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?
I feel that Emma Goldman was considered dangerous then because in a time where everybody was blinded about the negativity that comes with government and followed rules as if there were no issues, she spoke up and advocated the issues that she felt necessary. Because nobody had the nerve to speak up and have their voices heard, they saw her as a threat. Though a very brave threat. Today she would not be considered dangerous because protest and rebellion are common in today's society. Most of our people will disagree with an idea or proposal and act immediately forgetting the potential consequences. Because this way of living is so common, people are more likely to join a rebellion than shy away from one. She advocated freedom of expression, sexual freedom, equality and independence for women, radical education, and worker's rights. I completely agree with what she was advocating because these are aspects of peoples' everyday lives. Certain rights that you would assume are given to everybody are not as a result of discrimination. America claims to be "equal" yet discrimination whether it be on a basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc. is still very prominent, and advocating equality is one of the most effective things we as a people can do. It is essential that our society work together and fight for what we believe in, otherwise the government will walk right over us. I do not think anarchism is dangerous at all. The potential to live and act freely strikes a deep desire in my mind and I am sure I speak for more than myself. Of course crime will never completely diminish, but without the pressure from the government causing tension and resistance the crime and violence and protests will all die down. People are so blinded by the guard rails that the government sets that they do not see the damage the government causes. Think of it as a scratch, you can cover it up with a Band-Aid and hope for the best but when you remove it, the scratch is still there. The government does the same to us with a little persuasion and sweet talk. Whether or not you fall for it will ultimately be YOUR decision, though I never will.
ReplyDeleteChristina Marsh PSCI 100.05
Emma Goldman identified herself has an anarchist, so of course she was perceived as dangerous. She blatantly opposed government and war, and made sure her voice were heard through persuasive and passionate speeches. She publicly denounced marriage and capitalism, in which she received much negative attention from the community. In America, marriage is considered most sacred, and capitalist economy is considered to be the best type of economy. Because of her opinions, she was viewed as ruthless, obnoxious, unacceptable, and most of all, dangerous. She also advocated that occasional violent outbreaks against the government are justifiable.
ReplyDeleteToday, I believe she would still be considered dangerous to the government and most uneducated people who don't have an accurate idea of what anarchism actually is. She advocated anarchism as a combination of an optimistic faith in human nature with an intense distrust in authority. She advocated that government should be replaced with free cooperation among people. In my opinion, she was a revolutionary. I believe she was a remarkable, brave woman, as she illegally distributed birth control to women AND 'inciting to riot.' I love what she stood for and how she stood for it, as I do believe that violent revolt is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary when citizens are being stripped of their freedoms or treated unfairly by the government. Anarchism is dangerous to the government, for sure. Emma Goldman knew what her freedoms were, and she wasn't afraid to use violence to get her message across. So, I don't believe anarchism is dangerous 100% of the time. One can be an anarchist and not lead violent revolts, just as much as one can act like as Emma Goldman and use violence.
Emma Goldman was considered to be dangerous at that time period because she was "different" in how she thought and felt. In those times it was considered to be an outrage so to speak for someone to speak out in the way she did and considering she was a woman. Anarchist point of views at that time were scary and people really didn't want to hear anything about them. Goldman advocated the equality rights of woman and labor rights. She also believed in freedom of marriage, sexual ways, and just expressing yourself individually. It was just so uncommon for anyone to step out like this. I agree to an extent to what she was advocating. She must have been one tough woman to advocate this stuff in the public eye. I'm sure she took a lot of heat all of her life for this. I really do admire her for standing up for what she believed in and not settling for anything less. I think to some people she would have been considered dangerous but to others not. More and more people in todays world stand up for their beliefs and usually aren't afraid for people to hear them. Anarchism to me can be dangerous at times. The ways some people could go about it would make it quite dangerous. Mostly for the people who aren't open minded and never want to expand their thoughts on certain subjects regarding the government. Then for them it could be very scary.
ReplyDeleteAshlyn Ramsay PSCI 100.05
Emma Goldman was an anarchist who I believe was looked at to be dangerous at the time. For the most part people did not think to go against government and if they did they did not openly talk about. Many individuals believed that the government did no wrong and they had nothing to complain about. Goldman on the other made it clear that she wanted worker’s rights, peace, free love, women’s rights, birth control, and that she did not agree with government and war. She made this clear through many speeches she wrote and riots that she participated in. She was definitely not afraid to use violence to get her points across either. I do not think she would necessarily be considered dangerous today because we have some of the things that she wanted. I agree with many of the things that she was advocating because like I said today we have many of those things such as birth control, more women’s rights, more worker’s rights, and free love and so on. If she wanted other things that we do not have today, then she could potentially be dangerous especially if she used violent revolt to try and get what she wanted. Overall, I do not think that anarchism is dangerous. I think that people can do things that are dangerous to get their point across but I do not think that anarchy over all is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra Smith PSCI 100.05
I believe Emma Goldman was than and would even now be considered dangerous. Any individual that goes against the higher power expresses something differently than what they think is and always will be considered dangerous to the higher power. She was advocating against war and government, and I believe she was right for standing up for her opinions and beliefs. I don't really agree with everything she wanted and strived for, but I defiantly agree with how she went about putting out there and taking action to achieve what she thought was right to benefit society. I think anarchism is not dangerous to society as a whole, but anarchism is dangerous to any group of people that has a higher power that wants to control them. The way government controls us and manipulates our freedoms I see as more dangerous than free people working together to benefit community and peace.
ReplyDeleteShe was considered dangerous back then because she was an anarchist. She did and said what she believed was right. Today, she might be considered dangerous by some people, but only to the ones that are not anarchist. She was advocating about women should be able to have multiple sex partners, to vote, protest, etc. I am half and half on either agreeing or disagreeing about what she was advocating. I mean, it is good to speak your mind and letting people know what you think about certain things. But being the time period that it happened in, it was not right. I like how she took a stand. I think anarchism can be dangerous because there is so many laws that you have to go by. Anarchist do not believe in the government. Anarchist don't like the government doing things that they can also do.
ReplyDeleteAlivia Snyder PSCI:100.5
Emma was a dangerous force in her time and would be a dangerous force today. This danger comes from her ability to inspire others to think and act for themselves. Her tremendous oratory and commanding presence arouse people to oppose current beliefs and ideas. She has such a powerful way of words that many feared the violence and uproar those words could bring. As well, she was dangerous because she a free spirit. She embodied everything radical. This posed a great threat because others saw her cutting-edge beliefs and practices and would resonate with them. She was dangerous because she broke the norm. Her power to persuade would make her just as powerful today as she was then. A charismatic leader holds immense power over the will of their listeners. If she was lecturing today, she could hold an enormous following that could rattle our societies’ current beliefs. In her time, she advocated anarchism. She fought for free speech and civil liberties for women. She denounced government and capitalism while rallying for workers’ rights and rights to contraceptives. The things she fought for are things we take for granted today like are rights to free speech and the guaranteed 40 hour work week. She pioneered the fight for rights that all people should have. As well she fought for bigger anarchist principles of ending capitalist principles and abolishing the government. I agree with these principles in theory; however, I know they would very hard to accomplish in reality. Anarchism is dangerous. Its principles of a life without rule is a terrifying thought for those who govern. If anarchism was widely accepted, this would spell and end to government as we know it. This makes it very dangerous to those who make their livelihood from running the government. As well, anarchism can be dangerous to normal people. Without the government controlling our choices, many would not know what to do with such freedom. The power to choose for yourself can be a daunting thing for many as they would know have to become conscious of what they truly want and believe. This would open us up to becoming truly free. Thus, anarchism can be dangerous, but it is not necessarily a bad danger.
ReplyDeleteClaire Affinito PCSI 100.05
Emma Goldman was certainly dangerous; as a woman and as a political theorist and activist. Merely advocating for the use of birth control established her status as a social outcast, especially in North America where prudent values were still upheld in the early 20th century. She had a unique perspective that addressed both the concerns of women and the concerns of anti-capitalists; although she was an ardent supporter of the rights of women, she felt that voting was unnecessary as the state was a source of oppression, therefore separating herself from first wave feminism. The suffragettes themselves were considered controversial and were met with much opposition; Emma Goldman represented a much more radical approach that not only demanded equality between the sexes, but a dismantling of the hierarchy that created inequality in the first place rather than assimilation into the system.
ReplyDeleteGoldman challenged the status quo at its very core: capitalism, state, and religion. She was dangerous to the bourgeoisie, the political and religious elite, and all who benefitted from controlling the masses. She believed that the state was inherently oppressive, that capitalism was essentially a form of imprisonment that impeded personal freedom, and that religion served as nothing more than a tool to subdue citizens into humble obedience to their masters (seemingly God, but actually the rich and powerful). Today, Goldman would still be considered dangerous as these systems are still in place (although with religion becoming less and less influential and power). Even today, people are incarcerated for “inciting a riot” just as Goldman was, as evidenced by the incredible amount of police corruption and brutality surrounding Black Lives Matter protests. Anarchists are considered “the fringe” of modern politics in North America today, and Emma Goldman would not only be labelled a radical, I believe she would be considered an extremist who would be ignored, mocked, or silenced through any means necessary by the mass media and government.
I consider Emma Goldman a great inspiration and someone with whom I share many political and philosophical perspectives with. I agree with nearly all of her viewpoints, and I respect her passion and sacrifice. Of particular concern to me is women’s rights, and her unapologetic devotion to the independence of women and their right to have sex with who they like, how they like, with contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy while also supporting the right of women to choose motherhood if that is their calling. Anarchism is definitely dangerous, but only to those for whom excessive power, control, and domination is their bread and butter. For average citizens, like myself and my classmates, anarchism is not dangerous. Anarchism is not chaotic, violent, dystopian nightmare, but an ideology which seeks to emancipate us from the chains of the state. I believe Emma Goldman understood this with the depth and clarity that those in power tremble at.
Moriah Smith, PSCI 100.05
Emma Goldman was an anarchist and during her time it was considered extremely rebellious or even dangerous to go against the social norms, let alone going against the government. People during this time ate, slept, and breathed the government. If they disagreed what the government was doing they certainly did not voice their opinion about it. She was considered a huge threat/ danger back then and I believe that should would have been considered one today as well. She was advocating that women can have more then one sexual partner, they did not have to marry, women could vote and protest. Basically, do everything a man can do without question. I believe what she was fighting for was right. Women deserve as much of rights as men do, but even today we live in a world with restrictions of those of different race and gender. Although women share the majority of the freedoms as men do today, there still are some limitations on what a women can do. Its rare that you see a woman the CEO of a company, because that is a "mans job". Woman to this day cannot have multiple sex partners without being called names. So i do believe even to this day people would have felt threaten by her. Anarchism is not dangerous to those who aren't in power. The government will always fear anarchist beliefs because it jeopardizes them, but for those who want to excersize all of their freedoms it's a great idea.
ReplyDeleteKylie Rorls, PSCI 100:05
Emma Goldman was considered to be dangerous in her time, because she fought for ideas that the government did not agree with. They also did not agree with that fact that she approved of violence to get the point across. I believe that she would still be considered dangerous today by the government. There are many issues that I think she would have a problem with, and would speak on. She was a huge advocate of women's rights. She believed that women had the right to birth control. She was also very against prejudice against homosexuals. She was a huge believer in free love. I wholeheartedly agree with was she was advocating. She saw that things were not equal, and she tried to change them. She is an inspiration. I do not believe that anarchism is dangerous. I might have had a different answer before taking this course, but I have learned the anarchists are only dangerous to those who do not approve of what they stand for. The government wants us to believe that anarchists are dangerous, so that we do not listen to them. Anarchist are a threat only to the government because they are opposed to government.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Reid PSCI 100:05
Emma Goldman was an anarchist who was considered dangerous due to her differing beliefs in government and women’s rights. Goldman was against the capitalist government and strived for anarchy in order to have equality and freedom for all. She also opposed marriage and advocated free birth control for women, which was typically unheard of in that time period. I believe that Goldman would still be a threat today. Due to her use of both verbal and physical power, Goldman would be too strong of a force today for the government. In today’s society, she would also gain more followers which would create a larger impact. I agree with most of the ideas that she advocated. For one, free birth control has many positive benefits. Free birth control can prevent unwanted pregnancies, decrease abortion rates, and decrease risks of certain diseases such as pelvic inflammatory disease. Also, women shouldn’t be forced to marry at a certain age (or marry at all) if they are not ready to. Marriage is a lifelong commitment that may not be desired by all. Furthermore, women should be free to explore their sexuality, everyone should be free to use their bodies as they wish! The only area I disagree with is the use of violence. To me, words are stronger than fists and violence is unnecessary and harmful. Overall, I do not think anarchy is dangerous, especially without the use of violence. Anarchist’s main goal is to create equality and peace for all people, and that is a great thing. The only people who fear anarchists are those of the political hierarchy because they do not want to lose their power.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Tepper PSCI 100:05
Emma Goldman was considered a very dangerous anarchist in her time. Goldman did not believe in the same things that the government did. She believed that violence could be used to get a point or her point across, and also believed women should have the right to birth control, divorce, and the right to vote which was considered absurd in her time. She would still be considered dangerous today because of her belief in using violence to get her, or someone else's point across. I do agree on the most part of what she is saying, women should have more rights like they do today, but the whole violence thing is a no. Anarchism can be considered dangerous, it is most certainly dangerous to the government and families or people who rely heavily on the government. Anarchy on the other hand is not necessarily violent to the individual.
ReplyDeleteGoldman was very dangerous in her time. I don't think she would be as dangerous today due to more progressive views in women's rights, ect but still she could very much intimidate todays government as well. Her lectures and speaking even incited violence in people and caused one to murder President Mckinley. I do agree with her views for civil rights for women, birth control, freedom of love, sex and marriage and her view that "change will always be violent", yet she didn't condemn violence and murder but only to induce change. Anarchism is dangerous to government and the elitist individuals who relied on government and ran big industry in america. Her lover Berkman even attempted to murder an elite business man but failed. But really she and her anarchism was dangerous to everyone, it scared many people who lived comfortably under the capitalist society and went against many norms and views most people back then held.
ReplyDeleteHolly Campbell
PSCI 100.05
During her time Goldman was considered very dangerous because of her opinions against the government and how she fought for them. Back than these belief's and statements against the government would be viewed differently than today. Today I believe she wouldn't be considered all that dangerous due to the fact these views and opinions have been around a lot longer and everyone has gone through this already. I agree with her views for civil rights for women like birth control, freedom to love whom they choose. Anarchism in my opinion could be dangerous to some yes, it could be dangerous to those who go with the flow or rely on others to tell them what to do.
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman was considered to be a very dangerous woman during her time because she was a very passionate Anarchist and she was willing to do anything to raise awareness about her movement. I think she would still be considered to be somewhat dangerous today, at least to the government, because she was trying to make people realize that it was possible to have a society that the government didn't have control over. I don't necessarily agree with her movement, but I don't disagree with it either. I don't think that anarchism is dangerous to the people, but it may, in some ways, be dangerous to the government.
ReplyDeleteEmma Goldman. Was considered to be dangerous because she thought differently than others. She had strong opinions against the government. She was verbally powerful and was a threat in some ways be cause of her efforts to rally the people into abolishing government. She would still have power today but not nearly.as much. Women have been granted a lot more freedoms and her words would not be as shocking and powerful with so many other woman now fighting for separate causes. I don't k.ow if anarchism is dangerous. I think it's all about the people fighting for it. They could become dangerous is they choose to, but no government is just as dangerous as a government
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your time.
ReplyDeleteLuton parking meet and greet
Keep sharing such a great post. Valet Parking Heathrow
ReplyDeleteNice post for all the travellers. parking luton airport
ReplyDelete