نشأة حقوق الإنسان: لمحة تاريخية

by Lynn Hunt

يتتبع هذا العمل تطور حقوق الإنسان من جذورها الفكرية المنبثقة عن عصر التنوير، وحتى تجسُّدها الكامل في إعلان الأمم المتحدة الصادر عام ١٩٤٨. تأخذنا الكاتبة في رحلة تشريع الحقوق التي دامت مائتين وخمسين عامًا، مغطيةً إعلان الاستقلال وإعلان الثورة الفرنسية، والوسائل المتعددة لمناهضة التعذيب، وحملات التنديد بانتهاكات حقوق الإنسان في القرن العشرين، وغيرها. وعلى الرغم من الخلفية الأكاديمية الواضحة لهذا العمل المبهر، فإنه يستهدف جمهورًا واسعًا من القراء، وسوف يستهوي معظم القراء المهتمين بتاريخ حقوق الإنسان أو بتاريخ أوروبا أو أمريكا

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Law, School, World History

235 pages, ebook

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Lynn Avery Hunt is the Eugen Weber Professor of Modern European History at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her area of expertise is the French Revolution, but she is also well known for her work in European cultural history on such topics as gender. Her 2007 work, Inventing Human Rights, has been heralded as the most comprehensive analysis of the history of human rights. She served as president of the American Historical Association in 2002.

Reviews

[Fiona · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I had written a book of non-fiction, I would have liked it to end up like this one. Lynn Hunt is a history professor, specialising in the French Revolution, which means I like her already, and the central argument of Inventing Human Rights is that the growth of certain types of novels during the Enlightenment, amongst other things, directly contributed to a different conception of "self" and personal boundaries, as well as changing how people empathised, which turned the tide of public opinion against judicial torture and ultimately resulted in the human rights revolution. She looks at three of my five all-time-favourite pieces of legislation ever, which are the US Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights (if you're wondering, the other two spots on my top five are the European Convention on Human Rights and the combined Geneva Conventions - I am nothing if not consistent). She charts the meaning of human rights, and rights language, from the lofty ideals of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, through Bentham's attack on the concept of natural rights, to the way in which talking about universality actually contributed to "biological" and "ethnic"-based racism, as people scrambled to try and find other bases to justify their bigotry.

Natural law is a really odd thing. I gather philosophers mean something a bit different by positivism, but broadly speaking in jurisprudence, the positivist view is that law is only what society makes up itself, whereas the natural law view suggest that there are some laws that are part of nature, they exist universally, it doesn't matter whether we admit to having them or not. Such as "no extra-judicial killing". The first thing they tell you (read: told me) at law school is "you will probably not believe in natural law quite so much by the end of this year". Anyone who still believe that natural law is a useful concept at the end of first year ends up gravitating towards human rights, which is pretty much what I did. The rest is history.

The language we use to describe human rights - calling them inalienable, purely by virtue of being human, a minimum standard of treatment for all individuals regardless of characteristics - that's the language of natural law. As Hunt says, starting out with "We hold these truths to be self-evident" - you don't get much more natural law-ish than that. She charts the history of people saying "of course it's self-evident!" from (impliedly) Samuel Richardson to the abolitionists, and people saying "that's really not self-evident at all!", from Bentham to Lenin. She lingers largely in France and the US - she's a French Revolution specialist at UCLA, so, obviously - and there's a lot of fascinating history going on here.

A few issues. This is really readable, but I feel like there's a fair bit missing, especially from the beginning. The books Hunt talks about as case studies in discussing the advancement of empathy - she picks three of them, and two thirds of them are by Samuel Richardson. Why not Tom Jones? Why not Robinson Crusoe or Tristram Shandy? For that matter, protagonists who are ordinary people are not a uniquely C18th invention - why didn't Chaucer manage to spark a rights revolution? There's a lot more to say here, and I'd have liked a bit more of the gaps filled. She asks the question, why is it the West where all of this stuff starts - I'd have liked to hear a bit about the rest of the world, if only to explain why she wasn't going to talk about it in detail. ("Not my specialism" is a totally valid reason!)

Nevertheless, as a two-hundred-page whistlestop tour through individual rights, Hunt writes a broad and accessible book. It's a great primer, with a light touch, and I think this is a book I'm going to be lending out, which is great. 3.5 stars and a hearty recommendation. Maybe there's still room in the market for my long-time-forthcoming magnum opus on how Speculative Fiction Maketh Man.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is to human rights as Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is to nationalism.

I read the Anderson book a few years ago and gave it a grumpy review. Even though I'm still all cranky about the untranslated Indonesian in Anderson's book, I must admit that the ideas in it really stick with you, meaning, I've thought about it much more frequently than books that I enjoyed reading more. Also, I found out that Benedict Anderson is one of the cool kids in a certain subsection of the left-wing chatterati. A lot of his ideas and jargon turn up in their attempts in various media. So, for example, when someone on a podcast that I was listening to recently started to mutter about “print capitalism”, I was able smugly to tell myself that, to quote the meme, I understand that reference.

The Anderson book and this book are similar in that they tell you that conventional wisdom on their respective topics is wrong, and they will set you right.

Even though both authors are quite serious, their messages are quite cheerful in a similar fashion, if you can think about it a certain way. They tell you: the great historical forces that are the subject of this book are NOT the result of the cogitations of great thinkers or the actions of powerful leaders. They are the result of many tens of thousands of often-mundane individual actions by now-nameless and silent individuals in the past that cumulatively, like grains of sand in a process of historical erosion, changed the shape of the world. Many of the doers of these actions weren't aware of the consequences their actions would have, and many of them didn't live to see the results. However, the everyday choices they made – the books they chose to read, the attitudes they chose to have, the subjects they chose to study – MATTERED. They mattered more than the well-documented decisions arrived at by bewigged aristos or the strategies employed by celebrated military leaders, because, in the long run, their actions changed the way people thought, which was a force more powerful than armies or governments.

So, why cheerful? Because maybe, just maybe, behaving like a reasonable, reflective human in your daily life might matter – not because it may please some perhaps-nonexistent judgmental supreme being who will reward you in hard-to-imagine afterlife but because, here and now, you are a part (however small) of great sea changes abroad in the world, perhaps even for the better.

If you've stuck with me this far, you may now be in the mood for an illustrative example of just what the heck it is I'm nattering on about. Here it is: according to Inventing Human Rights, the concept of human rights resulted from a sea change in how people thought about themselves and their neighbors as a result of … wait for it … reading novels! Yes! And viewing art! Reading makes a difference! Art makes a difference! Thinking makes a difference!

Don't just take my word for it, read the words of the author herself (p. 32), which include a bonus namecheck of B. Anderson himself…

My argument will make much of the influence of new kinds of experiences, from viewing pictures in public exhibitions to reading the hugely popular epistolary novels about love and marriage. Such experiences helped spread the practices of autonomy and empathy. The political scientist Benedict Anderson has argued that newspapers and novels created the “imagined community” that nationalism requires in order to flourish. What might be termed “imagined empathy” serves as the foundation of human rights rather than of nationalism. It is imagined, not in the sense of made up, but in the sense that empathy requires a leap of faith, or imagining that someone else is like you. Accounts of torture produced this imagined empathy through new views of pain. Novels generated it by inducing new sensations about the inner self. Each in their way reinforced the notion of a community based on autonomous, empathetic individuals who could relate beyond their immediate families, religious affiliations, or even nations to greater universal values.

Of course, the annoying thing about things that seem like a good idea, like human rights, is that they often end up causing other problems. This is discussed in the book – like the larger world, it's not all just happy talk about reading novels and viewing art.

Once you get into the business of declaring universal human rights, as the French discovered first, the sticky problem is that everyone wants them, because … universal, right? The French decided, well, I guess we can extend these rights to previously-suspect Protestants, because, well, they are white and men like us, and we can show how open-minded and revolutionary we are. However, the rest of the camel rapidly followed the nose into the tent, as groups stepped up to say, “Hey, wait a minute, what about us?” The identity of some of these groups was easy to predict (Jews, Blacks, women) but there were some surprises as well (actors, executioners).

The problem of universality was solved for a long time by, ironically, the rise of nationalism, which then sliced up universality into smaller bits that were easier to manipulate to achieve the end of exclusion, as the problem was defined out of existence by declaring groups (Jews, Blacks, women) not covered by the concept of “all men” in whatever national jurisdiction was being discussed.

It took two world wars to convince people of that this idea, in turn, was not quite as good as it seemed at the outset. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights marked a return to the idea of rights for everyone everywhere, and we seem in our age to see the wheel turn again, perhaps back to nationalism, God help us.

In summary: this is a very interesting book on the origins of human rights, but perhaps it will disappoint people who wish to read something with a more direct connection to the headline-making events of today. Most of it is about revolutionary France. The discussion of human rights during and after the Cold War is relatively brief.

I added this book to my “to-read” list after it was praised in a 2019 review (of a completely different book) in the New York Review of Books. Most of this review is now behind a paywall, but the part that is available for reading for free includes the bit where this book is praised. You may also see (still in the free bit) that this book generated a book-length response from a Harvard professor who, the review indicates, pronounced Hunt's opinions to be balderdash. I'll have to read that book some day, even though it will definitely rain on my parade in re my happy Lynn-Hunt-fueled contention that reading, enjoying great music, etc., in indicative of something more important than just quietly enjoying myself while the world goes to hell in a hatbox.

[Justin Pickett · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Learning to empathize opened the path to human rights, but it did not ensure that everyone would be able to take that path right away.” (p. 68)

The Humanitarian Revolution that has been ongoing across the world since the 18th Century fascinates me. In this book, Lynn Hunt traces that revolution, in part, to the rise of novels, especially epistolary novels, that focused on the hardships of ordinary people (rather than on the lives and adventures of aristocrats). She argues that these novels had strong psychological effects on readers (expanding their circle of empathy) and profound cultural effects on society.

“Through fictional exchange of letters … epistolary novels taught their readers nothing less than a new psychology and in the process laid the foundations for a new social and political order.” (pp. 38-39)

Three novels of particular importance are discussed—Pamela, Clarissa, or, The History of a Young Lady, and Julie, or the New Heloise—and evidence is presented that they were read widely (e.g., were among the most common in people’s personal libraries at the time), by both men and women and by both masters and their servants. One consequence, Lynn Hunt argues, was an increase in empathetic moralization, whereby imaginative identification with others results in the development of an impartial spectator within oneself that then serves as a moral compass. (Lynn Hunt’s argument here builds on Adam Smith’s scholarship on morality).

“Needless to say, human rights are still easier to endorse than to enforce.” (p. 208)

Beyond making the interesting theoretical argument about the importance of novels, Lynn Huntt also provides extensive historical detail about relevant events, philosophical debates and writings, and policy developments. For example, she discusses how Jean Calas’s torture and execution (he was broken on the wheel after his son committed suicide) lead Voltaire to write about the case and coin the term “human rights.” She notes that as late as the 1740s, enslaved Black people in New York could be broken on the wheel. She also discusses the slow process through which the cultural circle of human rights has been expanded to include women, Jews, and people of color. Yet, Lynn Hunt makes clear that the circle of human rights is still too small and that we still have far to go. For example, scholars estimate that there are still over 20 million slaves in the world. And she explains how normal people, like us, can be led to do unspeakably cruel things.

“The torturers and murders are like us, and they often inflict pain on people right in front of them.” (p. 209)

[هَنَـــاءْ · Rating 3 out of 5]

الغرب أبعد ما يكون عن حقوق الإنسان، والمغالطة في العنوان الذي يعاش بالمقلوب والذي يُفترض أن يُكتب كالتالي؛ "نشأة حقوق الغرب بعيداً عن الإنسان."

تجاهلت الكاتبة حقوق العالم خارج دول العالم الأول، وجعلت المركزية في الطرح محلية، وكأن الغربي هو تاريخ الحقوق الوحيد وما تم من استرداده منها فهو مناط النشأة كاملة .. من بداية الصراع والتعذيب الوحشي حتى ظهور الإعلانات بالحقوق الفردية والإنسانية.

-ما الذي سقط من كل هذا الهراء؟
-الكائن البشري، الهلامي .. الذي لا تراه أوروبا!.

تكلمت عن حقوق الأقليات والثورات والحملات واحتجاجات العبيد .. ولكن أغفلت نقطة مهمة لم تلمح لها وهو ما يخص ضحايا الغرب في العالم، والأثر السلبي للبربرية الحيوانية التي لم يردعها ضمير ولا حس إنساني.

إذن النشأة خاصة، والتاريخ خاص، والاسقاطات دائماً موجودة .. ليس على الورق فحسب بل كما نراه كثيراً في الواقع.


عموماً الكتاب جيد للاطلاع ومعرفة التاريخ المنكوص للفطرة الغربية من بدايته وحتى حصوله على حقوقه المزعومة.

[Kimba Tichenor · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book sets out to explain how the concept of human rights, i.e. rights owing simply to one's status as a human, rather than as a member of a particular political community, gained widespread currency. She traces the origins of human rights to the eighteenth-century Western Enlightenment and tries to make the argument that it emerged at this point in time because there was a fundamental change in how ordinary individuals related to one another and in how they thought -- namely they developed empathy: "I am trying to refocus attention on what goes on within individual minds...Attention has been focused on the social and cultural contexts, not on the way individual minds understand and reshape that context. I believe that social and political change -- in this case, human rights -- comes about because many individuals had similar experiences, not because they inhabited the same social context but because through their interactions with each other and with their reading and viewing, they actually created a new social context...For human rights to become self-evident, ordinary people have to have new understandings that came from new kinds of feelings" (34).

To make this argument, she opens by endeavoring to show how a new genre -- the epistolary novel -- changed the way in which Westerners (specifically British, French, and American) apprehended the emotions of others. While she does not try to claim that novels alone led to empathy, she does not identify any other contributing factors. However, the main problem is that author fails to present sufficient evidence at multiple levels that the epistolary novel had this impact and if so how exactly this new concept of empathy became entangled with political thought. For example, she states at one point, "The capacity for empathy is universal because it is rooted in the biology of the brain" (39). So if this is the case, it would suggest that human beings long before the 18th century demonstrated empathy. Thus, she would need to demonstrate a qualitative difference, as well as a quantitative one, in how empathy was expressed in the 18th century as opposed to other centuries. But she provides little or no background on earlier expressions of empathy. So one might say, perhaps she simply means a quantitative difference in its expression in the public sphere. So while she provides examples of the reading public's reactions to epistolary novels (primarily from elites), she provides her reader with no real evidence as to how widespread this phenomenon was. Is it in fact changing the "ordinary individuals" perception of the world? And who she includes in the category "ordinary" is never specified. These oversights may simply result from the book's length. At a mere 214 pages (not counting appendices or notes), there is just not sufficient space to document such a sweeping change in the history of emotion.

The second chapter of the book focuses on changed attitudes toward the use of state torture and its implication for the invention of human rights. She notes that in Europe and the United States in the 18th century, a fairly rapid reduction in the use of torture techniques occurred. She links this development to 3 phenomena: 1) increased empathy 2) new emphasis on the integrity of the body 3) the rise of secularism stripped torture of its religious moorings, thus changing its meanings for the public. In making this argument, what she fails to problematize is the reemergence of torture as a viable interrogation technique since the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. If a reduction in the use of torture techniques is key for human rights gaining widespread currency, then what impact does its reemergence have on the currency of human rights in the post-9/11 world? The war on terror was often framed as a human rights issue and yet initially the United States utilized torture as a key element in that war. Water boarding as practiced by the CIA, events at Abu Ghraib, not to mention the detention of possible terrorists without recourse to due process at Guantanamo Bay all attest to this fact. So perhaps the relation between torture and the language of human rights is more complicated than the author suggests, given that sometimes that language becomes weaponized against real or imagined enemies. It becomes a means of creating "the other".

There is no doubt that the author raises some important questions about how the language of human rights gained acceptance and about how changes in how we perceive others and the world around us impacts our understanding of human rights. That said, the book skips over vast periods of time -- dedicating a mere 30-some-odd pages to the period following the 1948 UN declaration. Moreover, Hunt presents a history of human rights that assumes a unilateral diffusion of human rights from the global North to the global South. In short, she never considers the many grassroots movements in Asia and South America who appropriated the language of human rights in the 1970s and 1980s in order to move their local struggles onto the international stage and how this appropriation transformed the international debate on human rights.

[Ed · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hunt begins by locating the rise of human rights with the rise of the novel. Eighteenth century literary culture encouraged readers to identify directly and intensely with those unlike themselves--learning to feel what was called sympathy then and is called empathy now for characters on the pages of "Clarissa", "Pamela" (Richardson) and "Julie" (Rousseau) led to the ability to identify with people in utterly different conditions than that of the reader. Individuals discovered or developed profound feelings for the autonomy and well-being of other human beings.

She writes that "rights must be natural (inherent in human beings), equal (the same for everyone) and universal (applicable everywhere)" but they were considered universal for some but not for women and only eventually for free black men, Jews, Catholics (in England), Protestants (in France) and slaves (except in the United States).

Her chapter on torture is a cogent discussion how the views of 18th century Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria on legal punishment have influenced the intellectual, moral and political views and practices of kings and emperors, philosophers and revolutionaries, intellectuals and pamphleteers on torture, the death penalty and public criminal proceedings. It is one of the strongest and most incisive sections of the book. Hunt goes a bit overboard in the chapter on the French revolution, discussing it in greater detail than necessary in such a slender volume--which makes sense because she is a specialist in the French revolution.

[Eli · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

This wasn't very cohesive and it felt contradictory. At the end of the introduction, she said her argument was how epistolary novels and empathy helped further human rights. She only really talked about novels in the first chapter and then went off to talk about other things. It just felt like I was reading more than one book. And then the last chapter is titled "The Soft Power of Humanity: How Human Rights Failed Only to Succeed in the Long Run." But then she says that "human rights is in need of rescuing" in that chapter. You can't say it succeeded and then say it needs rescuing. You also can't measure human rights on a success/failure binary, especially in our world. Human rights have neither absolutely succeeded or absolutely failed. They have succeeded and failed and will continue to succeed and fail. I feel that the success/failure binary she hints at here oversimplifies the situation of human rights and also completely ignores the injustices that many marginalized communities still face today. Human rights have not succeeded in the end. But they have not necessarily failed either. Also, this entire book is Eurocentric, so know that going in if you decide to read it.

[Simonh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mensen verschillen. Rechten niet.

[zoezoezoezoez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite interesting to see how human rights evolved over time, from the abolition of torture to the post-WWII period. It was quite an easy read after Kelly!

[Carla Coelho · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a happy example of an instructive and readable work. Lynn Hunt focuses on highlighting socio-cultural evolution in the emergence of human rights as we know them today, solidified in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. In this context, she writes about the importance of the epistolary novel that emerged in the seventeenth century as a means of overcoming social barriers and developing empathy, a gateway to concern for others. The author focuses on the history of the United States and France, analyzing the victories and also the gaps in documents such as the Declaration of Independence of the first and the French Revolution. At a time like the world we live in, this work is a milestone in the reflection on human rights and a stimulus to continue a work that is far from finished.
***
Este livro é um feliz exemplo de um trabalho instrutivo e de leitura agradável. Lynn Hunt debruça-se sobre o relevo da evolução sócio- cultural no emergir dos direitos humanos tal como hoje os conhecemos, solidificados na Declaração de Direitos Humanos de 1948. Neste quadro, escreve sobre o relevo do romance epistolar surgido no século XVII como meio de superação de barreiras sociais e de desenvolvimento da empatia, porta de entrada da preocupação com os demais. A Autora debruça-se sobre a história dos Estados Unidos da América e da França, analisando as vitórias e também as lacunas de documentos como a Declaração de Independência do primeira e da Revolução Francesa. Num momento como o que vivemos em termos mundiais, esta obra é um marco na reflexão sobre os direitos humanos e um estímulo para continuar um trabalho que está longe de estar terminado.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book attempts something monumental that most historians don't try to answer: What motivates people's shifts in moral perspective? How can we explain these often-rapid shifts in specific historical contexts. Specifically, Hunt tries (and mainly succeeds) in explaining why when human rights believers like Jefferson and the framer of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen said that these rights were both universal and self-evident, why did so many people believe it and act upon it?

This is a trickier task that it first appears. Saying that something is self-evident requires that you avoid explaining its origins or philosophical justification. After all, if you explain why something is self-evident, it ceases to be self-evident. This makes Jefferson and co. out to be more radical than normally seen. The question then is why and how these rights became normal amongst so many Europeans and Americans. Hunt looks to the Enlightenment, but not just the philosophers. Rather, she shows how Enlightenment culture facilitated the prominence of many philosophical ideas that encouraged people to be unprecedentedly concerned with each other's rights and welfare.

Here's an example: The Enlightenment witnessed a sharp decline in the use of judicial torture as public and philosophical opinion turned against this practice. People had been coming to public tortures and execution for centuries for entertainment and communal justice, so why did their opinions turn in this particular period? Lynn argues that Europeans increasingly came to see and understand each other as having inner lives and feelings similar to their own. The tendency to recognize and respect the bodily and mental autonomy of others, even those on the lower rungs of society, grew in this period in connection with a culture that increasingly focused on people's inner lives. The biggest manifestation of this trend was the novel, a wildly popular invention of the mid 17th century. Novels were about ordinary people, and they focused on their inner struggles and emotions. They evoked empathy in their readers, an emotion always based in a sense of common humanity. Novels were only one cultural mode that encouraged this type of reflection about others. People also paid growing attention to personal space, hygiene, and manners as part of the turn towards respecting the autonomy of others. A reading, increasingly humanist culture also focused less on religious abstraction and more on the humanness of the person. No longer could people be sacrificed for political or religious reasons. It was now their bodies and minds that needed protection, not their souls. Hunt argues that human rights ideology became self-evident out of a mix of reason and emotion. If you could see the inner life of a character in a novel, then you could most likely see and empathize with someone being tortured to death in the town square. Torture therefore became morally unacceptable as well as ineffective, as reformers like Beccaria argued. You could see that they were essentially like you but that they were also not you, and that they needed some level of protection. Human rights became a way of expressing philosophical arguments (because obviously people like Locke and Voltaire had a lot to do with this story) and a more inchoate but definitely real moral and emotional sensibility among many Europeans. Hunt does an excellent job explaining this complex dynamic.

This book is highly relevant for the present day. It's a good warning for us to avoid thinking that widely held ideas cannot change quite quickly. Remember that it hasn't even been 20 years since the Defense Against Marriage Act, and here we are in a nation in which political, public, and judicial wills have turned decisively in favor of gay rights. The book certainly has its limitations. Any study of moral sensibilities is difficult to test empirically and will always rely on a certain inherent logic rather than extensive proof. Still, this is one of the most enjoyable and intellectually stimulating books on the Enlightenment that I have read, and I highly recommend it to those interested in the crossroads of philosophy and history.

Last off, here's a great quote from Cesare Beccaria, tireless opponent of torture: "If I shall contribute to save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny, or of ignorance, equally fatal; his blessing and tears of transport will be a sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of all mankind."

[Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hunt‘s Buch behandelt weniger die „Erfindung“ der Menschenrechte als es sich hierbei zunächst um eine kurze (durchaus interessante) Begriffsgeschichte handelt, gefolgt von einzelnen Faktoren, die im Laufe der Zeit die sich stetig veränderte Deutung der universellen Menschenrechte eine Rolle gespielt haben. Zeitlicher resp. thematischer Fokus liegt auf der US-amerikanischen Declaration of Independence (1776), der französischen Declaration of the Rights of Man (1791) und der UN Declaration of Human RIghts (1948).

Das Buch geht thematisch in einzelnen Kapiteln auf die einzelnen, der Autorin zufolge relevanten Faktoren ein. Im ersten Kapitel geht die Autorin auf die für ein universelles Verständnis der Menschenrechte notwendigen sich im Laufe der Zeit veränderten Autonomie (damit waren zunächst Frauen, Sklaven, Arbeitslose etc. ausgeschlossen) sowie vor allem der Empathie als Anerkennung anderer Menschen als Individuen. Dabei stellt Hunt die in meinen Augen zweifelhafte These vor, dass vor allem der aus der Ich-Perspektive geschriebene Briefroman ab Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts eine große Rolle gespielt hat.

Die Autorin nennt vor allem die drei Romane Pamela (1740), Clarissa (1747/48) von Richard Stephenson sowie Rousseau‘s Julie (1761) vor. Durch die Empathie sei ein klassenübergreifendes Bewusstsein entstanden, auch gefördert durch die (langsam) steigende Alphabetisierung.

Mir scheint die These, dass gerade der Roman eine große Rolle gespielt haben soll ehrlich gesagt etwas weit hergeholt, zumindest ohne weitere Argumente/Belege. Hunt gibt aber auch weitere Faktoren wie Ausstellungen, Portraits etc. als Gründe für ein mehr an Empathie an, führt diese aber leider (mit Ausnahme eines kurzen Abschnitts über Porträtmalerei) nicht weiter aus. Da die Empathie einer der wichtigsten Punkte bei ihr ist fehlt so leider inhaltlich etwas.

Die weiteren, gefühlt nicht so sehr in die Tiefe gehenden Kapitel gehen auf die unterschiedlichen Herangehensweisen in den verschiedenen westlichen Ländern in Bezug auf Menschenrechte ein, aber auch auf die Schwierigkeiten der Anerkennung der Menschenrechte nach Veröffentlichung der Declaration of Independenc‘ und der *Declaration of the Rights of Man. Das folgende 19. Jahrhundert wird verhältnismäßig kurz abgehandelt, allerdings wird auf die wichtigsten Punkte, die der Akzeptanz der allgemeinen Menschenrechte entgegenstanden, eingegangen:

-Sklaverei und die allgemeine Nicht-Anerkennung in den Kolonien
-der steigende Nationalismus, der die Menschenrechte auf die eigene Nation beschränkt und damit das Ideal des Universalismus untergräbt
-Sozialismus und Kommunismus, die den allgemeinen Menschenrechten lange entgegenstehen (so wurden die allgemeinen Menschenrechte in der Sowjetunion etwa erst unter Gorbatschow offiziell anerkannt, also knapp 200 Jahre nach der französischen Revolution)
-dem Aufkommen eines biologischen Rassebegriffs zur Unterstützung des Nationalismus. Durch den Rassebegriff entstehen Hierarchien, die biologische Erklärung der Unterschiede zwischen Menschen ist der Hauptgrund, wieso Frauen von den allgemeinen Menschenrechten bis teilweise weit ins 20. Jahrhundert (bzw. außerhalb des Westens bis heute) ausgeschlossen waren.

Ach ja, am Ende wird auf wenigen Seiten noch auf die Entstehung der UN Declaration of Human Rights eingegangen und deren Umsetzung auf der Welt beleuchtet.

———————————

Insgesamt betrachtet ist das Buch durchaus interessant zu lesen, lediglich manche Argumente klingen mir ohne weitere Ausführung / Belege sehr weit hergeholt. Zusammen mit dem sehr gestauchten 19. Jahrhundert und dem ganz kurzen 20. Jahrhundert sowie teils bekannten Informationen (Nationalismus, Rassismus etc. als Negativfaktoren sind allgemein bekannt) ohne genauere Bezüge zu den Menschenrechten bleiben zum Schluß nur drei Sterne übrig. Dennoch ist das Buch für den ein oder anderen, der sich für politische Ideengeschichte interessiert vielleicht interessant, und aufgrund des kompakten Umfangs ist es auch schnell gelesen.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hunt makes some interesting arguments (none very well developed or proven) in this book, and I really enjoyed the chapter on the link between early novels and the evolution of European empathy.

[dantelk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice introduction to the topic, easily readable, tough a bit high level and lacks different aspects of the subject. In fact, if your English abilities permit, I'd suggest continue your reading on https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... , since this one discusses the economical part of the human rights idea, and is much more controversial.

The book completes the ideas of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... ; it highligts that human are by nature social animals.

Sympathy ensured that happiness could not be defined by self-satisfaction alone.

Some toughts (in turkish):
- A topic which is reflected in our (as human beings) living so much... I enjoyed the reading a lot.
- The book reserves one chapter on the contributions of literature in the human rights discussion, which which I think is striking.
- I wish there was a possibility for more brainstorming for extended or different rights (which https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... does). I am also curious of my own limits; how much human right could I dare? It is also a horrible idea that the future generations will probably think of us ignorant barbarians.

If natural compassion makes everyone detest the cruelty of judicial torture, as Voltaire said later, then why was this not obvious before the 1760s, even to him?

Rights questions thus revealed a tendency to cascade. Once the deputies considered the status of Protestants as a disenfranchised religious minority, Jews were bound to come up; as soon as religious exclusions made it to the agenda, professional ones were not long in following.

Despite the emerging evidence of Nazi crimes against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and others, the diplomats meeting in San Francisco had to be prodded and pushed to put human rights on the agenda. In 1944, Great Britain and the Soviet Union had both rejected proposals to include human rights in the charter of the United Nations. Britain feared the encouragement such an action might afford to independence movements in its colonies, and the Soviet Union wanted no interference in its now expanding sphere of influence. In addition, the United States had initially opposed China's suggestion that the charter include a statement on the equality of all races.

[دايس محمد · Rating 5 out of 5]

تستعرض المؤلفة المؤشرات السلوكية و النفسية لدى الإنسان الأوروبي قبيل تشكّل مفاهيم حقوق الإنسان ، ثم تذهب إلى بدايات هذه المفاهيم من خلال فلاسفة الأنوار و دورهم و دور القضايا الاجتماعية التي حدثت و أثّرت في طروحاتهم حول هذه المفاهيم ، هذه المفاهيم التي بشّرت بالحراك الثوري في أمريكا و فرنسا ثم في عصر الثورات الأوروبية و التي كانت الفاعل على هذا الحراك لا نتيجته ، و إن كانت النتيجة هي عتق هذه المفاهيم و التي و إن أخذت في بدايات كتابتها طبيعة العالمية إلا أنها ظلت محصورة في العنصر الأوروبي المسيحي ، كما هو الحال في فرنسا الثورة حيث اقتصرت تلك الحقوق على العنصر المسيحي الكاثوليكي شريطة أوروبيته ، تنتقل الكاتبة في عملية مسح واسعة لتطور هذه المفاهيم و استعراض للمواقف التي أثّرت في عملية التغيير و تطور مفاهيم الحقوق على ضفتي المتوسط ، كما أشارت إلى حالات أولئك الذين لم تشملهم هذه المفاهيم مثل اليهود و السود و الكالفينيين و المرأة الذين لم تشملهم الإعلانات في مبادئا سواءً في فرنسا أم في أمريكا .
من المثير في هذا الكتاب الإشارة إلى حالات تغير السلوك الفردي و أثره على تغيّر المفاهيم العامة التي بشّر بها فلاسفة الأنوار ، و أن هذه السلوكيات لم تغيّر بطريقة سريعة و آلية و لم يتم ملاحظتها بشكل سريع و واضح إنما بدأ تقبلها ببطء و ساهمت في ظهور مصطلحات عائمة مثل الخصوصية و الاستقلالية و الحرية و التي تحوّلت مع تطور الحدث السياسي و الاجتماعي إلى مفاهيم يتم التنظير لها على بعدين عقلي و آخر ديني ، من الواضح أن هذا الكتاب في حال قراءته سيقوم بتغيير بعض المفاهيم و سيبدأ القارئ بملاحظة التغيرات الفردية التي تحدثت عنها الكاتبة و التي أثّرت فيما بعد بالبشرية كاملة ، مثلاً ما الفارق الذي يشكّله أكل الإنسان بطبق خاص به ، و ماذا يعني أن يكون للفرد غرفة مستقلة ، و ماذا كان يعني قبل هذا الأمر نوم الناس على سرير واحد أو في غرفة واحدة بغض النظر عن الجانب الاقتصادي و الذي كان له أثر بارز في نشوء هذه السلوكيات الاجتماعية .


أتمنى لكم قراءة ممتعة

[grace choi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considering the length of the book, it held a thorough historical overview about human rights and where they came from. I enjoyed the unique perspective of the role of emotions in driving the development of human rights, which I also believe must go hand-in-hand for understanding the latter. And of course, no history book could be complete without mentioning nationalism, the League, and self-determination.

[Becki · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not the fault of the book necessarily— I have a blob of jello for a brain

[malinka]

On aurait pu éviter les deux phrases trop chelou sur l'autisme et l'empathie…

[Angel Walker-Werth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting thesis on the development of the concept of rights in the Enlightenment era, with some fascinating evidence to support it. The discussion toward the end of the UN Declaration of Rights is somewhat vague and non-committal.

[Tessa Patiño · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hunt argues that the development of human rights is based in humanity being able to feel empathy for those unlike themselves. Proving empathy is a bit difficult, but Hunt used unique evidence to support her thesis. While the books feels like it ends just as it’s starting, Hunt also is not necessarily intending for this book to be all encompassing. Parts of the book lack a cohesion together & seem as though they could be separate essays, but ultimately, Hunt opens up the door for more historians to research further into the history of human rights.

[ريما · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب رائع للين هانت، ينقسم لخمسة فصول بين المقدمة والملحق.
تناولت في الفصل الأول روايات القرن الثامن عشر باعتبارها أحد أهم العوامل التي ساهمت في تمهيد الطريق لترسيخ مفاهيم حقوق الإنسان من خلال اعتمادها أسلوب (الرواية الرسائلية) وتسليطها الضوء على فكرة (الرغبة في الاستقلال الذاتي).

-أوضحت بعدها كيف تطورت هذه التوجهات الجديدة ليكون لها أثرها على الأنظمة وبالتحديد (الجنائية) منها حيث ألغيت صور التعذيب القضائي الوحشي وحل محلها مفاهيم ومبادىء قانونية جديدة مثل مبدأ (شخصية العقوبة) وكون المتهم بريء إلى أن تثبت إدانته.
تناولت بعد ذلك ظهور عرض الحقوق في (إعلان) رسمي لأول مرة وبداية المبادرات في المناداة بعالمية الحقوق وكيف أصبحت قضايا الحقوق تقود كل واحدة منها الأخرى.
وفي الفصل الأخير من الكتاب استكملت  هذه التطورات مرورًا بسيادة فكرة القومية وظهور بعض التحيزات وتبلور أفكار مثل الاشتراكية والشيوعية والرأس مالية واندلاع الحربين العالميتين المدمرة وما نتج عنها من محاولات لحفظ السلام بإنشاء عصبة الأمم ثم تكوين هيئة الأمم المتحدة بدلا عنها وإصدارها للإعلان (العالمي) لحقوق الإنسان.
 موضحة كيف جلبت فكرة حقوق الإنسان في أعقابها سلسلة من التناقضات البغيضة. ومؤكدة على أنه مازال علينا العمل باستمرار لإدخال التحسينات على نسخة حقوق الإنسان هذه. .
أرفقت في نهاية الكتاب ملحق به إعلان الاستقلال للولايات
المتحدة- وإعلان حقوق الإنسان والمواطن 1789- والإعلان العالمي لحقوق الإنسان 1948 بما تضمنه من مواد. وهذه الإضافة موفقة جدا، أضفت تميزا على الكتاب وجعلته أكثر إثراء للقارىء.

-كتاب رائع. أضاف لي الكثير بعرضه لهذه اللمحة التاريخية لنشأة حقوق الإنسان في أوروبا. حقيقةً استمتعت بقراءته ومن أهم ما أستوقفني أثناء قراءتي له هو التأثير الهائل الذي يمكن أن تحدثه الرواية. هذا النوع من الأدب (المستخف به) للأسف. فابعتقادي للروايات والفنون بشكل عام أثر في ترسيخ المفاهيم أو تذويبها أكبر من تأثير الوعظ المباشر فمن الحكمة استثمار وتوظيف ذلك فيما فيه الخير لمجتمعنا.

[Silvio Curtis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very short for a history book. The style bridges the gap between academic and popular. Starts out with a chapter about novels as a source of the idea of human rights in the eighteenth century, which I thought was a stretch, and a chapter on the fairly quick shift toward seeing judicial torture as a violation of human rights. I thought the book improved as it went on. The last parts reframed the history of human rights in a way that I found plausible but surprising and important. I've been used to thinking of them as a concept whose acceptance has increased gradually and steadily over the past 250 years. But this book suggests that after an impressive start, universal human rights stopped being a major part of ethical and legal frameworks for more than a century because of the rise of nationalism, and people claimed rights as citizens of a particular country rather than as human beings. It was only after World War II tarnished nationalism, resulting in the creation of the UN and its declaration of human rights, that they became a central concept again. It makes you wonder if the pendulum is swinging again and we are in for another bad century.

This is a UCLA professor, by the way!

[Sameh Maher · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب دسم جدا عن تطور فكرة حقوق الانسان من اول القرون الوسطى ومحاكم التفتيش الى الاعلان العالمى لحقوق الانسان عام 1948
يحتوى تحليل قوى ومنطقى لنشوء فكرة حقوق الانسان مع عرض لاهم الوثائق التاريخية التى تشرح فكرة تطور احساس الانسان بانسانيته وقدرته على الانفصال عن الجموع والتعامل على انه فرد اولا وله شخصية منفصلة
وتحلل الكاتبة الفكرة فى التعاطف فلا يمكن ان يمنح مجموعة من الناس حقوقهم الانسانية بدون ان يكون باقى المجتمع على تعاطف معهم
الحقيقة ان معلومات كثيرة جدا وشيقة جدا توجد فى هذا الكتاب الذى قد يعد مرجعا اساسيا لكل باحث فى التاريخ عن فكرة حقوق الانسان
كتاب انصح بقراءته والتعلم منه

[Kjevi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ho preso questo libro per sostenere un esame universitario. Devo dire che il libro è scritto in modo molto scorrevole ed è un piacere da leggere.
Tratta la storia dei diritti del uomo in modo molto diverso da quello tradizionale che aveva letto finora alla scuola oppure all’università.

[Salim Alghamdi · Rating 5 out of 5]

انصح أصدقائي بقراءته
وخاصة اولاءك الذين يهتمون بالسياسه

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

In my first year of humanitarian work I was called on to help start up a program in Kosovo after the end of that bloody conflict. Ethnic cleansing they called it, genocide without the murder I suppose. I was 21 or 22, wet behind the ears – young and idealistic. I was going to change the world! I went into Kosovo walking alongside the new UN government, setting up shop in Prisren as we all began to work with the people who were returning in rivers from Albania and Macedonia to help winterize their homes for the coming frigid Kosovar winters and to get winter wheat planted before the earth became frozen and hard; a crop to begin that painful process of recovery.

From there, after the program was on its way, I was sent into the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Goma specifically and Bukavu where the second civil war had just started. Who knew it was going to be the worst war since WWII. Africa’s world war. I was still green – and plunged from one crisis to the next, literally flying from Tirana in to Kigali and driving across the border into Goma – I was struck by the difference between these two conflicts.

Kosovo – a population of maybe two million. The response? 35,000 NATO soldiers; every NGO on the planet (including “Clowns Without Borders” – its nice to know Clowns also have no borders); every UN agency. The work divided up into quadrants, funds flowing in for relief work which were staggering in their scope. Then Congo – I was there even before the incompetent peacekeepers. Uruguayans setting up prostitution rings, but this was before then. The sound of the silence of Congo’s civil war was deafening. In Kosovo we’d had the beating of helicopters and the crunch of friendly tanks and the huge parties with hundreds of foreigners who had come to help the little blond refugees. In Congo? A few haggard aid workers chain smoking and drinking themselves into early graves.

There has been much written on this of course, donor fatigue and the like. But all the analysis comes down to one word – empathy. With whom we identify has a great role in how we react to the evils we see around us.

I just finished reading Lynn Hunt’s well-written book “Inventing Human Rights”. First what it is not, it is not a story about westerners inventing human rights. Human rights – by their very “self-evident” nature have always existed; they weren’t dreamt up in a bar in Oxford or Geneva. The book might better be called “Re-discovering Human Rights” but I’d probably go with a different title – “Human Rights and the Discovery of Empathy”. Because that’s what this book is about. It is a well-researched and well-written account of how, coming out of the renaissance and the enlightenment and the industrial revolution people in western Europe began to rediscover their humanity, but more importantly the humanity of others, through the process of empathizing. The author chooses an interesting entry into this topic, the beginning of novel-writing in Europe. And how reading novels like Clarissa helped revolutionize the way people thought about other people by putting themselves in others’ shoes – in the abstract. The book then goes into the epic fights (legislative and in public opinion) against torture; on writing the different declarations which we hold now almost for granted; the pitched battle against slavery – as step by step humans rediscovered why we are different, and above the animals. Lynn avoids the religious arguments into the “Truths we hold self-evident” or the “Laws of God written on the hearts of men” or the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” – which is why the book is misnamed. Nevertheless as one in an endless series of tomes to help us figure out how we saved ourselves as a species from the rack and debtors prisons and enslavement – “Inventing Human Rights” belongs alongside others such as “Liberalism: The Life of an Idea” and “The Triumph of Liberty” to lead us in understanding the nature – and responsibility – of our humanity.

The case that the greatest piece of technological advancement in history was Gutenberg’s press is one that could be well-argued using this book; that is when everything started changing in the west – and the world.

On a personal note – I am very glad she started with making the case for fiction (a novel), and I feel somewhat vindicated for the sneers I receive in choosing literary fiction as my avenue for expression. There are too many people today who arrogantly and ignorantly announce to the world “I don’t read fiction” – probably not even knowing what they’re saying. Empathy – it is what I try to do with my fiction, to connect people to situations that they probably don’t think of. “I, Charles, From the Camps” the first person account of a black man from a refugee camp who becomes an LRA soldier in Uganda. “Lords of Misrule” about a Tuareg boy who joins jihad.

But I digress. Read Lynn Hunt’s excellent book, and then continue on to the others I recommend and keep learning. We are losing our humanity – social media and hate are taking it from us – lets rediscover our humanity, and with it the rights not of ourselves but of others.

[al · Rating 5 out of 5]

Informative, digestible, and as comprehensive as it gets.

[فيصل الحبردي · Rating 5 out of 5]

مراجعة: فيصل الحبردي، 14 فبراير 2021.
هذا الكتاب هو ملخص لثلاثة كتب، نشأة حقوق الإنسان لـ لين هانت (تلخيص 100%)، فلسفة حقوق الإنسان لـ أنسام عامر السوداني (تلخيص 40%) و حقوق الإنسان لـ محمد سبيلا (40%).

لماذا هذا الاهتمام بحقوق الإنسان؟
الحقيقة أن سبب انشغالي بحقوق الإنسان في الفترة الماضية، هو أنه الموضوع أصبح مستفز بالنسبة لي.. ببساطة.. أصبح هذا الشيء كأنه حقيقة جبرية مفروضة علينا لا يجب أن نجادل ونناقش فيها.. فأصبح لدي رغبة في أن أفهم القصة وراء هذه الحقوق وكيف نشأت ولماذا أصبحت جزء لا يتجزأ من المواثيق الدولية.
لا يختلف اثنان على أن حركة حقوق الإنسان قد قضت على كثير من الاستبداد ضد الإنسان وساهمت في احقاق العدل ورفع الظلم ع�� الكثيرين.. مفهوم حقوق الإنسان ليس مفهوماً منعزلاً بل هو جزء أساسي من ترسانة الفكر السياسي الحديث، فهي من طورت فكرة التعاقد التي هي حجر الزاوية في التصور الحديث لنشوء المجتمع والدولة ونظام السلطة.

مقدمة
كان توماس جيفرسون، الأب المؤسس للولايات المتحدة الأمريكية أول من صاغ مسودة لحقوق الإنسان، وجاءت الحقوق ضمن إعلان الاستقلال الأمريكي عام 1776م، أي لم تكون وثيقة مستقلة بذاتها، وبعد اندلاع الثورة الفرنسية عام 1789م، صاغ الماركيز دي لافييت (صديق جيفرسون) الإعلان الفرنسي لحقوق الإنسان والمواطن في 17 مادة.
المادة الأولى من الإعلان العالمي لحقوق الإنسان عام 1948 م، كانت تكرار للمادة الأولى للإعلان الفرنسي عام 1789م، وكلاهما اعتمد على البداهة في المطالبة بالحقوق. حاول أكثر من مفكر وفقيه تعريف هذه الحقوق، فجاءت تعريفات مثل (الحقوق الطبيعية المطلقة للفرد باعتباره إنساناً حراً مُنح القدرة على التمييز بين الخير والشر)، (هي الحقوق التي من غير المقبول انتهاكها)، وعرفها الماركيز دي كوندرسيه بطل عصر التنوير الفرنسي (أمن الفرد وممتلكاته، والعدالة النزيهة المحايدة، الحق في المساهمة في صياغة القوانين). وقال الفيلسوف ديدرو أنها (حقوق واضحة وضوح الشمس، شعور داخلي يتقاسمه الفيلسوف والرجل العامي) - أدلة شعورية -. أيضاً البعض عرفها أنها (ما ننزعج جرّاء انتهاكه) - من الأدلة الشعورية ايضاً -.

البداهة
تقول لين هانت أن البداهة لا يمكن أن تعتبر مرجع لتحديد الحقوق، لأنها تعتمد على مشاعر داخلية، والمشاعر بطبيعتها متغيرة، تقول كيف يمكن أن يكون الأمر بديهياً حينما يكون مثل دي لافاييت وهو رجل من الطبقة الارستقراطية النبيلة أن يطالب بالمساواة مع الخدم والعبيد؟ وكيف يكون جيفرسون وهو تاجر العبيد في أمريكا أن يطالب بهذه الحقوق ويعبرها بديهية؟ "البديهية" آنذاك كانت تجيز العبودية وتقبل الاختلافات الطبقية بين الرجل النبيل والخدم وغيرهم. "لذلك لا يمكن التعويل عليها في وضع تعريف دائم ونهائي لأن قاعدتها الشعورية تتغير على الدوام، وستظل عرضة للمناقشة دائماً. ثورة حقوق الإنسان ستظل مستمرة بحكم طبيعتها الخاصة" – لين هانت. طبعاً الحقوق لابد لها من مشرّع، ولأن الدين تم اقصاءه تقريباً من الحيز العام خلال عصر النهضة وبداية عصر التنوير، لأن الدين كان هو المشرع لكل شيء، كان لابد له من بديل، فكانت الطبيعة هي البديل.. نتج عن ذلك فيما بعد بما يسمى القانون الطبيعي.
تاريخ حقوق الإنسان هو تاريخ الحضارة الغربية، الأفكار اليونانية عن الإنسان والنظرة الرومانية عن القانون ونظرة المذاهب المسيحية في النفس البشرية، تقول لين هانت لكن ألم تقدم الحضارة البابلية والهندوسية والإسلامية والبوذية إسهاماتها أيضاً؟ تقصد، هل كان قبل الإعلان الفرنسي لا يوجد حقوق للإنسان؟ لدينا في الدين الإسلامي حقوق تشابه كثيراً مواد حقوق الإنسان، حفظ النفس (حق الحياة)، حفظ الأموال (الملكية)، الحرية الكرامة .. إلخ. لكن برأيي الفرق كان في (الإعلان) عن هذه الحقوق بمعزل عن الأديان كلها. الحقوق لم تكن وليدة تلك الفترة لكن صياغتها وتسميتها والإعلان عنها هو ما منحها كل هذا الاهتمام.
تقول لين هانت لا يمكن أن نرضى بتصريح واضعو إعلان عام 1948م: جميعنا متفقون على هذه الحقوق شريطة ألا يسألنا أحد لماذا!، في حين قضى الباحثون أكثر من قرنين يتجادلون حول هذه ما كان يقصده جيفرسون.


طبيعة حقوق الإنسان
حقوق الإنسان هي نتيجة لمعطى.. المعطى هو القانون الطبيعي، والذي تم استلهامه من الطبيعة، وهو معطى نهائي، غير قابل للجدل، متعالي عن البشر، وهذه الحقوق لابد لها من توافر ثلاث سمات متداخلة، وهي: 1- أنها طبيعية (أصيلة في الإنسان). 2- متساوية (للجميع). 3- عالمية (قابلة للتطبيق في كل مكان)، لا لسبب آخر سوى أنهم كلهم بشر. والتحدي في السمتين الأخيرتين أن لابد لهم من مضمون سياسي، لأن المساواة تتطلب شكل سياسي، هل يحق للمهاجرين مثلاً كما يحق للمواطنين؟ في أي عمر يحق للفرد المشاركة في صياغة القوانين؟ وهي ليست حقوق للبشر في البرية، بل حقوقهم تجاه بعض تحت مظلة مجتمع مدني. والعالمية تتطلب أن يقبل العالم بها لكي يتم تطبيقها في كل مكان.
لكي يكتمل مفهوم حقوق الإنسان، ويصبح قابل للتحقيق، لا بد له من توفّر خاصيتين: الأولى متعلقة بالفرد ذاته وهي "الاستقلال الذاتي الأخلاقي"، والأخرى تتعلق بالآخر "القدرة على التعاطف".
الاستقلال الذاتي الأخلاقي له سمتين أساسيتين: القدرة على تحكيم العقل، و الاستقلالية في اتخاذ القرار. وفاقدي الأهلية هم الأطفال والرقيق والخدم ومن ليست لهم ممتلكات والنساء. لكن الأطفال يكبرون، والخدم يتركون الخدمة، والرقيق يشترون حريتهم، لكن النساء يظلون معتمدات (بالفطرة) على آباءهن وأزواجهن. هذا كان (بديهي!) في القرن الثامن عشر..
لكي يكون الإنسان مستقلاً ذاتياً لابد أن يكون منفصلاً قانونياً، ومنفصلاً جسدياً، جسدي ملكي وجسدك ملكك أنت، وفي انفصاله يتمتع بالحماية، عدم الاعتراف أن الآخرين مستقلين ويمتلكون ذواتهم وأن لهم مشاعرهم وأفكارهم الخاصة هو المسؤول عن كل أشكال عدم المساواة في التاريخ، لذلك "القدرة على التعاطف".

إسهامات الرواية
انتشار الروايات والصحف، الروايات خصوصاً، وتصوير الحياة اليومية زاد إحساس الناس بالتعاطف، من خلال استهجان حالات الظلم والتعذيب والاستبداد وعدم المساواة، حتى صارت سلطة الآباء على ابناءهم موضع تساؤل في النصف الثاني من القرن الثامن عشر، عزز ذلك القدرة على التعاطف وضرورة الانفصال وامتلاك كل فرد لجسده.
عارض فلاسفة كبار مثل مونتسكيو وفولتير بيكاريا الإيطالي، التعذيب المصرح به قانونياً، حيث قال مونتسكيو (قاضي) أن صوت الطبيعة يعارضني بقوة (البداهة مجدداً).
الروايات والصحف ساهمت في تعزيز القدرة على التعاطف من خلال والاستقلال الذاتي من خلال "العالم المتخيل" حسب تعبير العالم السياسي والمؤرخ بندكيت أندرسون (توفى عام 2015)، وأن التعاطف المتخيل كان هو حجز أساس حقوق الإنسان وليس القومية، ولا يقصد بالمتخيل معنى "الاختلاق" بل على تصور بأن شخص مثلك يعاني، وتصور قيم أخلاقية كونية متعالية خارج حدود العائلة والانتماء الديني والانتماء للبلد.
الفيلسوف الفرنسي جان جاك روسو (1712-1778م) ، من أهم فلاسفة عصر التنوير، والمعروف بكتابه "العقد الاجتماعي" ألّف قبل كتابه هذا بسنتين رواية اسمها "جولي" أو "إلواز الجديدة" عام 1760م.. وانتشرت الرواية انتشار النار في الهشيم وترجمة إلى عدة لغات. تتحدث الرواية عن قصة فتاة تقع في غرام استاذها، لكنها تتخلى عنه بسبب طلب والدها المتسلط لكي يزوّجها السيد والمار الذي يدين له بحياته، وهي تتحدث عن معاناة الرضوخ للسلطة الأبوية والزوجية.
كانت ردود الأفعال على الرواية ضخمة للغاية
- كتبت صحيفة دي سافانت" فيض المشاعر الذي يجتاح النفس بشدة، والذي يعتصر الدموع المريرة من أعين الناس بقوة مستبدة".
- ردود أفعال من سياسيون ورجال دين وعسكريون وعاديون، يصفون مشاعرهم ب"نار مستعرة وآكلة".
- بعض المثقفين قال أنه "يقرؤوها بسرور، بل بشغف، واهتياج وتشنّج وتنهدات".
ثلاث روايات ساهمت في انتشار التعاطف و"التوحد" مع الآخر، رواية جولي لروسو (1761م)، ورواية "باميلا" (نشرت عام 1740م وهي خادمة يتحرش بها السيد بي من طبقة ارستقراطية) و"كلاريسا" (1741م) ل صامويل ريتشاردسون، الذي يعتبره روسو قدوته، تقول لين هانت أن الثلاث روايات سبقت مباشرة ظهور مفهوم حقوق الفرد، فهل كان ذلك مصادفة؟
تعلم أناس القرن الثامن عشر التعاطف على نحو واسع، أن ينظروا إلى الآخرين الذين لا يعرفونهم بأنهم مشابهون لهم. انتشار الرواية (الرواية الرسائلية) ساهم في رفع معدل القراءة وتعلم القراءة ونشر المزيد من الروايات.
رغم محدودية جمهور القراء، إلا أن أبطال الروايات "العاديين" ذات صيتهم في كل حدب وصوب، حتى وسط الذين لا يعرفون القراءة. نشر قس (كان يكتب تحت اسم مستعار) تقرير من 42 صفحة عام 1743م يصف فيه وصفاً تفصيلياً "النهم" الذي لاقته الترجمة الفرنسية لرواية "باميلا" قائلاً "لا يمكنك أن تدخل منزلاً دون أن تجد فيه باميلا ما". كانت باميلا تكتب عن مشاعرها الداخلية.
أرسل هيل إلى ريتشاردسون يقول: منذ أن تسلمتها وأنا لا أفعل شيئاً سوى قراءتها على مسامع الآخرين، وأسمع الآخرين يتلونها على مسامعي: إنها تستحوذ على خيالي طوال الليل، كل صفحة تحمل فيها سحراً، سحر العاطفة والمعنى.

ردود أفعال مؤيدة: قراءة رواية كلاريسا توقظ التعاطف في النفس. يقول دينيس ديدرو أحد فلاسفة عصر التنوير عن رواية كلاريسا، أن "الشخصيات مستوحاة من المجتمع العادي (الطبقة العادية)، والمشاعر التي يصورها هي نفس المشاعر التي أشعر بها. إن أعمال ريتشاردسون توفر بيئة خصبة لنمو التعلم العاطفي، لقد مررت في غضون ساعات معدودة في قراءة رواية كلاريسا بعدد هائل من المواقف التي لا يمكن أن يجربها إنسان طوال حياته مهما طالت. يجد الإنسان نفسه مندفعاً نحو الخير على نحو متهور لا يدركه، فعندما يجابه الظلم يجتاحه نوع من الاشمئزاز لا يعرف كيف يعلله لنفسه".
طبعاً كان فيه ردود أفعال مضادة: احتمال ظهور الفسق، والانحلال الأخلاقي، وازدراء للحقوق الإلهية وسلطة الآباء، تزرع السخط في أذهان الخدم والفتيات الصغار. قال بعض رجال الدين والأطباء أن الروايات: مضيعة للوقت والسوائل الحيوية والدين والأخلاق. وتساعد على تمرد الأبناء والبنات على العائلة، وتسهم في ارتفاع نسبة البِغاء.
تساعد الروايات على تعميق المشاعر الداخلية ذات الأهمية القصوى لحقوق الإنسان. فهي تخلق نوع من "الوجود النموذجي" يعزز الأخلاقيات ويوطد روابط المجتمع ويجذب الأفراد بعيداً عن مصالحهم الخاصة، ويحفز أفعالاً تنطوي على الكرم والخير والبر.
أشاد جيفرسون بأعمال شكسبير وستيرن، يقول "إن قراءة هذه الأعمال يولد في أنفسنا رغبة قوية على أداء الخير والعرفان وينفرنا من الأعمال الشريرة، ويولد رغبة في "المحاكاة الأخلاقية" على نحو أكثر فاعلية من الأعمال التاريخية".
روايات روسو وريتشاردسون جذبت القراء جذباً فعالاً نحو الحياة اليومية باعتباره تجربة دينية بديلة من نوع ما (عالم مثالي، قيم أخلاقية عالية)، تعلموا من خلالها قدرة الناس مثلهم على خلق عالم مثالي أخلاقي بأنفسهم.
حقوق الإنسان نمت في هذه التربة المزروعة بالمشاعر.
العوامل المشتركة في الروايات الثلاثة كانت: كل الأبطال من النساء، وكل الروايات كتبها رجال، وكل البطلات سعين إلى الاستقلال الذاتي، وكلهن كانت نهايتهن غير سعيدة. جولي ترضخ لرغبة والدها وتتخلى عن الرجل الذي تحب، وتموت في النهاية في مشهد مؤثر، باميلا ترضى بالزواج من السيد بي وترضخ للقيود المفروضة على حريتها، وكلاريسا تقرر أن تنهي حياتها بالانتحار.
كل البطلات أظهرن شخصية قوية وعزيمة بالغة، لم يشأ القراء انقاذهن فحسب، بل أرادو أن يكونوا مثلهن أيضاً. عكست الروايات انشغالاً ثقافياً أعمق بالاستقلال الذاتي في القرن الثامن عشر، وآمن فلاسفة عصر التنوير بذلك، يعرف عصر التنوير أيضاً بأنه عصر الإنسانوية (النزوع نحو الإنسان، إزاحة الآلة وتنصيب الإنسان).
وصل انتشار فكرة انتشار الاستقلالية ذروته بعد مقال كانط، في مقال "ما التنوير؟" عرف التنوير أنه خروج البشرية من حالة عدم النضج الذي ابتلت به نفسها، وعدم النضج عرفه بأنه عدم القدرة على استغلال الفهم دون الاستعانة بتوجيه شخص آخر. التنوير عند كانط يقصد به الاستقلال الفكري، أن يفكر الإنسان بنفسه.
في عام 1792م خفض المشرعون سن الرشد من 25 إلى 21 سنة، وأصدروا قبل ذلك مرسوماً بأن يرث كل الأبناء على حد سواء، الذكور والإناث، وأبيح لأول مرة في فرنسا الطلاق.
شجع أنصار إلغاء الرق، الرقيق على تابة سيرهم الذاتية بطابع روائي، وخرجت روايات مثل "القصة الشائقة لحياة أولوداه إكويانو" عام 1789 م.

قضية كالاس
اتهم كالاس بقتل ابنه لمنعه من التحول للمذهب الكاثوليكي، اتهم ظلماً لأن الانتحار آنذاك لم يكن مقبولاً. فجاء الاستجواب التمهيدي والتعذيب القضائي في غاية القسوة والبشاعة حتى مات عام 1763م. مشهد الألم الذي تكبده كالاس على المقصلة قد صمم خصوصياً من أجل غرس الرعب في نفوس الآخرين، حيث يشعرون بالسيادة القهرية للقانون والدولة والآلة في نهاية الأمر. يصبح حينها المجرم نوع من أنواع القرابين التي تكسب معاناته المجتمع كمالاً والدولة نظاماً كان العقاب بمنزلة شعيرة ربانية
تقول لين هانت "لو كانت مشاعر الشفقة (الطبيعية) تحمل كل فرد على مقت التعذيب، فلماذا لم يكن ذلك واضحاً قبل ستينيات القرن الثامن عشر؟" حتى عند فولتير نفسه، استنكر فشل العدالة في قضية كالاس لكن لم يعترض على التعذيب. من الواضح أنه ثمة غشاوة تحول دون التوحد الشعوري مع الآخرين قبل ذلك الحين.
اهتم الفيلسوف سيزاي بيكاريا (1738-1794م) بقضية كالاس، (فيلسوف وفقيه قانوني واخصائي علم جريمة) وقال أنه: لا يمكن للألم أن يكون اختباراً للحقيقة، كما لو كانت الحقيقة تسكن ألياف وعضلات البائس الذي يتلقى التعذيب. تم حظر كتب بيكاريا ومنع ترجمتها عام 1766م ضمن ما يسمى (القائمة البابوية-السوداء)، لكن أعماله لم تتوقف عن الانتشار فترجمت إلى الألمانية والهولندية والبولندية والاسبانية. وكان تأثير كتب بيكاريا المتنامي مذهلاً للغاية.
أحد مكتشفات القرن الثامن عشر كانت مشاعر المشاركة الوجدانية، واهتمام من نوع جديد بالجسد، كان مقدساً ضمن إطار الدين، وكان يُسمح ببتر جزء منه أو تعذيبه من أجل المصلحة العامة، لكنه أصبح بعد ذلك مقدساً لذاته في ضوء نظام علماني قائم على الاستقلال الذاتي للفرد وحرمته، فالأجساد اكتسبت قيمة أكثر إيجابية حينما أصبحت أكثر انفصالاً ومملوكة أكثر للذات. وعزز فن العمارة المنزلي من الإحساس بالانفصال الفردي، إن باتت الخصوصية في المنازل الفرنسية تزيد في النصف الثاني من القرن الثامن عشر. أمثلة التغيير كانت فرض غرامات على جرائم التعدي على الممتلكات بدل الجلد بالسياط.
طبعاً نعرف أن شرارة الثورة الفرنسية كانت سقوط سجن الباستيل عام 1789م.. وكانت قضية كالاس وما تعرض له من ظلم مفصلية في هذا الشأن.. وما سبق سجن الباستيل كان نشوء هذا الجو العام من التعاطف العميق الذي يتجاوز الحدود الشخصية والطبقات الاجتماعية، والذي انتشر بفعل الرواية وكتابة سير المظلومين من الرقيق والمساجين، حتى بدأت حركة الدفاع عن الاستقلالية في ظل تراجع هيمنة الكنيسة واهتمام النخب بالمفاهيم الجديدة لحقوق الإنسان وظهور المرجعية الجديدة (لابد من مرجعية) التي هي الطبيعة.

القانون الطبيعي
الفقيه الهولندي جروشيوس هو أول من اقترح فكرة القانون الطبيعي، وهو ببساطة حسب تعبيره: "شيء مملوك ذاتياً، ويمكن إدراكه بمعزل عن الإله، حيث بإمكانهم استخدام هذه الحقوق لإرساء الأسس التعاقدية للحياة الاجتماعية"
شيشرون (106-43 قبل الميلاد)، لخّص فكرة القانون الطبيعي بأنها: قانون موافق للطبيعة، معروف للجميع، خالد، أبدي، يدعونا إلى اتباع ما يأمر به، وينهانا عن ارتكاب ما يحرمه ولسنا بحاجة إلى شرحه أو تفسيره (بديهي)، القانون الطبيعي هو بمثابة العقل الذي تحكم الآلهة العالم من خلاله، فقانون الطبيعة هو قانون العقل الذي يشترك فيه البشر مع الآلهة ليسود الحق والعدل ولتحقيق التوازن في المدينة.
توماس هوبز (1588-1679م) يعتبر من أبرز الفلاسفة المهتمين بالقانون الطبيعي، يؤكد على أهمية الفصل بين الحقوق الطبيعية والقانون الطبيعي، يرى هوبز أن الحقوق الطبيعية بديهية وواضحة (self-evident)، يفترض العقل وجودها، ويتحتم علينا التسليم بها، وهي الحق في البقاء، والحق في استخدام كل الوسائل المتاحة للمحافظة على البقاء، والحق في تقرير هذه الوسائل.. الحق الطبيعي مطلق وغير محدود، هو اللاتعيين واللاتحديد للنشاط البشري، (يقول سبينوزا أن الحق الطبيعي يتحدد حسب الرغبة والقدرة، أن يرغب الإنسان ما يريد ويحصل عليه طالما أنه يملك القدرة على ذلك، وهذا الحق يتشارك فيه مع الكائنات الحية في الطبيعة – ولو أن الإنسان يتفوق على غيره من الكائنات ويرغب دائماً بالمزيد-)، وهنا يأتي القانون الطبيعي الذي يضع محددات، ويحتاج الإنسان إلى إعمال العقل لكي يدركه، وهو الذي يحافظ على حقوق الأفراد تجاه بعضهم البعض، وله عبارة شهيرة يقول فيها (ليست قوانين الطبيعة مجرد اتفاق بين الناس بل هي إملاء من العقل، يختلف هنا مع بنثام) لكن أكد على ضرورة وجود قوة عظمى ذات سلطة مطلقة تحول دون نشوء حرب الكل ضد الكل.. يرى أن الإنسان ينزع نحو الاستحواذ واستخدام القوة مالم يتم ردعه. وبرر ذلك في العقد الاجتماعي إذ يرى أن المجتمعات في الطبيعة تتسم بالوحشية إذ لا يوجد هناك خطأ أو صواب أو عدل، فكانت الغلبة للأقوياء والهزيمة للضعفاء، يقول هوبز " لماذا يسيرون الناس مسلحين دائماً حتى في غير حال الحرب؟ ولم تكون لديهم المفاتيح التي يغلقون بها منازلهم؟" لذا، ومن خلال السلطة المطلقة يمكن للإنسان المحافظة على حقوقه، إذ يرى أن الإنسان لا يستطيع ضمان ما يملكه من وسائل عيش إلا بالاستحواذ على مزيد من القوة. وعليه يرى هوبز ضرورة وجود العقد الاجتماعي (قوانين مدنية/وضعية) يتنازل فيه الأفراد للسلطة بمقتضى هذا العقد، عن حرياتهم وحقوقهم في حالة الطبيعة، (حق امتلاك الوسائل الضرورية، وحق الدفاع عن البقاء)، وهو تنازل لا يمكن أن يتصور إلا أن يكون كاملاً وغير مشروط، حتى تعطي الدولة الأمن والسلام، ولا تتيح للفوضى الفطرية أن تعود من جديد.
جون لوك (1632-

[Jasmine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think of invention as a long, arduous process of trial and error, where, if you know where to look, it’s easy to see the bolts connecting previous pieces of technology and the design choices made due to historical conditions or material limitations. This book does not operate under the same definition of invention, and its handling of the invention of human rights is much the worse for it.

The picture that Hunt paints of human rights is one where humanity somewhat suddenly (over the 1750s-1790s) realized human rights were a crucial concept, and then somewhat bumpily implemented them, compelled by this contagious consciousness. Briefly, the narrative goes something like this: over the 17th century, the rise of the novel (particularly in France and England) led people to empathize across class and gender boundaries and recognize others to also be humans with their own inner worlds. Society then needed to change to reflect this new understanding of the individuality and equality of humans. Once these rights were declared (particularly in France and the USA), and one group got the individuality and equality they asked for, it was extended from on high to other groups:

The logic of the process determined that as soon as a highly conceivable group came up for discussion (propertied males, Protestants), those in the same kind of category but located lower on the conceivability scale (propertyless males, Jews) would inevitably appear on the agenda. (p150) 

It’s a very western-centric view of the “invention” of human rights. I think Hunt is correct to trace (at least some of) the emotional impetus for European bourgeois propertied male demands for individual rights and equality through the novel, but we should then see mirroring phenomena for other classes (or, to use her language, groups or categories of people). It seems unlikely to me that the slaves in Saint Domingue were inspired to demand their freedom because they were reading Samuel Richardson’s 1740 novel Pamela or were enthused about the positive example of the Parisian’s right to freedom of religion. That the decree emancipating the slaves quotes the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen is not sufficient to convince me it was a demand cascading from the French Declaration rather than a more spontaneous understanding that slavery really sucks, the negation of which was justified to the world with the hypocritical words used by its French oppressors. 

I think the root of my disagreement with Hunt about what human rights are is evident from this passage:

Human rights require three interlocking qualities: rights must be natural (inherent in human beings); equal (the same for everyone); and universal (applicable everywhere). For rights to be human rights, all humans everywhere in the world must possess them equally and only because of their status as human beings. It turned out to be easier to accept the natural quality of rights than their equality of universality. (p20)

While the equality and universality of human rights form the backbone of the remainder of Hunt's narrative, the issue of the naturalness of human rights is discussed only once, when summarizing the critique by Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism: 

Bentham objected to the idea that natural law was innate in the person and discoverable by reason. He therefore basically rejected the entire natural law tradition and with it natural rights. (p125)

This critique is not engaged with — his dismissal of human rights seems to be enough to stamp him as someone to ignore — and I’m left puzzled as to why it is so obvious that human rights are natural. After all, (paraphrasing Bentham) there is no gene that encodes the right to freedom of religion. If human rights are natural, then why is the book called Inventing Human Rights, rather than Discovering Human Rights? 

The title of the book is, ironically, an excellent way to frame this part of human history: human rights are indeed constructed. They are the product of the society that formulates them and enforces them, and they bear the marks of this process. This is a more useful lens: instead of a static, fully identified set of rules that society embarrassingly fails at applying sufficiently universally and equally, rights are the product of the battles and the concerns of the era.

Why was the era of capitalism the one that gave rise to demands for individual freedoms (the right to political representation, the right to freedom of religion), granted equally to all from birth? Those suddenly in power were no longer only men of noble birth. Their wealth came from the markets, and not from the pleasure of the King, whose own authority sprung from that of the Church. Why were economic rights (the right to food and shelter, the right to work and to rest) added to the UN Declaration of Human Rights by the first ever Worker’s State? Those in power were concerned not only with political freedoms, which better enable the accumulation and enjoyment of wealth, but also with the economic freedoms, which enable the enjoyment of a fulfilling life without such wealth.

Because Hunt’s breezy overview of rights (excluding appendices, it is just 214 pages) emphasizes the slow stumbling process of recognizing the universality and equality of rights (rights in the abstract), the content of these rights and the specific relationships between these rights and the concerns and challenges of the people that demanded them is lost. It makes the invention of rights seem finished — in 1948 we declared there were 30 of them, and now we have only to implement them properly for a change. Why aren’t we adding to them to reflect our new understanding of what every member of society deserves, say, the right to a planet with an inhabitable environment?

Updated review here.

[Æ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this book both intriguing and flummoxing. It has an interesting argument of how universal human rights became an ideological concept and it also makes some genuinely baffling choices of what to completely exclude from the text.

The author argues that the proliferation of novels caused enough people to empathize with the fictional protagonists to the point where societies as a whole started thinking “hey maybe other people deserve to be treated like human beings.” A fascinating argument. Novels can get far more introspective than the prevailing art of the time: plays & epics. But this was the only profound argument in the book and it was all downhill from there.

The book starts off around the 1700s and obviously points out the lack of equal rights for women. However, it fails to point out how the erosion of women’s rights stemmed from the rise of capitalism in the 1500s, as outlined by such books as "Caliban and the Witch" by Silvia Federici (2004). With that historical context, one might assume that the rise of universal human rights may have been a response to the erosion of rights caused by the rise of capitalism, but the author doesn’t seem interested in making that connection.

Bizarrely, the author dodged the fact that the reason the treasonous British Colonies in North America kept making declarations of rights that mentioned “property rights” was just code for slavery. This is because the British were coming around toward abolition, which is one of the main driving causes of the American Revolution. As explained in the book "A True History of the United States" by Major Daniel Sjursen (2021): “Somerset v. Stewart case of 1772, England’s highest common-law court ruled that chattel slavery was illegal. This judgment spooked many southern colonial gentlemen, who began to fear that the British metropolitan authorities were ‘unreliable defenders of slavery,’ and this convinced many to join the patriot cause.” But that doesn’t get discussed for some reason. Hmmm…

Speaking of US History, the book talks about the US abolition of slavery in the most bizarre ways. The term “Civil War” is not mentioned once in this book. There is a half-paragraph about the abolition of slavery with no mention of any violence involved. It’s genuinely flabbergasting how the author was able to whitewash so much history with regard to the direct connection between revolutionary violence and a material improvement to the rights of the people.

Furthermore, the book is insanely Anglo- & Euro-centric, focusing only on Europe and the United States. I find it extremely hard to believe that other parts of the world had absolutely zero conceptual understanding of relevant texts like The Rights of Man or the Declaration of Independence. But the author makes little mention of any non-white country.

There is one exception to the last 2 paragraphs of gripes: Haiti. The book talks extensively about the Haitian revolution. This is good, but it boggles the mind why that alone is the only example of revolutionary violence or non-white nations fighting (violently) for equal rights. (The book also talks about the French Revolution but didn’t seem that impressed by it.)

There is a very obvious connection between violent revolutionary actions and a material improvement of rights to those Involved. But apparently, according to the author, rights are only granted or revoked by white guys talking. It’s truly baffling. For more on the value of revolutionary violence, read:
1. In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action" by Vicky Osterweil (2020) Review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
2. "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook" by Mark Bray (2017) Review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
3. "Negros with Guns" by Robert Franklin Williams (1962) Review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The book isn’t worth my time to pluck out and comment on quotes. So that’s all you get.

JK you get this one:

With regard to the development of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (one of my favorite documents in existence), the author wrote: “…the Soviet Union proposed amendments to nearly every article. Eighty-three meetings (of just the Third Committee) and nearly 170 amendments later, a draft was sanctioned for a vote.”
That’s very interesting, book. I would love to know more about that. Can you explain what the Soviet Union changed? Were there any interesting discussions about these changes? Did they strengthen or weaken what the declaration called for? Oh. That’s all you have to say about that? Okay. Cool….

The book is mediocre.