French Imperialism And Genealogy

When Europeans encountered the Native Americans, the encounter was fraught with difficulties for both sides, for the Native Americans more so than the Europeans. Europeans conquered the Native Americans, forced them into labor, and spread diseases which the Native Americans had no resistance to. In addition to this the Europeans considered themselves superior to the Native Americans. Despite this, the Europeans and Native Americans, both had things the other wanted and so they often engaged in trade with each other. However, the Native Americans thought that, despite not having the luxuries the Europeans had, they were better off than the Europeans. This sentiment is exemplified in “Your People Live Only Upon Cod” by French priest Chrestian LeClerq who was traveling with the Micmac Indians. It is a documented response by an unknown Micmac leader to European, particularly French, claims of superiority. In analyzing this document, we will find that the cultures of the French and the Micmac were vastly different. We will also discover what the Micmac and the French thought of each other.

Although there are somewhat of similarities between Weber’s and Foucault’s relations of power and dominance, how they evaluate the concepts separately and the ways these concepts are practiced in society, can be distinguished differently. Webber appears to occupy the polar opposite with the respect to his claims of how power becomes existent with bureaucratic instruments and bureaucracy itself, Foucault argues that the power relations are everywhere in society and with expansive elements; society has no option but to internalize (Shaw 2011). His explanation of power is much broader than Weber’s. Focault rejects the hierarchical models of power, and believed that relations of dominance are formations of unequal power (McClaren 2002), and over time domination may seem fixed in society’s social structure (Shaw 2011). Additionally, Foucault looks at the concept of power from a functional strategy, with the functional practices administered by authority, and emphasises that authority commonly uses discursive power and the operation of discourse to maintain the dominance (Smart 2010; Shaw 2011). What is compelling about Foucault’s concept of power are his discursive claims. Unlike Webber, he suggests that power relations are not necessarily derived from state practices, but are all under state control, and highlights that “state and hegemony is in the every area of life” (Shaw 2011). Further, to understand some of Foucault’s functional examples, he focuses on the everyday lives of

Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman’s work was centralised around there two different concepts of how your identity is formed through the process of power and expert knowledge. This Essay will discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault who was a French Social Theorist. His theories addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and how both of these are used as a form of social control through society. The essay will look at Foucault’s work in The Body and Sexuality, Madness and Civilisation and Discipline and Punish which displays how he conceptualised Power and identity on a Marxist and macro basis of study. The Essay will also address the Ideas of Erving Goffman who was A Canadian Born Sociologist who’s key study was what

Foucault goes through the way governments have attempted to control populations throughout history, and how power has exercised

“Foucault’s work gave the terms discursive practices and discursive formation to the analysis of particular institutions and their ways of establishing orders of truth, or what is accepted as ‘reality’ in a given society” (Goldberg). Discursive formations display hierarchical arrangement and are understood as reinforcing certain already established identities or subjectivities- in matters of sexuality, status, or class for example. These dominant discourses are understood as in turn reinforced by existing systems of law, education and the media”. Foucault’s work is to show that members of society such as intellectuals, “are implicated in discourse and in the discursive regimes or systems of power and regulation which give them their livelihoods

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

The French settled within North America during the 17th century. This started when Samuel de Champlain founded the settlement of Quebec in 1608. The settlement was owned and controlled by the Company of New France while it’s population slowly grew. The colonists of New France, traded with the Native Americans at trading posts set up along the St. Lawrence river. The Native Americans traded various fur pelts in exchange for European goods such as metal tools and weaponry. The camaraderie formed from trading resulted in two Native tribes (the Montagnais and Hurons) to become military allies with the colonists. In 1663, New France came under the control of King Louis XIV after he shutdown the Company of New France. Soon afterward, in 1681, Robert Sieur de La Salle claimed Louisiana for France.

In today’s society, the United States has a culture full of arts, architecture, and cuisine. Since the United States is a huge melting pot, much of our arts, architecture, and cuisine, and architecture have influence from many different nations, especially in Europe. It’s hard to imagine the United States without first knowing about the influence of the French art, architecture, and cuisine.

Describe the period of French colonialism in Indochina, including a description of the pathways and mechanisms by which the French established control in the region, the means they used to keep control, and the events leading to their loss of the colony. Why do you think the French ultimately lost Indochina?

The traders were funded by France in order lived year-round by the great lakes and find the northwest passageway to china. The French used a middleman to negotiate with the natives, they oversaw the trades in their area and watched the activities of rival Natives and Countries. But the French viewed the natives as partners, in acquiring the furs which would generate wealth when they returned to France. They also used the natives to follow the system of rivers and lakes, by using the native’s canoes to penetrated deep into the great lakes. (Sleeper-smith, Pg. 12)

The global struggle between the French and the British empires influenced certain key events of American history. It all started on the 100 years’ War, this actually last one hundred and sixteen years since 1337 to 1453. The majority of this was due the determined goal to possess control of colonial territory. This war was between France and England, during this time the monarchy of France was not yet centralized, nor possessed a strong economy or organized army. England was less populated, but had a better organized economy their army was equipped with superior weaponry. The main reason of the war was the possession of the French territories. It was the last feudal war and most perfect example of this type of wars. At the beginning England took possession of French soil, but at the end of the war France was able to recover the territories occupied by the French, thanks to the intervention of Joan of Arc territories. In this paper I will explain important information regarding Britain and France influence on America such as, French and Indian War, Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, Quasi War, Louisiana Purchase, including important issues, ideas and events.

After the discussion about Alan Taylor’s book in class today, I have known more about colonial America and the relationship between France and Amerindians at the beginning of French colony. There are three main colonies in America: New Spain, New England, and New France. Unlike the brutal colony of Spain such as De Soto expedition or arrogant and distant English colony, French has a relatively equal relationship with the Amerindians. The relationship requires the exchange of goods, ideas, and practice and relies on trade. Shument makes an interesting point about the relationship between French and Amerindians is the “father-son” relationship that is discussed in the book.

In the former text, Potter develops a systematic account of the way versions are built as objective, as mere descriptions of actions or events. This addresses the question of how speakers manufacture the credibility of versions, and how this building can be challenged and undermined. Taking the example of attitudes again, this work considers the way in which versions can be produced to generate evaluations as features of the objects and events rather than positions or dispositions of speakers. This is clearly a key task when talk is about delicate or controversial topics, where motives and dispositions may be closely inspected. Thus constructing a version of a minority group that simultaneously produces negative characteristics (e.g. involvement with sexual violence) combined with a display of ‘sympathetic’ motivation toward that group (perhaps drawing on one of the culture repertoires discussed above) can work to avoid being seen as having racist attitudes. It should be noted the way the relationship between ‘mind’ and ‘the world’ is reworked here in the talk. One of the achievements of Discursive psychology has been to highlight how crucial this relationship as a practical feature of interaction. People construct versions of the world that have implications for their own disposition and thoughts;

As poststructuralism would have it, human consciousness is constructed discursively. Our subjectivity is constructed by the shifting discourses of power which endlessly speak through us, situating us here and there in particular positions and relations. In these terms we are not the authors of ourselves. We do not construct our identities, we have it written for us; the subject cannot be sovereign over the construction of selfhood. Instead the subject is decentered, in that its consciousness is always being constructed from positions outside of itself. It follows then that the individual is not a transparent representation of the self but an effect of discourse. Spivak argues that surprisingly for these figures, when Foucault and Deleuze talks about oppressed groups such as the working classes they fall back into precisely these uncritical notions of ‘sovereign subjects’ by restoring to them a fully centred consciousness. In addition they also assume that the writing of intellectuals such as themselves can serve as a transparent medium through which the voices of the oppressed can be represented. The intellectual is cast as a reliable mediator for the voices of the oppressed, a mothpiece through which the oppressed can clearly speak.

Before Marie Antoinette married Dauphin Louis XVI in 1770, the situation in France was already beginning to become disordered. The peasants, which made up about 90% of the population at the time, were treated unfairly and began to feel frustrated and upset with the Monarchy. At the time, Marie Antoinette was distrusted because of her foreign birth and many of the peasants saw her as the source of their problems and disliked her. She was often seen in the past as a bad Queen due to her careless spending and seemingly frivolous lifestyle, now with more evidence and sources, opinions have shifted. Many see Marie Antoinette as a victim of her own circumstances, as it can be seen by the state of affairs in France before her arrival, her upbringing and public opinion before her death during the French Revolution. This essay will illustrate that Marie Antoinette was indeed a victim of her circumstances.