Comparing Treitschke's Relationship With The State And The Individual
Part one questions:
1. Treitschke relationship with the state and the individual was depending on the individual and how strong they are is how strong the nation could be. He also acclaimed that militarism, authoritarianism, and war was the path that their nation of Germany would become powerful, and without the people within that nation none of what he sought out could be done. Meaning that the relationship with the nation and individual is very strong and connected.
2. He says that a monarchy is superior to that of a democracy because in a democracy the leader cannot decide what he wants to do because he has to go through a series of events and see if what he wants could be done. But in a monarchy you are the leader of the nation …show more content…
His critics told him that why are inferior races treated with only violent matters, and he said that there is an equality with the African race but to be equal you have to set standards, and setting those are that superior races have rights thanks to their duties, and they have the duty to civilize other nations. Practically they say that they should not expand if the people of other nations are going to be treated bad, but Ferry counters it that without them expanding they cannot civilize the nations that they are conquering and cannot help them progress.
3. Other economic advantages are ports and places to treat boats because of the oversea trade occurring. He says that because even the best boats need more coal than they could have in 2 weeks they need to refuel. That is why they need places such as Tunisia, and Madagascar. Those are other advantages of having colonies.
4. Colonies reflected a lot of the nation that took over it. The colonies learn to speak the colonizers language adapts to their cultures and her genius. This reflects 19th century nationalism because a lot of nations were colonizing and once they colonized a place the colony would be a mini or even bigger version of the homeland (the
1. Treitschke relationship with the state and the individual was depending on the individual and how strong they are is how strong the nation could be. He also acclaimed that militarism, authoritarianism, and war was the path that their nation of Germany would become powerful, and without the people within that nation none of what he sought out could be done. Meaning that the relationship with the nation and individual is very strong and connected.
2. He says that a monarchy is superior to that of a democracy because in a democracy the leader cannot decide what he wants to do because he has to go through a series of events and see if what he wants could be done. But in a monarchy you are the leader of the nation …show more content…
His critics told him that why are inferior races treated with only violent matters, and he said that there is an equality with the African race but to be equal you have to set standards, and setting those are that superior races have rights thanks to their duties, and they have the duty to civilize other nations. Practically they say that they should not expand if the people of other nations are going to be treated bad, but Ferry counters it that without them expanding they cannot civilize the nations that they are conquering and cannot help them progress.
3. Other economic advantages are ports and places to treat boats because of the oversea trade occurring. He says that because even the best boats need more coal than they could have in 2 weeks they need to refuel. That is why they need places such as Tunisia, and Madagascar. Those are other advantages of having colonies.
4. Colonies reflected a lot of the nation that took over it. The colonies learn to speak the colonizers language adapts to their cultures and her genius. This reflects 19th century nationalism because a lot of nations were colonizing and once they colonized a place the colony would be a mini or even bigger version of the homeland (the