For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
END OF THE "RIGHTS OF MAN."
Term Paper ID:30662
Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Discusses how the inalienable human rights were destroyed.... More...
5 Pages / 1125 Words
1 sources, 8 Citations,
MLA Format
$20.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Discusses how the inalienable human rights were destroyed. Hannah Arendt's views on the topic. Her concept of "rightlessness" that occurred in the mid-20th Century when Jews, marginal and stateless people were lumped in one group and deprived of their right to belong to a community. The loss of a polity and human dignity.
Paper Introduction:
THE END OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN
Hannah Arendt is most famous for a comment she made when covering the trial of Adolf Eichman, a Nazi war criminal. She said he represented “the banality of evil”. Evil, in her lifetime was hardly quite that easy to explain. Maybe that is one reason she is so pessimistic about Man in general and the rights he either deserves or earns. After all, there surely was not a more hideous example of Man’s inhumanity to Man than what happened to million of Jews in Europe- who were deported and most killed for no reason other than that they were Jews. The Nazis gave it a fancy name: “Racial cleansing”. Of course, there are still those who believe it never happened, or never happened to that great extent, or was no worse than what the Boers did in South Africa, the Japanese did in China, or what the conquistadors did
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
It wasnot banal. What it seems the Rights of Man, as well as the French and AmericanRevolutions granted was the right to belong to a community. It happened, as was mentioned earlier, not only inNazi Germany and occupied Europe. Evil, in her lifetime was hardly quite that easy toexplain. However,it is the opportunity to succeed at something that cannot be taken away,either politically, legally or morally. It was man deciding to eliminate from theirneighborhoods and nations and sphere of influence all those who somehow didnot fit in. So much for the idea of the Statue of Liberty:"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathefree." If Eichman was the banality of evil after the War, then surely thissingle refusal to allow Jews to land in America could be considered thebanality of American freedom of opportunity.It is this turning one's back on helplessness that undoubtedly createdArendt's words: "The fundamental deprivation of human rights is manifestedfirst and above all in the deprivation of a place in the world which makesopinions significant and actions effective" (p. But, to some throughout the world, it is just another piece ofpaper. 296). Human dignity is still in the shadows. Even DNA can prove that. In other words, the deprivation of human rightsand dignity for millions in Europe in the Nineteen Thirties and Forties wassuch an "ordinary" act, so unlike, say, the Inquisition, or the Crusades.It was simply a meticulous extermination of the unwanted. Only the loss of a polityitself expels him from humanity" (p 297). It happened in Stalin's gulags and inJapanese relocation camps in the U.S. While this chapter has no definition oftotalitarianism it is obvious that it includes a loss of human dignity (forthose not in power). The Nazis gave it a fancyname: "Racial cleansing". Nietzsche's superman wearing a Swastika, his right arm extended.Moreover, it is this minority that rules which has deprived people they donot consider their racial or religious equals of their human rights."Privileges in some cases, injustices in most, blessings and doom are metedout to them according to accident and without any relation whatsoever towhat they do, did, or may do" (p. 296). "Rightlessness"! THE END OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN Hannah Arendt is most famous for a comment she made when covering thetrial of Adolf Eichman, a Nazi war criminal. If this is not so, would we not turn into thesort of "property" like American Negro slaves who were transported at will,and for a price, without their having any right to say where and how theywanted to live. She said he represented "thebanality of evil". The point is that the"emancipation of Man that Arendt foresaw in the Declaration of the Rightsof Man went down the drain in the middle of the Twentieth Century. Arendt then believes we have come past that somehow, untilthe developments of the Nineteen Thirties and Forties. German Jews, RussianJews, Polish Jews, Slavic Jews, Dutch and Belgian and French Jews, left-wingers whether Socialist or Communist, now had no place to BE, much less aplace to speak and work and care for their families. After all, there surelywas not a more hideous example of Man's inhumanity to Man than whathappened to million of Jews in Europe- who were deported and most killedfor no reason other than that they were Jews. Somewhere, it wouldbe right to assume, the governments had to stop this incursion offoreigners, and give their own citizens the benefit of statehood andcitizenship over that of the others. To digress for a moment on this "rightlessness" subject. Yet, that distinctionwas taken away. In readingabout the events of World War II in the U.S., it was astounding to learnthat several boatloads of Jewish refugees from Germany were NOT permittedto land on American soil. What is left, of course, is the banality ofexclusion, The word "banality", even though not used in this particularchapter, is nevertheless a focal point of her negative approach to Man'smisery at the time this was written. 293. 3 1) This is themost difficult point on which to agree totally with her concept, becauseequality has so many different meanings to us. 296). 297). Work Cited Arendt, H.: "Chapter Nine: The Decline of the Nation-State and the Endof the Rights of Man' from The Origin of Totalitarianism (Class reading:Imperialism) "To be a slave was after all to have adistinctive character, a place in society" (p. It was the adventof a form of anti-social totalitarianism which, of course, Arendt regardedas the fourth type of government. Refugees from all over would come and demand their rights,even though they were not true citizens of that nation. She states that "The Rights of Man, after all, had been defined as'inalienable' because they were supposed to be independent of allgovernments" (p. That is what happened before andduring World War II. If she is determined toprove that all men are created equal, then we all share in building acommunity. And human dignity is what she considers totally lost,and therefore has obliterated Man's progress made when the Declaration ofHuman Rights and the two majestic revolutions occurred to "free" Man fromthe indignities of having to serve some master. So, again, one needs to ask thatburning question: What's left? Even Athenianslaves had that, she says. The UN, of course, has re-instituted its own /Rights of Mandeclaration. Why is this sense of community, of "belonging" so important to Arendt?One reason, as she explains, that "we can produce equality throughorganization, because man can act in and change and build a common world,together with his equals and only with his equals" (p. It was evil. TheNew Order of Not Belonging! On the other hand,she lumps all the marginal and stateless people into one group (or explainsthat it has happened somehow) and individual governments were now opposedto this sort of "Rights" because it would interfere with their nationalsovereignty. And if that sense of belonging was removed, what was left?"Man, it turns out, can lose all so-called Rights of Man without losing hisessential quality as man, his human dignity. Maybe that is one reason she is so pessimistic about Man ingeneral and the rights he either deserves or earns. As a result "The Rights of Man provedto be unenforceable- even in countries whose constitutions were based onthem" (p. Of course, there are still those who believe itnever happened, or never happened to that great extent, or was no worsethan what the Boers did in South Africa, the Japanese did in China, or whatthe conquistadors did to the Aztecs and Incas. Men are not created equal. I remember, however, in George Orwell's Animal Farm, where onepig said "All animals are created equal, only some are more equal thanothers" (Incidentally, this line, substituting Apes for Animals also was inthe original "Planet of the Apes"). This resulted in what she calls "rightlessness" (p. Maybe what we need to consider, keeping the idea of "banality" alive,is that the ordinariness of everyday live ought to include equality ofopportunity. Banality, according to the dictionaryis a sort of ordinariness. 191) It seems only right that one's rights included theright to live and grow in the community of one's choice, or at least, theone in which one was born. The elimination of what some considered "racialimpurity".
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject