Blog Post 5 Caitie Eckna

                                          Global Justice


The United States has always claimed a superior position in international issues. The power and influence of the US permits them to implement control in other countries. This is not a new practice, this began with imperialism. The white man has justified extending his power in other countries for the use of labor and resources. This practice was maintained through the belief that Americans were superior to others. This view was purely based on the theory that people who are different are inferior. The opposition in culture and ethnicity from Americans caused feelings of extreme patriotism, which was used to justify changing other people's lifestyles to mimic the west. The US has assumed a savior complex that is now ingrained into society. The US consistently inputs themselves in other countries' issues and tries to fix their problems to “save them”. Yet many of these problems are not problems at all. Some of the issues the US stands against are cultural practices that are sacred and cherished. Many people do not want to change their culture which is consequently their identity. 

There are many organizations in the US that work to change other countries by implementing their standard of living. This is extremely controversial because these ideals only mirror the United States beliefs of what is right. “the rhetoric and practice of human rights reflect Western values”(Le,203). The term human rights is being misconstrued to basically fix any practice that differs from the morals of America. Nhina Le explains how organizations and countries are not using their influence to work toward the true definition of human rights but they are biased to fix things that they see as problematic. “a statement of rights conceived only in terms of the values prevalent in the countries of Western Europe and America.”(Le 203). The United States feels as though they have to play a large role in the human rights movement yet it seems that they are also creating more violations. “the best way for the region to meet its human rights obligations is to prioritize the unified goal of development even at the cost of restricting political and civil rights”(Le, 204). Instead of focusing on helping people in need, the US works to emulate western ideals in developing countries and only when it is favorable. 


Le, Nhina. “Are Human Rights Universal or Culturally Relative?” Peace Review, vol. 28, no. 2, 2016, pp. 203–211., https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2016.1166756.

Comments

  1. Do you see a connection between this reading and the Transnational Activist Group conversations we had in class about intervention without appropriate appreciation for cultural context? Do you see the United States as a steward of a legacy of White interventionism? Do you think there is any truth to the idea that the U.S. intervenes with altruistic intentions?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it possible for the US do help expand human rights and provide for others without bringing on Western ideals? It may not necessarily be on purpose but is instead a possible side effect of receiving aid and support form the West. Obviously the US will deliver what they think is correct, and with that comes Western thinking, which again may just be a side effect and not necessarily a targeted instance meant to spread influence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really like how you looked at the United States' current approach to human rights as an extension of imperialism from the past. You reminded me of the group discussion we would have in class regarding interventions (how ethical can it be, especially when there are always going to be costs). How can the U.S. reexamine its intervention efforts in a way that minimizes their bias in "correcting" states?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog Post 4

Blog Post #4 on Climate Change

Russia Ukraine effects with WTO