Human Rights Movements: Not Just a Western Thing

Spotlighting Human Rights Abuses Are Westerners Simply Imposing Their Values or Does the Issue Run Deeper?: by Paul Slusher
Raptorial

The question was raised by a friend recently about the concept of "human rights". I was asked whether the issue of Human Rights is a "western concept". It was argued that perhaps this political orientation is indeed a principle born in the West and that attempts to pursue "human rights" were a form of cultural imperialism. To anyone even slightly familiar with this topic, it is easy to see that this is not a subject that can be tackled quickly and easily. The following is the text of my response to this aforementioned position.

I urge any and all to respond with their views, for defining how a people organize is a living conversation and requires active dialogue. You may agree or disagree with the ideas that I am putting forward, and we can only learn from each other when the full spectrum of ideas is presented. Submissions in response to this editorial can be sent to Raptorial 'Zine and will inevitably be posted.

I must say, at the onset that I view human rights within the context of "sovereignty". To be more specific, the concept that 'the people', each and every community AND each individual, have the right to self-determination. I am not so culturally biased to argue that every country, region or culture should engage in "democracy" (a term that is very misunderstood, misconstrued and often a living contradiction). However, if, for instance, the Tibetan people as a whole, or at least a large majority, choose independence, and decide to organize themselves along those lines, then I would have to argue that criticism should be leveled against any force, (e.g. Han Chinese) who aggressively attempts to destroy this type of 'self-determination'. This is as true for the Tibetans as it is for Indians (in PC language: Native Americans)... as it is true for the African American majority of DC... as it is true for a large segment of the urban population in Rangoon, Myanmar (aka Burma).

This is not, in my opinion, a debate over 'modernism' or even an issue of intervention. It was said by Jose Ramos-Horta (East Timorese - Indonesia) the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, that every people, regardless of their cultural orientation, have the right to an opinion, even if that opinion includes judging another group of people or government on their internal politics. It is not my place to 'choose' the direction or makeup of any community's attempts to self-organize or define their collective process (that is, except for in my own community). But it is my right (and some would say my responsibility) to support attempts to have community independence. I would say that this is even true for the communities who are lobbying to become separate from the United States (e.g. Texas, parts of Montana and Idaho). I may not agree with their principles, and it is my right to say so. However I cannot oppose their attempts to define their way of living if it is truly the strong opinion of the vast majority of the population. Certainly within the context of the United States, it is their right to voice this opinion and pursue their self-defined goals. If my political or social beliefs contradict theirs, I have the right, as much as they do, to vocalize this position.

Now in some cultures, as we know all too well, there is a perceived "cultural bonding" that precludes ideals of "self-determination". However, we must remember that culture is not static and does not exist in a vacuum. Influences, whether they are Western in origin or not, are to be acknowledged. Each case in relation to human rights also does not exist in a vacuum. If the Timorese, who have had a visibly western influence, decide to create their own nation and have their own government, and the Indonesian government decides that it is in their national interest to crush this process, AND the Timorese have requested assistance in supporting their cause (not just a few Western lackeys, but the population in general), then I will support it, along with others of like mind. If citizens of China are put into forced labor camps, and this is due to their political orientation, AND they have requested assistance in relation to their cause, then it is justified to take up this cause. It is not a judgment of culture, but about who is defining power, by whom and for whom. If a select few in China are in control of social policies, then judging the policies of oppression is not a judgment of culture, but a judgment of how 'free' the Chinese citizens are in defining their own community. If the United States decides to oppress citizens because they are anti-federalism, or decides to jail strong community activists who oppose imperialism, the issue is the same.

If we argue that the oppression of women in China (or Korea, or elsewhere) is cultural and therefore should not be opposed, then what do we do when women who have left these cultures decide to organize elsewhere in support of those they left behind? My take on this is that I support their attempts to do so. Again, it is not an issue of cultural judgment, for I am not instigating the judgment, only supporting the process of challenging the oppression.

The United States, as lame and hypocritical as it is, is still the government can be remotely referred to as the 'centerpiece' (or more accurately the recipient) of political expression. Therefore it can be argued that it is indeed part of our culture and process to utilize the various organs of power (regardless of their level of separation from the population) to express our cultural and social will. If we choose as a population to eradicate racism by way of making the active process of discrimination illegal, then we are entitled to do so. If we, as a population, feel that the oppression of women in one country, or the genocidal practices of a government in another country is "criminal" or contrary to the principle that each community may decide its own fate, then it is entirely within our right, both culturally and politically, to exercise this right by lobbying that our government, my government, refrain from trade with a nation, or place economic or political barriers upon that government or organized military body.

Perhaps this is a Western orientation, but I would point out that village elders in Yunnan, Indian elders in the US, hilltribe elders in Thailand, etc., would argue that it is the right of their people NOT to have a stronger military impose it's physical will upon them. If the Chinese government chooses to ignore our plea to improve the conditions of those who disagree with the Chinese government, then it is their right to do so, but it is also our right to prevent them from increasing their trade with our country. You see, it works both ways. I believe that this process can be manipulated into a discussion of 'cultural imperialism' but if one looks deeper the issue stretches beyond cultures. Self-determination is a principle that supersedes our 'western orientation' and predates our "constitutional ideals". Self-determination exists in any community that has opposed the intervention of any dominant outside force, everyone from the hilltribe people of Yunnan China who opposed the Mandarin ideals of "greater China" to the North American Indians who are still opposing the imperialist policies that prevent them from deciding their own fate on their own land. Perhaps it could be argued that one of the most "human" principles, dating back to the days of the earliest global tribes and communities, is that each community can and will oppose any attempt to assimilate it. And it is their right (what we call "human rights" in the West) to continue this resistance.

This right has been present for hundreds of years, and will continue to be present with or without the influence of the West.

To respond to this article, send e-mail to Raptorial 'Zine... responses will be posted in our upcoming issues.