In order to better understand the comments made by Jules Ferry in 1884, we must first understand the state of affairs of late 19th century France. Just thirteen years prior, France had lost to Germany in the Franco-German war. This resulted in France losing territory and was thus economically weakened. Another major change after this war was the emergence of Germany as a great power. Their victories during the war lead to uniting Germany. The power shift between France and Germany left the French people feeling a tremendous amount of hate towards the Germans. In light of these of events, it is not surprising that Jules Ferry made such a statement. According to Ferry the recent developments in world trade that had made it urgent for France to have colonies had to do with Germany and the United States. One of Ferry’s reasons for colonization was due to Germany “setting up trade barriers” (Kleinman, 1897). This was, of course, easy …show more content…
He believed that the “higher races have a right over the lower races” (Kleinman, 1897). The arguments presented by Ferry’s critics were that he was attempting to justify slavery and that a country that believes in human rights should not commit such an act. In response, Ferry claimed that the Spanish did not uphold their responsibility as the superior race in Latin America (Kleinman, 1897). In other words, he is saying that bringing slavery to other lands should not be the goal of colonization. It is almost as if he is implying that slavery should have been beneath the Spanish and that it was a mistake. In addition, Ferry redirects the topic back to trade by reminding everyone of France’s previous colonization in Saigon, Indochina, Tunisia, and Madagascar. His goal is to emphasize the need for “safe harbors, defenses, supply centers on the high seas” (Kleinman, 1897). Thus he defended imperialism by pointing out the need to strengthen France’s
In Jay Heinrichs, “Thank You for Arguing”, the Eddie Haskell Ploy was a rhetorical virtue that stuck out and closely connected to me. When unsure if you will win an argument, the Eddie Haskell Ploy explains, “…preempt your opponent by taking his side” (Heinrichs 65). This not only makes you look like you knew what you were doing all along, but it makes the opposing side respect you more and leave them feeling more cared about and confident in their side. For example, after Jay Heinrich’s daughter used this sly ploy, he stated, “Even though I saw through the ruse, I admired it. Her virtue went way up in my eyes” (Heinrichs 64). This ploy is a classic move that my siblings and I would always pull on our parents. For instance, when I knew asking
To summarize the book into a few paragraphs doesn't due it the justice it deserves. The beginning details of the French and Ind...
The Consequence Argument is an argument that concludes a hypothesis to be true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion, or a manipulation of one’s emotion in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. There are two sides in the Consequence Argument, compatibilism and determinism. Free will is the ability to either perform or restrain from actions based upon one’s decision. In the free will debate, Peter van Inwagen, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, takes on a compatibilist view by establishing that freedom can be present or absent in situations for any reasons, and that if determinism is true than one’s
The Purpose of this speech is to gain support for a freedom movement from the British government. One can see this when he states, ?Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?? He is speaking about Great Britain bringing their military to the Americas. This tells the people he is speaking to, ?[England has] chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.? He brings up this in his argument to bring to light the liberties that have been slowly pulled away from the people living in the Americas.
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
However, French lost its territory to the Spanish and the British, but most of France’s colonial wealth were extracted from their colonies in Africa, especially from its vast wealth of gold and diamond. “Like the Spanish the French preferred to rule their colonies under a direct rule, which urge more metropole culture spread upon colonized land. While Spanish colonial cities have plazas, the French colonial cities have Paris grid town planning and architecture that often remind one of France. They also introduced education system using French language, to help further brainwash and spread their own value” (Quora). “The French also wanted to spread their “French value” to its subject as part of their “civilizing” mission, to bless the barbaric of indigenous Africans and Asians with enlightenment (admittedly they were less successful than Americans, but did manage to spread the French language all over Africa)” (Quora). While Africa became more “France”, this failed in Indochina because the locals find French difficult to learn. The Africa colonization was pure and simple, to benefit the metropole at most while limiting the development of industry as to make Africa reliant on European
The French and Indian War impacted the trans-Atlantic economic relationship between the motherland and her colonies. Before the war colonists were rushing to buy new British manufactured goods resulting from the early stages of the industrial revolution. To pay for these manufactured goods, colonists increased their export of raw materials for sale to Britain. Although the exports were able to pay for a significant portion of cost of British imports, a significant shortfall was covered by British loans. This economic relationship saturated much of pre-French and Indian War colonial America and became normal. After 1763, Britain was in dreadful need for revenue to pay for the French and Indian War. Britain was clever on finding ways to raise revenue from the colonies. From 1650 to the end of the French and Indian War was a period of "salutary neglect." Britain had very little involvement in the lifestyle of the colonies. After the French and Indian War, mercantilism became strictly enforced. Merc...
First, as the war between England and France intensified, American merchants continued to trade with both countries. In 1805, a British court ruled that enemy goods were not neutralized ...
As almost anyone with the slightest knowledge of European history can tell you, the French and the British do not like each other. Some French and British people still hate each other today for issues that occurred 100 of years ago. So on top of the conflict that is already present between France and Great Britain there is a new one in the pursuit of gaining more land and power for one’s cou...
According to Ferry, what recent developments in world trade made it urgent for France to have colonies?
Trade was important to the Maritimes. Up to 1846 Britain had provided the British North American colonies with a market for their goods, but then began a policy of free trade. Because there were no tariffs placed on any country the colonies lost a sure market for their goods. Many colonists were concerned that some might consider union with the United States and the British North American colonies was brisk with large amounts of lumber and grain being imported by the U.S. When the Americans ended the Reciprocity Treaty in 1865, many Maritimers became uneasy about the economic future. It became apparent that in order to develop thriving trade; new economic links would have to be developed. 3
The French people were quick to blame the government for all the misfortune they possess, yet ignored the potential evil or crisis the social body was heading towards within themselves. Because of the rapid sequence of horrific events in the beginning of the French revolution, it prevented the subversive principles to be spread passes the frontiers of France, and the wars of conquest which succeeded them gave to the public mind a direction little favorable to revolutionary principles (2). French men have disgraced the religion by ‘attacking with a steady and systematic animosity, and all it is there that the weapon of ridicule has been used with the most ease and success (2). Metternich was not in support of the French
Morality a part of ethics is a debatable topic. The study of ethics called metaethics deals with what morality is and deals with the scope of moral values. The debate in metaethics about morality is on the existence of moral facts. Philosophers have different perspective on morality and if it has a truth/false value like science does. Moral facts define morality as something that can have a truth value attached to it and thus there are principles governing what is moral and what is not. However, there are philosophers like J.L. Mackie and Gilbert Harman who do not believe in moral realism or that moral facts exist. Mackie believes in the second order moral subjectivism. He does not believe in the subjectivism that states that morality reports
The Scramble for Africa was a European attempt by several countries to colonize Africa, create commerce, and establish treaties with the indigenous leaders. While other European expeditions endeavored to take possession of Côte d'Ivoire, the French were the first to make contact. In an effort to secure claim over the area, France built their first trading posts along the Gulf of Guinea while several voyagers began establishing territories along the Ivory Coast’s interior. Between Lieutenant Louis Binger, Verdier's agent, and Maurice Treich-Laplène nine treaties with local chiefs were negotiated in France’s favor.
After the World Wars, France began allowing foreigners to come and take jobs because they had major job shortages (Gofen 62). Some ma...