Go watch this movie on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5tb_5WovA
Emma Goldman was a well-known anarchist. This week we'll watch a film about how she was an exceedingly dangerous woman. After we watch the film, I want you to consider these questions:
Why was she considered dangerous then? Would she be considered dangerous today? What was she advocating? Do you agree or disagree with what she advocated? Why or why not? Finally, one last question: is anarchism dangerous? If so, to whom?
Emma Goldman may have been considered dangerous to the Era she was born into. She was a feminist, a labor activist, and above all- an anarchist. At a time when anarchists were being thrown into jail without proof of injustices, Emma Goldman spoke out. She advocated women's rights, labor unions, and the practice of Anarchism. I agree full heartedly with what Emma Goldman advocated and I don't believe she would be considered dangerous today. I think Emma would be considered an inspiration to women and the world. I believe Anarchism could be dangerous just like any other government if they gain too much power.
ReplyDeleteKatie Madden: PSCI: 100:03
Emma Goldman was considered dangerous back the because when she joined the anarchist movement, she took it farther than it should have went. For example she tried to help Alexander Berkman kill Henry Clay Frick because he treated his workers in a steel factory unfairly. She made anarchists look like the devil as she turned many of ideas and beliefs into violence, chaos and riots. Even though she was the one causing all the violence, she would blame the government for all violence. Many people were inspired by her political violence that one even killed President Minkenly. If she were still around today she would be just as dangerous. That's because politics are a lot bigger now than they were back then, in my opinion. Many people protest and some of them become violent. I'm sure Golden would be able to convince many people to be on her side, which could cause many violent events leading in injuries and death. Emma was advocating for workers rights, womens equality, free love, educational rights and anarchism. Although some of these things have been taken care of since she was alive (such as educational rights, regarding race and ethnicity and free love is getting better) some still need work. I do believe that advocating for these are a good idea. But the way she went about it, I do not agree with. Violence in this case will case more chaos and problems and we will never able to solve these issues. Going about these issues without violence is how she should have done it. I believe anarchism is only dangerous sometimes. When violence and protests get out of control that's when i believe that anarchism is dangerous. Anarchist have every right to believe in what they believe in, but when it comes to stepping over the line it can become dangerous. Not only can anarchism become dangerous but so can any other form of government. It is just something that needs to be watched so things dont get out of hand, where people may end up getting seriously injured.
ReplyDeleteKim Nicholls PSCI:100.01
Damian Beane
ReplyDeletePSCI 100:01
I believe that Emma Goldman was considered dangerous back then because she advocated for people to have the right to choose for themselves what was best for them.She was against the war and against birth control and big business. She was really outspoken on these topics and did resort to direct action and was jailed frequently because of it.I agree with her on these points because I feel that people should have the right to choose without the government interfering. I dont believe that people should have been drafted to fight in wars and I dont believe that the big businesses should have as much power as they do. Anarchy could become dangerous if the wrong message gets mixed in with what the core values of anarchy are but in most instances I think that anarchism can exist without becoming dangerous. There are many instances in everyday life that anarchy exists and people get along just fine without being governed.
Emma was a dangerous women because of the approach she took towards promoting change and the lengths she was willing to go. She spoke with great vigor and determination that she would will people to follow her cause as shown by the assassin that took President Mckinleys life. Today she would be seen as very dangerous because of the restriction to our freedom to speech and the breach of all of our individual rights. She very much openly defies the government and is able to instill determination in her audience. She advocated with many things coming from openly protesting war, conscription, birth control, and women loving as many and whomever people she wanted. Some things she fought for i agreed with like conscription and freedom of speech but most other things I dont. Considering my beliefs and the purpose behind some things I just dont agree with what she is advocating though I support her right to protest whatever she wants all the way. I do think government intervenes with too much but some government intervention is needed to instill peace and organization. Anarchism is a great ideal but there is too many things keeping that from being reality. Anarchism is not a dangerous ideal but is a very dangerous reality. It is dangerous to the people because there has been too much sources of evil released to the world. Things such as money and power could lead a man to do things that he wouldnt naturally do. When pushed to it a man seeks out to better himself and those he loves through any means necessary and a lack of order would help that cause. -Kody Hinzman PSCI101:01
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman was considered dangerous at the time because she spoke out against things that typically women didn't speak about. She talked about birth control, anarchism, and feminism. I don't believe she would be considered as dangerous today as she was then, because things like birth control and feminism are practically part of daily conversation. Goldman advocated anarchism, obviously, but she also advocated politically motivated murder. I agree with the advocating of anarchism, but I highly disagree with murder in any form. In some ways, anarchism could be considered dangerous because if people take advantage of the system, or lack thereof, it could come crumbling down without regard of the efforts of other anarchists.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100.01
Emma Goldman was considered dangerous because she voiced her opinion. This made her dangerous because it inspired others to agree with her and even possibly take up arms and kill who they believe to be the problem. Though she did not advocate violence she did not go out against it either. She would most defiantly be considered dangerous today because the government has not really changed. They still fear people who speak out against them and will go to any means necessary to keep them silent. Our freedom of speech is not complete freedom. There are certain things that we can not say without getting arrested or worse. Emma advocated anarchy itself as well as, birth control, sex, feminism, the Russian Revolution, and went against World War I amongst many other things. For the most part I agree with her. People should not be forced to love someone else, having control of yourself and the government not telling you what to do, but one thing she said struck me. She stated that poor men should not fight a rich man's war. It made me think about war in a different perspective that is not the norm for society. Overall, the idea of anarchism is not dangerous in the slightest but the means of getting there is. Some will go to any length to achieve anarchy and that may even mean killing others to get there.
ReplyDeleteStacy Mummert PSCI 100.01
Emma Goldman was dangerous back then because she encouraged people to defy the government when the government was doing something they didn't like.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of the freedoms she fought for are no longer an issue today, women are still, on average, paid less than men in the workforce and I’m sure she would be advocating for abortion rights for women, a hot topic of today. There is also still the aspect of our government going to war with foreign nations over issues that don’t directly affect its people and are primarily political in nature. So yes, I think she would still be considered dangerous today, especially in terms of what she would be advocating in modern day America.
Emma Goldman was advocating propaganda by the deed, civil liberties, rights of workers, rights for women to love when they wanted to love and to get an education and to live their life how they wanted to live it, to get the poor and unemployed to ask for jobs or bread, or take bread if none was given, birth control, which was illegal to talk about in public, and anti-war because it is a war between the rich and capitalist being fought by the lower and middle class.
Although I don’t fully support the Anarchist idea of no government, I do support everything she advocated. Everything mentioned above are either rights we now have or are close to getting, with the exception of our country going to war, which I think is worse than it was in her time since the U.S. is pretty much interfering with any country that has people in it that it deems a threat.
Anarchism is only dangerous to those who wish to control the lives of others by establishing hierarchy and laws and limits the freedom of people. Although the idea of anarchism might threaten the lifestyle of normal people today, I wouldn't consider it dangerous to them.
Tom Jones PSCI:01
Emma Goldman was dangerous back then because she encouraged people to defy the government when the government was doing something they didn't like.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of the freedoms she fought for are no longer an issue today, women are still, on average, paid less than men in the workforce and I’m sure she would be advocating for abortion rights for women, a hot topic of today. There is also still the aspect of our government going to war with foreign nations over issues that don’t directly affect its people and are primarily political in nature. So yes, I think she would still be considered dangerous today, especially in terms of what she would be advocating in modern day America.
Emma Goldman was advocating propaganda by the deed, civil liberties, rights of workers, rights for women to love when they wanted to love and to get an education and to live their life how they wanted to live it, to get the poor and unemployed to ask for jobs or bread, or take bread if none was given, birth control, which was illegal to talk about in public, and anti-war because it is a war between the rich and capitalist being fought by the lower and middle class.
Although I don’t fully support the Anarchist idea of no government, I do support everything she advocated. Everything mentioned above are either rights we now have or are close to getting, with the exception of our country going to war, which I think is worse than it was in her time since the U.S. is pretty much interfering with any country that has people in it that it deems a threat.
Anarchism is only dangerous to those who wish to control the lives of others by establishing hierarchy and laws and limits the freedom of people. Although the idea of anarchism might threaten the lifestyle of normal people today, I wouldn't consider it dangerous to them.
Tom Jones PSCI:01
Stephen Ryan PSCI 100:01
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman was considered dangerous in her day for several different reasons. She advocated women's rights, labor unions, and anarchism. Goldman was considered dangerous because unlike other women in her time, she was outspoken and passionate about her beliefs. She encouraged people to disregard the government and to do whatever they thought was best for themselves. Although, there were numbers of people getting thrown in jail around her, she wasn't afraid to stand by what she believed in. I don't necessarily agree with what she advocated, but I also don't disagree. I'm more neutral in political beliefs than anybody I know. However, I think she could have expressed her points without violence. I personally don't think anarchism is dangerous, I think that the general person is afraid of the term anarchy because they picture a broken country stuck in turmoil.
For her time and her time only Emma Goldman was considered dangerous. She was a women's rights activist a labor activist and one of the most prominent anarchist of her time. Would she be as dangerous in todays society?The answer is no. She was dangerous in her time because her times were weak and it was slightly easier for anarchist to gain power. In todays society Emma Goldman would have just been like any other anarchist today...UNHEARD OF. She might have been recognized for her women's rights involvement but that would have been it. Is anarchism dangerous in todays society? No. Anarchism is a STATELESS SOCIETY. In todays world the state has become so deeply ingrained into our lives that its impossible to get rid of it. Everything is owned by the government, hell even ourselves as "individuals" are owned by the government. So NO Anarchism today is not dangerous and don't think it ever will be.
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman was, and would still be considered, as dangerous as one person has the capability to be. Anyone with an idea and a drive can be dangerous in his or her own way.She advocated anarchy, women's rights, worker's rights, and revolution in Russia.She was perhaps misguided in some of her words and action on the matter of propaganda by the deed.Still, as a woman, I appreciate her work on women's equality. She would not be considered as dangerous today, and I believe that shows some progress on society's part, but anarchy itself can be rather dangerous. If an anarchist believes propaganda by the deed is in order, it can be dangerous to someone in power. It also endangers aspects of everyday people's lives in that you would lose some of the security, support, and education provided by the government.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Duckworth PSCI 100.01
I didn't think that Emma Goldman would still be considered dangerous in the present day but now that i've seen your point of view I believe that it could be possible.
DeleteCoryn Barger PSCI 100-03
Emma Goldman was considered a dangerous woman because she dared to proposed a change in society which, back then was very rare. It was especially rare for a woman to voice her opinions and her thoughts. She was willing to put her voice out there to make change for the living conditions of women and the lower working class. She was taunting governments big business and war. She condemns capitalism, denounced marriage and she was crusading birth control. She was advocating for the rights of women to have choices and to be treated as equal. I agree with Goldman in what she advocated because she paved the way for us today. She was able to speak up for thousands of women who did not have the strength that she did. She changed the way society views women. I don't think she would be considered dangerous in todays world because women are more outspoken and are willing to step up for their rights and support one another. Anarchism is not dangerous but the people with different views it could be dangerous such as the government. Their view are completely different and what they see to be right and wrong are not the same and this creates conflicts.
ReplyDeleteKimi Khiangte
PSCI 100:01
Emma Goldman was considered very dangerous because she supported many things that weren't common in society during her time such as free marriage, homosexuality, feminism, capitolism and more. She wouldn't be considered dangerous today because most of the things that Goldman stood for are more widely accepted among modern society. Homosexuality has been made legal in many states nationwide, and feminism seems to be a hot topic among women in society. I partially agree with what she advocated, as I believe in free marriage, the right to choose who you want to marry, and some aspects of her other arguments. Anarchism can be dangerous towards the government as it goes against most of what it stands for. Anarchism calls for extremely limited if any government, and anarchist today will break the law without a second thought to prove a point about their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman was dangerous because she dared to challenge the authority of the state. Whether then or now, it does not matter; dissent against the establishment is unacceptable. What form that dissent takes is irrelevant; it is a threat to the stranglehold the government has over the populace and it must not be allowed to grow.
ReplyDeleteWhat Goldman advocated was the total liberation of all human beings; for all the chains that tie us down to be broken. She espoused the belief that sometimes violence must be carried out to encourage the masses to revolt. Personally, I would hope that violence could be avoided in the quest for liberation, but the wall of apathy is nearly unshakable in its foundations, and I wonder often exactly what it would take to tear it asunder. I believe that we can be a truly great people through the power of self-determination, but so long the cancerous institutions of our society weigh us down, we can never ascend to new heights.
Yes, anarchism is dangerous. It is dangerous to all those who seek to oppress his fellow man. It is dangerous to those who would see our fragile earth poisoned and eviscerated in a never ending search for uncaring self-gratification. It is dangerous to all those whose minds have been warped and twisted by the poisons of power and authority, who would forsake all things good and decent in this world for meaningless monetary gain. There is no greater threat to the authority of the state than the simple idea that men may exist without being dependent on a higher power.
Through political activism, Emma Goldman threatened the overthrowal of every authority in the nation. Such defiance went beyond governmental reform. Rather, it opposed every aspect of hierarchy, both political and social. In an era previously ignorant to anarchist ideals, anarchism was as unprecedented as it was extreme. Never before had ideas of anarchism circulated in the United States, let alone gained traction. In these ways, the birth of anarchism in America was especially frightening to authoritarian figures.
ReplyDeleteEconomic crisis also contributed to the fear of anarchism. Disgruntled workers were more apt to listen to anarchist ideas. By age 24, Goldman was already a well known activist with thousands of followers. Attempts to stifle this movement by putting Goldman in jail proved futile, for two years after she was released, Leon Czolgosz assassinated President William Mckinley under inspiration from Goldman.
This was the pinnacle of authorities’ fear of Goldman. Anarchism was a seemingly unstoppable force that resorted to the most extreme of measures to accomplish its goal. Though Goldman, along with anarchism, would not make any more waves of revolution after this, her threat of overthrowing the government was real at the time, and subsequently warranted her dangerous reputation.
Goldman would still be considered dangerous today. Today’s government is far more intrusive than the 19th century’s. Anarchy is also more popular today than it was a hundred years ago. Whether that is the result of a larger government presence, familiarity with anarchy, or a combination of the two can be studied further. What is clear is the preservation of Goldman’s dream, a world without hierarchies.
Although there are seemingly more reasons to support anarchy today, apathy combats revolution. Modern day Americans are fairly content with their lives. While more government imposes more restrictions, it also grants benefits (education, healthcare ect.). That is not to say that it cannot be improved, but rather that it provides enough security to overlook such trivialities. However, the government will still suppress any attempts at overthrowing it, and always will. Anarchism will never be welcomed in any form of government, and in this sense, Goldman would be perceived and dealt with in the same way.
Above all, Goldman advocated a stateless society of valuable action. She believed that the government did not have the right to rule or interfere with people’s affairs. Her ideal society was one in which people listened to each other. No one was forced or coerced to do anything. Rather, they could reason with each other. They did not need a government, for they were generally good and as such respected each other’s liberties. The implications of these beliefs included treating everybody equally, as well as providing equal opportunity.
I disagree with Goldman. I think the fundamental assumption that people are generally good is flawed. Only a small percentage of people have to be morally corrupt to bring chaos into an anarchist society, and when they do, there will not be sufficient resistance to put it down. For this reason, I think anarchy works in theory, but ultimately is not a viable long term solution.
Anarchism is dangerous in the most obvious sense of the word. How is anarchism to come about if not through violent uprisings? The people who will rally behind such a movement will not be outstanding citizens with a healthy distrust of authority. They will be people with no job, no money, and no future acting upon resentment towards the government instead of a greater vision for humankind. Security will be non-existent, and violence will not be contained to a handful of people. Instead, retaliation will inevitably perpetuate the cycle of violence and negate any moral standard.
Elijah Spinney
PSCI 100:03
Emma Goldman was considered dangerous because her anarchist speeches were so persuasive that President McKinley's assassin claimed to have been influenced by her speech to do shoot him. I believe that her speeches and texts could have a similar effect if read by people today, but I don't think she is much of a threat anymore since I was never taught anything related to anarchism in K-12, and not a lot of people will research it by themselves. She advocated for feminism (but not women's suffrage) as freedom from patriarchy, free love, access to contraception, and rejecting capitalism. Anarchy is dangerous to any type of hierarchy, and to people who are unable to fend for themselves, like children and the elderly, since they are dependent on others.
ReplyDeleteEmily Brown PSCI 100:01
Emma Goldman was an incredibly passionate idealist. She fearlessly challenged authority and was willing to do anything for what she believed. She also had the power to inspire many people with her words, even inspiring Leon Czolgosz to shoot President William McKinley. For all of these reasons she was seen as a danger. Goldman was also viewed as a threat for the sheer fact that she was a woman speaking out about issues such as marriage and sex from a woman's perspective, which was seen as taboo at that time. Since many issues she spoke of are less controversial today than they were then, I think she would be seen as less of a threat now. However, I would still consider her dangerous because of the impact she had on people and the things she could potentially inspire them to do.
ReplyDeleteGoldman was an advocate for anarchism. She wanted a totally free society based on mutual cooperation with no government whatsoever. She also advocated for feminism, free love and equality, which I agree strongly with. However, while I think that anarchist ideals such as freedom are good things to want, it seems almost naïve to expect an anarchist society to come about as smoothly as Goldman believed it would. She put anarchism on a pedestal and failed to see many problems it could bring. Because anarchism relies on zero government whatsoever, and violent overthrow is one way of getting rid of the government, anarchism could potentially be very dangerous, especially to those who stand in its way.
Pandora Affemann
PSCI 100:03
I love your point about Emma Goldman's influence on Leon Czolgosz. I completely overlooked the power that her influence had on others even to commit violent acts despite the fact that violence was not necessarily what she was going for. Her influence alone had different effects on different individuals.
DeleteCoryn Barger PSCI 100-03
Emma Goldman was definitely considered dangerous for her time. One she was a immigrant woman with close to zero rights, and she was out speaking all of the men and government. And what made her so dangerous is that people actually listened, followed, and believed her, which most definitely freaked the government out! If something like this came about today I would definitely think he/she would be dangerous. And the topics she was advocating for were a little far fetched for her time which is definitely why the government freaked but I completely agree with her point. And in today's view anarchism is dangerous because it involves zero government and that freaks a lot of people out so they will do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen.
ReplyDeleteEmma challenged authority and spoke openly about how she felt, making her dangerous for her time. She was very influential and inspired passion within many who heard her speak. Today she could still be considered dangerous because she was speaking out against the existing hierarchy and with such conviction. She commonly spoke about the rights of women and workers, war, and big business, all being topics that effect the population immensely. She also advocated for anarchy, which can be dangerous and violent though it does not have to be.
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman was considered dangerous because she was a woman far before her time. She fought for her views and her beliefs and that scared the people of her time. Even now, many people think of anarchy as fires, looting, and as a danger to the system we call our government. I personally don't feel that she would be considered "dangerous" in todays society. I think that now, just as then, she would have followers and people who believed in her movement, but dangerous is not the right word. The government would probably not be thrilled with her, but there are anarchist groups today who function peacefully, for the most part, and spread their word and are not considered "dangerous." I believe in the 'live and let live' mantra, but I feel like the anarchist points she advocated are slightly extreme for my personal beliefs. I do agree with some of her points, like about womans rights or the working class, but some things are slightly too extreme for me. I don't find anarchism to be dangerous because much like any other political party it has its followers but the chances of it becoming main stream and overthrowing the two main political parties is slim to none.
ReplyDeleteNicole Custead PSCI 100-03
In her time, Emma Goldman was most definitely a dangerous woman. She was advocating for things that were completely against the norms of the time. She wanted women to have no only choice but POWER. That had to be terrifying for everyone else. I think that even now she would be controversial but not necessarily dangerous.
ReplyDelete^Coryn Barger PSCI 100-03
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman was considered dangerous in her time because her views were considered radical and she easily rallies support for her "radical" views. Today, I do not think that Goldman would be considered dangerous because many people today openly share her views and are not punished as easily or often as the people in her time had been. She had advocated for birth control and sexual freedom as well as freedom of thought and expression. I do agree with what she advocated for because I feel that women should be able to do whatever they please with their bodies without anyone, especially the government or religious institutions telling them what to do. I also believe that people should be allowed to think and express whatever they want, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I think anarchism is considered dangerous by those who oppose it, such as government officials and people are heavily rely on absolutely everything the government provides people with.
ReplyDeleteSummer Varso PSCI 100:1
I don't believe she would be considered as dangerous now as she was back then. She had views that are considered common now. There are many people who believe in women's rights and birth control and such. SHe was considered dangerous then just because it was taboo to have those thoughts. It was strange and if others had the same opinions they probably stayed quiet to avoid being outcasted. But in today's society she would have many people behind her.
ReplyDeleteChevelle Whichard PSCI 100:1
I agree with this. She would not be considered dangerous, and would probably be highly respected today among liberals who share her ideas. Goldman would probably be feared, or even ridiculed, by today's right-wing conservatives, but would be a beacon to the liberal left.
DeleteMitch Woolley PSCI 100.01
I think she was considered dangerous back then because she questioned and challenged a very important social structure, which was that men were the heads of the family and women needed to follow them silently and respect their wishes. When such empowering concepts were fought for in the name of women, it was an unknown, and therefore frightening concept. I don't think she would be considered dangerous nowadays because our society is becoming more and more focused on equality for both genders and focused on acceptance without bias.
ReplyDeleteKatie Fenley PSCI 100:03
Emma Goldman was considered dangerous back then because she was openly against and protesting the social hierarchy that had been set up by society and reinforced by the governement via women's rights and racial inequalities. That, and Emma was not afraid to get physical with her protests. Today, the only reason that I think Emma would be considered dangerous would because those protests could get violent and people could get hurt. That and the assassination attempt she made could designate her as a terrorist. But, as for her ideals, those are not as dangerous or nowhere near as radical as they were back at the turn of the century. Women's rights are still fought for, but birth control and contraceptives are widely available to women today. So, there's one of Emma's goals actualized.
ReplyDeleteAlex Willett PSCI100:01
Emma Goldman back then was considered dangerous because when she was giving her opinions, such things were unheard of from woman. Back then woman did not have the same rights as today back then. So the people thought she was dangerous because she was making a stand for what she believed in. people were getting worried because of sexism. Today she would not be considered dangerous because now many people and different groups have the same views as her and woman are now fighting for more rights with out being considered a dangerous person.
ReplyDeleteMichael Solomonik PSI 100:01