å February 2017

Moyn starts off by telling us what human rights are which is a set of global political norms providing the creed of a transitional social movement. Moyn then goes on to say that in the book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the new Universal Decleration of Human Rights states that “without communal inclusion, the assertation of rights by itself made no sense.” What I got from the reading was that since there weren’t equal rights or all, there was the creation of human rights to protect those who were subject to their rights not being equal to everyone else’s. Today, human rights are being limited, if not, taken away completely. They are also being taken away to benefit others. I know ive used this example before but I just want to make a point. So the example was that Donald Trump took away Muslim rights by banning them to travel. However, people are also using their human rights to protest the unfair acts that our “president” and what he is doing. For example, there has recently been a protest where people protest that Donald Trump is NOT our president. There was another protest where women marched for their rights because Donald Trump tried to take them. Also, this thought brings me back to one of the last discussions where I spoke about if you don’t know the full extent of your rights then it’ll be easy for someone to take them away from you. When Moyn stated “Because when human rights exploded in the 1970s they were focused so centrally on political and civil rights, their social and economic cousins have come to be regarded as “second generation” principles” I think it’s important to keep the original rights and if it must be tweaked to fit society then tweak it so that it makes everything, social, economic, political and civil rights, equal. I don’t think that just because the higher power tweaks the rights they add some and then either ignore or weaken the previous rights. Also what I got from the text was that concerns for inequality and socioeconomic deprivation even appeared in the bible so it’s nothing new, this has been a concern for centuries. Also when Moyn pointed out that places witnessed that their government provide visions of natural rights that weren’t too focused on self-preservation, they didn’t that because they don’t really want to zero in on rights on individuals. So what ii got from that alone was that they rather tell people as a whole that they have rights rather than telling them that as individuals they have their own set of rights. Moyn starts off by telling us what human rights are which is a set of global political norms providing the creed of a transitional social movement. Moyn then goes on to say that in the book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the new Universal Decleration of Human Rights states that “without communal inclusion, the assertation of rights by itself made no sense.” What I got from the reading was that since there weren’t equal rights or all, there was the creation of human rights to protect those who were subject to their rights not being equal to everyone else’s. Today, human rights are being limited, if not, taken away completely. They are also being taken away to benefit others. I know ive used this example before but I just want to make a point. So the example was that Donald Trump took away Muslim rights by banning them to travel. However, people are also using their human rights to protest the unfair acts that our “president” and what he is doing. For example, there has recently been a protest where people protest that Donald Trump is NOT our president. There was another protest where women marched for their rights because Donald Trump tried to take them. Also, this thought brings me back to one of the last discussions where I spoke about if you don’t know the full extent of your rights then it’ll be easy for someone to take them away from you. When Moyn stated “Because when human rights exploded in the 1970s they were focused so centrally on political and civil rights, their social and economic cousins have come to be regarded as “second generation” principles” I think it’s important to keep the original rights and if it must be tweaked to fit society then tweak it so that it makes everything, social, economic, political and civil rights, equal. I don’t think that just because the higher power tweaks the rights they add some and then either ignore or weaken the previous rights. Also what I got from the text was that concerns for inequality and socioeconomic deprivation even appeared in the bible so it’s nothing new, this has been a concern for centuries. Also when Moyn pointed out that places witnessed that their government provide visions of natural rights that weren’t too focused on self-preservation, they didn’t that because they don’t really want to zero in on rights on individuals. So what ii got from that alone was that they rather tell people as a whole that they have rights rather than telling them that as individuals they have their own set of rights.

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.

Personally, I have been a little stumped while reading Wendy Brown’s essay. There’s this feeling of uncertainty between whether Brown believes human rights are anti-political and whether they serve a bigger role in politics. I am uncertain if the purpose for her writing is to express distinctions between perceptions of what human rights are, how they are perceived initially and how they emerged into a completely new meaning and purpose. It is my interpretation that Brown is indicating that human rights activism cannot be limited to one defined meaning and purpose now because of evidence of a still-existent moral code that serves as a foundation for these rights and political interdependence regardless of if these rights were initially made to, or not made to, be in relation to politics in several depths.

Our assignment, however, is a debate between agreement and disagreement regarding human rights activism and its purpose, whether or not that purpose is mainly to defend those who are not in power and those who are blameless. I do agree that the main purpose for the rise of human rights is not solely limited to the need for protection and recognition for the innocent and powerless. If that were the case, then hypocrisies among writers who served as precursors for the push for human rights would not serve as evidence of alternative reasoning behind their creation and usage. Yes, the impoverished lacked human rights and protection. Yes, women and slaves did too. The men, the bourgeoisie and the noblemen, the philosophers and the well-educated, that served as forerunners of the human rights idea wrote without actually experiencing any moral-ethically wrong doings, without being the poor, uneducated and enslaved. Though, due to their persuasion of empathy, were able to be the voice of the people who needed the recognition, who needed the change.

The idea that human rights can be considered be anti-political, something pure and of good intention can be opposed through these documents about human rights written by men, about men, are ultimately for men. It is not done out of good intention, but for political motion, for defense and preservation of political standings and control. “…If they stand for political power’s moral limit regardless of its internal organization or legitimacy, what is their political positioning and effect in this work?” (p. 454). It’s a paradox for people in a society to push for human rights activism, for governmental changes and liberty, and can still withstand their limitations, rules and consequences in exchange for a few vague and symbolic ideas of rights. They’re then still put into a position of subjugation, whether it is seemingly lessened or simply not worth an additional fight, which then makes both the people and the authorities subject to hypocrisy. This also emphasizes that human rights, too, are actually just a political image of justice, rather than an active and exertion of justice.

In Wendy Brown’s essay, “The Most We Can Hope For…”, she makes it a point to let it be known to the reader that human rights activism is much more than protecting the innocent and powerless. She cites multiple times author and former politician Michael Ignatieff, whom she describes as “thoughtful and nondismissive”(451). Not only is Brown arguing that human rights activism is more than protecting any certain individual , but also that it is “… effective in limiting political violence and reducing misery”(452). She goes on to state that if all of the “…politically let blood, politically inflicted pain, and politically induced fear”(452) that has been present throughout history can be erased by human rights, that achievement alone would be enough, even if they achieved nothing else, because no one would be able to argue with it. However, how can human rights accomplish this when it is said to be a political project itself that, in Brown’s words, is a particular form of political power carrying a particular image of justice (453). Brown includes Ignatieff’s understanding of human rights which is that it is not about what is good or right, but rather the agreement “about what is insufferably, inarguably wrong”(454).
Two points that I believe are not as highlighted as they should be but are present nonetheless are that human rights have a lot to do with moral and empowerment so that can help people to help themselves. Terms such as moral currency, moral consideration, moral equality, moral inviolability and moral antidote are just a few of the term that Brown uses to help define human rights. Brown states that human rights has become the “international moral currency” In addition, she goes on to state that “human rights is the language that systematically embodies the intuition that each individual is entitled to equal moral consideration… we can say that we are making moral progress”(453). Although, as much moral that is included in human rights, the political parts of it remains immoral in many ways. How can human rights help people help themselves when there are so many political, social and economic aspects involved. The question stands, what kind of politicization does human rights include because they definitely include political aspects even though that’s who they are supposed to be standing up to and opposing.
Although Brown states that human rights were created to protect an individual, she also adds a lot of political affiliations and how they are unavoidable. I do agree that human rights are than what they seem to be and we have to begin to scratch the surface to truly see their intentions and what they truly wish to accomplish

In the essay “The Most We Can Hope For” by Wendy Brown, the author makes important points when arguing that human rights are not only to protect individuals from violence and abuse because it is situated in a political, social, historical, and economic contexts. On page 453 She states that human rights are a political tactic with an image of justice, meaning that political uses the image of justice in this case the human rights to keep up or to gain more power in another ways. However, when talking about defending individuals from cruelty, and avoiding pain and suffering, this takes a moral progress. For me what she is claiming is that political power will always be present in human rights even though it presents itself as antipolitical. Like the example of the intervention in Iraq by the United States and Britain, which shows the replacement of an abusive power by another one in exchange of protection, with the hope of reducing suffering, but at the end the power is still there in other form.

Ignatieff insists that what human beings need to enjoy life is a political-economic account of what state needs to thrive instead of the basic things such as food and shelter. This shows again that political power and its political and economic security is all that matters. In his second claim he argues that a crucial  initiative for free market order human rights offers because they are the vehicle for social and economic security, in other words from my understanding he is trying to say that through human rights individuals can achieve many things, even be able to take a part on political and social contexts because human rights guarantee social and political freedom allowing individuals to have agency and therefore it is up to the individual his aims and ends (455). Here we are talking about freedom or empowerment where the individual makes his own decisions.

From what I read, for Brown, human rights are not only shield that protect individuals agains power and permit individuals to make choices but they could be ways and vehicles to reach domination and governance. For instance the fact that Americans have so many rights, even if these can not shape collective power, still this allows Americans to live without fear which makes human rights be a form a power itself . Furthermore “there is no such a thing as mere reduction of suffering or protection from abuse” (460),  this alone is productive of political subjects. I agree with Brown that the human rights activism is not only a “pure defense of the innocent and powerless”, it is more than that simple quote. it actually enable us to live fearless of oppression not only that but also feel protected and be able to speak up about what we think is infair even defying people in politics.

I agree with Browns claim that human rights cannot be reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless. She backs up her reasoning with evidence from the war of Iraq. She states Donald Rumsfeld declares the “War of terrorism is a war of human rights”, this use of language is being used through the lens of the scared and revengeful American. This comes from the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, as New Yorkers it was instilled, hammered, into our minds by the media which is politically driven, that Muslims were dangerous even barbaric people, who knew nothing of human rights. American troops entered a country and killed thousands of innocent people and children; we stereotyped a whole entire country, on the acts of a selected group. How in God’s name is that portraying human rights activism? Brown states, “Rather, the point is that there is no such thing as mere reduction of suffering or protection from abuse-  the nature of the reduction or protection is itself productive of political subjects and political possibilities” (p460).

Brown argues that the power human rights is the protection of people, and their individual right. But who determines those rights; the agency in which those powers lie in then determines how those rights are protected.  Are the equally distributed among all nations, first world and third world countries? He example of the War on Terrorism is just that, human rights in that insist was seen through the western lens, Americans were protecting what they saw as human rights.   The American government didn’t think of the people of Iraq as human and deserved the same rights as we did, so how is this the war of human rights; complete contradiction. I don’t think that there is one human rights law that can be applied to every individual, it all depend on what lens is being used. If the foundation of human rights is to protect to innocent and powerless then why did it do the opposite of that? It seems like a simple concept but in fact it is complex and has intricate loop wholes, it varies on who is using it as a tool of ‘protection’, and who they are trying to protect. we discussed in class if it is possible to be free, I don’t believe that one can truly be free and still have human rights being equal. I believe there is human rights because , as history as shown us, human aren’t always humane beings.

As I read Wendy Brown’s essay “The Most We Can Hope For…..” Human Right and the politics of Fatalism. Wendy has an interesting point of view about Human Rights and mentions about  Michel Ignatieff publication “Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry”

Humans Rights have been created to stop physical cruelty as well as any kind of abuse.However Wendy Brown believed that Human Rights are not created directly to a single individual, and I think her main idea is that Human Rights are being use more by people who are in politics, people using for demand of government, corporations or practically any political figure.

She also mention Ignatieff’s idea of how Human rights protect against violence and abuse, on page 452 she writes about Ignatieff commentaries published “That I take to be the elementary priority of all human rights activism: to stop torture, beating……as best we can, the security of ordinary people” I think this quote is saying that we have the power to keep fighting to get our rights and not only certain group of people.

“Human rights activism is amoral political project and if it displaces, compete with refuses, or rejects other political projects including those also aimed at producing justice” pg. 453, just like I mention before Brown still has a debate on what kind of rights recognizes each situation are political, historical, social or economic context. Brown has point out that to protect a certain vulnerable group, this rights have to be identify and reinforce the perception of that weak group.

On page 459 she also write about what are we have learned in the last century ” if rights secure the possibility of living without fear of express state coercion……the state nor do they enhance the collective power of the citizenry to determinate” Her idea about how rights work to articulate a need or a condition of fault or damage that can not be complete repaired or transformed by rights. These rights of systematic subordinates tent to rewrite, inequalities  and impediments to freedom that are consequent to social stratification as issues of individual violations and is rare for these violation to be articulated under the condition of such violation.

Wendy Brown thinks that although human rights have been created to defend any individual, after fifty years these rights remain only a symbol in which human rights activism which we have to argue in taking. Therefore we have to work within the prevailing discourse of human rights, but we have to be aware of the limits of these actions and remain centered on the idea that nothing is impossible.