I don’t intend to make a habit of commenting on current affairs but it just so happens that the current government election fracas in Iran fits into my train of thought on ignorance and irrationality.
The complete lack of human rights in Iran is not a new thing. People, usually those from the fortunate West, forget that the fabled Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty; it’s not something that countries sign at a summit and abide by. It’s a declaration, like the USA’s declaration of independence. It is a statement of the rights that should be granted to every human on this planet. These rights are not privileges to be earnt or bartered from an oppressive institution, league or government; they are to be given unconditionally upon birth.
And for many Westerners, like you and I, they are. In Iran, as with most of the developing world, these rights are merely a mythical concept afforded to only a handful of lucky, aristocratic or autocratic individuals. We don’t know how lucky we are, nor do we appreciate just how recent the concept of human rights actually are. Speaking out of turn 100 years ago would result in being caned as a child, or beaten into a bloody pulp as an adult. Falling pregnant out of wedlock would throw you into social exile. Believing or acting upon religious beliefs outside the norm would get you stoned, drowned or burnt to death.
For the longest time we didn’t even own our bodies: nominally under our control, but only during peacetime, or when not under duress and whipped into chain gangs. Historically, we were under the singular jurisdiction of the local Lord, or owned by whoever employed us. This only changed with the form of trade unions and the downfall of antiquated European feudal systems, but for centuries this was sadly the case across what we now consider ‘the Western world’.
Just one thing has remained entirely ours: our mind and our thoughts. As long as we didn’t vocalise those thoughts, our minds have long been the last remaining stronghold of freedom. Of course, religious dogma and torture are usually employed to wean out any remaining free-thinkers — usually those that made the mistake of opening their mouths. But some people kept on dreaming, kept on fighting. Enough of us fought back against the Dark Age’s oppression so that we might one day experience our Renaissance and Enlightenment. Without either golden age we wouldn’t be living in this world today. Those brave souls that kept thinking outside the box, even after being brutally tortured or their families were killed — when all seemed truly lost, they kept on sticking it to the man, hoping for change. To those men and women we have a debt of immeasurable gratitude.
I have a theory (and it deserves its own blog entry): the Middle East is simply behind the times — from a Western point of view. To us Europeans and Americans the atrocities and injustices occurring in Iran are backward. We decry and condemn the unfairness of it all. We break down in tears at the thought of free people being brutally beaten and unfairly subdued by an oppressive force. And to us, it is inhumane and immoral: to deny their rights of thought and expression, refusing their right take part in the government and arbitrarily arresting those that try — these are breaches of important, fundamental human rights that we Westerners take for granted.
But to them it is the norm. This is the bit we don’t agree with, but we must get our heads around: the Middle East is, to us, akin to antiquity — that’s how we used to do things, centuries ago. We used to have slaves, and deny the vote to certain classes and castes. Not so long ago, making a public stand would get you shot. Once upon a time we had as few rights as our persecuted brothers and sisters in Iran. That’s why it hurts so much. That’s why it feels so incredibly unfair, so unjust. We turn on our TVs to see centuries of hard work spent on gaining our human rights pissed on by the government of Iran.
I hope those in the Middle East keep on fighting. Those that oppress you are afraid of losing control, and believe it or not, that’s progress. That’s the beginning of a revolution and history has shown that freedom will be yours. Eventually.
Hezabelle
Jun 17, 2009
On this we agree. When I think about the Industrial Revolution (or the Renaissance or the Enlightenment) I can’t help but think – maybe the reason there’s so much corruption in the developing world is because we’re messing with the flow. It’s like if someone traveled back in time to 100 years ago, walked into a factory in New York and started decrying human rights to the people who were just trying to make a living. Or giving them media and guns to get there. They don’t know how to use them yet. It’s a process that takes decades. The Western World suffered through it on it’s own, and now we try to bring it to the developing world. But it’s like a parent trying to keep their child from making any mistakes. Sometimes, you just have to let them learn for themselves. The developing world will get there, eventually, but they’re not ready for what we have yet. They’re different. Our biggest fault is in looking at them through our own cultural lens. To use the parent analogy again – we’re trying to make the kids grow up in our image. Because we think our way is right. But who says that’s true? All of the same things can be applied to our concept of human rights as well. The saying goes that if you buy a man a meal, he’ll eat for a day. But if you teach him to cook, he’ll eat for life. Our intervention in the rest of the world has been like buying them all Happy Meals and wondering why they’re still hungry.
Mr. Apron
Jun 17, 2009
It’s funny– we (The Western World) like to think of ourselves as enlightened and modern and extremely with it as far as individual and human rights go, but there are plenty of issues where we still have our heads firmly entrenched in our own buttocks. We’re still denying homosexuals the same basic rights that heterosexuals have, and we cloak this prejudice under the guise of “protecting the sanctity of marriage,” which heterosexuals have not been taking seriously for ages, via affairs and rampant divorce. We are a society of inherent racists, whether the president of the United States is African-American or not. We are classist, we hate the poor and the ugly and the infirmed, the retarded and the ignorant. We love our Blackberries and our iPhones and ourselves. Yet, we’re always happy to look down our noses at other societies and cultures and give them the finger (or the V-sign, sorry). Iran will figure their way to enlightenment. I just hope that, when they get there, they’re more enlightened than we are.
sebastian
Jun 17, 2009
Your analogy made me giggle, but it’s accurate! That’s the basis for my theory, which I’ve been formulating for a few years.
It’s quite hard to put it into words without being very patronising though, which is the bit I’m busy working on. I think there’s ties into monotheistic attitude of the region, but before I say that, I have to be damn sure.
sebastian
Jun 17, 2009
It’s a completely different kettle of fish, Apron. It’s also with much lesser intensity that we’re unjust, in the West.
Remember, being homosexual in any of the developing Islamic or Catholic nations (like the Philipines, for example) can result in being jailed, or killed.
Slavery still exists in parts of the world (though perhaps under a different name), or child militias in Africa.
Sure, we have a long way to go in the West, but the amount of human rights we have earnt thus far is not negligible.
When the developing world finally catches up, I assure you they won’t leap from 100% intolerant to 100% tolerance.
AGD
Jun 18, 2009
This sort of developmental account of history is, or has been, pretty popular. What you want to say is probably pretty similar to Fukuyama’s “The End of History,” though I doubt you’d be quite so keen to push the ‘best of all possible times’ stuff he comes up with regarding our current arrangements. How do you suppose a conversation might go between ourselves and an honest supporter of some earlier or less ‘advanced’ arrangement, if we wanted to convince the we’d found a better way, not merely a different one?
As for the rights themselves, well, that’s another problem; how do we know what does or does not count as a right which we gain by the mere fact of our birth, assuming birth can grant any rights at all?