use this chart? A Maybe talk about the
principles, saying how about the U.S. enforces those
principles. The U.S. allows for active consent and so it
enforces active consent and how? By promoting the right to
vote. It allows you freedom to expression and the right can't
exist unless you formulate your -- and therefore I can
formulate my preferences when I have alternative sources of
Now if I can do it that fast, granted, sure I've been
around long -- but there's no reason why you can't. You
start in the right direction. You see, it makes -- it should
make it a lot easier then simply -- now, I don't
believe the United States is a democracy why? Because in the
United States I'm not allowed to signify my preferences, but if
I want to watch child pornography I'm going to be busted. Or my
principles isn't equally weighted. I want Monica Lewinsky and
that I got to get off the -- but you can lay with this.
As long as you have the chart, there isn't a right or wrong
answer as far your belief is concerned, but there is a right or
wrong approach as far as the ability to show me something that
has been involved in the courses, okay? Any questions then? And
what I just did in dealing with the chart was show you how the
chart reads and how things can be tide together. I specifically
did that with active consent by talking about formulating
preferences and tying it over to alternative sources of
information. Which are really practices of a democratic
Another question. What are the practice principle are
spell out, but what are the practices of the democratic
government that appear in this chart? What are they? process
practices of practices the word practice isn't there. I just
told you one. Alternative source of information. Freedom of the
press. Freedom of expression which refers to freedom of speech.
A practice of the democratic government allow people to vote
and run for office. Those are specific actions that you will
expect from a democratic government. So, keep this chart in
What sometimes happens which is just as bad as not keeping
the chart in mind is people had heard me say that you can use
your chart. So they go home and figure I'm going to get an A
on the exam and memorize the chart and then I ask a question
on democracy and they put the chart down, but they never
answer the question. So they regurgitate the chart. See a
question that doesn't ask about democracy, so they just put
the chart in. All right. Again, part of answering and getting
a grade is the ability to synthesize the material. Make sure
of the best way possible by analyzing by critical thinking.
You learn that had and this is part of being freshman or
sophomore in college as the years go on you improve your
grades dramatically.
Hopefully they should have been taught to you since
kindergarten you had not been required to critically think or
analyze and therefore synthesize material. You haven't been
asked to put it together. You've been asked to regurgitate of
some of our private schools. They don't want you to think. They
want you to be able to do your mathematical problems, but as
long as you don't create conflicts in the school and wear their
uniforms everybody either sides there calmly or they give them
Ritalin and nobody has an opportunity to be different.
Um, we lose I think, the whole basis of what American
education is with. Individuality. Creativity and all of
that is a democracy. Because without you don't have democracy
and if it -- I am a firm believer in democracy.
If I were
asked what my point of view is, what kind of government, I
support the answer is really simple, a democratic government.
Almost everybody in the world says they support democracy.
Saddam Hussein supports democracy. Kadoffy supports democracy.
Who doesn't? However, the real issue
is are they really
supporting democracy?
Well, first we need to ask if they're
saying they support
it? What is democracy? And the answer is
very simple. Government of the people.
So if you support the democracy, who do you have to believe
in? People. Okay if you say people are shits, then it will be
very difficult for you to be able to support democracy. You
could say people are shits, but they're soon going to be
-- is there a word for non-shit? That's terrible. We have to
have a good word. See, we have all these negative words.
I want
a positive word. That's bad. And at that point, you can believe
in democracy coming.
It's going to be here once we educate
people or give them a better life. So you can
still believe in
democracy. The real question comes down to if I believe in
people. Who were the people? Very easy to say I believe in
people, but you can kill your whole sense of democracy by
defining people differently then people being everywhere. To
me, which may be more radical, people are the whole
species like, Cocoa is not a people. Whose Cocoa? She's the
guerrilla that speaks about three thousand words in sign. Uses
the American sign language. She thinks they analyzes, but I'm
not sure she's people. She does it at a third grade -- about a
three-year-old level. Are four-year olds people? Well, they're
potential people. I'm not sure they're full people yet.
They're individuals. They certainly are individuals. They're
becoming what we would call people.
I taught in the South, I think I told you that. It was an
upper division university which was a senior college. You have
heard of senior colleges, but most people have not heard of
senior colleges. Translation, we only had juniors seniors and
graduate students. We didn't have freshman and sophomores. It
was definitely a different system. I'm not sure I liked it. I
don't think the junior college as a junior college is better. I
think a community college serves a purpose. Translation, again
for those that aren't -- which would be difficult is junior
college's philosophy is that your preparing people for a senior
college. Which means that you do only the academic subjects and
then they go on to a regular four-year school. I think although
there's a lot lost there, you lose a lot of the activities of a
four years of education and I think those four years of
interacting with students of the diversity programs you can
take academically has a benefit, but obviously the community
college offers not just transfer programs, but other kinds of
opportunities and again, the benefit in California is it's
cheap.' Comparatively. It used to
be free. $12 a unit is still
cheaper and it gives people a chance to try it out. But I can.
It's something lost by not going to a four year school.
Although granted again most two years school have better
structures candidly because they're getting structures so for
the basic courses they do serve a purpose. Anybody that's gone
to a four-year school you're lucky if you ever see a professor.
Most of the time they have graduates assistants and they have
these massive courses. Well this course has 1200 people in it
in one big lecture hall, in an auditorium, the professor
lectures with a microphone and then they breakdown into smaller
groups of thirty with teaching assistants. So there's something
definitely lost and you might be lucky and get a good teaching
assistant. Most of the professors themselves don't want to
teach anyway. They make their money through research.
And I did teach at, you know, universities, so I know the
number of professors who could care less about students. Well,
in any case, we had graduate students as well and I had this
assistant principle who had his degree, therefore, and wanted
to do graduate work in Masters degrees and I don't know how we
got off the conversation, but we were talking about Brazil and
I rambled on as you already know
and I started about how in Brazil when they deal with race,
they're consent of race is different than the United States. In
this country if you're a mixture of white and black, you're
called black. In fact, in this country you've got probably
twenty percent black blood, you're black. We don't use words
like mulatto or various distinctions in Brazil. If you're half
white and half black, you can call yourself white. Now it's
logical, okay. Why not? If you're half black, why can you call
yourself white? Because our country forces people into a
category. Brazil also has sixteen different words for mixture of
color and so you don't have the heavy prejudice as we have as
often there are sections of Brazil. I was rambling about this
and he looked at me very upset and he said, you know, for every
degree of white blood, a black's intelligence goes up one
percent. Blacks are no higher on the evolutionary scale than
Well, you have to understand that this is still the South
and this is twenty years ago or thirty years, I'm sorry, this is
thirty years ago. How has it changed? Well, if you've been
following the newspaper that they drag that guy and hung the guy
up and all this other stuff that goes on in places in the South
and the guy's got tatoos on his body. I mean, the KKK is still
fairly active and still racial hatred and prejudice that exists
in there and this is different than the upper classes who keep
it covered until
-- like this guy because he was the principal. Well I know from
long years of experience as most of you do that you don't
change somebody merely by telling them you're full of crap. In
fact, you can't reason with a racist. You'd be stupid to try
and show them that their hate or prejudice is misguided. So in
those kind of situations my approach is to ridicule the person.
Just for the hell of it so I feel better because I don't know
what else to do. I'm not going to scream and yell at their
stupidity because I'm not going to. But I'm going to make them
feel like a fool, but I'll feel better in the long run, so I
got to feel better and I looked at him and I said, if you shave
an orangatang they're actually white underneath. So they're
probably close to the -- whites are probably closer to the
orangatang than blacks. He gave me this -- you know, look and I
don't stop with just one, you know. And I said besides that,
orangatangs are furry and hairy and so are whites. Blacks have
less hair. They don't need to shave as much. So obviously
whites are, not the blacks. And then I went on and I said, you
know, and when a black baby is born they're white and then they
become black which means that God preferred the black to the
white. He created the white and then he wasn't perfect, so he
created them black. Guys going nuts but the -- and this is true
and I don't know why -- many southern racists have this feeling
that you can tell somebody with black blood by looking at their
This is real strange. If there's a blue tint, and don't go
looking. If there's a blue tint around your fingernail they
believe you've got black blood. Okay.
Remember the Mark Twain sorry? Where he found out that it
was male because he put his legs together rather than spread
them apart wearing a dress? What story was that from? Was it
Huck Finn? Little difference that comes through. It's got
nothing to do with genetics. Do not get me wrong. It's called
conditioning. Um, he stormed out of my office went to the
principal of the college president and attempted to get me fired
as this weird carpet bagger from New York which they finally
fired me a few years later. I wonder if they evolved a little
bit in the South? I mean, it's interesting because also the
argument that you can't legislate values and when I got to the
South they had just integrated Pensacola Florida which was
really South Alabama and attitudes are so different that it was
interesting to watch you're not going to change them through
legislation they say but the school was becoming integrated and
it was called Washington High School but it was what's his name,
not George Washington, but Booker T. Washington and this white
kid who's the son of the Realtor that we're buying the house
from was all upset that this year he was going to go to a black
school which by the way they got rid of the Booker T. and now
named Washington at that point. So it wasn't the whites wouldn't
feel bad about going to a school
named Washington and his father, well, that's the way the law
is'. Just accept it. It will be fine. You understand those
people who have kids at -- you're kids are going to go to
Irvington. You're stuck with it and those that don't know what
the hell I'm talking about, you're not following the Fremont
controversy. Am, so, it was interesting to see his reaction. I
don't like it, but I'm going to accept it.
Translation? That many people involve by forced into them
and over the years they change. It's an -- a friend of mine
called it action psychology. You change your behavior, you
change your values, true your actions, and I think that does,
but it's tough to change Alabama. Alabama is Alabama they still
have in their constitution that women couldn't vote in Alabama.
Did I tell you about that? It's still in the Alabama
constitution. Now obviously under the Article six of the
Constitution, federal law supersedes state law, so that under
but they never bothered to change their constitution and coming
to school yesterday or maybe it was the day before I mentioned
it, maybe not. I'm listening to the radio, and Alabama is in
another big dispute. They have banned the sale of massage
units. Did I talk about that? Did anybody know why they banned
the sale of massage units? Because women use them as sex toys
and they don't want women using them as sex toys. I wish 1 were
joking, but I am dead serious. Would you ever have thought of
that? But then would you thought that Donald Duck was obscene
because he
wasn't wearing pants? This is Alabama. The ACLU is arguing that
it is sexism. Because if men can get Viaga, then the women
should be able to get something to get pleasure too. And this
was on the news and I'm cracking up. This is why I like
listening to the news. I mean, it is fun and I am not joking.
Only in Alabama.
So the South is different. It literally and -- any of you
ever lived in the south at all? How long? Three years? Where'd
you live? North Carolina. Okay so you experienced? Oh, yeah. I
got thrown out of a store. Did you actually? Yeah. They didn't
serve to my kind, and I said what kind is that? They said they
wouldn't serve to that kind? Just a regular store. Just general
store? Yeah. So there's an answer. What city in North Carolina.
Newton. Out of Charlotte. Unbelievable. It is those are still
there now granted it wouldn't happen, but no we're not dealing
with the big cities. Um, okay.
So, then defining people is a big part of the democracy.
The first democratic society that we know of historically was
where? In Athens, Greece. Greece was made up in cities in
ancient history and Athens is usually what city state in
Greece? It was not democratic. Sparta. In our history books
Sparta being tied to totalitarianism and Athens to democracy.
In Athens, which we call a democracy to be full people example,
to have all physical and social and political rights you have
had to be male over the age of
twenty and a citizen. Aliens could never become citizens and
I'm not talking E.T. here.
By the way, Japan had that policy for a long long time and
they still have people who live there for a hundred years for
reasons are not given full rights. Some of the pressures going
on. So it's not too unusual. The United States has a fairly
relaxed compared to some countries citizenship policy. You have
to be a resident for seven years however because they're so
backlogged with people applying for citizenship, it pretty well
takes nine years to get through it. A pretty extensive written
test now they gave you an eight question. Yeah it's just a
hundred questions they have. But you didn't have to take the
written test did you? They just pull you in and -- no, just an
interview. That's it. It's a basic interview now. So, although
I think it will be easier to just take the test.
In any case, in Athens, women were secluded parts of Greece
they still are. They had no rights to speak of. Except
interestingly, the prostitutes. Well, you know one of the
reasons the women's movement, feminism, identifies with
prostitution is that it has been historically a liberating
factor for women despite the fact that in our society we see it
as oppressive because it's being abused by pimps and drugs and
things of that nature which has happened here, but
historically, the identity of a person who could make their own
choice which dates back to Lillith.
Where'd you hear of that? A woman spirituality class.
Spirituality class? Where was this? At Moreau High School.
That's interesting. My attitude towards Moreau just grew a
lot, but the fact that they could have a spirituality class
for women sounds great. I see those nuns. You got to watch
them, boy, you got to watch them getting their ways through
In mythology, going back thousands of years, Lillith -in
Jewish and Christian mythology as the original woman in the
Bible. If you know the Bible, you know that there are two
segments to the first part of Genesis that God creates woman God
create then and then man and woman and then the second part
where he creates women out of Adam's rib. There's always been a
question as to why the first equality and the second inequality.
Someway off the subject, it's just a further explanation as to
the creation and therefore was carrying it through. However,
mythology indicates that upon the creation, the first woman was
Lillith and she's considered herself equal and she wanted at
times just found on top not just always on the bottom and Adam
was much set he didn't like somebody having equal to him so he
begged God to create another partner and get rid of Lillith. So
she was expelled from the Garden of Eden even before the serpent
and then Eve is created for a submissive female who could be
barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Where Lillith which he
would go around and take man's seed especially which was
identified in young men with wet dreams. The reason they had
the dream was because Lillith was doing things to him to get
their seed and then creates these demons. But they could do and
whatever she want to and lives through life as the independent
person. The independent female who did not have to depend upon
men the prostitute the lesbian the woman who raised her kids by
herself who was not dominated. Who ruled herself. And channel
44 tonight if your interested has a show where women rule the
world and the men are going to repel, you know, men's fantasy.
I guess somebody wrote this stupid movie.
So, Lillith and the mythology of her which is thousands of
years old first revised by the feminist movement and there are
many books on Lillith identifying the independent unique female.
Which is not controlled dominated by the power physical power in
the male. And now I'll go on with my other stories as long as
this was identify to me the other day in part.
I made a comment
the other day joking around that if the homosexuals inherit the
earth we won't have the earth because there wouldn't be any
children. Well we need to make it absolutely clear that
homosexuals have kids. Okay, and as I was saying, I used to run
a gym and I had a woman who was a lesbian nationalist. She
believes in creating a lesbian country. She used to joke about
it and beating up on men just for the hell of it. But she
decided she wanted to bear child and hope to make it a female
but it didn't matter, and she would not have sex with a male and
so she used a turkey baster to put the male sperm to create the
child which she did just bear. There is a sperm bank in Berkeley
for homosexuals. So I want to identify the fact that the Lillith
does exist and certainly reflects on again the oppression and
the reaction to oppression that men have created historically
and Greece underlies that specific oppression.
It was Plato who said that men are for love and women are
for bearing babies. Now he was not talking sexual love. Okay?
We're not talking quote unquote the Greek way. What we are
referring to is the word fila. Greeks have more than one word
for love. In America, we have one word. Love means rape, it
means sex, it means Valentine's day. I love you. I made love.
We don't know how to distinguish between various forms of
love. Which sort of creates certain problems in our
In Greece, among the words for love are Eros. Eros and then
there is fila which is brotherly or sisterly love. But the
brotherly love certainly. Philadelphia. The city of brotherly
love. And then the word that the Christians have adapted agape
Which is the Greek word for different word for love. That's sort
of a spiritual love you love all people because they are human.
Agape. You have to love people. Gee, I tied that together
somehow. I also amaze myself. Absolutely.
In Greece, women were secluded. Weren't even allowed to sit
at the dinner table when men got together. Of course we still
do that, but then they go in the kitchen and do the dishes
while we sit around afterwards, right? Slavery, existed. And
slaves were not a part of the society. They had certain legal
rights, but they were not part of the society and therefore
generally not people. So if we've got a society that segregates
people by age, by well alien in the end of it's a culture and,
and women, then we don't really have a democracy because we are
not allow them based upon the fact they're not real people. And
obviously we know in our own country historically we have had
periods of time when we call ourselves democratic and we
certainly had and did not recognize all people.
It's only been
in recent years that at least under the law that almost all
people are people and when I say people I'm talking about
members of the species. We know that about slavery in this
country. When the blacks were first brought over from Africa,
they were allowed to get their independence. They were allowed
to become freed by buying their way out and they actually owned
other slaves, but that was within the first 50 years of our
colonies. Then in the South, it was determined that no black
person would be free because they were inferior. They weren't
real people. In 1783 during our right at the end of our war.
The Massachusetts legislature banned slavery under the
principle of their constitution and the principle of our
concept in America and their interpretation that all men are
created equal. Slavery, was banned because blacks were men they
said. In the South they simply continued slavery with the
stipulation that slaves were not men. That they were both of
burden in a sense and therefore could not be free. If they're
not equal because they're not humans it's like having sex with
sheep. It just happens that they produce things, but they're no
better than having animals as your sexual partner and
accidentally bearing babies. Which obviously Thomas Jefferson
did. As did many southern race
plantation owners .
I didn't realize the mixture of African American blacks
until I went to Jamaica. The island where everybody was the
same color. Blacks all looked pretty much the same tint, but in
this country we have so many variations and gradations and, you
know, as we sit in the class the other day and the Irish and
the African American says that she's got Irish blood in her. We
forget how mixed our society is and it's an approach and yet
once again historically we said they were not people. Slavery
was finally ended after the civil war. However, we created in
the south especially Jim Crow laws which prevented the freed
slaves from fully participating in our societies. There were
those that fought for equality and in 1911 the National
Association of Colored People was formed. NAACP was formed.

the most viciously racist films produced 1919 called the The
Birth of a Nation. Glorified the Klu Klux Klan. People
continued this attitude right through World War II. There were
some minor acts, but very little because the south elected
democratic senators who prevented any legislation through the
filibuster they would talk it to death any changes.
The first action, if you will, that began some integration
in society was in 1988 (that's the year he said) when president
Harry Truman himself once a clan member back in the twenties,
Harry Truman, ordered the integration of the military. Most of
you have at least some knowledge of that explosion that took
place in Concord where black soldiers and black civilians were
used for loading ships and they refused to go after many of them
were killed in an explosion and that's still in the news again
because there's still some question about Port Chicago, right?
Whether it should be overturned and it was in the news just a
couple of weeks ago during World War II. And those black units
all black had white officers. 1948, that's fifty years ago.
That's not a long time, historically. I mean, it is in your
lives but not a long time historically. By the way, the military
high command said that there would be no way that black military
would work. It would fall apart. That the people would not work
together not talk together and most of all no white man would
want to shower with a black man.
They didn't want to feel inferior. I don't know what the
story is.
You hear the same argument today about gays in the
military. However when Clinton went forth and they said we
don't want to shower with gays. Or women in the military in
combat basis Clinton did not stand up; he backed down. He
wasn't the Harry Truman where the buck stops -- okay. The 1950
saw some minor legislation, but saw demonstrations. Finally,
people began to support once again the abolitionist cause
ending of slavery. In a different way for black people to
change the law. And of course the hero of the period was a
woman named Rosa Parks who appeared at the democratic
convention who refused to get up. She was just tired and go to
the back of the bus and of course the cause was picked up by a
man who just sort of celebrated -- Martin Luther King. The name
that rings in our history.
Yet, it
wasn't until 1964 and '65 that
we've got during the great society of Lyndon Johnson real civil
rights legislation. The civil rights act of 1964 and the voting
rights act of 1965 finally banned in equally in this country.
In almost all areas. You know, I skipped I really
apologize in the -- Brown v
Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas. We
mentioned Brown before, but let me review it. The Supreme
Court took a major step in overturning segregation.
Specifically, in the schools in this decision. Actually, in
1896, in a Supreme Court
Plessy v Ferguson. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled that
segregation was legal. That you could separate the black from
the white race in the United States as long as you could
provided equal facilities. If you had equal facilities you could
segregate. In Brown v the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas,
the court ruled that in 1944 that segregated facilities that
unequal -- because you created a stigma even if the facilities
weren't inferior and ordered with all deliberate speed the
integration of the schools. I mentioned that in 1969 1 lived in
the south and they were just integrating the schools. That's 15
years later. It was all deliberate speed was a very very slow
process. With various court ruling and interpretations. I doubt
if there are many laws in this country today if any that permit
segregation. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist understand it. It
doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist and people won't kick you
out of their business or store or won't rent an apartment to
you. But it's against the law. Up until that time the law
supported inequality. Example; the blacks aren't people. Today
the law says that all blacks are people. Even if in some
situations they're not treated as people be it at Dennys or be
it at Marshals where we've had problems in recent years.
What year was Plessy and Fergusson? And historically women
have not been people in this country until recent years.
Abigail Adams' wife of the later president John Adams
our second president, strongly advocated to Thomas Jefferson
and her house that women be given the vote in the Constitution.
They said no way. The first state to give the vote to women was
in the 1850s. Does anybody know what state that was? Wyoming.
Yeah, strange. Wyoming has taken the lead in a lot of the
different ways maybe because all they had were horses and so
they weren't concerned about women. I'm not sure. I haven't
figured out why Wyoming.
In 1848, the first women's rights conference was held. we
didn't have a major celebration in this country. We probably
should have. It was mentioned among feminists but I didn't see
any stamps coming out. The first women's rights was held at
Seneca Falls, New York where women got together with men, you
know. They're supporters. They're weak. Who advocated women's
rights especially the right to vote? However, the women soon
lost the activity as they became involved with the abolitionist
movement. However, after the Civil War women got heavily
involved again in the movement to vote called the suffrage.
They were active in pushing for prohibition. What's
prohibition? The banning of alcohol. Why were women so big in
moving for prohibition? Because they are getting beet up by men
who were drinking and more so was the fact that men would get a
paycheck and by the time they got home there was no money left
because they drink it away and the woman with be stuck whatever
with no funds for food and so woman very much
supported the prohibition.
It wasn't however until 1920 that women were given the
right to vote and prohibition instituted. Although an
experiment that failed. Some would argue that a women's right
to vote failed. The good looking guy with the better tie. You
still hear that among some assholes. When Dan Quale who has
announced he's running for president and somebody sent me on
the e mail seventy different quotes of Dan Quale last night
that I should have brought it in and print it out they're
hysterical. Would you bring them next time? Yeah I could
probably print them out in my office if I remember. Dan Quale
was chosen to run for vice president with Bush because the
republican party was convinced that they had to get women to
vote for them because women had been voting for higher
percentage for the democrats then men had been and since Dan
Quale was good looking they felt women would vote. Well of
course the republicans didn't understand is that women can tell
a male bimbo as men can. It's still fun to watch, but you don't
necessarily vote for them. In 1923, women convinced a number of
legislators to introduce a constitutional amendment which gives
women equal rights. It was defeated. At the end of the 1960s
they also introduce what has become known as the Equal Rights
Amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment went through 35 of the 38
states necessary, but it never got the other three states. And
so it had a deadline on it and by the end of
the 1970s, a woman's right amendment to the constitution was
defeated. However, many people argued perhaps correctly that
the laws that were passed and the judges in ruling on those
laws were able to use what we already have in the Constitution
to guarantee women equals right. Their arguments was very
simple. We don't trust you. Just the same argument that was
done with the Bill of Rights.
The reason the Bill of Rights was introduced was because
people said we don't trust government. We want to be sure that
our rights are spelled out. Hey, if you didn't take them from
you, we got them. We want to see them spelled out. Women same
thing and still, the argument prevailed. Number one, we don't
need another amendment. It's there and number two, many people
felt that if you get an equal rights amendment that would take
away protection from women and they will have to go in the
military and have to be fighting and if women go fighting in the
military obviously it's going to be tougher for men because
they're going to be interested in the woman than protecting
their lovers. I don't know any man who's going to think of sex
then being killed. In fact, because in Sparta, they made sure
that male lovers were put in the same fox holes because they
knew they would fight harder for each other, watch each others
back. No pun intended. These are all new lines I'm glad to hear
it if I read them again I'll be able to use them in other
classrooms. Do my stand-up comic routine.
The one that was more of most exciting to me the biggest
argument was that if the women's equal rights amendment passed -
if the womens equal rights amendment passed, they would have to
have unisex bathrooms and the women would have to be able to go
to the men's bathroom and then the men would have to wait in
line and that upset a lot of the people. So they weren't about
to wait in line there. I many not joke as you know, I embellish
on the stories, but all of these were literally the kinds of
arguments that were made. Helped to defeat it. But legally,
basically in most states women still are considered full people
today. Despite some people's attitudes.
So, who were not people? Children. They're becoming people.
Until the age of eighteen. Used to be 21. Wyoming by the way
was one of the first states to reduce the age to eighteen.
There were many states that allowed women to vote and allowed
eighteen year olds even twenty years old to vote before the
constitution amendment . Women were given the right to vote
in 1920, 18 year old were given the right to vote in 1972. 1
know some thirteen year olds or ten year olds that probably
know more about politics then some eighteen year olds. I've got
a kid at home that way. But the fact is that we have to draw an
arbitrary line and maybe eighteen is the arbitrary line. It is
interesting how some of the best opposition came from eighteen
year olds. They themselves didn't feel they were mature at
times. But
most states. And I don't necessarily -- you do have to -well
fight in the sense of you have to petition. Usually you will,
but it's still an issue.
How about non citizens? Citizens are considered human, they
just can't vote. Translation, if your a non citizen you have
the same rights than anybody else. The right to carry a gun.
Where a felon doesn't. Things of that nature. You have the
right to sigh in the courts. You have the right to freedom of
speech. All of those rights are now there. As long as you're a
legal alien. Non aliens who were illegal lose their rights
because they're breaking the law which makes sense. Okay?
People who put themselves in a mental institution maintain
their rights, but if the state says you're insane you lose
your rights while you're in the institution. And it may be
that makes sense. Mental retardation is another issue that's
really controversial because that's by the institution. But
legally people who were retarded are considered people. If
they're institutionalized then the institution can have
certain controls based on the level of retardation. So,
translation, again, in our country we consider all people with
a few limitations to be people.
And that is a major element of our democratic society.
Granted, when we were first founded, you weren't a person
unless you owned property. Almost every state required a
certain amount of property to be owned to vote. The feeling
was that if you had a vested interest in the country then you
would learn about them what you needed to vote for. It was
the revolutionary Thomas Pain who said a man owns a jackass,
his state requires him to have fifty pounds of property to
vote, the jackass is a worth fifty pounds. He can vote fifty
dollars. English money. The jackass dies the man can no
longer vote. Pains' comment? Who really voted? The man or the
So there was even opposition in those days to the concept
of the property ownership. However, a few years ago there was a
group that went down to get some money so that their soccer
group could go to the regionals and this particular woman
attacked another woman there saying she should not be even
speaking and didn't deserve to speak because she was a renter
and therefore had no vested interest in Fremont. She rented her
apartment. She didn't own a house. There are still many who
believe that if you don't own property you really shouldn't
have a say because you shouldn't. You're not really taking a
true interest in the community. You're just a transient.
We can say times changed, but they and they change
radically, but will there are still vestiges of the past and
those kinds of values in our society. The chart itself then
talks about active consent. Many dictators say they're a
democracy because they have the consent of the people. They
know. They embody the consents of the people but if we
believe in a true democracy, we have to have the active
consent of the people. They have to be able to participate and
throw you out of office if need be. Not just the passive
consent. They have to express preferences. They have to be
able to formulate their preferences before expressing them. We
can't allow others to interpret for us and that brings us to
the sending part of the principles liberty and equality.
I have two major principles of democracy. We talk about the
John Birch Society earlier and it is true that the Birch
Society perceives liberty more important than equality. In
fact, the framers of our Constitution probably held liberty
above equality. They were fearful of equality. Today many
people feel we have gone too much the other way. We've pushed
equality over liberties and certainly that is changing. For
instance, in San Francisco you may have heard they finally over
through after a major court suit and board decided they will no
longer have a 45 percent majority required for any school in
San Francisco. In their attempt to create equal schools and
making everybody equal in San Francisco, it was ruled that no
matter where you lived, no school could have 45 percent more
than 45 percent of any one racial or ethnic group. And for
example many students who qualify for Lole high school who were
Chinese could not get in because there were more than 45
percent Chinese applying to that school. Right now, there will
be no qualifications
against that people will get into the school based upon
academic performances and if that means one hundred percent of
Jews that becomes irrelevant to Lole high schools history in
the future.
Am, is it good or is it bad? What do you do about
segregated neighborhoods or racial segregations under those
kind of rules? Those are real heavy issues. Translation,
affirmative action is under attack. Was it good? What purpose
did it serve? Some of these thing we'll teach on the next