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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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
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
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 (made in 1789). Compare 'em to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
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.
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 (made in 1789). Compare 'em to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There's some prior art on the subject of universal rights declarations.
Virginia Declaration of Rights
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.
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)!
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/newslett..._122000_5.html
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.
Complicated, as are most interesting historical figures.
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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't read books with caves in them.
Hey! Who doesn't like puppets?
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.
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.
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.