Jean

Imperialist ideology can be viewed as a distorted version of Western-European culture, because it emphasizes such values as liberty or dignity, but at the same time denies many people the right to humanity. This idea can be better discussed by analyzing Jean-Paul Sartre’s preface to the book The Wretched of the Earth written by Frantz Fanon.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Jean-Paul Sartre and Jules Ferry specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Moreover, Sartre’s views can be compared to the arguments expressed by Jules Ferry who was an advocate of colonial policy. His speech before the French National Assembly in 1883 can be regarded as a defense of colonialism. The comparison of these two texts can highlight the contradictory nature of imperialism and explain how this political and cultural ideology influenced the countries that were under colonial rule. One of the critical arguments put forward by Sartr e is that many nations colonized by Europeans could see that the colonizers failed to live up to the ideals of humanism that they often proclaimed. The thing is that European culture lays stress on such values as liberty, equality, freedom, and dignity; however, those people, who speak about these ideas, can easily act in a cruel, biased, and selfish way. Sartre says, â€Å"The yellow and black voices still spoke of our humanism but only to reproach us with our inhumanity† (1961, p. 1). To a great extent, this sentence renders the sense of disappointment that many African people had, especially after the atrocities committed both in Europe and Africa. They could not understand how the alleged values of colonizers could be reconciled with their actions. Jules Ferry also refers to the ideals of humanism; in particular, he says Europeans have â€Å"the duty to civilize inferior races† (Ferry as cited in Andrea Overfield, 2011, p. 269). It is quite possible to see the con flicting nature of this argument because Ferry refers to a particular moral duty that Europeans have toward African nations. Yet, he is unable to view them as equals. In his opinion, they do not have a right to autonomy and independence. Thus, he rejects the very ideals on which French culture was is based. In his view, egalitarian principles and racial ideology are quite compatible with one another and this is the critical flaw of his argument. It should be noted that Jules Ferry ideas were criticized when he was addressing the National Assembly. For instance, Ferry referred the words of Camille Pelletan who said that civilization could not be imposed â€Å"with cannon-ballsâ€Å" (Ferry as cited in Andrea Overfield, 2011, p. 269). Yet, he simply chose to overlook this criticism. Overall, his speech can give readers in-depth insights into the nature of colonialism, its ideology, and contradictions. It should be noted that Sartre’s writing was influenced by independence mo vement in Algeria. Moreover, he shows that many Europeans were very surprised when African nations began to struggle for autonomy. Sartre manages to render this amazement in this sentence, â€Å"They are able to talk by themselves? Just look at what we have made of them!† (1961, p. 1).Advertising Looking for essay on literature languages? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Many people in France could not believe that Africans could actually voice their discontent. For example, Jules Ferry could hardly imagine such a situation because in his opinion, only great countries or nations had the right and ability for self-determination. This racist ideology has not disappeared even nowadays. On the whole, in his preface to The Wretched of the Earth, Jean-Paul Sartre argues that Europeans should recognize the right of Black Africans to political and cultural independence because it is impossible to impose one’s ideas and v alues on others. Such a strategy is more likely to conflict or long-term hostility that can be both cultural and political. The problems discussed by Jean-Paul Sartre were urgent in 1961, and they remain relevant to modern day political life in which the rhetoric of imperialism still remains very popular. Another idea which is also important for this discussion is that conflict was embedded in a new Algerian society; in part, it can be explained by the policies of colonial states. The thing is that they attempted to create new elite in the colonized territories. These were people who were educated in Europe, and who accepted the values of European culture. They were supposed to become the pillars of a new Algerian society. It was believed that they could help colonizers rule the country. In his passage, Sartre refers to various historical examples of such new elite, for example he mentions Hellenized Asians or â€Å"the Greco-Latin Negroes† (Sartre, 1961, p. 1). However, the thing is that other people, who did not receive similar education, were treated as sub-humans. Thus, one can assume that a society divided in such a way could hardly exist peacefully. In fact, hostility was supposed to be a part of this society. To a great extent, this situation can be explained by the so-called divide and conquer policies of European states to foster divisions in African societies because a divided community can hardly struggle against its conquerors. This is why they promoted one class of the society at the expense of others. As a result, the Algerian society will have to cope with this legacy of colonialism, because colonialism was largely a divisive experience for this nation.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Jean-Paul Sartre and Jules Ferry specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More It is worth mentioning that such division of local societies was fully acceptable for the supporters of colonial policie s. The conquered areas were needed mostly as â€Å"provision stations, shelters, or ports for defense† (Ferry as cited in Andrea Overfield, 2011, p. 269). This is the most honest justification of colonial policies, provided by Jules Ferry. In this sentence, he does not refer to the so-called civilization mission of European people; instead, he simply identified the economic objectives that had to be achieved. These territories had to be controlled in some way. At that time, divide and conquer strategy was viewed as the most optimal approach. At that time, very few people thought about the ethical aspects of this decision and its long-term effects. Thus, it is possible to say that colonialism and imperialism contradict the very ideals of European culture because these ideologies are premised on the notion that there are superior and inferior nations. The advocates of this ideology claim to bring humanistic values to colonized societies, but fail to reach the moral standards t hat they set themselves. The legacies of these polices will continue to affect African countries because they relied on the division of the society into several groups that could be hostile to one another. The preface written by Jean-Paul Sartre and the speech of Jules Ferry highlight the main principles of colonialism and its implications for colonized people. Reference List Ferry, J. (2011). Speech before the French National Assembly. In A. Andrea J. Overfield (ed.). The Human Record: Sources of Global History, Volume II: Since 1500. (pp. 268-269). New York: Wadsworth Publishing. Sartre, J-P. (1951). Preface. In F. Fanon (Ed.), The Wretched of the Earth (pp. 1-13). London: Penguin Books.Advertising Looking for essay on literature languages? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This essay on Jean-Paul Sartre and Jules Ferry was written and submitted by user Raymond T. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here. Jean One of the most influential ideas offered by liberalists in their time is connected to money and its role in human life. The representatives of liberalism truly believe that money can make people free. Taking into account this assertion, it is possible to admit that money can also make people happier because freedom and happiness are the concepts which are usually connected to each other.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx: The Role of Money in Human Life specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More However, there are a number of philosophers and great thinkers who cannot agree to this idea and believed that money should never be regarded as a means of freedom and happiness but vice versa as a source of inequality, poverty, and disappointments. Such brilliant modern philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx introduce captivating approaches which help to realize a true essence of m oney and to get a clear idea about what can make people free and happy. On the one hand, it is difficult to imagine that ideas of Rousseau and Marx may have a lot in common; however, on the other hand, their attitudes to money value deserve attention. Marx and Rousseau were eager to improve the society they lived in and make people free; to achieve these purposes, it is necessary to prove that money does not have such power to provide all people with necessary freedom and happiness because their main purpose is to create inequality and to divide people into groups in accordance with demands and possibilities. Almost the whole century divides such brilliant and educative philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx. However, time is not the only factor according to which these men and their ideas have to be compared. They are the representatives of different countries, traditions, and beliefs, and still their works and ideas are characterized by a peculiar similarity that is connected to the value of money and its power over people. Rousseau and Marx defined the power of money that was inherent to any type of society; however, this identification was not the symbol of money as something emancipative. They spoke about the power of private property and the necessity to make some changes because rights people maintained had nothing in common with equality; Rousseau underlined the idea of people freedoms but under such condition which could promote orderly society, however, he could not decrease the necessity level of rights of property. The ideas of these two philosophers demonstrate that private property made people isolated and self-interested but still dependent on each other and unequal.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Having such attitudes to money, human freedoms, and rights, Rousseau and Marx could easily create a kind of powerful opposition to the representatives of liberalism who strongly believed that money was one of the most crucial sources of human freedoms and happiness. However, the idea of relations between money and freedom has faced a number of philosophical difficulties. Liberalists made numerous attempts to prove that freedom and money had a close connection to each other because a person without money cannot become free. According to the liberalistic point of view, freedom has to be economically defined. A person has money, and this is why he/she is able to buy freedom and to be happy. Such weak and sometimes even humiliating ideas made the vast majority of philosopher develop their own strategies and theories in order to prove that such money dependence should influence human freedoms. Rousseau admitted that he â€Å"should wished to live and dies free† (Rousseau 2) and he did not underline the necessity of money for this freedom; and Marx believed that â€Å"man (a worker) only feels himself fre ely active in his animal functions† (Marx, Estranged Labor 74). Can money make people free and happy? Hardly! If you have money, it is impossible to say that sometimes you may have enough money to be satisfied and enjoy this life. When a person gets an access to money, this person is enslaved by it. This is why it is possible to say that people are not free especially when they have money. And what is more important if people are enslaved by other people, they can easily recognize this dependence and its power. And when people are enslaved by money, they are not able to define this dependence and continue living under this invisible but still crucial dependence. The desire to get more money leads to inequality between people. And if so many people are eager to destroy all features of inequality, why do they continue supporting the idea of having money and making money powerful? In other words, it is possible to say that money can make people happier for a while but never free; and when the moment of happiness passes, the long-lasting period begins that makes people work for money, think about money, and live for money. Karl Marx said that â€Å"free development of each is the condition for the free development of all† (Marx, The Communist Manifesto 12). This person truly believed that it is possible to achieve freedom and happiness only by means of properly arranged order. According to him, money is condition for development but still not its result. If a person has money, he is eager to be identified among the rest. If this identification takes place, the process of inequality begins.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx: The Role of Money in Human Life specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More And if inequality continues its development, there is no chance for people to have freedom. Almost the same attitude to freedom and money was represented by Rouss eau. He underlines a chance of any person to be born free. Of course, much should depend on the conditions under which people live; however, they should not forget their true human nature that explains the only â€Å"free men† may be involved â€Å"in search of the truth† (Rousseau 15). In comparison to Marx, Rousseau seems to be more pessimistic to the idea of money. If Marx believed that the value of money was crucial for inequality that develops within a society under specific conditions, then Rousseau identified money as the reason to start fights, develop discontents, and increase the desire to have more and break the already established norms. Though money plays such a significant role in this life, it cannot make people free from all things and conditions inherent to this world. People are not as strong as it may seem because they may become blind in respect to the requirements and peculiarities of their life. Money may promote survival, prosperity, and success but such concepts as freedom or happiness should have nothing in common with money. So, if the answer to the question whether money makes people free and happy is a certain NO, another question should appear. What can make people free and happy if money cannot? In fact, it is very difficult to give one clear answer to such philosophical question. Rousseau as one of the most sophisticated and polite philosopher suggests paying more attention to human lives and the ways people prefer to choose. For example, he underlined â€Å"either desire or an opportunity of emerging from it† (Rousseau 31) as the most powerful components of human happiness. If a person believes that his /her desires as well as his/her faculties are equal, he/she may become happy. As for freedom, Rousseau believed that there were different types of freedom that could be achieved by means of human participation in processes required from community. And Marx in his turn evaluated freedom as freedom from interfe rence in people’s education, communication, evaluation, and realization (Marx, The Communist Manifesto 40). And human happiness is closely connected to human needs, labor, and ownership. In general, the idea of human happiness and freedom may be regarded from many different sides. First, each person has his/her own demands, needs, and interests. Of course, much depends on the community a person lives in.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This is why it is possible to believe that human freedoms come from human faith and desire: if you want to become free, you are welcome to use your skills, knowledge, and faculties to achieve the desirable aim. As for human happiness, it is more personal issue: friends, food, health, knowledge, etc. When a person knows what makes him/her happy, achieves purposes, and enjoy the feeling of satisfaction, this person may be called happy. The works by Rousseau and Marx help to define that much about happiness and freedom depends on human surroundings. It is useless to represent some definite claims and prove their correctness. Constant development of this society requires considerable changes and new requirements for freedom and happiness. It is difficult for one person to define what makes other people happy, and this is why it is better to be responsible and confident in personal happiness and personal freedoms. Works Cited Marx, Karl. â€Å"Estranged Labor.† In Karl Marx and Fr iedrich Engels The Marx-Engels Reader. 2 ed. New York: W.W. Norton Company, Inc., 1978. Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Penguin Classics, 2002. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on Inequality. Kessinger Publishing, 2004. This essay on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx: The Role of Money in Human Life was written and submitted by user Jesse Q. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.