Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

The USA's Human Rights Daze

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted December 13, 2007.


Human rights day passed by with barely any notice -- but we would all do well to understand the meaning of human rights.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The chances are slim that you saw much news coverage of Human Rights Day when it blew past the media radar -- as usual -- on Dec. 10. Human rights may be touted as a treasured principle in the United States, but the assessed value in medialand is apt to fluctuate widely on the basis of double standards and narrow definitions.

Every political system, no matter how repressive or democratic, is able to amp up public outrage over real or imagined violations of human rights. News media can easily fixate on stories of faraway injustice and cruelty. But the lofty stances end up as posturing to the extent that a single standard is not applied.

When U.S.-allied governments torture political prisoners, the likelihood of U.S. media scrutiny is much lower than the probability of media righteousness against governments reviled by official Washington.

But what are "human rights" anyway? In the USA, we mostly think of them as freedom to speak, assemble, worship and express opinions. Of course those are crucial rights. Yet they hardly span the broad scope that's spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That document -- adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on Dec. 10, 1948 -- affirms "human rights" in the ways that U.S. media outlets commonly illuminate the meaning of the term. But the Declaration of Human Rights also defines the rights of all human beings to include "freedom from fear and want" -- and not only as generalities.

For instance, the first clause of Article 23 states: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

And: "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work"; the right "to form and to join trade unions"; and, overall, "an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

Perhaps the farthest afield from the customary U.S. media parameters is Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which insists: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Measured with such yardsticks for human rights, the United States falls far short of many countries. If American news media did a better job of reporting on human rights in all their dimensions, we'd be less self-satisfied as a nation -- and more outraged about the widespread violations of human rights that persist in our midst every day.

The human consequences of those violations are incalculable, but they're largely removed from the center stage of dramas that fill news pages and newscasts. This downplaying of economic human rights is not mere happenstance. The violations are systemic -- within a system that thrives on extreme inequities, creating enormous profits for corporations and enriching some individuals along the way.

Within the boundaries of dominant news media and mainline political discourse, the "issue" of human rights is in a narrow box. It severely limits the humanity of our social order.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, human rights

Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Human Rights
Posted by: Romantic Violence on Dec 14, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human rights also includes the right to self defense against criminal govern-ment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Response
Posted by: aberdeen on Dec 14, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is very much on target and I agree entirely that economic equity and stability is very much, a central issue of human rights.

Human rights is based on the axiom that we should treat other people as we ourselves, wish to be treated. For this reason, we will not murder, rape, steal or attack another country and, for this reason we will not economically infringe against or, seek to enslave anyone else; for this reason we won't build a wall to prevent poor migrants from feeding their families or, ignore our own nation's health and homeless citizens lying in our own gutters.

A similar idea is found spread throughout cultures, thus in spite of Darwinism, it very strongly indicates we have a shared human conscience, which is clearly exposed in the historical record. Major societies spread throughout historical civilization demonstrate similar major laws against murder, theft, rape, false witness. etc. Unfortunately, cultures spread throughout history also demonstrate a shared propensity to violate our shared human conscience.

The problem lies not with this author's articl, which I have no quarrel with. Rather, the problem lies with many both modern conservatives and so-called progressives, who reject the fundamental basis for human rights. They either ignore the basis entirely, as is the case with conservatives or, in the name of some entirely twisted idea of "freedom" of speech, seek to eliminate it from the minds and consciousness of our nation's children, which has become the totally twisted and entirely regressive obsession of the the modern ACLU.

If we provide our children with no moral "reason" to learn, why are we surprised when they aren't interested in learning? If we provide them with no moral compass to go by, why are we surprised when they grow up to be overweight, ignorant couch potatoes, who vote against the best interests of their own flesh and blood? And, if we don't teach them that education is a tool to help our neighbor, rather than a sick exercise in futility to earn a degree so they can earn more money, then why are we surprised when they grow up to become selfish glutons and crooked CEO's, lawyers and two-faced religious and political leaders?

As the founder of human rights very correctly taught, if the blind lead the blind and worse, if they end up leading our nation, we will all fall into the historical ditch of deceit, violence and human oppression, accordingly. Thus is the penalty for eliminating the words of history's greatest teacher from our modern American public classrooms.

If modern liberals and progressives are unhappy with the current political and social state in America, they need look no further than their own black kettle of freedomless so-called "separation of church and state".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: esponse Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: esponse Posted by: Lauren
» RE: esponse Posted by: Lauren
» RE: esponse Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: esponse Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: esponse Posted by: MindyB
» RE: Response Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: esponse Posted by: MindyB
State of the Empire
Posted by: talkville on Dec 16, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2 main comments and 6 dialogic entries. Enough said for human rights and the position it occupies in the USA's de-ranged 'scale of values'.

Property and possession rights trump human existence, which only possesses the right to have rights conditional upon the discretion of the ruling classes. Welcome to Weimar II; its effects are un-folding and 'positive attitudes' or 'optimism' are woefully mis-placed.

An empire which can reward slavery is one that is shocking and awesome to behold. Witness social reality in the USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Human rights and our poor
Posted by: Dianka on Dec 20, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the least noticed, much less honored, by Americans. The last time the media noted the anniversary of this human rights agreement (about 10 years ago), it almost opened up a "whole can worms" better left sealed.
Our welfare "reform" policies directly violate Article 25, yet even our "progressive community" has been remarkably indifferent toward the systematic repeal of the fundamental rights and protections of America's poor. I'm not sure that most Americans even know the degree to which these policies have stripped out human and legal rights solely on the basis of economic class, and I don't know that it would make any difference if they knew. Nations do "scapegoat" specific (powerless) segments of their populations, deciding that something about that group makes them inferior---and that applies to America, too. We have already been through a quarter of a century of anti-poor propaganda in the mainstream media, and I think that otherwise-progressive and humane Americans have been shamed into turning their backs on our poor. Our poor have been portrayed as cunning yet stupid, a sort of sub-species that mindlessly breeds, and are utterly without redeeming qualities. Don't expect any marches calling on government to provide humanitarian aid to our poor. We like human rights in theory, and we can grasp how wrong it is when foreign nations disregard human rights, but we don't grasp that we---explicitly and implicitly---allow the human rights violations of our poor. Nor do we care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]