In the beginning parts of this chapter, particularly the first page, the writer mentions that “women’s activity was suppressed by revolutionaries and reactionaries alike”. This made me think of the countless efforts women had made in the past to gain rights, and it even made me think of modern day movements. My question is, do minorities revolutionary ideas seem to be diminished by the male majority and their revolutionary thoughts?
Students started to defended their right to participate in politics and protested against the Vietnam war in 1964 because of the administration’s decision to ban all funds and propaganda for any political party or social ideals they did not agree with. This led to a small group of students to take action by writing their point of view in the Free-Speech Movement News Letters.
I am curious as to what their definition of propaganda was myself, but I want to know if you guys think banning the fundraising and propaganda was a smart decision or not?
On page 11, the text mentions that both the Lettrists and the Situationists needed to do something bigger to get an audience and attention. Do you think their tactics worked? Is putting on a “bigger show” making a strong statement or is it doing the opposite?
Even though it says 1600s, it is still fitting for the 1700s-1800s (I just found it on my Instagram feed). This would’ve went well with my editorial presentation or back when we were actually in this time period, but I thought I should still share it. 🙂
Do you think the demands of the Hungarian Parliament were too demanding? Too vague? Could they have listed specific ways on how to reach these demands? I am constantly ‘sitting on the fence’ during discussion, but I think that the majority of these demands were feasible, but they could have been clearer in the sense of having an actual plan. Does anyone agree? And if you don’t, why not?