Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Human Rights is a Local Issue
I'm increasingly convinced that the reason why human equality, human dignity, and social pluralism are illusive in American society is that we do not have what Miguel de Unamuno called "el público" and Alexis de Tocqueville called "the public spirit." Instead, American communities, towns and cities are segregated by race, class, and citizenship status, with withered downtowns, and with no spaces for people to discuss, argue, and talk across those divides of race, class and citizenship. It is sometimes said that Americans live, worship and work in their individuals silos, with a silo for each neighborhood, each church, and each workplace. There can be no deep shared conception under these circumstances of collective solidarity or the common good, and of authentic pluralism.
True, within each community, parishioners in dozens of churches may celebrate one another's equality every Sunday, and during the week, co-workers in hundreds of work settings may affirm one another's dignity, but these celebrations and affirmations of shared humanity are within tiny homogenous clusters of people, and do nothing to advance the collective solidarity, the common good, and social pluralism. In these silos people simply affirm the equality and dignity of people who are just like themselves. It is far from the cacaphonous el público that Unamuno described and the vibrant public spirit that Tocqueville found in American communities early in the 20th century.
As a scholar-activist, I have run repeatedly into constraints to spark conditions that would promote deep forms of equality, publicness, inclusion and social pluralism. Part of the problem has to do with local governments and people themselves viewing human rights as political and potentially divisive, but for the most part the fractionalization of the population by race, class, and citizenship is the major obstacle.
Where is the public space anyway? To distribute fliers on a city plaza, one needs two permits, one from the Police Department and another from City Hall. At least this is the case in Chapel Hill, and I suspect it is widespread practice. Most residential communities and all shopping malls prohibit the distribution of fliers to announce an event. There are no free spaces in town to hold a community-wide meeting, although there are abundant sports fields that are free. Therefore, having a public meeting about, say, the rights of migrants or the rights of members of the GLBT community, is not easy. The constraints are: first, the silo problem; second, anxiety that these are "political" issues and therefore inherently divisive; and, third, city ordinances and property rights.
Once we have cleared all these constraints our events have been successful, small, but attracting a broad cross-section of the community, including immigrants and people of color. The Human Rights Center of Chapel Hill & Carrboro, is unique in that it is a community-based, not a university-based human rights center. There are now quite a few university human rights centers, but their priorities are research and scholarship, whereas ours are advocacy for marginalized groups and to provide popular education in the community. The Center officially opened in Carrboro in February 2009, in the poorest immigrant housing community in the county, although it has been functioning, thanks to undergraduates, for nearly a year.
By adopting the Center's proposal on April 21, 2009, the Town of Carrboro became a "human rights city," only the second city in the U.S. to do so, after Washington, D.C. Specifically this declaration by the town accompanied the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The significance of this decision will become clearer over time, but for the Center it means legitimacy and that we can now get to work in a focused way, to pursue our twin objectives of advocacy and popular education.
What is the larger context? Carrboro is one city among seventeen in the world that has declared itself a Human Rights City, and the second in the U.S., after Washington, D.C., on December 10, 2007. This is part of a global movement, spearheaded by Shulamith Koenig, recipient of the 2003 UN Human Rights Achievement Award and president of The Peoples Movement for Human Rights Learning. By adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Town of Carrboro has explicitly embraced the principles of equality, inclusion, social pluralism, and the recognition of universal human dignity. Moreover, by adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the town has elevated human rights to uncontestable superior standing and depoliticized their content. This is the place to start. That is, it is the beginning of the pursuit of human rights.
- Posted in



6 Comments so far
Show AllHuman rights is for sissies, commies and liberals. Get me a beer Ma!
Washington DC is a human rights city? Kafka couldn't have done better!
Disagree , Human Rights is knowledge it belongs to every human being even the unborn. What we do with this knowledge is up to each of us for ourselves. As some can do with beer others with kafka.
toophat for you!
Quoted: from http://www.hrc.org/12607.htm
The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States understands that the existence of human rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises.
Because the promotion of human rights is an important national interest, the United States seeks to:
* Hold governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments;
* Promote greater respect for human rights, including freedom from torture, freedom of expression, press freedom, women's rights, children's rights, and the protection of minorities;
* Promote the rule of law, seek accountability, and change cultures of impunity;
* Assist efforts to reform and strengthen the institutional capacity of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Commission on Human Rights; and
* Coordinate human rights activities with important allies, including the EU, and regional organizations.
These were details of the U.S. Government's policy with Human Rights. But why is that there are no progress when we talk about Human Rights. There are still reports of crimes that destroys our Rights as a person. Common causes of this, were relatively about racial discrimination and unjust laws. How could we trigger this kind of issue.
concerned citizen from cooking games world
As a "scholar-activist," you should know that de Tocqueville did not live or write about the early 20th century.
You make other basic assumptions about things that are unsound...like Church goers are interested in human rights. That would be Christians, right? Muslims, though, fall into the same category, as do the Hindu. ANY "chosen people" religion is inherantly inhumane.
But, yes, it is local, based on values each group holds as valuable and right. That America is racist, precludes about every comment you've got to make, though.
jimsecor
I don't know that many Americans have read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or understand that the US refused to ratify it. In the US, we do collectively allow entire groups of people to be separated in the sense that we see nothing wrong with "amending" their fundamental rights and protections. A good example of this is the indifference we see, even in the progressive community, toward our welfare "reform" policies, some of which directly violate the Human Rights Declaration. We don't care because we've learned to see our own poor as something less than us, and therefore not entitled to full and equal rights. Some cultures pick an ethnic scapegoat, we picked an economic scapegoat. We really don't even think about it because, after all, these people aren't "regular Americans." Right?
So, we support the Human Rights Declaration while ignoring the human rights abuses of our poor. To what degree does America care about human rights? To the degree that we have indifferently accepted policies that have had this impact: The infant mortality rate among America's poor now exceeds that of some Third World countries, and we are unique in the modern world in that the life expectancy of our poor has been on a rapid downhill slide.