3 ms·

At the time that the US was developing, it also had extremely low standards for human rights. But as the US prospered, the Civil Rights movement kicked in. So

At the time that the US was developing, it also had extremely low standards for human rights. But as the US prospered, the Civil Rights movement kicked in. So perhaps the same will happen in China.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
That isn't true at all. The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves, but the framework and standards already existed for post civil war and the civil rights movement. As far as human rights go, China is somewhere before the Magna Carta in western civilization.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  >The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves Were slaves not human back then? GP is right: the human rights standard was appalling, and this is before considering the Trail of Tears and other small-pox-related incidents
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    High standard human rights existed in the west, they just weren't equally applied. In China, human rights are equally applied, just at a very low standard. So the west only had to apply what human rights already existed universally to "develop," and there was already moral pressure to do so from unfairness. China already has "fairness", but no where to go after that; there is definitely no moral pressure from within to do better.
    - rictic 10y ago
      I'm not certain that there were (to a modern eye) a high standard of human rights for anyone. Treatment of slaves and the lack of women's rights are well known examples, but there are a large number of historical practices that paint a pretty inhumane society, including punishments (e.g. the stocks), amusements (e.g. gouging aka rough and tumble), and community standards for the treatment of children (`beat the devil out of them` was serious, and not at all metaphorical).
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        Maybe look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights > While belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world, the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of seventeenth-century England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in human rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment. These ideas of human rights lay at the core of the American and French Revolutions which occurred toward the end of that century. Democratic evolution through the nineteenth century paved the way for the advent of universal suffrage in the twentieth century. Two world wars led to the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > The post-war era saw human rights movements for special interest groups such as feminism and the civil rights of African-Americans. The human rights of members of the Soviet bloc emerged in the 1970s along with workers' rights in the West. The movement quickly jelled as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[1] By the 21st century, Moyn has argued, the human rights movement expanded beyond its original anti-totalitarianism to include numerous causes involving humanitarianism and social and economic development in the Developing World.[2] > Some notions of righteousness present in ancient law and religion is sometimes retrospectively included under the term "human rights". While Enlightenment philosophers suggest a secular social contract between the rulers and the ruled, ancient traditions derived similar conclusions from notions of divine law, and, in Hellenistic philosophy, natural law. One can say "human rights" and still not have accomplished the goal yet, but if one cannot say "human rights" at all, there is no goal in sight. The Chinese media always complains that "human rights" is a western-biased concept, not appropriate for China, and at least we can agree on the first part. Human rights was a concept in the west, even if it had flaws, it was never even a concept in China (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_values).
- terasoans 10y ago
  Actually this isn't true at all then. By your logic, China also have an extremely high standard for human rights. Just a cursory look at the Chinese constitution shows how much they value equality. And surely, the rich and connected people in China have those rights. They are treated fairly by the system and society. It's just those poorer people that are hurt, but hey, the framework for it still exists.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    China's constitution is all about equality, free speech, etc...but China's system is not based on constitutional law so they just ignore it. You know that. People all have the same standards enshrined in the political system, but it is a low bar, and everyone makes out in the economic system instead. It's basically what a libertarian society would look like if they kept the government to a minimum (sans the occasional persecution of a dissident).

At the time that the US was developing, it also had extremely low standards for human rights. But as the US prospered, the Civil Rights movement kicked in. So perhaps the same will happen in China.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

That isn't true at all. The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves, but the framework and standards already existed for post civil war and the civil rights movement. As far as human rights go, China is somewhere before the Magna Carta in western civilization.

sangnoir 10y ago
>The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves Were slaves not human back then? GP is right: the human rights standard was appalling, and this is before considering the Trail of Tears and other small-pox-related incidents
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  High standard human rights existed in the west, they just weren't equally applied. In China, human rights are equally applied, just at a very low standard. So the west only had to apply what human rights already existed universally to "develop," and there was already moral pressure to do so from unfairness. China already has "fairness", but no where to go after that; there is definitely no moral pressure from within to do better.
  - rictic 10y ago
    I'm not certain that there were (to a modern eye) a high standard of human rights for anyone. Treatment of slaves and the lack of women's rights are well known examples, but there are a large number of historical practices that paint a pretty inhumane society, including punishments (e.g. the stocks), amusements (e.g. gouging aka rough and tumble), and community standards for the treatment of children (`beat the devil out of them` was serious, and not at all metaphorical).
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Maybe look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights > While belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world, the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of seventeenth-century England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in human rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment. These ideas of human rights lay at the core of the American and French Revolutions which occurred toward the end of that century. Democratic evolution through the nineteenth century paved the way for the advent of universal suffrage in the twentieth century. Two world wars led to the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > The post-war era saw human rights movements for special interest groups such as feminism and the civil rights of African-Americans. The human rights of members of the Soviet bloc emerged in the 1970s along with workers' rights in the West. The movement quickly jelled as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[1] By the 21st century, Moyn has argued, the human rights movement expanded beyond its original anti-totalitarianism to include numerous causes involving humanitarianism and social and economic development in the Developing World.[2] > Some notions of righteousness present in ancient law and religion is sometimes retrospectively included under the term "human rights". While Enlightenment philosophers suggest a secular social contract between the rulers and the ruled, ancient traditions derived similar conclusions from notions of divine law, and, in Hellenistic philosophy, natural law. One can say "human rights" and still not have accomplished the goal yet, but if one cannot say "human rights" at all, there is no goal in sight. The Chinese media always complains that "human rights" is a western-biased concept, not appropriate for China, and at least we can agree on the first part. Human rights was a concept in the west, even if it had flaws, it was never even a concept in China (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_values).
terasoans 10y ago
Actually this isn't true at all then. By your logic, China also have an extremely high standard for human rights. Just a cursory look at the Chinese constitution shows how much they value equality. And surely, the rich and connected people in China have those rights. They are treated fairly by the system and society. It's just those poorer people that are hurt, but hey, the framework for it still exists.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  China's constitution is all about equality, free speech, etc...but China's system is not based on constitutional law so they just ignore it. You know that. People all have the same standards enshrined in the political system, but it is a low bar, and everyone makes out in the economic system instead. It's basically what a libertarian society would look like if they kept the government to a minimum (sans the occasional persecution of a dissident).