What does he think of what Europeans have done in the past? Condorcet thinks what the Europeans did in the past was “bloodthirsty” and “treacherous”. He says that they need to change and that the human race altogether needs to progress. He goes on to talk about Europeans and how they “will not soon produce the independence of the new world” (Condorcet,163). Here he says that even though Europeans are slowly progressing within the colonies they still have no ambition to set free the inhabitants of the new world. Later in his writing he says “If one runs through the history of our undertakings and establishments in Africa and Asia, you will see our commercial monopolies, our treacheries, our bloodthirsty contempt for people of a different color …show more content…
Its obvious he wants to narrow down the major point to equality. He states many things that he wants for the future such as “new tools, machines, and looms will add every day to the capabilities and skill of humans” (Condorcet,164), “the complete destruction of those prejudices that have established an inequality of rights between the sexes” (Condorcet,164), “the abolition of practices condoned by prejudice will increase the well-being of families and encourage domestic virtues, the prime foundation of all others; how it will favor the progress of education, and especially make it truly universal” (Condorcet,165), and so many more things. He also talks about medical practices and that improvements in that field will cure contagious diseases and then deaths in that time would soon be only caused by “extraordinary accidents” or the “gradual destruction of vital forces” (Condorcet,165). In conclusion, Condorcet wants the future to be better than the past and everyone to grow as a whole human
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
I disagree with the statement. I think the documents show that the colonies needed a strong united government to promote the safety and welfare of the colonists. Each document shows a plan of either union or confederation. These plans state the need for “mutual safety and welfare.” (document A), “A brief plan scheme how the English colonies… may be more useful to the crown and one another’s peace and safety…” (document B), and in document C as a whole Franklin proposes the Albany Plan of Union because he wants to unite the colonies to be a strong and sustainable union under the crown, and a President-General.
Despite the common English backgrounds, societies in the New England and Chesapeake regions of Colonial America had split off into two incredibly different cultures: A very religiously focused New England and the more economic-oriented Chesapeake. Because these regions were settled for different purposes, the development of these societies led to the distinctions between them.
Throughout the study of American history, scholars and students alike are quick to paint certain people, institutions and events as uniformly bad or good. These claims are most commonly made with the substantial benefit of hindsight, and while some of these descriptions are accurate and well-founded in fact, many exhibit a clear bias and ignore the nuances of the events they are describing. To avoid characterization in such a binary system, numerous sources and viewpoints must be consulted in the study of American history.
The origins of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties can be traced back to the early 1790s. Initially, the Federalists, or broad constructionists, favored the growth of federal power and a strong central government. The Federalists promulgated a loose interpretation of the Constitution, which meant that they believed that the government could do anything by the implied powers of the Constitution or that congress had the right to interpret the Constitution based on connotation. On the contrary, the Democratic-Republicans favored the protection of states’ rights and the strict containment of federal power. The Democratic-Republicans were strict constructionists and they
American expansionism in the late 19th century and early 20th century was, to a large extent, a continuation of past United States expansionism, while also departing with previous expansionism in some aspects. During the period of time between the late 19th century and early 20th century, America was going through significant changes. After a revolution in Cuba against the Spanish, as well as the Americans starting the Spanish-American War, the Americans received several territorial concessions from their defeated opponent. Thus, America started on the path to imperialism, gaining several more territories in a short amount of time. Such an expansion in the late 19th century and early 20th century was mostly a continuation of past
Spring of 1540 (pg 6): A Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto went to the temples of Cofachiqui and met the lady of Cofachiqui, where he held a storehouse of weapons and chest upon. After loading their horses with corn and pearls, they continue on their way.
The founding of the New World fascinated many Europeans because of the possibilities of the economic, political, and social growth. Europeans packed their belongings and boarded the boat to new beginnings. Arriving in the Americas was not what they had expected. Already pre-occupied in the land, were the Native Americans. The Native Americans refused the Europeans colonization in the America’s, but not all colonies in the Europe just wanted to colonize with the Natives. The intentions of the Europeans colonies were all different, as the Dutch solely came for business transactions. The Dutch business transactions resulted in the change of economic, political, and social movements, changing the lives of the Native’s.