On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:23:47 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> thought hard and
said:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:26:30 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1111925619.120465.265680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

maff wrote:

China Gives America a D

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/weekinreview/27word.html?

pagewanted=a

ll&position=

By PETER EDIDIN
China's assessment of America's human rights record is an indictment,
and draws a picture of the U.S. that approaches caricature.

May be Peter Edidin should explain why he viewed China's assessment of
America's human rights situation appraching a caricature. The
assessment, as described by him in his article appears to be fair.

Perhaps this is the rub of things.
"The Declaration of Independence said all men are created equal, so
the gap between black and white people is simply an insult to the
founding essence of the United States." The Chinese who pen the
assessment does not understand that "all men are created equal" means
"all men are created equal except the colored people" in America.

It says they're created equal, not that they must remain equal.

We have equal opportunity not necessarily equal outcome.

Oh yeah, being born in a run-down neighborhppd, being stuck in a
*****-***** school district, living near chemically hazardous areas, and
not receiving adequete nutrition because your parents are poor is
equal opportunity.

What do you propose to rectify the problem, Yang?

Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote in
news:877jjtf5gg.fsf@teufel.hartford-hwp.com:

For the original, rather than the NYT take on the Chinese report,

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html

I found it telling that the first reference in their report was to

abuse of Iraqi prisoners, without noting that in fact US policy

in the perpetrators of that abuse being punished. Also telling is

exhaustive recitation of statistics about crime and imprisonment in

US without reference to law enforcement or the rights of the accused.

in the US consider it to be more important to protect our rights from
interference by the government, rather than to give the government

sort of all-encompassing power that would protect us from individual
crimes.

And how ironic that they complain of the nature of the US electoral
process when their own government refuses to grant even the semblance

political choice to their own people.

It strikes me as being difficult to assess human rights, for the
concept is highly ideological. For example, in the US cultural
context, personal freedom from constraint might be valued highly,
while in a socialist environment, it might be defined more in terms

an equality of power.

Because it is so bound to culture and socio-economic system, it may

impossible to evaluate human rights except in one's own situation.

judge the human rights in other countries appears arrogant, even
imperialistic. I hope/assume that the Chinese comments on human

in the U.S. are therefore only polemical, provoked by the
U.S. presumption to judge everyone else in its own terms.

On the other hand, we live in a highly globalized and

world, and so we have a need and a moral obligation to judge the
behavior of other peoples. How is it possible to do this without
imposing our own biases upon others?

It seems to me that there are two ways around this problem. The

is to rely upon an international consensus over human rights. The
UNHRC, for example, takes that to be one of its goals. There is

to a degree, international courts which help to define a global
consensus. Consequently, either China or the U.S. should always
reference that consensus when passing judgment upon other nations.

The problem with the UNHRC is that it is a politicized group whose
membership includes states with, to say the least, dismal records on
*governmental* protections for human rights.

A problem with this traditional approach is that, arguably, the

institution is currently in dissolution. Modern states seek to

citizen commonwealths, but the effectiveness and scope of that
endeavor is rapidly diminishing. Privatization, for example,

state competence and accountability for the maintenance of a
political commonwealth.

The history of "state accountability" suggests that reducing their
competence is a better protection of individual freedom than is the
maintenance of political unity.

This has worrisome implications for human rights, and so I try to

an alternative. What universal location might exist to offer an
alternative standard for assessing human rights? If not political,
then I suppose it must be social, but is there a universal social
location?

I believe there is, but hesitate to mention it because I don't want

appear to be trolling. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the modern
working class is a universal class, and therefore the content of

rights should properly emerge from the international working-class
movement, at least to the extent states cannot or will not fight

an international political commonwealth.

As above, I would be wary of anything resembling an "international
political commonwealth" that would replace guarantees of individual
freedom from governmental interference.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."

Actually, the solution can be simpler than that. Whoever find China
lacking in human rights should travel there, become a voice there,
and work to improve the situtation there. Ask not what other
countries should do to make you happy, ask what you or your group or
your country can do to help.

Haines Brown wrote:

For the original, rather than the NYT take on the Chinese report,

see:

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html

It strikes me as being difficult to assess human rights, for the
concept is highly ideological. For example, in the US cultural
context, personal freedom from constraint might be valued highly,
while in a socialist environment, it might be defined more in terms

of

an equality of power.

Because it is so bound to culture and socio-economic system, it may

be

impossible to evaluate human rights except in one's own situation. To
judge the human rights in other countries appears arrogant, even
imperialistic. I hope/assume that the Chinese comments on human

rights

in the U.S. are therefore only polemical, provoked by the
U.S. presumption to judge everyone else in its own terms.

On the other hand, we live in a highly globalized and interdependent
world, and so we have a need and a moral obligation to judge the
behavior of other peoples. How is it possible to do this without
imposing our own biases upon others?

It seems to me that there are two ways around this problem. The first
is to rely upon an international consensus over human rights. The
UNHRC, for example, takes that to be one of its goals. There is also,
to a degree, international courts which help to define a global
consensus. Consequently, either China or the U.S. should always
reference that consensus when passing judgment upon other nations.

A problem with this traditional approach is that, arguably, the state
institution is currently in dissolution. Modern states seek to create
citizen commonwealths, but the effectiveness and scope of that
endeavor is rapidly diminishing. Privatization, for example, reduces
state competence and accountability for the maintenance of a
political commonwealth.

This has worrisome implications for human rights, and so I try to

find

an alternative. What universal location might exist to offer an
alternative standard for assessing human rights? If not political,
then I suppose it must be social, but is there a universal social
location?

I believe there is, but hesitate to mention it because I don't want

to

appear to be trolling. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the modern
working class is a universal class, and therefore the content of

human

rights should properly emerge from the international working-class
movement, at least to the extent states cannot or will not fight for
an international political commonwealth.

Actually, the solution can be simpler than that. Whoever find China
lacking in human rights should travel there, become a voice there, and
work to improve the situtation there. Ask not what other countries
should do to make you happy, ask what you or your group or your country
can do to help.

However, self-proclaimed human rights activists and organziation
frequently don't really want to help. Rather they want to sell
holier-than-thou like Revlon sells comsetics/beauty to westerners.
Occassionally, such holier-than-thou organization, aka, human rights
have degenerated into China bashing and racist Chinese bashing. The
following is excerpted from an International Champion For Tibet award
winning essay. It provides a clear example of demonizing the Chinese
people.

http://www.savetibet.org/News/­News.cfm?ID=1019&c=6

"Now that they have reunited with their brothers and sisters in Tibet,
it feels uneasy to commit one self to the near ones. This is because
the near ones have an absolutely different set of thoughts that are so
un-Tibetan but very, very Chinese. The inner feelings lack the human
touch, the human quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and
every thing that is gentle. They are like human robots with no human
feelings. The realization strikes back like a powerful lighting out of
the black clouds and you feel so numb, so helpless. "

So, what is very very Chinsese according this human rights
organization? "The inner feelings lack the human touch, the human
quality, the caring nature, the loving heart and every thing that is
gentle. They are like human robots with no human feelings."