Is ethnocentrism compatible with human rights?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You'd have to define what you believe human rights are.
If those rights include free association only with those people one deems themselves to be compatible with, then logically speaking a race based state is indeed compatible with that notion.
If the US, by way of example, were to create a state in which only white anglo saxon protestant people could live, then you'd probably find plenty flocking there to live, claiming it as their right to live in peace and freedom with their peers.
That you might disagree with such a state being created is only an expression of what you believe human rights are.
A universal definition of those rights is conspiciously absent at this point.
If those rights include free association only with those people one deems themselves to be compatible with, then logically speaking a race based state is indeed compatible with that notion.
If the US, by way of example, were to create a state in which only white anglo saxon protestant people could live, then you'd probably find plenty flocking there to live, claiming it as their right to live in peace and freedom with their peers.
That you might disagree with such a state being created is only an expression of what you believe human rights are.
A universal definition of those rights is conspiciously absent at this point.
I think you're taking a specific case (guess which one, humble reader!) into a wider generality in a feeble attempt to blacken me, which is why you don't either quote me in full from the thread or take into account either background or circumstance. :shrug: Not that it hasn't happened before, mind; it's just marginally more odious here.
I asked a related question about you on the same issue (ethnocentrism) in the original thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2529184&postcount=160
So - you claim opposition to ethnocentrism as a general principle, but your mot is that of 'majority rules', up to and including violence, where it concerns the rest of the Middle East. Leaving aside the hypocrisy of the position, how is this a reasonable position on the issue of human rights? It's eerily suggestive of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
What do you think?
Oh - so now you support this?
Ah: you have also misquoted me. Your quote actually comes indeed from Israel in the specific, which you have failed to notice, presumably deliberately. The actual post is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2529067&postcount=152
Not atypical.
Are you saying that Israel in the specific is exempt from considerations which apply to all other human beings?
That you have a different set of rules for Jews and non-Jews?
A State based on Race or Religion is, IMO, not compatible with human rights as defined in the modern era.
Also, Jews are no more a "race" than Buddhists are a "race" something Jews and non-Jews alike seem to screw up. Not to mention, IMO, there's no such thing as "race" as normally defined. There's more genetic diversity within Africa then outside of Africa - yet, black skinned Africans are grouped as a negroid race. Which is simply asinine in my mind.
Forensics should use epidemiological data based on population genetics (for example people associated with being negroid have very straight femurs versus Caucasoid people have a very curved femur) but this should be in terms of genetics not "race" because race carries a history of bigotry and intolerance.
Race is so easily confused with Nationality. And Nationhood with protection, security, history, self determination. I know a number of Korean's who see themselves as a separate race than Japanese. One went so far as to bulk when I said we all originate in E. Africa ... suggesting that this may be the case for me, but Korean's like her, they evolved separately - - in Korea. :bugeye: Her meaning was she was of a "pure race". I wonder if war with the North and insecurity brings these tribalism-memes out in people?
Last edited:
Then feel free to elaborate the circumstances under which you think race based states are compatible with human rights.
Race is a social construct, so logically, anyone can be considered as belonging to any race.
I would think thousands of years of maltreatment would be a good start. Do you not feel similarly? Since we're back on the issue of Jewish people, you've alluded several times to your sentiment that they're responsible ultimately for their own oppression. You've suggested that this is due to some apparent separation of their communities from those of the nation in which they live. An interesting and illuminating sideline to this thread would be if you think there are any circumstances in which one 'people' or another (you've used 'race' here, which actually is fairly nebulous) would be justified in separating themselves from other communities or nation-states?
Michael might disagree with me, but walls do sometimes seem to make better neighbours in practice.
Michael might disagree with me, but walls do sometimes seem to make better neighbours in practice.
?? "Racial segregation"? Under what circumstances do you mean? And what do you mean by "segregation"? At what level? For what reason?
I believe I also asked you a question above. Could you address it in your response, please? Thanks.
Ethnocentrism if you prefer it. Do you believe that some groups are better off living in ethnocentric communities, apart from other peoples? Is this compatible with human rights?
e.g. lets take the example of the Marquis, if whites in America declare the US as a white state and white people from all over the world start pouring in, would this be compatible with human rights?
e.g. lets take the example of the Marquis, if whites in America declare the US as a white state and white people from all over the world start pouring in, would this be compatible with human rights?
This raises a good point that Sam has accidentally touched on: what are we calling 'race' here? I've used - yes - Jewish people again as an example (and how I must annoy them, talking about them all the time) but only insofar as I can speak to the specifics of their history, which it cannot really be denied has been one of awful treatment. Native Americans would fit in the same category, if one calls it a category. Sam seems to be seeking some kind of wider rule here; but why? I don't think one could presume to speak in generalities about this issue, as I made clear on the original thread.
Again, you're trying for generalities. The specifics of each case matter more than any arbitrary rule you might want to apply.
Of course not. Why do you choose this as an...'example'?
You still haven't answered my questions about religious states, above.
Arbitary:Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion.
So if whites declare the US a white state and whites from all over start pouring in = Jews declare Palestine a Jewish state and Jews from all over start pouring in.
My statement is generic, not arbitrary. I believe arbitrariness is insisting that Jews are different from whites because that is your personal opinion.
Are Jews different from whites? Would you say that declaring the US as a white state or black state or native American state is different from Jews declaring Palestine a Jewish state?
What according to you are the conditions under which any "race" can determine they have a right to establish a state based on race? Would you support a black state in the US based on generations of oppression and slavery?
Precisely.
The problem is that terms are being tossed about that are so vague as to be meaningless.
Of course, it's in my nature to 'wax' philosophical, but really: what does one mean when they invoke the term "right"?
My problem is that, for the most part, people tend to [predominantly I suppose, due to its adoption by groups like the UN, etc..] think that once something is described as being a 'right' that they are thereby entitled to something. I'm not sure if this is delusion or stupidity, but I'm sure it's wrong...
There was an interesting concept described in one of Orson Scott Card's books (Which one, specifically, I do not remember, but it was in the original Ender series) where, after space colonisation had become the norm, planets in more than a few instances were specifically colonised by cultural and racial groups.
Practically speaking, however, in the above ficticious example there was the freedom to do so, with lebensraum no longer a problem. Just as obviously in the current reality on Earth one can imagine the problems associated with making such an arrangement a reality, SAM's target group being a case in point.
But if SAM is asking if I have a problem philosophically with certain groups forming their own society according to their own dictates while disregarding any practical considerations in making such a thing reality, then the answer is no - I do not.
Practically speaking, however, in the above ficticious example there was the freedom to do so, with lebensraum no longer a problem. Just as obviously in the current reality on Earth one can imagine the problems associated with making such an arrangement a reality, SAM's target group being a case in point.
But if SAM is asking if I have a problem philosophically with certain groups forming their own society according to their own dictates while disregarding any practical considerations in making such a thing reality, then the answer is no - I do not.
Last edited: