“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” As Nicholas Cage says in the critically acclaimed film National Treasure, people just don’t talk that way anymore. The idea that these unalienable rights exist – and that it is against the rule of law for them to be denied – is the very cornerstone on which the United States is founded.
First, I think it is worth exploring what “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” actually means. Introduced by John Locke in 1689, these rights were originally written to describe the inherent necessity of the existence of a government. When Jefferson and Locke wrote this, the pursuit of happiness meant owning property, making a live, and having a large family. Further, these rights only applied to men – not women, slaves, African-Americans, or other people of color. Now, we know that all are entitled to these rights, but it is important to consider the historical context of these words – and this idea.
Just as the definition of these rights has evolved over time, the idea of other universal human rights has evolved. This evolution has been spearheaded and catalyzed by the United Nations, a global organization of governmental leaders that aims to promote international cooperation and maintain international order. Created in 1945 – the end of World War II – with the sole purpose to prevent another catastrophic global war, the UN articulated precisely what these rights were in their 1948 Universal Declaration. An expansive list, these articles addressed a wide variety of abstract and concrete rights that ranged from protecting one’s freedom of thought to the prohibition of slavery.
The origin of this idea is discussed at great length in Mark Mazower’s The Strange Triumph of Human Rights, 1933-1950. Mazower, a British historian, postulates that these rights were motived from a messy combination of the “triumph of civilization of barbarism and realpolitik” and a hearty dose of state-interest motivation (Mazower 381). The essence of the article is that there was legitimate, earnest support in the creation of the document, but it was only adopted by the global superpowers – namely the US and former Soviet Union – for “export,” or to impose upon other countries while maintaining firm control of their own internal affairs (Mazower 398). Thus, these human rights must be contextualized with respect to the balance of global power at the time of their publication.
Despite the arguably dirty origin behind these human rights, documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the UN’s Universal Declaration serve as the framework for governmental policy as well as the societal perspective on human rights. Just as this evolution has changed, it will continue to change; however, now we have learned even more.
Rights are all well and good but the way they are given out is not. Men might be born equal but they do not live as equals. Even when on the same playing field equal respect is not all ways given. It is doubtful that people will ever stop speculating over these human right and how much is due.
Christopher Jackson
Chris, I really liked what you said in class about rights not actually existed unless they can be defended. You’re 100% correct, and I think that kind of reinforces the fact that the government really is a social contract. I must say, in light of what’s going on politically in America that imbalance-of-power is a bit frightening.
These documents are the foundations that our country was built upon, but we can’t pretend like times haven’t changed. The phrase “human rights” has taken on new meanings since the time of Thomas Jefferson and, thanks to technology, there are better ways to spread issues and then fix them. Although discrimination and prejudice still exist today, I can’t help but think that the situation on human rights has improved since 1776.
Hey Dalton – I agree, the situation on human rights certainly has improved since 1776!
I must not have come across too clear in my post, but I mostly wanted to explore our Western view of human rights and especially consider the origin of the ways we think about these rights. In short, I wanted to explore the idea that “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” is culturally engrained into us, but it is not in the collective conscious (or subconscious, for that matter) of global citizens elsewhere.
First, I totally appreciate your National Treasure reference. I also think that your analysis of our historical understanding of human rights is good and it is an important discussion to have. In this case, I believe the context is just as important as the content we are discussing. That being said, I’m curious to know more about your thoughts on how WWII specifically shaped the human rights discussion.