I would to begin by saying it was difficult to narrow down how to presents my own opinion in a short paragraph. And it is an opinion that keeps changing with time.
It is difficult to make a stand when referring to “human rights” simply because there is never just two sides. When debating “right, human rights or natural rights” the first thing to be accomplished is defining what exactly “human rights” are, says who, and under what circumstances are they defined. This would obviously lead to different opinions that have been noted in Hunt’s documentations. However, Malquet makes an excellent, although obvious point, “The nations is waiting for us: it wants order, peace and protective laws...”(Hunt:75) His statement alone is one that any nation would agree to.
In the case of the French Revolution, the definitions of “human rights” is presented in several articles under the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen”. The very opening line is one familiar, as Dr. Wright has already pointed out, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” (Hunt:78) I do not think that there would be anyone would completely disagree with this statement, but questions could easily arise. What does “free” mean and is there any limitations? The problems of human rights does not necessarily fall on definition but perhaps the lack of. Rights,as we know, are constantly being debated and are evolving in the same categories that Hunt as already presented even slavery, although this does not necessarily include Africans.
In the case of slavery during the French Revolution, there is room to debate the freedom of slaves because the opening statement of Declaration refers to “men” not men of specific color or status. Slowly, pushing the edges of the Declaration, “The abolition of Negro Slavery or Means for Ameliorating Their Lot” presents a solution to the slavery problem by making a compromise to the colonies and for abolitionist. The first proposition, “Blacks transported from Africa to our colonies could only be sold on the condition that the inhabitants who bought them would restore their freedom at the end of ten years...” (Hunt:103) How does this proposition relate to any right of the “human rights” definition? This article is an excellent example of how its context is naive to our modern world. We have seen the results from “freeing” black Africans in American history. How would anyone know that they were free? It was more than likely that they could not possess any knowledge of reading or writing, therefore unable to make their case for any kind of freedom. What jobs could they possess afterwards?
This is an example of how defining the “human rights” truly has no clear definition at all. It is an evolutionary process of trial, circumstances and religion.
Hey Brittany:
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point when you said that it’s not the definition of rights that is a problem, it the lack thereof. Although I take the stand that no rights are actual rights, as all of them come with an asterisk, but if I were to believe in rights, I would take the same stand as you. We, as humans, are constantly evolving, especially socially and with the introduction of new technologies on a constant basis, it is so hard to establish the true extent of one's rights. A recent example comes to mind, where a soldier decided to put on his facebook that President Obama is not his commander of Chief and that if he gave him an order, the soldier would not comply. On the surface it is obvious that he is wrong, but when you look deeper you ask, is facebook his private forum where only friends and family are present and if so, is he not allowed to discuss his thoughts freely in the privacy of his surroundings.