Is ethnocentrism compatible with human rights?

[glaucon]

OK. I just noticed you said they are not necessarily incompatible, above. My misread. Still, I can't see why one could not make a case that, in the case of the OP, ethnocentrism is incompatible with human rights. Taking human rights as some specific set of values about how people will be treated.

I agree with what you say. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the vagueness of the (lack of) definitions with respect to the relevant concepts make it difficult to 'answer' the question.

As you've noted, all I'm saying is that, no, there's no intrinsic reason why the two must be incompatible.

In the specific case it was Geoff who was being challenged. I don't know much about the guy, but my impression is he would be against treating certain races less well than others. If at the same time he is accepting ethnocentrism AND one can show how this necessarily leads to less good treatment of certain races, to me it does not matter what the ontological status of the rights and values are, as long as they all belong to Geoff.

Fair enough.
But then, we have to get into a quasi-semantic discussion to answer the question: if one is self-consistent with the usage of terms, but, one's usage of those terms differ from the accepted standard, how do we then deal with this incompatibility?

I just got the impression you were saying that one needed to branch off into fairly distanced discussions of ontological status even though both parties have values and allow these to guide actions and their judgments of others. IOW they each grant these kinds of things reality anyway, though they differ on particular values and also perhaps on certain relevent deductive arguments.

A fair impression to have, given me...

No, I just wasn't quite happy with the locution of the OP from the beginning.

Myself, I would argue that, though the two concepts are admittedly social constructs, pragmatically, they are hierarchically different. Thus, one must be given 'veto' rights over the other....



Perhaps I'll give this whole thread some more thought tomorrow....
For now, I've got a few playoff games to watch...

 

[Cowboy]

Ethnocentrism doesn't necessarily mean a race-based state or policies. A person can prefer "their own" and all that goes with it without endorsing the mistreatment of other racial or ethnic groups.

 

[Doreen]

Ethnocentrism doesn't necessarily mean a race-based state or policies. A person can prefer "their own" and all that goes with it without endorsing the mistreatment of other racial or ethnic groups.

If humans were robots, maybe. But I never seem to encounter people like this.

 

[Doreen]

I agree with what you say. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the vagueness of the (lack of) definitions with respect to the relevant concepts make it difficult to 'answer' the question.

I suppose I am assuming things about 'human rights'.

As you've noted, all I'm saying is that, no, there's no intrinsic reason why the two must be incompatible.

No, but if 'human rights' includes fair and equal treatment of all ethnic groups - my assumption - I think a good case can be made that the two are incompatible. And I think this is the case even if the laws are ethnic blind.

Fair enough.
But then, we have to get into a quasi-semantic discussion to answer the question: if one is self-consistent with the usage of terms, but, one's usage of those terms differ from the accepted standard, how do we then deal with this incompatibility?

We can point out to the speaker/writer that they have to go into greater detail when they make assertions. Otherwise they are, at best, confusing their listeners/readers and more than likely being slippery. That's a start.

A fair impression to have, given me...

No, I just wasn't quite happy with the locution of the OP from the beginning.

Myself, I would argue that, though the two concepts are admittedly social constructs, pragmatically, they are hierarchically different. Thus, one must be given 'veto' rights over the other....

So a meta-rule would override the normal level rule.

 

[glaucon]

I suppose I am assuming things about 'human rights'.

Indeed.
As we all do..

See, for example:

No, but if 'human rights' includes fair and equal treatment of all ethnic groups -

You've noted here, nice and concisely, what I would say represents the common understanding of the term (although, I would replace "... ethnic groups" with something like "... people regardless of culture, colour or creed") .

The problem being that, there is no politically sanctioned universal understanding of the term, and of greater concern, the vague nature of such a definition will always be subject to individual interpretation.

So a meta-rule would override the normal level rule.

Wouldn't it always?

 

[Doreen]

You've noted here, nice and concisely, what I would say represents the common understanding of the term (although, I would replace "... ethnic groups" with something like "... people regardless of culture, colour or creed")

Yes, I wasn't actually trying to present the general idea of human rights but that portion relevent to a potential incompatibility with ethnocentrism - iow OP and thread title.

I suppose I thought it was fair to assume that Geoff went along with that guideline.

a couple of posts back someone said

Ethnocentrism doesn't necessarily mean a race-based state or policies. A person can prefer "their own" and all that goes with it without endorsing the mistreatment of other racial or ethnic groups.

This doesn't quite address the thread topic since I believe SAM was referring to a state that was like this, rather than a person or persons. But even here, I think this confuses human 'rationality' with math. While it may seem on paper one can do this - I don't think it works out in humans.

I am not saying that people who hang out with their own ethnic group are necessarily going to be against my notion of human rights - there are many reasons why we end up with the social relations we have. But once it becomes a stated, conscious preference, I really don't believe people who have this attitude manage to actually see and understand other groups in the way they do their own. And from this double standard of vision, comes a double standard of justice and rights.

The problem being that, there is no politically sanctioned universal understanding of the term, and of greater concern, the vague nature of such a definition will always be subject to individual interpretation.

Oh, of course. But imagine if, by some strange, near miraculous process, the Québécois became the dominant force in Canada and said that they were an ethnocentric government but believed in human rights.

Somehow, I am guessing, every non-french ancestory Canadian's hackles would go up,

even before they found out how the Québécois were defining those terms.

N'est pas?

I seem SAM's OP as that first near unanimous skepticism.

 

[quadraphonics]

Insofar as the underlying question is concerned—Is ethnocentrism compatible with human rights?—the answer is clearly and simply no.

Likewise nationalism. And especially so, ethnic nationalism. Which is to say, the bases of essentially every state on the face of the planet.

And yet our interlocutor never seems to get around to demanding the erasure of any of those states, with one exception.

 

[S.A.M.]

Likewise nationalism. And especially so, ethnic nationalism. Which is to say, the bases of essentially every state on the face of the planet.

And yet our interlocutor never seems to get around to demanding the erasure of any of those states, with one exception.

Then you haven't been reading very carefully these last four years have you? Both if you think I demand the erasure of any state, nationalism or ethnocentrism, or if you think I am a proponent of nationalism, ethnic or otherwise, as an ideology.

 

[Doreen]

I judge peple based on how they smell

I like people who dab their fingers in the substance in question and then genteely raise the fingers to their noses. As opposed to, naturally, those who snuffle like truffle hounds.

 

[S.A.M.]

I like people who dab their fingers in the substance in question and then genteely raise the fingers to their noses. As opposed to, naturally, those who snuffle like truffle hounds.

Off topic but this reminds me of that old hospital joke on observation, where the surgeon tells the interns to dip their finger in the urine sample and taste it. And then asks them what they learned.

 

[GeoffP]

Then you haven't been reading very carefully these last four years have you? Both if you think I demand the erasure of any state, nationalism or ethnocentrism, or if you think I am a proponent of nationalism, ethnic or otherwise, as an ideology.

That's odd. You didn't seem to object to Egypt's little Lavon-flavoured Judenraus back in the 50's. In fact, you defended it quite staunchly. How does your newfound striving against ethnocentrism (or its dissemblance, seemingly) jive with your earlier stance of "love it or shut up or leave it"?

 

[The Marquis]

If humans were robots, maybe. But I never seem to encounter people like this.

Are you serious?
Take away all notions of ethnicity, religion, nationality or what have you... the broader picture... and the 6th street boys will be back to fighting with the boys on 7th street.

Humanity is tribal. All we've done in the last few centuries is made the tribes larger.

 

[Doreen]

Are you serious?
Take away all notions of ethnicity, religion, nationality or what have you... the broader picture... and the 6th street boys will be back to fighting with the boys on 7th street.

Humanity is tribal. All we've done in the last few centuries is made the tribes larger.

I'm not sure, but it seems like you didn't really respond to my point. I am not saying that people are not tribal. I am saying that once you have conscious and accepted preference for your own ethnic group, you tend not to see members of other groups in the same supportive ways you see your own. IOW you have a bias and this bias affects justice and fairness.

 

[The Marquis]

Terribly sorry, I'm rather drunk.
It was Cowboy I was reproaching, not you.