Whoever offends against this unity need expect nothing else than annihilation as an enemy of the nation
By stating this he is going against his own word saying Germany is united, why would anyone go against this word if they agreed? Adolf then labels those who disagree as "an enemy of the nation", in other words a traitor and someone who will then be treated as an outcast.
We have never been a nation of slaves and will not be one in the future.
This is until he created concentration camps where he enslaved the Jews under their will.
he turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development,
The Turkish it seems got the best advantage from this due to them gaining overall rights to freedom and security from other nations that attempt to threaten them.
All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all. IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of It
All damage that was done in previous battles, is wanting to be restored which in hopes will then enable peace amongst all countries involved.
The Members of the League agree that they will carry out in full good faith any award or decision that may be rendered, and that they will not resort to war against a Member of the League which complies therewith.
Again, members of the league are held to a high standard with many regulations they must uphold, such as this one that denies them to argue or make war with another member.
Any Member of the League may, after two years' notice of its intention so to do, withdraw from the League, provided that all its international obligations and all its obligations under this Covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal. ARTICLE 2.
No one can remove themselves from the League once they are in it unless all duties that they were tasked have been completed. This puts a lot of pressure on members of the League and it ropes members into staying a member longer it seems.
Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers
The push for war and weapons needs to cease in order to finally create borders that show the actual divide amongst countries. The author is trying to say if the need for force doesn't stop then there will always be land that is possessed by different nations.
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;
These leaders thought by exterminating Hitler and his ideals that the productivity of freedom would be worldwide, but the sad truth is that there are still areas in the world today that have slaves.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
This is when the existence of slavery was pronounced as ceased within the countries involved. Slaves could now live amongst other races and work for their money as others do rather than for free.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
The excerpt begins by saying that the human species should be based upon all that is fair so that each person can have their own sense of pride or self worth.
This is the land, the one true land, O God, to aid be thou at hand! And fire each heart, and nerve each arm, To shield our German homes from harm,
Ernst wanted Germany to accept democracy at this time and for all to live differently equally amongst one another with no conflict due to it. He cherished the ideal of everyone living for different life goals and did not want to cause his country harm for having this belief.
His fatherland 's not bounded so!
There is no telling where the borders of the fatherland extend to, Germany's pride is extended through all people.
It is not desirable, even if it were possible, that all Liberals should think exactly alike, and that every candidate should be cut to precisely the same pattern. In the Liberal army there must be pioneers to clear the way, and there must be men who watch the rear. Some may always be in advance, others may occasionally be behind; but the only thing we have to fight to demand is, that no one shall stand still, and that all should be willing to follow the main lines of Liberal progress to which the whole Party are committed.
This excerpt is saying that communism just doesn't work, we can't force all to act and do the same. The world needs those who are able to do various jobs in order for everyone to coexist peacefully.
Communism means the reduction of everything to a dead level the destruction of private adventure, the paralysis of private industry, the atrophy of private effort. The socialistic measures now contemplated would preserve in their normal vigor and freshness all the individual activities of English citizenship, and would know nothing more spoliatory than tax---if and in what degee necessary---aggregations of wealth for the good of the country....
Communism means no more identity in oneself overall, we must think and act as a group at all times. Communism leans toward the ideal that all is done to benefit all rather than to benefit one person.
Remember that the task of the statesman is not merely with the present, but with the future. We have to look forward beyond the chatter of platforms, and the passions of party, to the future of the race of which we are at present the trustees, and we should, in my opinion, grossly fail in the task that has been laid upon us did we shrink from responsibilities, and decline to take our share in a partition of the world which we have not forced on, but which has been forced upon us."
The future of the world Lugard is saying, lies in the hands of what we as countries do now on our own to provide our part to the future of the world and how it is run.
To allow other nations to develop new fields, and to refuse to do so ourselves, is to go backward; and this is the more deplorable, seeing that we have proved ourselves notably capable of dealing with native races and of developing new countries at a less expense than other nations.
Lugard is saying that we should continue to develop new lands rather than ceasing and just accepting with what has already been accomplished.
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement
The communists are referring to old members of society who have different values as "the social scum". I agree with having varying opinions, but not when one party refers to the other party as the "dangerous class" or "social scum".
Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products.
Saying that the communist way of going about the production of new industries is better than to not.
Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellowcitizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.
He is saying that even the poor understand the ideal of money of the rich first being passed down to their kin, then to the public for their benefit. This shows that Carnegie did not see the poor as beneath him, but rather as individuals in need.
As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world.... The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are thwarted....
The author says that leaving ones wealth to the public when one has died is when "a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world". This tells me that the author is pushing for more people of the wealthy to donate their funds towards good things to be done amongst the public rather than waiting for their wealth to be dispersed once they are dead.
Around the same time, slave-based planting and commercial profits came to £3.8 million (or about £450 million in contemporary terms). Of course profits were not all reinvested, but they did furnish a convenient pool of resources available for this purpose.
This shows the amount of work the slaves gave.
with coerced slave gangs working under the eye and whip of the slave driver. On all slave plantations hours of work were very long, but on the sugar estates the mills were kept going 24-hours-a -day, with enslaved people working at night as well, in 18-hour shifts.
These were the brutal conditions slaves were forced to conform with.
Baiting the hook of wage dependence, new consumer goods helped to motivate what some historians call the 'industrious revolution', the longer hours and tight labour control associated with industrialism.
Industrial revolution, more like the increase in slaves to do more work in order to keep up the goods output to other countries.
better than white people at surviving in the tropics, and partly because they could deprive their African captives of any rights.
The whites took away the rights of the black americans during this time.
The fact that farmers had to pay rent, and that labourers needed a job if they were to feed their families, was the germ of a new economic system - what we now call capitalism.
The first start to capitalism, which is payment for the work done for another.
Slave-owning planters, and merchants who dealt in slaves and slave produce, were among the richest people in 18th-century Britain.
Slave owners were amongst the richest.
No one has a right to kill an enemy except when he cannot make him a slave, and the right to enslave him cannot therefore be derived from the right to kill him. It is accordingly an unfair exchange to make him buy at the price of his liberty his life, over which the victor holds no right. Is it not clear that there is a vicious circle in founding the right of life and death on the right of slavery, and the right of slavery on the right of life and death? Even if we assume this terrible right to kill everybody, I maintain that a slave made in war, or a conquered people, is under no obligation to a master, except to obey him as far as he is compelled to do so. By taking an equivalent for his life, the victor has not done him a favour; instead of killing his without profit, he has killed him usefully.
This piece of writing goes to explain the ways of the leaders or dictators of the rules and rights during this time. Life was taken as a proof of leadership or victory over another ruler. The pathway to democracy Rousseau is pointing out will never be obtained when the life of another is placed at such a low level, but rather, once a ruler who is victorious changes the way a life of those enslaved is handled. Rousseau says, "A slave made in war, or a conquered people, is under no obligation to a master", which was the way of rulers when victorious. Rousseau state instead that those enslaved should rather obey the master as far as they are compelled to, meaning not forever or that instead their life should be taken.
All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand surprises me at the edge of a wood: must I not merely surrender my purse on compulsion; but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to give it up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.
This sample of Rousseau's writing tells how one is not obligated to obey under any circumstances and that as a human being there is always a choice. This sample of writing also explains how when there is force behind a purpose then there is no democracy but rather a force to comply. For example, when Rousseau wrote, "The pistol he holds is also power", explains how when there is a possession of power over another in the mix of decision making then the one held at the highest of power will in the end overrule the other opponent. In my opinion this sample of writing compares a dictator to the gang member ambushing the citizen for their purse. Then, the citizen with their purse is the member of a democracy who is being pushed to comply with the pursuit of dictatorship by the force of the pistol.
I feel that, however feeble the influence my voice can have on public affairs, the right of voting on them makes it my duty to study them: and I am happy, when I reflect upon governments, to find my inquiries always furnish me with new reasons for loving that of my own country.
This excerpt goes to show that Rousseau's main reason for supporting democracy of laws and regulations is so that the voices of various crowds of people are more well heard than in a dictatorship. Rousseau states, "voting on them makes it my duty to study them", which he is saying that his job as a citizen when voting is to make the most justifiable decision based on what he has obtained for knowledge of the subject. I agree with democracy, but this statement by Rousseau shows the issue there is when it comes to democracy. There is not always a background of knowledge amongst crowds that vote for various future laws or regulations. I do agree that it is the duty of the citizens whom chose to vote that they should dig deep in history to obtain at least a background knowledge on an ideal, but today public is mostly swayed by simply the media. I also agree with Rousseau that, "My inquiries always furnish me with new reasons for loving that of my own country", because the more you get to discover of your country and how it was brought up based on the various ideals gives you a more appreciative mindset on what needs to be adjusted for the future.