Here’s another great post by Kalt
Actually, human rights do have to be earned. It’s just that they (typically) only have to be earned once, and then forever protected.
For example, drawn from the American experience, women had to earn the right to vote, namely a small group of very determined women (and some male supporters) challenged existing laws at great personal expense and over many years until the 19th Amendment was passed. Those pioneers “earned” the right that all subsequent American women have inherited automatically.
Similarly, blacks had to “earn” the right to vote, through the determined action of a group of civil-rights supporters in fifties and sixties. They faced ridicule, harassment and violence, but they did manage to get the Civil Rights Act through and every subsequent American black gets those rights automatically.
The writings of the founding fathers often touch on this subject (most famously, Thomas Paine: “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly”) and it’s clear that while Americans enjoy civil rights automatically now, somebody somewhere had to fight for those rights and possibly die for them.
In the case of Arabs/Muslims (which prompted Kalt to make the statement in the first place) seeking to dispel the image of terrorism, some of them are going to have to take strong action to root out the terrorists in their midst, to fight against corrupt governments that support such terrorism, and to make bold gestures of peace and stick to them no matter what. Some (or even many) of these progressives may suffer stigma, arrest or even murder, but the societies aren’t going to change unless that sacrifice is made. Expecting other cultures to treat Arabs/Muslims calmly automatically is unrealistic, especially when footage of Palestinians dancing in celebration at terror attacks is frequently played. Such attacks (and the celebrations) might be greatly reduced by outsiders forcing their will on the Palestinians, but the lasting peace comes when the Palestinians themselves discourage celebration and root out the tiny minority performing these criminal acts. Only at that point will the Palestinians have “earned” the right to be treated with trust and not suspicion. Similarly, the Saudi government is justly accused of supporting terrorists groups. Will the Saudis take the necessary steps to eliminate terrorism and the root causes now that they’ve been attacked? The notoriously corrupt Saud family could clamp down with an iron grip and probably limit terrorism, but unless they make some serious reforms, they’ll never be able to eliminate it. They might not be equal to the task and some non-Saud faction may force the reforms through, at great personal risk. The next ten years will tell.
I know (so don’t bother reminding me) that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims do not support terrorism. Good. Now a stronger effort is required from a number of Muslims, saying “Not only do I not support terrorism, but I’ll actively seek out the people who perform such acts, and push for laws that punish them and the people who give them money, and eliminate the places they can hide, and make sure schools and mosques are no longer used as recruiting centers.” The Muslim who simply says these things puts himself/herself at fairly trivial risk. The Muslim who actually does something is earning the right for themselves and all Muslims to be treated with with respect and not viewed with distrust, albeit at great (possibly even heroic) personal risk.
Truth be told, anyone who thinks human rights don’t have to be earned pays an insult to those who did the earning.
Bryan Ekers
There are very few people who have the courage to pursue a goal that they know fully well may not be reached in their lifetime and that which will command their entire lifetime. I think you are asking too much from the average Muslim on the streets of Jiddah, Baghdad, Damascus etc.
Besides, for such leadership, the social and economic conditions have to be “right”.
Sounds like you’re making excuses, actually. Radical social change may take a few decades, but that’s well within a human lifetime. There are people on this board now who may live in the American south and can remember within their own lifetimes a time when blacks were routinely disenfranchised. Nowadays, preventing a black person from voting in Alabama would seem shockingly outdated. I’d like to see terrorism eventually viewed with the same skepticism.
Claiming something is beyond one’s lifetime, or that the conditions aren’t “right” is an excuse not to do anything.
And I’m not asking anything of the “average” Muslim. The “average” Muslim (or, for that matter, the “average” member of any group) never really does much of anything political. A small but determined group of reformers could earn the right to be free of terrorism on behalf of the “average” Muslim. Remember, not every black citizen of the U.S. was involved in the civil rights movement, but there were enough people involved, and they were sufficiently determined, to bring about social change on behalf of all blacks, including the average ones.
Up to now, a tiny minority of Muslims have engaged in terrorism, thus tainting the image of the entire group. I’d like to see a similar (or preferably greater) number of Muslims dedicated to uprooting terrorism and its sources to remove that stain. The causes are deep-rooted and complex, but they are not permanent.
Just a few random thoughts.
There is little for me to disagree with. I am not trying to apologize on behalf of the absentee reformists. All I am saying is that I understand that social change, especially severe change, takes a lot of time. It is relatively easy for me to talk about the things that need to change when I do not have to sacrifice my own lifetime for such causes, which may or may not come to fruition.
Ironically enough, the terrorism we see is part of a social change within some countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Some tiny minority is in fact rebelling against its own governments and its own societies but in highly destructive ways. It took Gandhi decades to convince the majority of Indians to follow the path of non-violence, and lest one forget, he was an extraordinary man. Men like him are incredibly rare.
Who is going to arise in Saudi Arabia and productively channel the anger and frustration of the members of the failed society? It is all well and good to imagine a minority of good-intentioned civilians to rise up to the challenge. I wish that happened. I wish Life worked that way.
What exactly have you done to "earn your civil rights. No offense but it’s pretty easy criticize aothers for not “earning” something that you, yourself were born with.
People shouldn’t have to go through torture and risk their lives to get something that they should have on the basis of being a human being.
You have to EARN your right not to be assaulted, molested, treated like shit?
:rolleyes:
Oh, and autz, I completely agree.
Life can and does work that way, or the Western democracies would not now exist.
Were you under the impression that freedom just magically appeared out of nowhere? On the contrary, somebody somewhere had to fight for it, even if the fighting was nonviolent, as in the case of Ghandi (or Martin Luther King, for that matter).
Personally, I think one of the best approaches would be to make sure every Muslim child, male or female, could read. A reformer may take a lot of heat or threats by trying to educate females in some countries, but that’s part of the “earning” process.
I would hope that a literate population would be less likely to fall for fundamentalist drivel, and this makes an Islamic takeover of Saudi Arabia less likely. At the very least, being able to read means you can read about other cultures, where you learn that foreigners are not devils but people pretty much like yourself. With that in mind, a mullah screaming about “infidels” becomes far less convicing.
Saying life doesn’t work that way is lazy, defeatist BULLSHIT! There may have been a time when lazy defeatist bullshit was the way to go in some Arab nations (i.e. the desert environment was so harsh and unforgiving and filled with enemies that any energy you wasted on social reform reduced your chance of basic survival) but the need for such attitidues has evaporated.
The gist of my post was not that reform never happens. The gist was that it is difficult, involves a lot of sacrifice, and takes time. The gist was that I can understand (through empathy) why it doesn’t happen the way one wishes for. I expressed my frustration at how things don’t change on its own. Once a society degrades, people are not going to magically sprout with the intention of cleaning the mess. Which is exactly what you seem to be saying and yet you dismiss my attitude.
re: your comments on education, we are discussing the same thing in a GD thread on the House of Saud.
(Once again Ghandi strikes!)
I dismiss the attitude that prompts frustration that things don’t change on their own. Of course things don’t change on their own; it is ridiculous to assume that they should.
If a foreign power conquered the United States, would you label the brave people that resisted bubbleheads? Was the French Resistance of WW2 made up of bubbleheads?
OK. That was only a small part of my posts.
I’ll answer that and say "Yes!” The Irish Republic owes its existence to the IRA/IRB. Are you saying that the Irish people do not have the right of self-determination?
No, the Irish Republic owes its existance to the Irish Volunteers and individuals like Eamon de Valera, Michael Collins and Patrick Pearse.
The Irish Republican Army MAY have started out as a legitimate group of rebels, but now they are nothing more than a bunch of thugs.
The Irish Volunteer became the IRA, and they were lead by Michael Collins. They were the same organization. If those brave men that you mentioned were alive today; they would do everything in their power to free NI.
As for your second paragraph, you would have preferred that Ireland not become an Independent nation?
A bunch of thugs? Really, Bobby Sands?
No, I don’t feel that way. However, the IRA has evolved from it’s true purpose into a terrorist organization. Killing innocents is never right.
I can imagine that Patrick Pearse would be deeply disgusted by what goes on today.
What is your definition of a terrorist organization?
Do you think that the IRA used to purposely target innocents?
I do not post this as parody, although I obviously based the text on a previous post:
In the case of Christians/Westerners seeking to dispel the image of imperialism, some of them are going to have to take strong action to root out the imperialists in their midst, to fight against corrupt governments that support such imperialism, and to make bold gestures of peace and stick to them no matter what. Some (or even many) of these progressives may suffer stigma, arrest or even murder, but the societies aren’t going to change unless that sacrifice is made. Expecting other cultures to treat Christians/Westerners calmly automatically is unrealistic, especially when footage of Americans cheering in celebration at successful invasions is frequently played. Such attacks (and the celebrations) probably cannot be be greatly reduced by outsiders at this time, but the lasting peace comes when the Americans themselves discourage celebration and root out the government performing these imperialist acts. Only at that point will the Americans have “earned” the right to be treated with trust and not suspicion. Similarly, the U.S. government is justly accused of supporting authoritarian regimes. Will the U.S. take the necessary steps to stop supporting oppression and the root causes now that they’ve been attacked? The notoriously fickle U.S. electorate could clamp down with an iron grip and probably limit imperialism, but unless they make some serious reforms, they’ll never be able to eliminate it. They might not be equal to the task. The next ten years will tell.
BTW: I found this comment to be disingenuous
given that there are no such frequent displays, only repeated films of the same individual acts from over a year and a half ago. Blaming Muslims for continued anger at those scenes is rather like continuing to punish a child into his teens for wetting the bed when he was two. It is petty and cruel and reflects more poorly on the media that replays it and the idiotic viewers who swallow the propaganda than it does on even the tiny minority of Muslims who actually cheered.
Yes. By planting bombs in British towns intended to kill civilians.
Next question.