Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
8 comments
TL;DR: Human rights laws stem from colonialism, but their purpose is inherently anti-colonial
Historically, human rights laws originated with the coloniser. In the 16th century, European powers dominated parts of Asia, Africa, and America, by destroying existing infrastructures and placing themselves in power. Whilst this was an exploitative and often violent process, the colonisers justified this by framing colonisation as a ‘civilising’ mission. They believed that they were improving the lives of the colonised people by developing education systems, improving working conditions, and banning rituals or cultural practices that Europeans deemed ‘inhumane’ (such as sati, the practice of widow suicide in India).
Whilst colonisers were originally unconcerned with the rights of the colonised, seeing them as ‘less than’ human and suppressing their resistance, by the 18th century Europeans began to question the morality of colonialism. This pressure to reform colonial rule led to the primitive beginnings of human rights. These were effectively a cover-up for the continuing exploitation of colonised people and their land; under colonialism, people cannot have human rights because they are not free. However, the concept of human rights can be considered to solidify at this time.
Colonialism contradicts human rights. In his leaving speech as Secretary General of Amnesty International, Salil Shetty defines human rights as “the struggles of ordinary people to hold those in power to account – particularly power that is abused by those in government or corporations”. Human rights attack the principles of colonialism, which is an abuse of one country’s power over another’s. Shetty explains that “the essence of human rights and decolonisation are basically the same thing: the struggle for freedom against the abuse of power”. Historically human rights laws originated under colonialism as a way for the coloniser to justify colonisation, but they are anti-colonial by nature.
Is the idea here that Human Rights laws are colonialist in their Universalism?
That they assume, and project, Western values of universal human rights upon the rest of the world?
So someone thinks they should commit genocide because human rights was thought of by western civilization
Like you, I think there's a strong argument that morality is pretty universal in its precepts (we all believe in self-sacrifice, heroism, protecting our family, etc), but it expresses itself very differently all over the world.
Should we then use human rights law to construct a relatively coherent international standard for the expression of morality? A constructed concept can be as significant as a natural one. One can argue that due to to increased international exchange, human rights law should become universal even though it has a constructed nature.
I do think that. And also think that Eleanor Roosevelt had a pretty good first crack at it 😊
Your response is interesting; it supposes that human rights are of western origin, and genocide is a concept that exists outside of western civilisation.
Curious to learn how did you come to this conclusion? and
Can anyone claim human rights as their own?
I... guess?
It's a bit of a weird statement. By this logic, tea is colonialist. Modern medical practices of the time were colonialist. Hell READING is colonialist if you really really want to push the issue.
The concept of codifying human rights has been around since government has been around. Long before the concept a colony even made practical sense. The very first person to come up with this idea was sitting in the very first invented cage.
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!