å Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

In my opinion, I believe that everyone should have equal human rights. I agree with Wendy when she says that “Human rights matter because they help people help themselves”, and “HUman rights is te language that that systematically embodies the intuition tht each individual is entitled to equal moral consideration”. I do think that it is okay to believe that human rights is an antipolitical and expressle moral antidote to abusive political power, a defense against power, and a protection against pain, deprivation, and/or suffering. I think this means that if people knew that they have rights no one could try to take it away from them and that they should use it on a day to day basis. However, I think that women, especially women and those of lower classes, should know what their rights are so that no one could try to cheat them or try to take their rights away. I’m not sure if I understood it right, butthere was a part in the reading where I read that Ignatief says that there is a form of protection for those who trade a form of their protection for another, but I don’t understand why one must trade one right to have another. we should have full access and the ability to access all of our rights when we want to. I do agree with Brown because human rights should be fro everyone and not just to have to trade for another. in my understanding, human rights in the reading was used to invade Iraq and I don’t think that’s fair to the people of Iraq because if those with power are going to pick and choose when others have rights and when they don’t then there’s a problem. For me the reading wasn’t easy but Brown explains her reasoning on human rights and Ignatief’s reasoning on human rights I agree with Brown because to my understanding, she’s for human rights for everyone. “Is the prevention or mitigation of suffering promised by human rights the most that can be hoped for at this point in history”? I also think it is an important question to ask because human rights deserves to be supported and evenly distributed to individuals. At the end of the reading she talks about if this alone cannot be resolved then other political problems can’t be resolved.

Apiece of evidence that Wendy Brown provides to support her claim that human rights activism can not be reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless”, is when she quotes ” All that can be said about human rights is that they are necessary to protect individuals from violence and abuse, and if it is asked why, the only possible answer is historical. In the past of United States of America, history shows that activists of and for human rights were not innocent and powerless. They showed great strength by standing up for what they believed in. They took a stand against what they felt was wrong and made a conscious effort to make a change.

Wendy Brown uses Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian author and former politician, Tanner Lecture Series from two thousand one as a reference in this reading, “The Most We Can Hope For…”: Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism. Michael Ignatieff was also the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In this reading Michael Ignatieff says “human rights must accept that it is a fighting creed and that its universal claims will be resisted.” This quote is evidence to the fact that human rights can not be reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless.”, because those who realize that they will be climbing an uphill battle against extreme climates and still persist in doing so are far from week. They are strong. It takes a strong individual to break through any type of resistance.

Wendy Brown also quotes this line from Michael Ignatieff, “Human rights is a language of individual empowerment, and when individuals have an agency, they can protect themselves against injustice.” The word empowerment alone means and stands for “authority or power given to someone to do something.” Empowerment is the complete opposite of “powerless.” Human rights activist are driven by the empowerment to do what is right by and for others. Wendy Brown later brings up empowerment again and says ” Moreover, to the extent that human rights are understood as the ability to protect oneself against injustice and define one’s own ends in life, this is a form of “Empowerment” that fully equates empowerment with liberal individual.

Another quote that stuck with me throughout this reading for its connect to what Wendy Brown said about human activists not being reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless” was when Michael Ignatieff says “Without the freedom to articulate and express political opinions, without freedom of speech and assembly, together with freedom of poverty, agents cannot organize themselves to struggle for social and economic security.”

Due Sunday, February 26th, 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 chapter one of Samuel Moyn’s work, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, he begins to make his argument that “the rights of man,” though a powerful influence on the organization of politics during the nineteenth century, is different from the concept of “human rights” as described in the 1940s and as the concept continues to be used today. In your own words, explain how you think Moyn differentiates these terms: “the rights of man” and “human rights.”

Wendy Brown

As I read Wendy Brown “Human Rights and the Fatalism” I agree when she states “a pure defense of the innocent and the powerless” (pg. 453). Human rights is a justified to every person, race, color, religion and gender. People as a whole have this right without discrimination. The word “human right” is both a right and obligation to all human beings. The human rights movement came after the Second World War. It was implanted in 1948 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. It was written as an expression of what people believed to be their given “human right”.

     While I continue to read, I learned that “human rights” refuses the mantle political on which Brown continues to express (pg.453). It is more about pain and suffering rather than “political discourse of comprehensive justice” (pg. 453). For all human beings, it falls under what people consider unjust for themselves. We as people must recognize our rights as humans. Brown’s writing is making us aware of what is politically correct of one group can also be politically incorrect for another group. She makes comparison on the War on Iraq. It makes sense that Rumsfeld “liberation” of Afghanistan and Iraq was to help the people from these countries be “free” and uphold “human rights”. But did this really applied for these people? I can honestly say NO. I feel that a lot of rich peoples interest were involved (Oil). Also, the 9-11 terrorist attack showed the world that the US was not as powerful and smart and we thought we were.

Human rights for our generation is they key to help one another. The view on human rights from Brown, ” They simply expand autonomy and choice” (pg. 461). Making people free and having them make their own choices. i.e (voting, free education and free healthcare). These are choices that humans have. I know in some countries where “human rights” are still in some ways suppressed. I believe social media has also played an important role on how “human rights” where they are viewed as positive or neglected. People are more aware of what’s going on around them. Especially in places were their are people fighting to stay alive (Syria). Our human right was given to us by our ancestors who fought long and hard so that “we” (today’s time) can have a free liberal mind and speak our opinions. As time goes by people evolve and this changes. Society is changing as we speak.