All of these philosophers justified imperialism in their own ways. They gave good reasons to support their ideas. All of the reasons were reasons that the U.S. needed for our own benefit such as the Turner thesis and a strong navy to protect our trade. Some reasons even appealed to helping others. Fiske and Spencer thought that we would be doing the countries we took over because then they would be moved to the top of the country ladder and we would be teaching them better ways to
Thomas Paine confirms this in his counterpoint to England giving protection to America: "That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own, is admitted; and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz., for the sake of trade and dominion" (326). In other words, England protects America for the purely selfish reason of money. The English monarchy does not care about the people: America is a business investment and it will be treated as such. A similar sentiment from England 's perspective is expressed in "You 'll Be Back" when King George sings, "The price of
Paine and Henry are alike in their opinions that they should’ve taken action sooner and if they did things wouldn’t be as bad. They emphasize that the cruelty of the British, without resistance and revolution, will lead the people down a path where their freedom is stripped from them. Together, with their influential writings, they helped to create the revolution. The works by Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry made a big difference but without the persuasive techniques used it would not have made as big of an impact. In Thomas Paine’s pamphlet he uses a great emotional appeal to convince the colonists that fighting back is the right is the right thing to do.
Instead, they adopted a concept of positive liberty. In their view, the implementation of negative freedom embodied in the laissez faire liberal economic policies in the most deprived of the freedom of the American people, and almost all of the progressive reformers believe that excessive loyalty to laissez-faire liberalism has seriously damaged the American democracy. Therefore, in order to guarantee people's freedom and maintain democratic system in a very complex industrial society, liberalism must be adjusted and amended, and positive liberty should be used instead of negative freedom. Under the liberalism based on positive freedom, citizens and governments should accept this, and democracy requires the responsibility of society and the protection of
I profoundly agree with Chavez as she talks about, “Repealing the birthright citizenship is a terrible idea” (596). If we as Americans take the joy and pride of people that come to this land for freedom and a new life, what make us any better than Great Britain when we first started to build this country. We settle here for a change of mind and also a change of heart. By that being the case, us trying to take away the birthright citizenship to those who wasn’t born on this soil is absolutely wrong. Firstly, when Will said ‘To end the practice of “birthright citizenship,” all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment first sentence’ (601).
Summary: The purpose of “Civil Disobedience” was to open people’s eyes to the injustices committed by the government and to cause them to do something about it. Thoreau talks about how the American government is by definition unjust due to its support of slavery and the Mexican War and how change is needed very soon. He warned to “not at once [have] no government, but at once a better government.” in order to make it clear that he was not calling for a revolution, but a reform of the government. In the very beginning, Thoreau says that he believes “That government is best which governs least.” because the American government has made it so that the majority has all the power, even if they use their power to commit injustices. Thoreau wanted
One of the biggest hot button issues today is very global is the issue of immigration and refugees. On one side of the issue, it is thought that accepting immigrants from usually rough backgrounds is the right thing to do and we are obligated as humans to accept them to our country. On the other side, it is thought that nothing good can come from it whether it would be drugs, violence, or gang ties from Mexico and South America or Islamic extremists from places in the Middle East, especially Syria. In a world that is so focused on social issues but also very mindful of terrorist groups and attacks, it makes for a very interesting debate to think about because it is a very slippery slope. It is best to help out people struggling but there is
was an American that really used his freedom to protest and speak out for what he knew was right. King’s ability to publicly protest to the world about civil rights is what it means to be an American. Martin Luther King Jr. knew that it was not right for any human being to be treated the way African Americans were being treated at this time. King was able to use his freedom to create a better America, which is why we have freedom in the first place. Something to change about America...
Bernhardi believes war creates growth and innovation for nations while James argues that if war can be avoided then it should be. In a way they both agree that war cannot be done away with completely due to human nature and would only not exist in a utopian society for William James. To finish up on their perspectives of war it wraps around to Bernhardi advocating that war in the right situations is important to advance a nation while William James would rather stay out of war until it is absolutely necessary. After reading and writing this report, both of these authors provide solid points that I personally believe in but Bernhardi’s ideas are more inline with mine. All in all war is a controversial topic with multiple sides all forming their own solutions but with Bernhardi and William James we can see two opposite sides to find compromise in
Bourne’s essay has been influential, that he points out the failure of the “melting-pot” that aims at assimilating all immigrants into America culture, and erase their original identity to adopt a pure American one. He instead lays emphasis on the vigorous power of immigrants to shape and reshape America, suggesting an ideal higher than the “melting-pot” should be asserted, a better defined Americanism should be