So I am very intrigued by this idea of Truth Commissions, the reason behind why they are instituted in particular situations, and what their ultimate goal is: THE TRUTH, or so we all seem to agree. But before I mention more about this, I'd like to start at the beginning.
Torture, war, genocide, hatred, mutilation: all of these things have been happening since the beginning of mankind. Hey, weren't Cain and Abel 2nd generation? And already they wanted to kill each other off and take what wasn't theirs? I'm not really super religious, but I'm intrigued also by the idea of religion... but that's a different story. Anyways-- back to the point. Death and murder exist wherever humans are, or so it appears.
So my first question when I'm sitting in class, thinking about human rights and such: If human rights are so inalienable, how come they haven't been respected until modern times? Is this because back in the day, like the Inquisition or the Crusades (I don't know why all my examples are religious, but just try to follow along), humans just couldn't physically understand that all humans might be the same, want the same things, be hurt in the same way? Obviously the learned philosophers were thinking about these things, but does society need to have plentiful leisure time and mass higher-education systems and the internet to get to the point where we can respect the human rights of everyone, including criminals? Are humans innately selfish creatures who see different skin colors as the opportunity to oppress and exploit? As much as I'd love to say that every one of my ancestors had great bones in their body and believed in peace and harmony-- I'm from New Orleans, Memphis, France, England, and who knows where before then. They were slave-holders, cotton-growers, revolutionaries, heretics, and who knows what else. I guess I'm just curious: if we are trying to protect the rights of someone who has killed someone or initiated a genocide, why now? I doubt anyone would have had a problem if we had gotten to Hitler before he got to himself. What makes today so different that suddenly all humans have the right to defend themselves, even if they've made the active effort to extinguish babies or fly planes into the twin towers? I'm not trying to sound pessimistic here (not the way to spell that word I don't think), but I'm really curious why, to me, this seems like a much more recent phenomenon.
Second question: Genocide. What exactly makes genocide "worse" than, say, war of any kind? Is killing the innocent just because of a grudge against their race really worse than starving and murdering millions of Russians? Okay, I used the word "worse" even though I know I shouldn't have... but I'm not trying to say that one is "worse" than something else, I guess I just don't understand how genocide, in particular, is different than any war in history despite the fact that it was purely civilians and purely for the point of extinguishing race.
A last point that I'd like to make is that I have no idea, YET, where I stand on Truth Commissions. (Hopefully I'll figure this out before the paper...) But I find the 4-tiered truth-defining system to be quite intriguing. I think that truth is always objective, and that there are different levels of truth in any and all situations. I think that defining types of truth in specific terms and utilizing a system like that when attempting to get the truth is a step in the right direction, and that the idea of resorative justice is so cool. I'm going to think a little more on this though, and get back to you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Mathilde,
ReplyDeleteI've been having the same difficulties as you with the first question about what human rights are exactly, and why they haven't been acknowledged or respected until relatively recently. Another issue I had was why we call human rights "rights" at all, instead of shared human desires or wants, especially since I don't think anyone in our class actually came to a full agreement about what being "human" or having "rights" meant in the first place.
I guess to try an answer to the first question, if human rights are considered natural or God given, then they could exist forever regardless of whether or not anyone actually cared about them. As a result, even though they haven't been universally acknowledged for very long, maybe this is just a sign that humans are finally getting things right by recognizing the inherent similarities they share with each others.
On the other hand, I feel like a pessimist as well when I think that human rights seem more like benefits of living in a global age where values such as generosity and beneficence are not limited to communities but can be expanded to the entire race. Sometimes it is easier to think that human rights are not inherent at all, that universal human rights are more a means to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions and to protect ourselves from others, and are nothing but a self-provided privilege that we are able to enjoy, promote, and protect, at least for now.
I think that the fact that human rights haven't been so prevalent in society is a major concern and source of confusion as well. It makes me wonder why it took so long for us to all care about each other. At least we've figured it out now though, and are working towards something better.
ReplyDelete