Blog Post 5 - Jack de la Parra

 For my final blog post, I am choosing to talk about the article from Nhina Le on the topic of human rights. While everyone is familiar with human rights as a general concept, Le loosely defines them early on in her passage saying "By definition “human rights” are based on the universal dignity of all human beings by virtue of their humanity." However, this concept is up for much debate across cultures in different countries. 


I would personally argue that human rights are essential to the formation of structure within a government or state system. In order to create a trusted system, you must provide the people with basic rights to feel like they can support a system. However, one could argue the situation I just layed out only applies to certain forms of government, such as a democracy. Whenever citizens have a direct impact on their politics, they need securities. One interesting portion of Le's article highlights how corrupted these systems just might be when it comes to human rights: "For instance, the U.S. government publishes annual Human Rights Country Reports on other countries, not on the United States. These reports do not thoroughly explain the fact that established democracies that supported certain human rights declarations sometimes ally with dictatorships and transitional regimes in opposition to binding human rights enforcement." I found this to be shocking, because I had just argued the benefits of human rights being provided in a democracy, but as it turns out, some democracies do not support them as much as they may suggest.


On the other hand, at what point do we draw the line? Human rights can vary drastically among countries and the acceptance of certain human rights in other countries would lead to much conflict and controversy. Even when we simply compare human rights issues between neighboring states, we can see the divide. Take the issue of abortion rights for example. It seems like every other day in the news there's a new bill attempting to be passed over the topic of whether or not women should be allowed to have abortions. Some would argue that the "human rights" belong to the unborn baby, but others would argue that the human rights belong to the mother who would have no option but to attempt to support a child if abortion were illegal. So, whose human rights are considered to be more important? No one can say for sure, but I feel as though this indicates a first hand example of how human rights are not consistent between belief systems or entities. 


Le finishes her article with the topic of the politicization of human rights, which made me immediately think of the pandemic. With the increase in mandates to attempt to quell the spread of the disease, there has been increasing reaction due to the politicization of vaccines, masks, etc. Some people argue that it is their right to not wear a mask, but others will argue that it is their right to feel safe going to the grocery store knowing others are vaccinated. 


In turn, while universal human rights seem like a good concept, it would be hard to implement due to the varying definitions and pracitces. 


Comments

  1. Keri GilliganDecember 10, 2021 at 1:38 PM

    I think your blog post was very reflective and I liked how you questioned your own ideas. I definitely agree that human rights have been extremely politicized and I think you could apply the example of abortion to this ideas as it is clear there are political divides surrounding the issue. I am curious to see if the world will ever be able to come to an agreement surrounding what should be considered a human right as it is even controversial between a small group of people. I think this also shows the influence of different ideologies and cultures affecting politics.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Claire Doyle - Blog Post 1

     The study of international relations is based primarily on a sexist and racist foundation. According to the work of Du Bois, “Of the Culture of White Folk” and Ann J. Tickner’s “Morganthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformation,” the analysis of international politics is based solely on the views of white men. Throughout Du Bois’s work, he critiqued that the study of international politics existed before sociology, political theory, law, and colonial development. Tickner critiqued the work of Hans Morganthau and his Six Principles of Political Realism, which Tickner argued were “a partial description of international politics because it is based on assumptions about human nature that are partial and privilege masculinity” (Tickner, 431). Regardless of what one studies, the basis of that historical foundation is most definitely based on the views of a white male. Whether it is the study of science and using Einstein’s studies, US History, the Foundi...
Read more

Blog post 3- Harrison Gold

  Harrison Gold POLS170 Blog 3 Economic Funding Under COVID-19 The Covid world we are living into today has created tremendous hardship, in many forms.  In addition to the unthinkable death toll associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, there is the devastating impact that the coronavirus has had on the economy – both in the US and abroad.  However,, some of this impact has been mitigated by our governments efforts. Because of the deadly and contagious nature of the Covid-19 and its variants, the last two years have created changes in our lives that were previously unthinkable – which includes the devastating economic toll resulting from Covid’s impact on the global economy.  For the sake of this blog, I will initially lay out the economic impact of the coronavirus, followed by the measures with which the US government has enacted to keep our economy in check and to avoid a complete collapse.  Many other countries has taken comparable measures w...
Read more

Blog Post 3

 In my third blog post, I wanted to discuss global economy, and specifically, Strange's article that discussed the difference between Japan's financial power compared to the United State's (keep in mind that this article was written in 1990). Strange's core argument is that the reasoning behind the disparity between the financial powers of Japan compared to the united states comes down to the fact that Japan's power was "relational", while the United State's was structural. Essentially, the international use of the Yen along with the "percentages of Japanese trade invoiced in Yen" (269). Strange argues that these two indicators fell short on the international playing field, as the use of the Yen made up very small percentages in international trade. The United States, on the other hand, dominated in terms of the use of the dollar, and even had exchange rate protections for imports and exports.  The point of my discussion, however, is to discu...
Read more