å February 2017

Due Sunday, March 5th, by midnight. Word count: 400 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. If you paraphrase, make sure to include the proper citation.

In their work, V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi argue that we should interrogate the connection of “human rights” in connection to heterosexism rather than focusing on, as other feminists have, the androcentrism of human rights discourse. In your own words, explain why they believe heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender difference and human rights.

Samuel Moyn states “Each writer creates his on precursors” (11) in the beginning of chapter 1. My interpretation of Moyn’s arguement is that every theorist and/or writer bases his or her beliefs of what was already known, there is always a foundation in order. But as generations go on, time passes by, society changes and “new” rights are out into place. The Rights of Man, I think, is simpler to break down then human rights. Rights of man are based on the “man” and the property
“he” owns. There aren’t rights for women or slaves. Owning property and social class played heavily on ones rights. One the other hand human rights are the rights for all, protecting both women, not only men, proclaiming people free individuals.

Human rights reflected the protection of a person who obeyed the laws that were put into place to keep the people protected. Ironically even in present day people are mistreated by the government, we struggle just for the rights that seem to be in born, like the government overlooks health insurance. If one doesn’t have access to health insurance because they don’t qualify how are their rights being met? Ones well being, especially in the world we live in today where everything is overly expansive, how can health be something left out of inborn rights?

Protection for the people, innate rights against wrongful and harmful actions are the first thing I think of when I hear human rights. So why are their people fighting for their right to live, Black Lives Matter is a movement that, I’m sure we all heard of, came into action because of the rising numbers of police brutality. White officers have killed hundreds of blacks and no justice has been served, where are their rights? I believe the right of man is clearly being demonstrated here; social class and categorization still exist in this country and all around the world. Moyn states, “If human rights are treated as inborn, or long in preparation, people will not confront the true reasons they have become so powerful today and examine whether those reasons are still persuasive” (12). Maybe human rights aren’t inborn, maybe people struggle with this idea of freedom amongst all because it isn’t a true theory, and it isn’t really adaptable.

According to my understanding of what the author Samuel Moyn is pointing out about Human Rights in History, is that during the seventeen century, when proclaiming the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789, it only included man who own property, as we have seen in previous classes women were not considered citizens, therefore only man had rights. These rights provided citizenship and protection to men, in case their rights were violated, therefore it was all about men wanting to form part of the state. Consequently other individuals who did not belong to the state or had nothing to do with it, their rights were not protected. Each history of Human Rights have its own chronologies and geographies in different traditions and reasons. However, Precursors had given basic ideas for the introduction of humanity, for terms like “humane and humanitarian” to become even thinkable. For example the Stoics helped to take a step forward when they considered that reason rules the world, and that all humans share reason.  Even though in Roman culture they excluded foreigners, women and slaves (15), in a way they helped to unite all men for education. It was a big advancement even though their concept of humanity is not the same as we know now. Christianity also made the term “humanity” be possible.

Before the period of World War II, the Democratic Revolution in America and France including the civil battles in American involved calls for individual rights, also minorities desperately wanted protection and citizenship which were a big push for human rights. The fight of women for their rights through the several women’s movements influenced on the declaration and on their inclusion. Modern Human rights as we know today were contributions made by diverse precursors, events an leaders at diverse times that collaborated for the protection of values by rights.

The concept of Human Rights as described in the 1940s and as the concept continues to be used today it is the result of collective power that was the key for the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it allowed individuals before unprotected and considered no citizens to be finally included without distintion. Before rights were based of the politic of the state, through all the history, and many events that shaped it, Human rights are now based on global morality of all the individuals as a collective membership.

In chapter one of Samuel Moyn work, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, he mentions how in the last decades is has been trying to understand the origin of the human rights and the difference between the rights of man” and “human rights.”

Over the years there have been attempts to explain the true origin of human rights. Samuel Moyn mentions how important it is to establish a connection between rights and the states. We must remember that when we talk about “rights” we emphasize this a right to act, participate or demand something that we consider is part of us as human beings.

Before “human right” Samuel Moyn mentions in his text ”The last Utopia” how “natural rights” were considered the rights of nature derived most often from God. One of the philosophers considered that people have the natural right to life, liberty, and property.

According to Moyn, human rights over the years have been considered as “The Heritage of Humanity “assuming that all human beings are part of the same group. But as we have been reviewing in the last readings this has not happened and human rights have been considered only for certain people.

In the 1960s, human rights focused mainly on civil and political rights. This is why inequality exists because not everyone has the same rights but the same obligations as citizens of a nation.

According to Moyn, the “rights of man” were about a whole people incorporating itself in a state, not a few foreign people criticizing another state for its wrongdoings (pg 26). He also mention that human right came

In the nineteenth century “the right of man” was trying to secure the rights of a citizen but were not considered some people as women or slaves. For example, the Italian Giuseppe Mazzini maintained that “the right of man” was created to protect just some individuals excluding others. He also mentioned that an individual should be free and have equality.

After reading this chapter of Samuel Moyn I understand that the “rights of man” were focus in protecting an individual’s property more than give them rights on specific terms. On the contrary “human rights” are focus in giving rights to all people letting them to participate in different roles inside a nation. These “human rights” are supposed to protect all men and also women and be able to fight for their rights and have a voice as anyone else. (Pg. 19)

The common refrain in regards to human rights today is the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Man and Citizen began to establish rights as we know them today. Continuing chronologically, World War II and the Holocaust lead not only to the creation of the United Nations but also the eventual Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which in turn lead to the promotion and politics of human rights as we know them today.

In The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, Moyn argues that the current politics is much newer than the UN Declaration and further, the declaration’s true intent was not the promotion of human rights but rather a power play by Allied forces. Additionally, rights today differ drastically from the rights that came out of the American and French revolutions. I had read Moyn’s book a few years ago and at the time I did not find his argument convincing. I found them compelling and intellectually interesting, but not convincing.

Rereading chapter one and a bit of chapter two for this assignment, I still do not find his argument entirely convincing but some rings more true than it did with the first reading. Before Moyn can dive into the meat of his argument as outlined above, he must set the stage by making a distinction between the rights of man, as understood from the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Man and Citizen, and human rights as they are recognized today. He meanders through the concept of universalism and social and economic rights versus civil rights, but the true distinction is one of rights from within versus rights from outside.

Moyn convincingly makes an argument that the rights of man are tied to the formation of society whereas human rights are tied to the individual regardless of the sovereign state (12). Rights of man dealt with the establishing of rights for members of a new government, they looked internally. Human rights as they are known today, are based on a collective membership beyond the sovereign state. Human rights are tied to the individual and extend past the authority of the sovereign state.

Of all of his arguments, I found this to hold the most sway with me. To my knowledge, prior to WWII, the holocaust, and the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, there were no protections available to individuals outside of the sovereign states where they resided if and when their rights were violated. And while the protection available today is still limited and wildly dependent on politics and economics, we now have international laws and courts and tribunals to address human rights violations. I would not argue that either have been terribly successful just yet, but it is a start.

Human beings are the existence of a living being. The origin of human beings originated from birth and linked to human rights. Thereafter, we assign one’s state of being derived from religion, science and theory. We assigned distinctions based on gender, color and faith. A title was given to all beings, whereas human beings were assigned an extension of belonging. They were labeled under slavery, unequal rights for women, and unequal rights for workers. Further enslavement occurred under particular organizational rule, communism, nationalism and democracy. The ‘rights of man “under a particular concept (nationalism) exhibited different liberties than “human rights” under democracy. The “rights of man” are recast under Nationalism and changed over a period of time. This concept was linked to various ideas. During Nationalism the French exhibited the challenges they faced. The “rights of men” was a transformation that occurred over a decade after the French Revolution. In The Last Utopia according to Samuel Moyn’s, the “rights of man was a pathway to very fast reformation. The “rights of man” dramatic change coexisted during the revolutionary age. The transformation occurred under the course of the French Revolution. The French headed in a brand new direction because they were basically impacted by American rights. But, Nationalism adversity was stuck between the actual practice and the idea. Of course, theory quickly created a desire toward democracy; however, the actual action was slow moving. Nationalism was a deeply implanted behavior. Their laws grasped the authority of the individual’s rights. This attitude deprived the Rights of Man. As stated by Thomas Paine’s in The Rights of Man (1791) every declaration of rights at the time (and until recently) was implicitly what the French openly labeled theirs: a declaration of the rights of man and citizen. Rights were neither independent arguments nor countervailing forces, and were always announced at the moment of founding the polity, and justifying its erection and often its violence. The “rights of man” were about a whole people incorporating itself in a state (Pg. 25). While some people believed nationalism was not violating an individual’s rights, others maintain that slavery, women’s repression and worker’s excluded as citizens was one form of nationalism. This brings to mind, the war on immigrants. Presently we are in a democracy, yet authorities have attempted to control who comes into American based on the ethnicity. Also, all efforts have been made to transport immigrants.
On the contrary, according to What are Human Rights, “ Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all entitled to our human rights without discrimination” (pg. 1). This brings to mind, present day incidents whereas human beings are being discrimination against based on their nationality, ethnicity, religion and color. As seen recently, in the airport Mohammed Ali Junior (the son of Ex-Heavy weight world champion of boxing) was detained at the airport. He was stopped by authorities who inquired about his religious faith.
Further transformations occurred under democracy rule. Human rights almost always fought to enhance life and happiness. Human beings became concerned about improved success and or improved happiness. And authorities crafted laws to dictate the rules to follow and obtain human rights. To be sure the laws of principle were followed we expected government to sustain our “human rights”. Contrary to the above statements government has taken a different route. This brings to mind, presently government’s moral displacement. Under a particular ruling we have witnessed government’s cruelty towards the banning of refugees. Ultimately, many people will be killed under this ruling.

In chapter one of Samuel Myon’s, “The Last Utopia”, and Myon explains how human rights differ from the rights of man.

Going just off of chapter one alone isn’t enough to fully understand what and how human rights differ from the rights of man.  From what I understood, human rights are a transition in a social society.  What continues to puzzle me as we discuss the foundations of human rights is how much religion played a part in defining those rights.  Thinking about what the “religion” should represent, how can then have rights, while still excluding some of your citizens? You have philosophers, theorist, and clergy that believe “rights of man” are unfair, yet the clergy didn’t take into consideration slaves, woman, or non-property owners.  In my opinion, based on the text, human rights were created to protect citizens that were excluded from traditional rights of man.  I feel since I have only read the first chapter, there are a lot of things that may have been explained later that I have missed.  Myon doesn’t clearly define what human rights are, nor does it clearly define what the rights of man are. To me the difference between the rights of man and human rights are the purpose and the individuals it serves, and time.  The rights of man come from the revolutionary era during a time when men felt entitled, and privilege to things that others were not. For example, because I am a property owner and you’re not, I am entitled to have certain necessities and resources that you are not because you don’t own property. Human rights are people standing up against this entitlement and privilege and saying we are all humans and should all have access.  In today’s society I feel we still have what can be considered the “rights of man” and then “human rights”.  In modern time our government regulates human rights and we laws to “protect” against it. At the same time, we still have people show execute their “rights of men”, and feel certain types of people shouldn’t have the same rights as them because of race, religion, gender and the list goes on.  The dilemma is now, what do you do when the government as chosen to execute their “rights of men”?

Moyn’s explanation of human rights begins by giving us a background of how they emerged. After WWII the concept of human rights began as a way to stop and prevent “crimes against humanity”. However, Moyn explains that this concept wasn’t really taken into consideration until a later time. Human rights were just an ideology that was thought of. Human rights can be seen as a movement. This human rights movement was a way for people to speak up against the government. They wanted to have their rights protected; they wanted the government to give them the human rights, which they deserved as humans and not because of the country or nation that they lived in. Political resistance was viewed when speaking up for human rights. It was as if you were going against what the government had set up for you.

The rights of man were for the government. This means that the individuals were seen and given rights based on their belongings, socioeconomic status and religion amongst others. There was autonomy over individuals rather than general liberties. In a sense the government was putting a limitation to the rights that were granted. Socialism was the way in which individuals had to conform to.

Human rights were based on morals. As we know morals are based on the individual, there isn’t a general moral code that everyone lives by. The only code would be human rights, that those rights weren’t the same for everyone. The rights of man were viewed based on the status that the individual held, the position in which they had. In order for an individual to have “more” rights they had to own more property, stand on a higher socioeconomic status. Overall they had to agree and live by the standards that were set for them. Human rights were granted for people to be safe, for their rights to be respected, for the government to not take advantage of individuals. However, even now we’re living in a time where our liberty is taken advantage of and is taken for granted. Cruelty against humanity is happening, torture and killings are happening against humanity. Human rights were thought of to be the natural rights a human in born with regardless of categorization. We must now focus on humanitarian rights as a natural universal born right instead of a given right. The separation of rights shouldn’t be the basis of human rights.

Human right has been taken to mean something different by many people. In fact, once they come across this word then they think of political ideas and moral principles. Ideally, it is more than this as it is going to be espoused later on. The right of man and human right basically are two different terms with distinct means and therefore these differences will be clearly espoused. As a matter of fact, they basically have a lot of disconnect in terms of historical universalism with each basically committed to the fact that every person is part of the moral group.

Indeed, in chapter one of Samuel Moyn’s work, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History has absolutely talked about the two concepts i.e. the right of man and human right. These two concepts have been clearly differentiated and I think the deference is as follows; in regards to the rights of man, it was universally agreed in the universal declaration that, these rights were basically to be achieved through what is called the construction of space citizenship in which rights were protected and accorded. In fact, these spaces not only contested the denial of the rights that were already established but also were zones of citizenship struggle.

On the other hand, human rights in particular after 1945, actually did not establish any comparable space but the most central event that could be talked about under this is ideally the recasting of the rights as indeed entitlements that might basically refute the state of nation’s sovereignty from outside and above rather than basically serving its foundations. As obviously indicated, in the right of man ideally there must be a space of citizenship and therefore talking about human right has nothing that can be compared to this particular space and this is the fundamental different between the two.

Another fundamental thing that should be known about human right is the fact that, it does not at all focus on individualistic achievement but rather it when the society begins to protect the values as indicated in the revolutionary declaration. On the other hand, talking about right of man it is rather a very specific thing, I mean it focuses on individualistic achievement and in this case men. Basically, this should be able to manifest the wide disconnect between the two terms and as the words suggests, the right of man, meaning the rights of a man an individual and unlike human right which is a term that mean much  more things beyond just a man.

I personally agree with Wendy Brown entirely that human right activism is basically beyond championing for innocent, powerless and defense in the society because, I personally understand human right as an agency has a role to play especially when it entirely comes with the rights of all human beings. The rights are basically beyond defense, innocence and powerless. Indeed, Wendy has given various evidences supporting her claim. Firstly, attainment of social and economic security is a fundamental thing that needs to be championed by Human right activist and in so doing political and civil can easily be realized. Usually, there are things which are actually forgotten in a number of occasions. In fact, there are many concerns which needs to be addressed and when this is done then conditions are laid for political engagement and then finally economic improvement achieved. In other words, things like food, shelter and clothing are very much fundamental and they need to be catered for the purpose of economic good.

 Secondly, human right is actually a language of empowerment in the sense that through the agency mandated people can easily protect themselves from injustices. It should not be forgotten that many people face many challenges in society fundamentally those things which are contrary to the law. Since in most cases you find that, they are poor and they cannot be able to defend themselves, they simply let go. This is where the human right agency should come out and give empowerment such that justice actually prevail no matter what circumstances.

Lastly, it basically will be like a basis for things like deliberations, conflict, argument and contentions. Human right according to Brown will basically give a background to bringing solutions to those things which the government of the land has taken a hard line to solve. I mean, for instance, you may find strikes taking place by workers demanding something that the government cannot be able to guarantee them. This means that the human right agency will act as the one to ensure there is a solution between the two parties.  There are other many more contentions that can also arise in regards to evasion of justice because you are powerful and the sought and therefore the human right must also ensure that it proves that it is necessary for justice to take its course. If this is not done then this will imply that there is a serious constitutional crisis which needs to be taken serious.