Thoughts, Flashbacks, Reflexions

last301Hello all,

It is once again time for the weekly post Re: human rights discourse, this being the last one of the series. The term is almost over, so this will be the last official post for class. Sorry i have been so quiet over the last few days, but here you have me, "blogging" you again.



Last class we saw that history is cyclical (or at least that's what I got from it) and that the issue of human rights in its integrity is a struggle of the oppressed over the oppressors. Rights have been violated and will continue to be violated as a result of power struggles between people. The powerful will always want to be on top, they will want to keep their position of power over the "other".

So what use are rights then? Upon reflexion, one could say that rights have the purpose of achieving and maintaining a certain order in "civil society". The purpose of transforming the "uncivilized" discourse into a "civilized" discourse. The purpose of establishing a "rule of law"... But what if that "rule of law" is being constantly overwhelmed by an inherent "rule of the jungle" instead? Even though the theoretical basis for the Rule of Law has been set and written about by philosophers through history, constant human and civil rights violation leads me to think that the "rule of the jungle" will prevail over the "rule of law" whenever it is so justified by the people in power for maintaining the status-quo.

More questions thrown in the air: What is "civil" about society anyways, if human interaction is nothing more than a bunch of animals fighting each other for power over the other? (In other words, a very raw political discourse!)

I wish I could see a happier picture, but I don't... What is "human" anyways? I don't see any "humanity" in human interaction. History is filled with blood and death and wars... Mankind is nothing more than an animal, an instinctively driven creature that ultimately will resort to torture and oppression to fulfill an agenda or preserve the things the way they like it. Humans will and can override the "rule of law" if the situation merits it. It has happened in the past... Why would there be any reason for it to stop happening if humans will continue to be humans? Call it "civilized" discourse over issues in a courtroom, or frontal head to head war, the essence of the problem is the same: Humans disagree on different issues and there will always be fights and disagreements over these issues. He who has the means to do so will oppress he who does not have them... Call me a determinist or a fatalist or whatever you might want to, but that is something that is coming up in my head more and more often these days.

I want to thank everybody in this class for reading, commenting, arguing and feeding my blog. I have certainly learned a whole lot from this experience and I am grateful for this opportunity.

As for this space, It will remain open indefinitely. I will continue posting and sharing thoughts here. I will be going to Colombia and Mexico soon, the nomadic enterprise continues and so the posts here will start to reflect a whole new direction as I start heading south. So if you feel like it, drop by every once in a while and drop a line, share your thoughts.

Thank you all, it was a great term!
Hasta pronto muchach@s! Muchas gracias por leer!

Andres