Fools Crow by James Welch offers a unique narrative exploration of the events leading up to the Marias Massacre and the subsequent harsh realities faced by the Blackfoot nation. Throughout the novel, Welch expertly weaves significant events and figures central to the history of the Blackfoot Confederacy into the narrative of the story. He uses both magical realism and historically supported facts to tell the tale of White Man’s Dog, later known as the titular Fools Crow, as he navigates these circumstances as they arise. Taking place in the late 1800’s, a central theme of Fools Crow is the growing tensions between the Blackfoot Lone Eaters and the white settlers.
In any case of failure to protect the rights, the people were in their complete right to overthrow the government (Doc 2 & Pg. 630) In agreement, Rousseau believed that the government’s power also comes from the consent of the people, which he included in his book, The Social Contract. (Pg. 632) Rousseau included much more ideas that incorporated political aspects, but he also his thought about
Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.
Freedom is the power that allows people to self-determine his or her ideas, it allows people to have the right to act, speak or think without being restraint. The reality of freedom is how individuals see their freedom; for instance, Dr. King got locked in jail for describing his freedom, but others define his freedom differently. Individuals choices, how they want to establish their freedom. One’s person freedom could be someone’s prison. Although people defined that freedom is having unrestricted rights, but limitation create true freedom since it spreads equality to everyone.
He based his beliefs off of the ideas that all men are created good-natured, but society corrupts them. Unlike some other French Enlightenment thinkers, Rousseau believed that the Social contract was not a willing agreement. He also said that no man should be forced to give up their natural rights to a ruler. He came up with the solution that people should “give up” their natural rights to the community for the public’s good. He believed in a democratic government.
Rousseau, one of the most leading philosophers during the Enlightenment, had indeed left many of legendries behind. Not only his writings had caused many of the reactions at that time, but also influenced many writers’ aspects of the French Revolution and the overall understanding of inequality and the General Will. As one of the chief political theorists during the French Revolution who was also influenced by Rousseau’s ideas, Abbe Sieyes, published the pamphlet, “What is the Third Estate?” in 1789. This pamphlet was one of the documents that changed the world and lit the flame toward the French Revolution, as characterized by Joe Janes, a University of Washington professor (Janes).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment. Although he was indeed well-known, he was not popular. Many of his beliefs offended most people. If you were to look at his ideas now, then you would think that he was an equal and just man. Unfortunately, citizens back then did not agree with him.
A philosopher named John Locke believed that people should be free to do what they want, but if their choices are poor, then they should be ready to face the consequences. In his justification, he asserts that “We must consider what state men are naturally in... a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose
Book One of The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau focuses on the reasons that people give up their natural liberty in order to achieve protection from threats to themselves and their property. This results in the formation of a legitimate sovereign where all members are equal. Rousseau believes that no human has authority over another individual because force cannot be established. He argues that no individual will give up his or her freedom without receiving something in return. I will focus my analysis on how the social contract states that we must give up our individual rights in order to obtain equality and security.
Rousseau’s hypothesis was similar to Locke’s in that man was naturally good and would be content in the state of nature. Rousseau was in favour of individual freedom and independence. In contrast to Hobbes he believed that human life in the state of nature would not be clouded by selfishness and that men would not have this unearthly desire to acquire more possessions, for which he would have no need or desire. Rousseau’s theory unlike Locke’s theory states that men would be independent and not need to rely on each other. He states “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains".
“This right does not come from nature, it is therefore founded upon convention”. Rousseau does not view society in the same light as Durkheim. He does not believe that society is the savior of humans and that there is no real self without it. Unlike Durkheim, Rousseau believes that the only natural society is the traditional family and that any other form is forged out of convention. Rousseau mentions that when parents are done raising their child and that child is no longer dependent, but chooses to stay then the family is together out if convention and is then unnatural.
Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of, "sin, spiritual servitude, worldly ties." Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.
Two Concepts of Liberty Summary of the essay: In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty.
The French Revolution was undoubtedly influenced by the political theorists of the Enlightenment. The ideas of two French political theorists in particular are easily seen throughout the French Revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baron Montesquieu. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s thoughts and texts, such as the Social Contract, instilled the entitlement of basic human rights to all men. Rousseau’s concepts on rights combined with Baron Montesquieu’s ideas on government provided the backbone of a radical movement in the French Revolution known as the Terror. When one delves into the beginnings of the French Revolution, the motives and actions of the National Assembly, and the Terror of the French Revolution, one can obviously see the influence of two Enlightenment political theorists, Rousseau and Montesquieu.
Negative liberty is the absence of barriers, condition and constraints and positive liberty is the acting in such a manner to control one’s life and realize their fundamental purpose of life. Negative liberty is attributed to individual entity whereas positive liberty is attributed to collectives. The answers to both the liberties may overlap. The difference between the positive and the negative liberty can be understood in terms of factors that are internal to the person and factors that are external respectively.
