Colonialism And American Exceptionalism

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, man has no power to control others, and because of this, everyone is aggressive towards one another, as no one can trust another. Because of this, social order is necessary to give man incentive towards cooperation and trust, by selling your individual rights to freedom in order to gain social rights of security and safety. The role of the social order is to combat man’s aggressiveness, man’s power to hurt one another and direct this towards positive social ends instead of destructive.

“All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” “It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law” (BrainyQuote). The first quote was said by John Locke. The second quote was said by Thomas Hobbes. Locke and Hobbes each had different philosophies about what would be the best form of society and government. The differences between these two political thinkers’ ideas are important to understanding their philosophies as well as the similarities.

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

18th century Choctow leader red shoes befriended French in Mississippi valley(traded deerskins for guns)became rich but English cut off French shipping so he made an alliance with the English so was murdered by French resulted in 1747 civil war of the Choctow and killed colonist and Chocktows

To begin with, an important theme to discuss is what the modern thinkers believe is the purpose of politics. Machiavelli believes that the purpose of politics is the glory and stability of the state, in which we will refer to as “statecraft”. Hobbes believes in the security of the population to be the purpose of politics. Hobbes wants ensure that the people’s lives are secure and that there is no opportunity of leaving them vulnerable to each other. Locke wants to protect certain natural rights: life, liberty and property. However, when Locke discusses in protecting and engaging people into politics who own property, it excludes the people who do not harbor property; which, at that time, was a majority of the population (234). Hobbes and Machiavelli are both interested in imposing order and avoid chaos. On the other hand,

Throughout american history, examples of the United States’ domination of the political, economic, and social aspects of other countries can be seen. This domination, also known as imperialism, was primarily caused by a growing sense of nationalism, the influence of supply and demand, and a desire to maintain global military power. Imperialism is categorized into three different groups: colony, protectorate, sphere of influence. TRANSITION SENTENCE

Throughout history as well as in modern times, revolution, imperialism and colonialism have played part in the rise and fall of governance and power structures in the world. Wars have occurred to gain power over a government or society. Colonialism benefits the motherland by sending citizens into a new territory and securing raw materials for the economic benefit of the mother country. King James l, in 1604 granted The Virginia Company, a group on entrepreneurs, a land grant in the Chesapeake Bay of North America to establish a colony. Captain John Smith headed up the colony and the expedition was launched in hopes of finding a trade route to the Orient, as well hoping to find gold. The Virginia Company selected the Chesapeake area because it was uninhabited by Native Americans.

Even with the same goal of improvement in society, Karl Marx, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes had three different ways to reach to the same destination. Karl Marx claimed that "History is economics in action". John Locke's political theory advocates for common people can protest against an unjust ruler. Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" illustrates administration of natural and civil laws, as it powers many individuals who make themselves its people. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways – the point is to change it." – Karl Marx

The concept of American exceptionalism refers to the fact that America see itself as a unique country that is based on democracy as well as personal liberties. In many occasions, the idea is thought to have originated from the ancient political institutions that characterized the American a long period ago from between 1776 to 1789. The idea of exceptionalism has made the US stand out among many nations across the world due to its unique stand on matters of democracy every person and their personal liberty.

Humans have adapted to different belief systems that allow them to express their religions in cultures in different ways. Over historical colonialism, Christianity and Catholic religions have arisen as the “dominant” religions, and indigenous people have suffered from trying to be converted to these religions and becoming Europeanized. Natives, however, have had an entirely different mindset and belief of how life and the world work. Their culture and religion believe that The Great Spirit has created this universe, which they seem to acknowledge as being very powerful and something that is invisible. This belief system is much different than the things that are taught in Catholicism and practiced in European countries.

America is like the 800-pound gorilla in every room in the world. When it gets a cold, the world wheezes, when it has a tingle, the world scratches. When it neglects to act, it regularly sends a swell around the globe. For some, it is a model for different societies to imitate. This thought of American exceptionalism really has numerous roots and numerous varieties. One is the old Puritan idea, in light of a John Winthrop sermon, that America is a "city upon a hill." This notion of America as "God's country" or the new "Promised Land" later got secularized and blended with thoughts of emancipation inferred from the American Revolution. It is this secularized thought that is most predominant today. The point when Presidents Ronald Reagan

I think the term “American exceptionalism” is projection of the American patriotism and pride because every individual enjoys to be unique and that’s the way it’s done in America. United States is a super power due to a lot of historic events that made it center of the world and that’s why that term was invented because America did things differently and exceptionally which resulted in outstanding economic performance and standard of living. But if we look to American exceptionalism today the term is not valid anymore because economically speaking, based on human development index America ranking is the 8th United States is still the world highest GDP and strongest military but how good the size of your car if doesn’t take you to where you

Both Hobbes and Locke can be considered the “Founding Fathers” of liberal political philosophy. Both theorists give their own accounts of human nature as well as how and what their concept of a government should look like. Hobbes and Locke also agree on most aspects of each other’s theories but also have contrasting opinions for their own notions. Hobbes’s conception of the best fitting government in which humans would be able to live freely and happily, would be that which is governed by an all - powerful sovereign. Locke rejects Hobbes’s political solution and claims that the best political regime would be a creation of a limited form of government, which can be seen today in the United States.

John Locke is one of the most influential enlightenment thinkers. The English philosopher, political theorist and physician is known best as “the father of liberalism”. He believes that the human nature is, in general, good. He believes that we are rational, reasonable and cooperative beings. Locke states that humans follow a set of natural laws despite the culture, language or race. Examples of these natural laws include no stealing, no harassment and helping those in need. Locke believes that we need to appoint a specific group of people in power who will address the group’s general needs. Since Locke believed that we are rational and reasonable the government should be rather limited.

The purpose of this essay will be to thoroughly compare and contrast the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. At the surface, these two scholars seem to offer contradictory models of political order, while at the same time relying on similar views of human nature. These men published their most famous offerings, Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke 's Second Treatises of Government, during an era of developing capitalism and market mechanisms. I will discuss the role of the emerging social and economic principles played in the way each scholar accounted for and show how the social and economic relations of early capitalism clearly defined the political theories of each scholar. I will conclude this essay by showing how each man arrived at his theory of political order despite their many similarities.