What do you think?
Rate this book
İnsan Hakları
Dünya savaşlarının yarattığı şiddete ve tahribata şahit olan H.G. Wells, toplumların yaşamında köklü bir değişime ihtiyaç olduğuna inanır. Bu devrim niteliğindeki değişim ancak “var olan bu durumun her yönüyle ve tüm olasılıklarıyla en eksiksiz ve en amansız biçimde tartışılması”yla gerçekleşebilecektir. Yazarın dünyadaki adaletsizliklere dikkat çekmeyi amaçlayarak kaleme aldığı İnsan Hakları, Birleşmiş Milletler’in kurucu metni niteliğinde olan, geçerliliğini günümüzde de yitirmemiş bir çağrı.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1940
31 people are currently reading
470 people want to read
About the author
H.G. Wells
5,357 books11.1k followersHerbert George Wells was born to a working class family in Kent, England. Young Wells received a spotty education, interrupted by several illnesses and family difficulties, and became a draper's apprentice as a teenager. The headmaster of Midhurst Grammar School, where he had spent a year, arranged for him to return as an "usher," or student teacher. Wells earned a government scholarship in 1884, to study biology under Thomas Henry Huxley at the Normal School of Science. Wells earned his bachelor of science and doctor of science degrees at the University of London. After marrying his cousin, Isabel, Wells began to supplement his teaching salary with short stories and freelance articles, then books, including The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898).
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of Science Fiction". D. 1946.
More: http://philosopedia.org/index.php/H._...
http://www.online-literature.com/well...
http://www.hgwellsusa.50megs.com/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
July 5, 2020
This should be mandatory in schools between the subjects of 'History' and 'Modern Studies' - or at the very least, extracts from chapters 9 to 13.
Favourite line:
“I am a pacifist, but I am a realistic pacifist. I want an organised world peace. But I have always thought it a mean way of scoring off an antagonist to turn the other cheek. It is disrespectful to his pugnacity, it is irritatingly smug, and much more likely to stir him up to further outrage than to turn his wrath aside.” (p. 116)
Favourite line:
“I am a pacifist, but I am a realistic pacifist. I want an organised world peace. But I have always thought it a mean way of scoring off an antagonist to turn the other cheek. It is disrespectful to his pugnacity, it is irritatingly smug, and much more likely to stir him up to further outrage than to turn his wrath aside.” (p. 116)
August 9, 2017
I read the Penguin Special of The Rights of Man with an introduction by Ali Smith. Her introduction “What Are We Fighting For?” was also the second annual Pen H.G. Wells lecture given in 2015. It was so eloquent and thoughtful, I never wanted it to end. Smith covered the history of Wells, his writing, political evolution and contribution to international civil and human rights laws, including this manifesto that paved the way for the UN’s 1946 Declaration of Human Rights that came into being shortly after Well’s passing. Until I googled writers on human rights, I had only known Wells’ to be a sci-fi writer. To read Smith’s quick biography of him was illuminating. I currently follow two of the organizations for human rights that he was instrumental in creating; PEN and Liberty. The Rights of Man was originally published as a series of letters in The London Times in 1940, it lay bare Wells frustration and disillusion with politics, world war and what war sets out to accomplish. He saw this manifesto as a natural social evolution for all mankind; A new world order. He describes in moderate detail the hows and whys of those rights, with room for individual states/countries to modify it for their cultures needs. He felt this manifesto would breath and live on its own, regardless of government restriction, “Once it is fairly launched, it will go about the world. It will insist upon itself. It will go into neutral and enemy countries. It will find Allies for us there and everywhere. Once it has begun to be printed, reprinted and discussed, it will defy any censorship. Nobody can claim a restrictive copyright in a statement of fundamental public importance, so ordered and compact. It will become the backbone of the new revolution everywhere.” He could not know, that a little over 75 years later, how right he was, how relevant. Although many countries have signed the UN's declaration, many have only recently ratified it, making it their own. And now, many nations are looking to do away with or overhaul their Declarations of Rights altogether. Smith tackles this offence, with a subtle call to protect the work of people like Wells’ and rebel against those who seek to change it, “So. You, me, now, here we are. Here it all is. Here it comes. It’s on our watch. (To observe the progress of, maintain an interest in. To have in one’s care, to look after, to guard, to tend. From the Old English: to wake.) What’ll we stand for? A couple of minutes an hour? Or what we call the future? And on the other hand, what won’t we stand for?”
This edition is worth reading. I learned a lot of history in its short pages. It also made me look at my own countries human rights laws and how they break them with more critical eyes.
December 1, 2020
"Travamos esta guerra pela liberdade humana, para acabar com a tensão perpétua da guerra e por modo de vida melhor, ou então não lutamos por nada que valha a pena." P.45
H.G.Wells também colaborou na discussão e redacção da Declaração dos Direitos do Homem, o que eu desconhecia por completo. Ler este texto, que resulta da compilação de vários artigos publicados em jornais ingleses em 1940, é assistir a uma defesa utópica dos direitos individuais mas também dos direitos económicos. Todos têm direito a viver com dignidade e para isso Wells defende um estado federam mundial pacífico e igualitário.
É muito interessante ler este livro em tempos de pandemia, quando nos apercebemos que os ricos se tornam mais ricos que nunca enquanto outros caem na pobreza, e outros dela não sairão tão cedo.
H.G.Wells também colaborou na discussão e redacção da Declaração dos Direitos do Homem, o que eu desconhecia por completo. Ler este texto, que resulta da compilação de vários artigos publicados em jornais ingleses em 1940, é assistir a uma defesa utópica dos direitos individuais mas também dos direitos económicos. Todos têm direito a viver com dignidade e para isso Wells defende um estado federam mundial pacífico e igualitário.
É muito interessante ler este livro em tempos de pandemia, quando nos apercebemos que os ricos se tornam mais ricos que nunca enquanto outros caem na pobreza, e outros dela não sairão tão cedo.
October 12, 2021
It is a shame that appeasement and incompetence allowed Hitler’s Germany to take over so much of Europe, requiring the Soviet Union to enter the war and annex much of Europe for itself.
This ushered in a period of Communism, and an increasing suspicion of any diversity of opinion which has created the current ‘unpolitical’ world in which intellectual thought that deviates out of a narrow field has come to be treated with suspicion.
Thus we have today’s situation where we allow people to castigate the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, or even (for goodness sake) Joe Biden as dangerous socialists or communists, when their views are left or right of centre compared to previous ages.
This leads to a situation where their followers can only deny those ‘dangerous’ opinions, rather than simply shrugging and saying it does not matter if those words are correct. The world needs as many new ideas as possible.
Earlier in the twentieth century, political idealism of a radical nature was still possible, but the horrors of Fascism and Communism have understandably left many disillusioned and wary. Nonetheless I miss a time when writers, thinkers and film directors could openly declare strong political opinions without automatically being ignored or suppressed.
Think of 1940s Britain, which still had socialists such as George Orwell and H G Wells as respected intellectuals. Orwell was brought in to help with propaganda efforts for the war effort, and Wells helped to lay out the groundwork for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the noblest of all achievements in the twentieth century, and yet under threat.
Wells began his work at an early point in World War 2. His expressions of distaste about the incompetence of the British prime minister are not an attack on Winston Churchill, but on Neville Chamberlain. That is how early in the war this work is.
Many of the ideas carried over into the final declaration, but are here in a more idealistic form. The rights to be protected in the workplace, to have fair opportunities in health and education, legal protections, and an international arrangement that would protect all countries from future tyranny.
Reflecting his socialist ideals, Wells constantly talks about collectivisation of political power as an inevitability. Some would feel this dates the book, but in a way Wells is right. Regardless of what many conservatives might like to think, some degree of collectivisation has developed in society.
Health and education systems are still public. Libraries, the provision of streets and lighting, museums, law and order, and a wide variety of essential services are the provision of government. Meanwhile many countries have sought to protect their economic interests by uniting with other countries. The EU is the most obvious local example.
Of course the right-wing still wish to take us back to an age of selfish individualism when there was no collective good. Many services have been privatised, resulting in higher prices and appalling services. In Britain, the nay-sayers even persuaded the public to pull out of the European Union, an action that we will be rueing for many years to come.
Collectivisation recalls bad memories of incompetence under communist administrations, and worse still, the brutal repression that goes with it. This is where Wells’ work comes in. He sees the value of the state, but he is also aware of the importance of protecting the individuals within it, so we do not become mere pawns to be moved around with no free will, and regardless of our happiness. Human rights offer the best of all worlds, allowing us to benefit from the state while retaining freedom.
Nonetheless human rights remain under attack. Why should this be? Firstly the attack is led by privileged people who have something to gain by undermining the freedoms of people with less money. No need to pay for a good education or health service for others. No worries about employment rights in the workplace. Since these privileged people control government and the press, they can offer powerful propaganda to persuade the public to go against their own interests.
There is also the question of personal responsibilities. Wells touches on this old adage – when we talk about human rights what about human responsibilities? As Wells points out, one means the other, to an extent. When you protect human rights you are exercising your responsibility in protecting those rights.
Nonetheless there has been much abuse of the phrase, largely by the kind of people who do not respect human rights at all, and yet are quick to insist their own rights are being infringed. These often include such things as the right to make racist comments, or the right to show a lack of sense during a pandemic.
Since such rights are those which encroach on the rights of others, then the claims only serve to undermine the notion of human rights and make it seem like a trivial claim by entitled people. It is nothing of the sort. It is easy to feel pessimistic about human capacity for improvement. I feel that way every time I see litter on the ground. How can we foul our own environment for no good reason but idleness?
When we set aside these silly people, we can recognise that many people are genuinely protected by human rights legislation, and if it slows down the development of certain changes, the harm that it causes is somewhat less than the harm that is caused by having a nation with no rights at all.
The Rights of Man is not a well-known Wells work, and its content is too dry and technical to attract large audiences. It does not even have its own Wikipedia page. Nonetheless it is one of the most admirable of all the writer’s works, and perhaps the most influential. Let us never lose sight of the advantages of the human rights that it espouses.
This ushered in a period of Communism, and an increasing suspicion of any diversity of opinion which has created the current ‘unpolitical’ world in which intellectual thought that deviates out of a narrow field has come to be treated with suspicion.
Thus we have today’s situation where we allow people to castigate the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, or even (for goodness sake) Joe Biden as dangerous socialists or communists, when their views are left or right of centre compared to previous ages.
This leads to a situation where their followers can only deny those ‘dangerous’ opinions, rather than simply shrugging and saying it does not matter if those words are correct. The world needs as many new ideas as possible.
Earlier in the twentieth century, political idealism of a radical nature was still possible, but the horrors of Fascism and Communism have understandably left many disillusioned and wary. Nonetheless I miss a time when writers, thinkers and film directors could openly declare strong political opinions without automatically being ignored or suppressed.
Think of 1940s Britain, which still had socialists such as George Orwell and H G Wells as respected intellectuals. Orwell was brought in to help with propaganda efforts for the war effort, and Wells helped to lay out the groundwork for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the noblest of all achievements in the twentieth century, and yet under threat.
Wells began his work at an early point in World War 2. His expressions of distaste about the incompetence of the British prime minister are not an attack on Winston Churchill, but on Neville Chamberlain. That is how early in the war this work is.
Many of the ideas carried over into the final declaration, but are here in a more idealistic form. The rights to be protected in the workplace, to have fair opportunities in health and education, legal protections, and an international arrangement that would protect all countries from future tyranny.
Reflecting his socialist ideals, Wells constantly talks about collectivisation of political power as an inevitability. Some would feel this dates the book, but in a way Wells is right. Regardless of what many conservatives might like to think, some degree of collectivisation has developed in society.
Health and education systems are still public. Libraries, the provision of streets and lighting, museums, law and order, and a wide variety of essential services are the provision of government. Meanwhile many countries have sought to protect their economic interests by uniting with other countries. The EU is the most obvious local example.
Of course the right-wing still wish to take us back to an age of selfish individualism when there was no collective good. Many services have been privatised, resulting in higher prices and appalling services. In Britain, the nay-sayers even persuaded the public to pull out of the European Union, an action that we will be rueing for many years to come.
Collectivisation recalls bad memories of incompetence under communist administrations, and worse still, the brutal repression that goes with it. This is where Wells’ work comes in. He sees the value of the state, but he is also aware of the importance of protecting the individuals within it, so we do not become mere pawns to be moved around with no free will, and regardless of our happiness. Human rights offer the best of all worlds, allowing us to benefit from the state while retaining freedom.
Nonetheless human rights remain under attack. Why should this be? Firstly the attack is led by privileged people who have something to gain by undermining the freedoms of people with less money. No need to pay for a good education or health service for others. No worries about employment rights in the workplace. Since these privileged people control government and the press, they can offer powerful propaganda to persuade the public to go against their own interests.
There is also the question of personal responsibilities. Wells touches on this old adage – when we talk about human rights what about human responsibilities? As Wells points out, one means the other, to an extent. When you protect human rights you are exercising your responsibility in protecting those rights.
Nonetheless there has been much abuse of the phrase, largely by the kind of people who do not respect human rights at all, and yet are quick to insist their own rights are being infringed. These often include such things as the right to make racist comments, or the right to show a lack of sense during a pandemic.
Since such rights are those which encroach on the rights of others, then the claims only serve to undermine the notion of human rights and make it seem like a trivial claim by entitled people. It is nothing of the sort. It is easy to feel pessimistic about human capacity for improvement. I feel that way every time I see litter on the ground. How can we foul our own environment for no good reason but idleness?
When we set aside these silly people, we can recognise that many people are genuinely protected by human rights legislation, and if it slows down the development of certain changes, the harm that it causes is somewhat less than the harm that is caused by having a nation with no rights at all.
The Rights of Man is not a well-known Wells work, and its content is too dry and technical to attract large audiences. It does not even have its own Wikipedia page. Nonetheless it is one of the most admirable of all the writer’s works, and perhaps the most influential. Let us never lose sight of the advantages of the human rights that it espouses.
April 8, 2022
(PT) No inicio de 1940, H.G.Welles decidiu escrever este pequeno libro no sentido de... dar um sentido a esta guerra. Algo do qual os soldados devem combater, mais do que o orgulho nacional e o derrotar um inimigo. E para ele, deveriam combater por algo maior, mais concreto que a ideia da paz universal. E foi a partir daqui que ele elaborou um conjuntos de normas dos quais os seres humanos se deveriam regir para que as sociedades se harmonizassem e afastarem a ideia da guerra para sempre.
O pequeno opusculo deu lugar à Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, em 1948, pela ONU, e após a morte do autor. Não são muitas páginas - esta edição tem 152, mas em muitos aspetos, é um ensaio sobre como é que as pessoas e as sociedades se deveriam guiar por conjuntos e princípios democráticos, um contrato social para o século XX e que ajudasse não só a vencer a guerra, como a ter um padrão moral para a paz que iria acontecer, e do qual não poderia ter os mesmos erros da I Guerra Mundial, nomeadamente o Tratado de Versalhes e a Sociedade das Nações.
O livro é interessante de se ler e o tema é fascinante. E nos tempos que correm, é com certeza, bem atual.
O pequeno opusculo deu lugar à Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, em 1948, pela ONU, e após a morte do autor. Não são muitas páginas - esta edição tem 152, mas em muitos aspetos, é um ensaio sobre como é que as pessoas e as sociedades se deveriam guiar por conjuntos e princípios democráticos, um contrato social para o século XX e que ajudasse não só a vencer a guerra, como a ter um padrão moral para a paz que iria acontecer, e do qual não poderia ter os mesmos erros da I Guerra Mundial, nomeadamente o Tratado de Versalhes e a Sociedade das Nações.
O livro é interessante de se ler e o tema é fascinante. E nos tempos que correm, é com certeza, bem atual.
February 25, 2016
'Our true nationality is mankind' -Wells
Picked this up on a whim in waterstones and so glad I did. Took me about 45 minutes to read in total and feel like Wells wisdom is something that should be shared. It's shocking how very little we've progressed as a species since this was written and the words ring so true, the fact he touches on how government is controlled by corporations and the flow of money makes it hard to believe society is still run this way and on a much worse scale, he knows the issues we face will only stop once we get rid of the fake democracy that runs us and join together as a global community not separated by boarders and propaganda. In a time of upheaval like now the words must be listened to and while being hopeful Wells remains a realist which I think is most important thing. I recommend this to anyone interested in political and moral issues,although the fact it's such a quick read means it's accessible to anyone really. Smiths personal introduction was an added plus, definitely made the right choice picking this up by the till.
Picked this up on a whim in waterstones and so glad I did. Took me about 45 minutes to read in total and feel like Wells wisdom is something that should be shared. It's shocking how very little we've progressed as a species since this was written and the words ring so true, the fact he touches on how government is controlled by corporations and the flow of money makes it hard to believe society is still run this way and on a much worse scale, he knows the issues we face will only stop once we get rid of the fake democracy that runs us and join together as a global community not separated by boarders and propaganda. In a time of upheaval like now the words must be listened to and while being hopeful Wells remains a realist which I think is most important thing. I recommend this to anyone interested in political and moral issues,although the fact it's such a quick read means it's accessible to anyone really. Smiths personal introduction was an added plus, definitely made the right choice picking this up by the till.
December 25, 2015
An important manifesto for an ideal world. HG Wells was a visionary and a true believer of a World Revolution embodied on the primary ideas of 'Liberty, Fraternity, Equality of Opportunity, and Equality Before the Law'. In addition to promoting human rights, Wells also promoted the concept of a world federation, with the Declaration of the Rights of Man being an instrument necessary to adjust the current state of affairs of humanity to the "world collectivism which is overtaking the entire planet."
Took me a while to finish this book, but nevertheless a great book that will inspire and stimulate movements and campaigns advocating for a better world that respects the fundamental importance of human rights, human dignity, and human solidarity.
Took me a while to finish this book, but nevertheless a great book that will inspire and stimulate movements and campaigns advocating for a better world that respects the fundamental importance of human rights, human dignity, and human solidarity.
October 29, 2019
An interesting read especially now with the current government keen on a 'British Bill of right's and a rejection of the European Bill of Human rights.
In fact in Brexit obsessed Britain this book seems strangely relevant...written against the backdrop of WW2 this book is partially about the avoidance of War and Wells thoughts on how this could be achieved and generally how things can be improved.
It's not wholly utopian as it acknowledges the part crime ,the state and to a degree commerce would play alongside Wells proposed ideas.....it is interesting however the discussion on European unity which at this time seems Kind of fitting.
In fact in Brexit obsessed Britain this book seems strangely relevant...written against the backdrop of WW2 this book is partially about the avoidance of War and Wells thoughts on how this could be achieved and generally how things can be improved.
It's not wholly utopian as it acknowledges the part crime ,the state and to a degree commerce would play alongside Wells proposed ideas.....it is interesting however the discussion on European unity which at this time seems Kind of fitting.
September 15, 2025
Succinct and compelling declaration of the fundamental rights of man, put forth by Wells to be adopted by a new world order in the wake of World War 2. The book tracks his development and revision of the declaration and his ideas for its adoption by a future global federation. Idealist in nature but still seems a bit too utopian as for the assumptions necessary for its adoption. Also a contradiction in his assertion of human rights and the conclusion about his thoughts on how Germany should be handled to end the war...
July 9, 2017
H G Wells treatment and ideas although fascinating, were not so different from other writings on similar matters at the time. However, his suggestions; lacked depth of analysis, were broad in formulation and failed to address fundamental flaws which arose in his ideals. Well written but not overly analytical.
Read
August 27, 2023I would highly encourage schools and educators to take extracts from this book to include in their lessons.
While it is educative and impactful, future readers should be aware that the content is not conveyed in a particularly descriptive manner. It is quite straight-forward and filled with bullet-point-like texts.
While it is educative and impactful, future readers should be aware that the content is not conveyed in a particularly descriptive manner. It is quite straight-forward and filled with bullet-point-like texts.
August 31, 2020
This book sums up the world in the middle of the Second World War and how it could grow better then, pointing out what made the world enter another war and how we can agaim decay to a similar state. This is of sum importance.
March 10, 2021
Well written but more for the deeply interested person. Wells’ ideas are ahead of their time, but scattered. It was fascinating to just be in that time in reality and what was going on in the world, not the rah rah war type but deeply thought out.
December 16, 2019
A very important text, but not a particularly fun read.
This version does contain an interesting and entertaining intro by Ali Smith.
This version does contain an interesting and entertaining intro by Ali Smith.
May 19, 2021
Universal, fair;
To learn, work, own, move, and speak;
Free of undue harm.
To learn, work, own, move, and speak;
Free of undue harm.
February 16, 2024
my man spits straight facts deeply distressing that we haven’t been listening to him in the last 80 years
October 12, 2025
Dönemin elitleri ile beraber hazırlanmış bir çalışma, aynı zamanda Nazi döneminde toplumsal yaklaşım için faydalı
April 13, 2016
Who knew that the author of Time Machine and Invisible Man is the original one to write a declaration on human rights that preceded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by nearly a decade and carried many of the ideas that came later in the Universal Declaration.
The book is quite significant, first because it shows a link in the journey towards universal human rights. H.G. Wells started with a letter to the Times that then went into become a more nuanced declaration he explains in the book after professing that he has gathered it together from the feedback and opinions of others.
It covers both the political rights as well as the human needs. I like the delineation of laws he suggests between the fundamental rights laws, the conventional laws, and the administrative laws which is a proposition that solves the issue of what laws can be changed and adjusted.
Another part I found interesting the declaration done earlier in French which Wells puts both in the original French and translated. He also talks about the situation with the German intellectuals and their position on rights in 1940.
The downside is that Wells seems to have had a huge hate for the Chamberlain's government and ends two chapters with asking him to go.
On the other hand, he reaches the very logical conclusion that neither communism and totalitarianism of the USSR nor the capitalist parliamentary democracies are going to give rights in collectivizing world.
I think the ideas are somewhat outdated, however, the book is fascinated both for its historical value and for the fun of knowing that one of the classic scifi writers is also the author of a significant volume on human rights.
The book is quite significant, first because it shows a link in the journey towards universal human rights. H.G. Wells started with a letter to the Times that then went into become a more nuanced declaration he explains in the book after professing that he has gathered it together from the feedback and opinions of others.
It covers both the political rights as well as the human needs. I like the delineation of laws he suggests between the fundamental rights laws, the conventional laws, and the administrative laws which is a proposition that solves the issue of what laws can be changed and adjusted.
Another part I found interesting the declaration done earlier in French which Wells puts both in the original French and translated. He also talks about the situation with the German intellectuals and their position on rights in 1940.
The downside is that Wells seems to have had a huge hate for the Chamberlain's government and ends two chapters with asking him to go.
On the other hand, he reaches the very logical conclusion that neither communism and totalitarianism of the USSR nor the capitalist parliamentary democracies are going to give rights in collectivizing world.
I think the ideas are somewhat outdated, however, the book is fascinated both for its historical value and for the fun of knowing that one of the classic scifi writers is also the author of a significant volume on human rights.
Read
August 27, 2016this is quite an important book. powerful.
January 3, 2021
All his points are relevant today which makes this a bit depressing. Still really good/interesting though.
March 27, 2017
It is important for every person to know and understand their own rights; their own duties and entitlements. And this is something that H.G. Wells outlines in this book.
At a time when everyone's rights, in terms of equality and individuality, are being put into question, it has never been more important to remember past atrocities and learn from those mistakes.
At a time when everyone's rights, in terms of equality and individuality, are being put into question, it has never been more important to remember past atrocities and learn from those mistakes.
April 20, 2017
VEry interesting read on human rights in a world community.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews