Nobel winner bites the feed hand

[GregInMex]

Hi. I've been lurking for some time and have finally found something that bugs me and seems suitable to post here. I hope you will all agree.

It seems that human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi of Iran has chosen to use her brief hour upon the stage (after having won the Nobel Peace Prize) to attack the US for human rights abuses. Hello?

I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.

What say you?

[FormerLurker]

Could you post a link or two?

[GregInMex]

Happy to oblige!

[url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/11/2003079153[/url]

[midwinter]

Originally posted by GregInMex
Hi. I've been lurking for some time and have finally found something that bugs me and seems suitable to post here. I hope you will all agree.

It seems that human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi of Iran has chosen to use her brief hour upon the stage (after having won the Nobel Peace Prize) to attack the US for human rights abuses. Hello?

I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.

What say you?

Having a hard time trying to find somewhere in Mex to wave that flag?

First off, jeez. I swear. This is like when Michael Moore "blasted" Bush at the Oscars and everyone told him he shouldn't have spoken out. She can say whatever she wants.

Second, are you DENSE? One of the most fundamental of those rights you're busy praising is the freedom to speak out against things you think are wrong. It's not like the Nobel is the exclusive province of the US, anyway. You would be wise to look into the kinds of human rights abuses she went through (being stripped of her judgeship, for one) in Iran, and what abuses this war on terrah is distracting us from (and what nasty bedfellows we've made because of it) before you go chiding her like an impetuous schoolchild.

Cheers
Scott

PS
Sorry if you, in fact, are an impetuous schoolchild.

PPS
Welcome to AI!

[GregInMex]

I had hardly expected the tone, Scott, but I guess I should have.

First of all: of course she should have the right to say whatever she likes, but she's the dense one if she doesn't realize that the greatest defender of her right is the country she is gratutiously attacking.

Secondly: that Iran is an awful place for someone who values freedom is no surprise to me. The US government (you know, the one that is protecting you right now!) has been saying that for years. In fact, you may recall a little speech someone gave a while back in which Iran was mentioned (hint, the speech involved your buddy Saddam, who is now no longer a problem).

Thirdly: I stopped being a schoolchild back at Fort Jackson, but I guess you wouldn't know anything about that.

Thanks for the welcome, though.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by GregInMex
I had hardly expected the tone, Scott, but I guess I should have.

Why, because all of us liberals are "shrill"? Whatever.

First of all: of course she should have the right to say whatever she likes, but she's the dense one if she doesn't realize that the greatest defender of her right is the country she is gratutiously attacking.

And we've done SUCH a good job of defending her human rights back at home, haven't we? Or the rights of women in Saudi Arabia?

Secondly: that Iran is an awful place for someone who values freedom is no surprise to me. The US government (you know, the one that is protecting you right now!) has been saying that for years. In fact, you may recall a little speech someone gave a while back in which Iran was mentioned (hint, the speech involved your buddy Saddam, who is now no longer a problem).

You're right. The US has been saying Iran is a bad place to live--at least since we back Saddam in his war against them. Nevermind that they were our allies through the 1970s.

As for that speech by someone.... Just because Bush opens his mouth and says, you know, words in some semblance of coherent English doesn't make what he says true. Nonetheless...on this little "Axis of Evil" (to which I greatly prefer the draft version of "Axis of Hatred"...they changed it to make it more Biblical), I'm just glad that so many of the really nasty places were mentioned. Both Saudi Arabia and China enjoy their places on that list. Oh wait. They're not on it. Maybe she was right after all....

And man am I glad that SH is out of the picture and not masterminding any kind of organized resistance to the US occpation of Iraq. Boy. That would mean, what, a few attacks a week?

Thirdly: I stopped being a schoolchild back at Fort Jackson, but I guess you wouldn't know anything about that.

Whatever.

Thanks for the welcome, though.

You're welcome.

Cheers
Scott

[Towel]

I thought this was rather surprising, too. She had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to speak while literally the whole world was listening. A forum where no one could silence her, no one could tell her what to say. And she decided to use that forum to criticise the US for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Clearly, after all, the most important abuse of civil rights in the entire world today. Far more important, to her as well as to us, than anything going on in her native land. If she hadn't opened our eyes to it, how would we ever have known?

But in her defense, the clerics were watching. Doesn't she still travel back and forth to Iran? Maybe she wanted to ensure that she still could, and figured that she could be more effective at promoting reform without a fatwah aimed her way. So I accept that there may have been ulterior motives for the content of her speech. But I still don't like how the Nobels are becoming a forum for anti-US propaganda (cf the comments from the prize committee about Annan's prize being intended as a slap to Bush).

[GregInMex]

Is the world a perfect place? No. Is someone doing something to make it better? Yes.

There are many, and I am one, who will grant that Saudi and China should be called out. You may have noticed that Bush is doing that (not as fast as I'd like, but he is).

Since Bush took the oval office from Clinton he has pulled most US troops out of Saudi and put pressure on them. Clinton? Never did that.

I would also note that Bush didn't have the ChiCom government raising money for him.

But I'm getting out of order:

I don't think all liberals are shrill (Christopher Hitchens isn't, for one), but you are.

The lawyer under discussion (the point of this thread) has been fighting the Wahabbists. Same enemy as the US. You want to bring the Shah into this? Whatever. And who was in charge back then? Jimmy Carter.

And if what's happening in Iraq is a case of Saddam's masterminding, then perhaps you liberals were right all along: the guy is useless. I guess we should have just let him continue filling those mass graves with people like our Nobel winner friend.

Consistency: look it up, buddy.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by GregInMex

It seems that human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi of Iran has chosen to use her brief hour upon the stage (after having won the Nobel Peace Prize) to attack the US for human rights abuses. Hello?

What kind of attitude is this of your part?
Just because she comes from some oppressive country she does not have the right to point at the shortcomings of the west? Because she is at odds with her government she has to endorse all our shit? Because we defend liberty and freedom but only as long as we are not criticized?

Maybe instead of trying to gag her, you should point out which of her statements are wrong. Or else concede she has the same right as every free person: to disagree. Even if it is with both sides.

FWIW the Nobel peace prize is a Norvegian prize, the US has nothing to do with it.

[Anders]

Do we know that there are problems in Iran?

Do we know that there are problems in Cuba?

Do we know that there are problems in China?

Do we know that there are problems in Turkey?

Yes yes yes and yes

Do we know that there are problems in US?

Many doesn´t and buy the official version. So if you had the chance to talk to the world would you tell it the sky is blue and water is wet or that all matter is nothing but strings vibrating?

To say "Hey its only because the clerkery is watching is patronizing. "But I mean it!". "Yes we know you have to say that ***blink blink***":rolleyes:

[Smircle]

Originally posted by Towel
[..] criticise the US for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Clearly, after all, the most important abuse of civil rights in the entire world today. Far more important, to her as well as to us, than anything going on in her native land. If she hadn't opened our eyes to it, how would we ever have known?
[..] But I still don't like how the Nobels are becoming a forum for anti-US propaganda[..]

Whatever eyes she tried to open, she failed at least in one case.
But it is good to know that a peace Nobel price winner criticizing the US is automatically anti-american. I guess, she is anti-islamic and anti-iranian for dissenting with her government too.

[Anders]

Originally posted by GregInMex
Consistency: look it up, buddy.

Consistency has nothing to do with making the enemy of your enemy your friend. Its sticking to principles and calling it out wherever you find it even among those supporting you.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Towel
But I still don't like how the Nobels are becoming a forum for anti-US propaganda.

They gave the peace prize to an american president last year.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by midwinter

First off, jeez. I swear. This is like when Michael Moore "blasted" Bush at the Oscars and everyone told him he shouldn't have spoken out. She can say whatever she wants.
Michael Moore's speech was inappropriate for the event no matter which side you may fall on. The Academy Awards ceremony is a celebration of filmmaking. It is not a political forum, especially one that destroys a festive mood. As for the Nobel Prize ceremonies, I find that a far less inappropriate platform for accusatory politics than the Oscars.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by GregInMex
Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.

I'm waiting to find out why the concept of human rights are so uniquely American, and what in particular the US has done to aid Iranian women (apart from, of course, installing the Shah as ruler with the help of a CIA led coup d'etat and then supporting him through 20 years of death squads and torture, until in the 70's the machine-gunning of crowds of protesters, led to more protest, and more machine-gunnings in a vicious circle until finally his corrupt regime was toppled by a fundamentally religious revolution that reacted strongly against foreign meddling (unsurprisingly). Of course then the US swapped sides and started helping Saddam to gas them with weapons of mass destruction).

[Powerdoc]

GregInMex, welcome here on AI.

I don't understand your title : why does she bite the feed hand. US has nothing to do with the nobel prices, it's a swedish thing, with swedish fund (the nobel fondation).

The only quote avalaible from your link is this one :

Democracy should not be used as a pretext to attack other countries,

It's an interesting sentance, who merit debate.

[Anders]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I'm waiting to find out why the concept of human rights are so uniquely American, and what in particular the US has done to aid Iranian women (apart from, of course, installing the Shah as ruler with the help of a CIA led coup d'etat and then supporting him through 20 years of death squads and torture, until in the 70's the machine-gunning of crowds of protesters, led to more protest, and more machine-gunnings in a vicious circle until finally his corrupt regime was toppled by a fundamentally religious revolution that reacted strongly against foreign meddling (unsurprisingly). Of course then the US swapped sides and started helping Saddam to gas them with weapons of mass destruction).

Let me try the logic. Since the Shah was a friend of US and a enemy of the current Iranian system Ebadi must be friends with US.

Something like this:

Friends: (Ebadi, US and Shah) <=> Foe: Iran.

Yeah I am quite sure thats the logic GregInMex is proposing.

[Harald]

Originally posted by GregInMex
Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.

Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?

Or a different US?

[BRussell]

It is odd that she spent time talking about issues for which she didn't win the prize - you'd think she'd spend all her time talking about the Iranian issues she has been working on her whole life. I mean, there are many Americans and plenty of people around the world who disagree with Guantanamo policies and the like, but why should an Iranian reformer spend time talking about it at that particular moment?

I think the answer is that the easiest accusation against any Iranian reformer is "you're a tool of the US," and so it becomes important that they prove they're not. More evidence that we ought to stay away and nix the Axis of Evil speeches, IMO.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by BRussell
I think the answer is that the easiest accusation against any Iranian reformer is "you're a tool of the US," and so it becomes important that they prove they're not.

Or she is seriously concerned the US is about to attack and conquer Iran and does not wish to add fuel to this fire.

Personally I believe she is talking about this specific issue, because she is tries to help transform Iran into a democratic state. She believes in democracy. What do you think bugs her more, the knowledge that theocracies disregard human rights or seing the self-proclaimed democratic poster child erect a Gulag? You expect much more from a democratic nation than from a regime.

Furthermore, she is a lawyer and was even judge. I have no doubt that depriving defendants a fair trial does not go easy with her.

She has written a documentation about the history and state of human rights in Iraq (read this, GregInMex?). You expect someone like this to turn a blind eye?

And she did not unlaterally blast the US, but did talk about her country as well:
"If only the Nobel Peace Prize they have given me was a golden key which could open the prison doors," she said. "All I can do is voice my demands and hope to get a response."

[billybobsky]

Human rights abuses arent a matter of extremes. The punishment that should follow is, but false imprisonment is as much as a human rights abuse as is persecution of a religious group. The US cannot effectively fight a world full of human rights abuses if the government itself participates in any way in those abuses. Its hypocrisy (and intrinsically inconsistant).

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Harald
Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?

Or a different US? [edit] Never mind. You're right, we're genocide-lovin', retard-executin', vote-denyin', cowboy-hat-wearin' Arab-haters and we're proud of it!

[Towel]

Originally posted by Anders
They gave the peace prize to an american president last year.

The prize committee out-and-out said that the "lifetime acheivement award" they gave Jimmy Carter last year was intended as a denunciation of the sitting US president ("Why can't you be more like Jimmy Carter?"). That was an ugly display of politicization and propoganda that severely (in many eyes) damaged the credibility of the award. I suppose we should be thankful that the committee restrained itself from choosing Saddam this year. In any event, it clearly helped set a general tone at the Nobels that winning the award is associated with criticizing the US (which is, after all, seen as the greatest threat to world peace in many European countries).

[Curufinwe]

Oh come on people, biting the hand that feeds her would be coming out and saying that peace is a bad thing or that democracy should take a hike. I hope that the thread starter is a troll. What arrogant expectations of servitude!

Saying that US stooping to a medieval level of human rights protections at Guantanamo is a BAD THING is just common sense. What the hell planet do you guys live on?

And the US IS the biggest threat to peace in the world given our current level of imperial arrogance. Give me your probability analysis of the following:

Likelihood of Iran invading anywhere ____
Likelihood of the US invading Syria or Iran ___

I'd like you to comment on which is more likely to occur.

Seems like she took her moment to let the world know that she's not selling out to the west even though she hates the conservatives in Iran. What the hell did you expect her to say? Did she offend your expectations of grovelling third world figures when the prize didn't buy special treatment for the US? America is only going to live up to its ideals when we keep an open ear when people let us know if we fall short of them.

Thanks,

Curufinwe

[giant]

Originally posted by GregInMex
I've been lurking for some time and have finally found something that bugs me and seems suitable to post here.

Go back to lurking until your political consiousness move beyond
"Dean: Again, very homeland for a last name. HOWARD, however, is going to have his ass beat by world leaders. Quick: who would win in a fight? Tony? Vlad? Gerhard? Jaques? Howie?...I know a guy whose first name is Gephardt. He ain’t very macho. And DICK? Um."

Maybe once that happens you'll learn why posting to criticize her for this is stupid.

[The General]

Originally posted by Harald
Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?

Or a different US?

your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better

[Smircle]

Originally posted by The General
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better

And because his country is not immaculate, he does not have the right to spell out what he considers the truth about the US. So we come around full circle...

[Towel]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
Likelihood of Iran invading anywhere ____
Likelihood of the US invading Syria or Iran ___

Likelihood of anti-government activist or journalist (US citizen or otherwise) being tortured to death by US government _____
Likelihood of anti-government activist or journalist being tortured to death by Syria or Iran _____

Let me give you a hint...over the past year, the probabilty of the first statement was 0.0 and of the second statement 1.0.

Really, I think it reflects fundamentally good trends that people in Europe are so up in arms about Guantanamo, even if it is a bit of an overreaction. It means we've come a long way from the days when killing the men, raping the women, and enslaving the children was an accepted outcome of war. It reflects progress when it's not an even an issue that the prisoners are fed well, given medical care and allowed to pray, and that even the Red Cross can't criticize their physical living conditions.

[Harald]

Originally posted by BRussell
[edit] Never mind. You're right, we're genocide-lovin', retard-executin', vote-denyin', cowboy-hat-wearin' Arab-haters and we're proud of it!

No, you are, for the most part, a great country and one that I love. Idiots are a minority in your country, but they are there.

You are not perfect, you did not invent human rights (in fact you don't have the best record on the planet) and the 'I love the US like a mommy not a wife' crew need a fückin' wake-up call ... such as the original poster. Nutter.

As I have said, say and will continue to say, America is a fantastic thing.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Harald


As I have said, say and will continue to say, America is a fantastic thing.

There is something fishy about this thread :err:

Something a bit interesting going on here....

Fellows

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by Towel
fed well, given medical care and allowed to pray

. . . but not be charged with anything nor see a lawyer . . .


Plenty of journalists and union leaders have been targeted by the US in the last year. Don't believe me? Check this out.

Union Leaders
Iraq
http://lnn.labourstart.org/more.php?id=106_0_1_0_M
Iraq
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=0ea74f4207000f2a20cd2 bdf4ab0e2a9

Journalists
US managed to "accidentally" bomb the headquarters of AlJazeera in Kandahar the day that the US took the city. Then they "accidentally" bombed the headquarters of AlJazeera in Baghdad the day that the US took that city. Sounds like journalists from the Middle East should take out fat life insurance on themselves any time they cover a war in which the US is fighting.

[Harald]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
There is something fishy about this thread :err:

Something a bit interesting going on here....

Fellows

Pray tell Fellows what's that?

You're welcome to check my record (if it's a personal thing) ... you'll find me very robust in saying when I think the US has screwed up.

You'll also regularly find me calling suicide bombers 'scum,' saying that Israel has an absolute right to exist and defend itself (but adopts doomed practices) and that the US is a great country with, among other things, the best constitution on the planet (but one that is under threat).

WRT to THIS thread, the original poster said that the US invented human rights; I pointed out this is bollocks. The original poster is blinded to this by thinking his country perfect when it isn't; a very dangerous and too prevalent POV in the US (which has often been the bravest and most determined of nations).

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Harald
Pray tell Fellows what's that?

You're welcome to check my record (if it's a personal thing) ... you'll find me very robust in saying when I think the US has screwed up.

You'll also regularly find me calling suicide bombers 'scum,' saying that Israel has an absolute right to exist and defend itself (but adopts doomed practices) and that the US is a great country with, among other things, the best constitution on the planet (but one that is under threat).

WRT to THIS thread, the original poster said that the US invented human rights; I pointed out this is bollocks. The original poster is blinded to this by thinking his country perfect when it isn't; a very dangerous and too prevalent POV in the US (which has often been the bravest and most determined of nations).

Not your post Harald I know your record and where you stand.

The thread.

Fellows

[GregInMex]

Of course I realize that the Nobel Prize is not a US award. Neither is it simply Swedish: at least this year the award was given in Oslo (if I recall correctly it is a joint Norwegian/Swedish thing). But let me restate my point and hope it makes sense.

-- the winner is a human rights lawyer. I think that is a good thing to be.
-- the winner is a human rights lawyer in Iran, where such people are much needed.
-- the US was the first country in the world to make the concept of human rights (from the Enlightenment) central to law.
-- the US has fairly consistently (with huge and unforgivable gaps towards Indians and Africans, which I grant is a point) been the biggest single supporter of the concept of human rights.
-- the US is now and has always been a foe of the regime the winner is fighting.

So what does she do when the world is watching? Of course, she attacks the US. She at least has a sharp eye for pop culture trends.

To the east of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? To the west of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? Maybe she hasn’t had access to much news over the last few years.

Again, I would never suggest that she not be allowed to say what she wants, but I would propose to her that she is unwise to attack her biggest friend.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by GregInMex


To the east of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? To the west of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US.


And if you're sitting right in the middle of two invasion targets and your country is also being called "evil" BY THE US don't you think that might be cause to be a little worried? Or do you think she should lobby for an invasion of Iran? In the spirit of human rights and peace maybe? Surely the Iranians will dance in the streets when johnny comes marching in. :rolleyes:

[giant]

Originally posted by GregInMex

-- the US has fairly consistently (with huge and unforgivable gaps towards Indians and Africans, which I grant is a point) been the biggest single supporter of the concept of human rights.

Not the people running the country right now:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/corporation/profiles/halliburton.html

I don't know her background, but most pre-revolution leaders have been speaking out against the push within the US government to threaten Iran. Maybe you should look into that.

[chu_bakka]

WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (IPS) - Key U.S. civil liberties and social justice groups marked International Human Rights Day Wednesday by launching a new ÓU.S. Human Rights NetworkÓ dedicated to raising awareness about international human rights standards and focusing attention on the U.S. failure to enforce them.

More than 50 groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the New York-based Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), said they had agreed to join forces to address what they said was Óthe alarming rate of human rights violations in the U.S.Ó, particularly as it pursues its Ówar on terrorismÓ.
They called for U.S. citizens to speak out against these abuses, as well as to fight ÓU.S. exceptionalismÓ, the view pushed strongly by the administration of President George W. Bush, that the United States should not be constrained by international law or human rights standards, especially relating to economic and social rights.

ÓThe demonstrations that we are currently seeing against the U.S. around the world are a reaction to the perception that the U.S. -- and particularly the Bush administration -- thinks that it is above international law -- laws the rest of the world are required to abide by,Ó said Ajamu Baraka, who works for Amnesty International USA's (AIUSA) Atlanta office and is part of the network's secretariat.

ÓThe rights of ordinary Americans and others residing in the U.S. are being trampled on a daily basis -- in violation of a host of international laws and standards,Ó said Cathy Albisa, a secretariat member who is based at CESR.

ÓThese include the right to economic security and a decent standard of living, the right of children convicted of crimes not to be executed, the right to a fair trial, the right to seek asylum, and the right to be free from torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, among any others,Ó she added, noting that the U.S. has the developed world's highest child poverty rate and that 20 percent of adults are functionally illiterate.

http://www.ips.org/

click on world news... then north america

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by GregInMex
I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights Welcome to AI, GregInMex...where no comment is left unscrutinized.

It has already been pointed out that the US has nothing to do with the Nobel prize, but you should probably also know that the concept of human rights originated in 13th century England (in the Magna Carta).

The reason why it is important that any human rights abuses perpetrated by the US Government be given attention (even if the magnitude of the abuse pales in comparison to abuses by other nations) is that the US is supposed to stand for something better. The citizens of the US are certainly great supporters of human rights, but Government's don't always do what the citizens expect, let alone practice what they preach. Leaders sometimes have to make difficult decisions, and occasionally these decisions are incorrect. Sending a bunch of people into legal limbo because its easier than giving them a trial or granting them the POW rights is one of those cases.

[finboy]

Originally posted by The General
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better

:lol:

[GregInMex]

I've read some of the links people have contributed. I've got some more thinking to do.

Two things jump out of my early thoughts, though: 1) the Magna Carta was about *noble* rights vis a vis the king, not human rights (although nobles were human). 2) some of you don't seem to understand that old saw about flies and honey and vinegar.

Nevertheless, thinking is underway.

[Towel]

At the risk of hijacking the thread...

I really do think that the concept of the sovereign individual was a uniquely American one, and rested heavily on the frontier/homestead lifestyle of so many Americans. A man/family was sovereign because he had to be. And if he did everything for himself, what right did another man have to tell him what he could or could not do?

Of course, this had deep roots in English liberalism, and the English were probably still ahead on the idea of truly universal rights. But the extent of those rights (beyond, for example, the right to not be a chattel slave) was also limited in England by the pervasive influence of hereditary class identity, which to this day is mostly absent from America.

The basic economics, geography and politics of Europe (not to mention the rest of the world) simply kept those ideas from germinating until after they had flowered in America. That's not to say that it could have happened in America without all those other influences; surely not. But the unique situation of American allowed it to happen when it did.

[pfflam]

I'm tired of people trying to make the world into their idea of the perfect place

seems that another word for that is ideology
forcing a fluid and complex world into a probably flawed image of perfection

need I list the long history of absolute catastrophes that have been born from such ideological beliefs?!
starting with religious ideas of the right moral/social world to the political and social . . . a long list of travesties

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Towel
At the risk of hijacking the thread...

I really do think that the concept of the sovereign individual was a uniquely American one, and rested heavily on the frontier/homestead lifestyle of so many Americans. A man/family was sovereign because he had to be. And if he did everything for himself, what right did another man have to tell him what he could or could not do?

Of course, this had deep roots in English liberalism, and the English were probably still ahead on the idea of truly universal rights. But the extent of those rights (beyond, for example, the right to not be a chattel slave) was also limited in England by the pervasive influence of hereditary class identity, which to this day is mostly absent from America.

The basic economics, geography and politics of Europe (not to mention the rest of the world) simply kept those ideas from germinating until after they had flowered in America. That's not to say that it could have happened in America without all those other influences; surely not. But the unique situation of American allowed it to happen when it did.

See John Locke.

Edit: Actually, the more I think about it, that's a pretty good distinction between individual sovereignty vs basic human rights. I'm going to have to think about this, specifically from Locke through JS Mill, before I say any more. But I think Locke can be brought to bear on this point about the potential English origins of a notion of individual sovereignty.

Cheers
Scott

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by GregInMex
I've read some of the links people have contributed. I've got some more thinking to do.

Two things jump out of my early thoughts, though: 1) the Magna Carta was about *noble* rights vis a vis the king, not human rights (although nobles were human). Property and inheritance rights, rule of law, due process. Universal or not, these all sound pretty close to being the basis for many of what we regard as human rights today.

If the Magna Carta won't do it for you, there is always the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (http://members.aol.com/agentmess/frenchrev/mancitizen.html) (made in 1789). Compare 'em to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html).



2) some of you don't seem to understand that old saw about flies and honey and vinegar. Not sure what this has to do with human rights.

[Towel]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
If the Magna Carta won't do it for you, there is always the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (http://members.aol.com/agentmess/frenchrev/mancitizen.html) (made in 1789). Compare 'em to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html).
There's some prior art on the subject of universal rights declarations.
Virginia Declaration of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/print_friendly.html?page=virginia_declaration_of_r ights_content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Indepe ndence%3A%20A%20Transcription)

[giant]

Originally posted by midwinter
See John Locke.

Edit: Actually, the more I think about it, that's a pretty good distinction between individual sovereignty vs basic human rights. I'm going to have to think about this, specifically from Locke through JS Mill, before I say any more. But I think Locke can be brought to bear on this point about the potential English origins of a notion of individual sovereignty.

Cheers
Scott

Yup. John Locke.

[GregInMex]

The flies and honey and vinegar thing is not about human rights, but rather about rhetorical style.

As to the Dec of Rights of Man and Cit. Read it. Many times. The folks who wrote it would have very likely have read some documents written in the US, which preceded the French Rev by a few years.

John Locke's reasoning was based in part on his experience as the personal secretary to the English lord in charge of setting up the colony of North Carolina, by the way. One may go so far (shall I?) as to Americanize Locke for the purposes of argument.

In any event, while I stand by the argument that the US was the first state to institutionalize the concept of human rights (as we think of them today), I will accept, after having checked on some recent developments (pointed out by people here on the board) that the US has very much fallen down on the job of late and therefore . . . (drum roll?)

I can see how it is reasonable for Nobel winner Shirin Ebadi of Iran to take her moment with the bully pulpit to criticize recent US behavior. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.

I guess my politics may have clouded my judgement a bit on this one. Thanks for the heads up (even thanks to midwinter)!

[giant]

Here's an interesting view:

I argue, however, that human rights' true origin lies in the wrenching encounter between the conquering peoples of Europe and the conquered peoples of Latin America, Africa, and Asia in the aftermaths of the "discovery" of the Americas, the Atlantic slave trade and subsequent colonization of Africa, and the "opening" of East Asia in the 19th century.

The historical figure who best symbolizes the process by which the most important concepts of international law and international human rights were forged is Dominican friar Bartolome de Las Casas (1474-1566), who has become known throughout the world for his active defense of indigenous rights in the face of the Spanish conquest of the Americas.


Read more here: http://www.carleton.ca/idea/newsletter/reports_122000_5.html

[giant]

Originally posted by GregInMex
John Locke's reasoning was based in part on his experience as the personal secretary to the English lord in charge of setting up the colony of North Carolina, by the way. One may go so far (shall I?) as to Americanize Locke for the purposes of argument.

Nope. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Go look at his plan, it was very repressive and never implemented.

I don't think he even ever went to america.

Of course, maybe you know more about him than I do. It's been a while since I studied him.

[GregInMex]

Casas was an interesting guy. I read somewhere, however, that he suggested importing Africans as slaves as a replacement for the enslavement of the indigenous population.

Complicated, as are most interesting historical figures.

[giant]

Originally posted by GregInMex
Complicated, as are most interesting historical figures.

Yeah. What's crazy is when we get contemporary folks like the neo-cons that take some of the most oppressive political theory and 'read between the lines' to develop an even worse one.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by GregInMex
The folks who wrote it would have very likely have read some documents written in the US, which preceded the French Rev by a few years. And the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of independance in turn drew from the 1689 English bill of rights.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
And the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of independance in turn drew from the 1689 English bill of rights.

<aside>And then the modern notion of the state caring for the poor is the result of Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries, which used to take care of that kind of thing (helped along, of course, by compulsory tithing). When he dissolved and looted them, the state wound up having to pick up the slack.</aside>

Cheers
Scott

[BRussell]

I bet some Greek guy said something about it 2500 years ago.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
I bet some Greek guy said something about it 2500 years ago.

I don't read books with caves in them.

[giant]

Originally posted by midwinter
I don't read books with caves in them.

Hey! Who doesn't like puppets?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by giant
Hey! Who doesn't like puppets?

Good point.

I don't like books with fire in them either.

Nor do I like books about justice.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by midwinter
Good point.

I don't like books with fire in them either.

Nor do I like books about justice.

I should also add that I don't like books whose FIRST SENTENCE I've spent THREE HOURS in a seminar discussing.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Towel
At the risk of hijacking the thread...

I really do think that the concept of the sovereign individual was a uniquely American one, and rested heavily on the frontier/homestead lifestyle of so many Americans. A man/family was sovereign because he had to be. And if he did everything for himself, what right did another man have to tell him what he could or could not do?

No.

See the history of the Dutch in South Africa c. 1700.

[Powerdoc]

It's funny that France always reffered to herself as the countrie of human rights.
I wonder how many countries think that they are the countrie of human rights. It's perhaps a certain form of arrogance of democratia : we are the light of the world. We are morally superior. By saying that we forgot that this values are fragile, and may be lost easily.
Freedoom is a perpetual fight.

[giant]

Originally posted by midwinter
I should also add that I don't like books whose FIRST SENTENCE I've spent THREE HOURS in a seminar discussing.

VERY good point. ;)

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
It's funny that France always reffered to herself as the countrie of human rights.
I wonder how many countries think that they are the countrie of human rights. It's perhaps a certain form of arrogance of democratia : we are the light of the world. We are morally superior. By saying that we forgot that this values are fragile, and may be lost easily.
Freedoom is a perpetual fight. I thought France always acknowledged a sort of debt to the American Revolution as a major influence (the stature of Liberty)

but anyway, yes your point is good, why does a country always think that it is THE country, instead of A country among others?!

[BRussell]

I always think it's funny when an American says "I love my country because I have free speech [can vote][any other basic human freedom]," as if the US was the only liberal democracy in the world. I suppose it's a left over from the Cold War when the US's major opponent was a non-democratic Soviet Union. But come on, much (most?) of the world, certainly our peer countries, have the same basic freedoms as in the US.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by pfflam
I thought France always acknowledged a sort of debt to the American Revolution as a major influence (the stature of Liberty)

but anyway, yes your point is good, why does a country always think that it is THE country, instead of A country among others?!

Yes, but i was refering to the french media. I have heard many times , this law should not be there, .... in France the countrie of human rights.
I find silly to heard this recurrent theme : the human rights are not the property of anyone, they are supposed to be universal ...

[Towel]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No.

See the history of the Dutch in South Africa c. 1700.

I hate it when I have to guess what a person's point is. :) Makes it so much harder to have an educational discussion. Anyway, is it that the Dutch in South Africa were largely homesteaders, like the Americans? Maybe, but there were so few of them, and so few of those were citizen-burghers. Only bare hundred c. 1700, and a few tens of thousands total in the late 1700s, when there were 2.5 million Americans. Just not critical mass for a cultural revolution. That, and their culture heritage was, well, wrong. The ideas of the American Revolution (in the loose, global sense of that term) depended so heavily on English political philosophers. Anyway, if I'm completely wrong (as I usually am), please enlighten me about the history of the Dutch in South Africa c. 1700. :)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Towel
I hate it when I have to guess what a person's point is. :) Makes it so much harder to have an educational discussion. Anyway, is it that the Dutch in South Africa were largely homesteaders, like the Americans? Maybe, but there were so few of them, and so few of those were citizen-burghers. Only bare hundred c. 1700, and a few tens of thousands total in the late 1700s, when there were 2.5 million Americans. Just not critical mass for a cultural revolution. That, and their culture heritage was, well, wrong. The ideas of the American Revolution (in the loose, global sense of that term) depended so heavily on English political philosophers. Anyway, if I'm completely wrong (as I usually am), please enlighten me about the history of the Dutch in South Africa c. 1700. :)

Sorry: I didn't have time to expand, and then I couldn't be bothered. :)

You said that the idea of the "sovereign individual" was a "uniquely American" idea because frontiersmen and homesteaders had to do everything for themselves (I paraphrase) and that the philosophy that arose from this lifestyle led, apparently inevitably, to the idea of constitutionally-enshrined human rights.

I disagree.

The whole history of the Boers, since individuals rejected the control of the Dutch East India Company for life on their homesteads, and the "trekboers" set off for the interior to be free of the British on the frontiers, is to do with independence, frontier life and not having to do what someone else tells you to do. We didn't get any over-riding concern for human rights in South Africa but we did we did get constitutionally-enshrined racism and 40+ years of fascist government.

I guess I'm saying that frontier / homestead in a colony where a lot of genocide goes on wasn't unique to North America, and judging by Africa its just as likely to lead to pretty rotten governments that don't really care for the rights of the "sovereign individual."

I think that the truth's far, far more complicated and far less romantic.

[pfflam]

Soveriegn individual . . . . legacy of Cartesian rationality . . . or Rousseau?!?! Both of whom were French by the way . . . .

In the air of the times?

[Smircle]

Originally posted by pfflam
In the air of the times?

Absolutely. It was part of the larger current that broke away from medieval thinking ranging from the Rennaissance to the enlightening. We all have to thank the inhabitants of the tuscan cities (Florence, Venice in the 15th century approached some democracy for the first time since ancient roman times) for starting this, but it only gained momentum with the parallel rise of enlightened philosophers in Europe and first state constitutions and later the US constitution in America.

It was by no means a one-way flow of ideas at that time. A lot of french eggheads at that time went to America to study the emerging republic as the opposite to the absolutist monarchies in Europe and at the same time they engaged in the intellectual discourse leading to the constitution.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by pfflam
Soveriegn individual . . . . legacy of Cartesian rationality . . . or Rousseau?!?! Both of whom were French by the way . . . .

In the air of the times?

I'd like to point out the strong, I would even go so far as to say primary, contribution made by the Scots to this period of time, inspiring and being inspired by the French in the main and prompting Voltaire to say "we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilization."

For a lively account of this period, written by an American historian and therefore with some emphasis on the part played by Scots and Scottish ideas in the creation of the US as we know it today, see The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots' Invention of the Modern World
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841152765/ref=pd_sim_b_dp_1/026-3047264-8390020) by Aurthur Herman (or to give it its slighly more explanatory American title: How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609809997/qid=1071413058/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3303237-1819354?v=glance&s=books)).