Scan barcode
chairmanbernanke's review against another edition
4.0
A good book on the theoretical and practical emergence and development of human rights.
mohidmalik's review against another edition
2.0
The argument - that what we colloquially, legally, and ethically consider to be "human rights" is not a product of historical continuity but more so an accident given the end of all other universal struggles - is half interesting. I did not feel inspired when reading this book and the author didn't effectively convey his own conviction either.
lukescalone's review against another edition
4.0
This is a fascinating monograph. In it, the author argues that "human rights" did not exist until the 1970s. Surely there was the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 and discourse about "rights" ("natural" rights during the Enlightenment, but the "natural" was later dropped), but, in Moyn's conception, these are not "Human Rights." Instead, "human rights" did not emerge until the 1970s, and it emerged as a result of lost promises from socialism, social democracy, liberalism, anticolonial nationalism, and so on. To Moyn, the distinction that separates calls for rights or "humanitarianism" and "human rights" is that protection of human rights is a program that requires a people to transcend the state for support. Historically, rights have been protected by states (the Bill of Rights in the US constitution is one example of this), whereas human rights are to be safeguarded by the international community.
Moyn is well aware that there was a declaration of Human Rights by the UN in 1948 in response to the Holocaust, but Moyn argues that this fell on deaf ears. Moyn also discusses the relationship between "human rights" and national liberation (take Ho Chi Minh's invocation of the American Declaration of Independence, for example), but he finds that these are not human rights because decolonization was not about individuals but about national communities.
Now, I must say that I don't entirely agree with the author's argument. For example, appeals were made to the Great Powers on behalf of Ottoman subjects in the nineteenth century (see: [b:Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914: The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|12954008|Against Massacre Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914 The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|Davide Rodogno|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347518133s/12954008.jpg|18111036]). Because the British and French intervened, transcending the power of the Ottoman state, should Britain and France be considered states that safeguarded human rights? Frankly, I'm not sure. In any case, there's a lot of good material here and it's worth mulling it over.
Moyn is well aware that there was a declaration of Human Rights by the UN in 1948 in response to the Holocaust, but Moyn argues that this fell on deaf ears. Moyn also discusses the relationship between "human rights" and national liberation (take Ho Chi Minh's invocation of the American Declaration of Independence, for example), but he finds that these are not human rights because decolonization was not about individuals but about national communities.
Now, I must say that I don't entirely agree with the author's argument. For example, appeals were made to the Great Powers on behalf of Ottoman subjects in the nineteenth century (see: [b:Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914: The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|12954008|Against Massacre Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914 The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|Davide Rodogno|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347518133s/12954008.jpg|18111036]). Because the British and French intervened, transcending the power of the Ottoman state, should Britain and France be considered states that safeguarded human rights? Frankly, I'm not sure. In any case, there's a lot of good material here and it's worth mulling it over.
tesslaah's review
informative
slow-paced
3.0
Moyn believes that human rights as society understands it today does not truly come to form until the 1970s because it is only at this point that society realizes the failures of self-determination. The vagueness of a cohesive definition of "human rights" gave it the freedom to be anything society wanted in that moment for any agenda. Many of the ideas and events are the precursors and are ultimately refined to mean human rights post 1970’s but they are not to be confused as the same. Because of this, Moyn argues how many common views of the history of human rights only build to true human rights history. Moyn also argues that in order for there to be human rights, all other utopias had to fail first, including the utopia of self-determination.
I easily understood Moyn’s argument for why anything before the 1970s was not actually human rights, but Moyn's reasoning for why it starts when he says proved to be weak. His prior reasoning for what human rights history was not, disproved all of his reasoning for what he claimed it was. If anything, he proved more so that human rights history either doesn't exist or is ever-changing, but not that it started sometime after the 1970's. However, this book is an essential read in understanding different thoughts around the history of human rights-even if I find it very problematic to say that the anticolonial fight was not directly human rights. Moyn did articulate well his argument about the language around human rights & why he believes certain historical events were not necessarily about human rights, but the final argument for what he believes human rights actually began fell off.
I easily understood Moyn’s argument for why anything before the 1970s was not actually human rights, but Moyn's reasoning for why it starts when he says proved to be weak. His prior reasoning for what human rights history was not, disproved all of his reasoning for what he claimed it was. If anything, he proved more so that human rights history either doesn't exist or is ever-changing, but not that it started sometime after the 1970's. However, this book is an essential read in understanding different thoughts around the history of human rights-even if I find it very problematic to say that the anticolonial fight was not directly human rights. Moyn did articulate well his argument about the language around human rights & why he believes certain historical events were not necessarily about human rights, but the final argument for what he believes human rights actually began fell off.
ekul's review
4.0
This is a fascinating monograph. In it, the author argues that "human rights" did not exist until the 1970s. Surely there was the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 and discourse about "rights" ("natural" rights during the Enlightenment, but the "natural" was later dropped), but, in Moyn's conception, these are not "Human Rights." Instead, "human rights" did not emerge until the 1970s, and it emerged as a result of lost promises from socialism, social democracy, liberalism, anticolonial nationalism, and so on. To Moyn, the distinction that separates calls for rights or "humanitarianism" and "human rights" is that protection of human rights is a program that requires a people to transcend the state for support. Historically, rights have been protected by states (the Bill of Rights in the US constitution is one example of this), whereas human rights are to be safeguarded by the international community.
Moyn is well aware that there was a declaration of Human Rights by the UN in 1948 in response to the Holocaust, but Moyn argues that this fell on deaf ears. Moyn also discusses the relationship between "human rights" and national liberation (take Ho Chi Minh's invocation of the American Declaration of Independence, for example), but he finds that these are not human rights because decolonization was not about individuals but about national communities.
Now, I must say that I don't entirely agree with the author's argument. For example, appeals were made to the Great Powers on behalf of Ottoman subjects in the nineteenth century (see: [b:Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914: The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|12954008|Against Massacre Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914 The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|Davide Rodogno|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347518133s/12954008.jpg|18111036]). Because the British and French intervened, transcending the power of the Ottoman state, should Britain and France be considered states that safeguarded human rights? Frankly, I'm not sure. In any case, there's a lot of good material here and it's worth mulling it over.
Moyn is well aware that there was a declaration of Human Rights by the UN in 1948 in response to the Holocaust, but Moyn argues that this fell on deaf ears. Moyn also discusses the relationship between "human rights" and national liberation (take Ho Chi Minh's invocation of the American Declaration of Independence, for example), but he finds that these are not human rights because decolonization was not about individuals but about national communities.
Now, I must say that I don't entirely agree with the author's argument. For example, appeals were made to the Great Powers on behalf of Ottoman subjects in the nineteenth century (see: [b:Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914: The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|12954008|Against Massacre Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914 The Emergence of a European Concept and International Practice|Davide Rodogno|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347518133s/12954008.jpg|18111036]). Because the British and French intervened, transcending the power of the Ottoman state, should Britain and France be considered states that safeguarded human rights? Frankly, I'm not sure. In any case, there's a lot of good material here and it's worth mulling it over.