Human rights are universal and applicable to everyone no matter their cultural distinctions. The concept of human rights has been cultivated and molded for centuries. Various cultures such as Greece, Britain, and Rome have in their history all had a form of human rights within their ideologies and laws. It was not until World War II that international human rights were determined as law. Traditional legal theory focuses are reason and rationale based. Law is viewed as “application of formulated rules to established facts yielding decisions (Morris, 1958, pg. 148).” Sociologist Catherine Lane West-Newman (2005) in Feeling for Justice? Rights, Laws, and Cultural Context explores the absence of emotions and feelings within our current legal …show more content…
Formal philosophies of the law do not consider the various cultures and customs of different regions so therefore their approaches to conflict resolution are not reflected. An example of this is the Kpelle of Liberia, their conflict is managed through a moot. The Kpelle moot is the informal way of disputing a conflict. Cultural anthropologist James L. Gibbs Jr. followed the Kpelle people and observed the moot …show more content…
Those who practice are not ousted within the community but are deviants. The moot which McPherson discusses the sorcery committed against a woman, Jean. She accuses three men of possible committing the sorcery against her. As the men “break the talk,” these three men all plead their case in the moot proceeding held outside of the “men’s house.” Similar to the Kpelle moot, the moot allows for the accused to explore and air their feelings of the situation and also their accuser. In the particular moot described by McPherson the accused were all men and they explored the life an action of Jean, the victim. The Kabana and Kpelle style of moots are very different but still similar in their encouragement of the discussion of the feelings of those involved in the conflict. Sorcery a social sanction requires a person to be held at fault not only by the accused but also by society. The lack of accountability in case of sorcery against Jane left an ambiguity within the community. There was a deep feeling of animosity in the underlying of the community. Newman (Newman, 319) describes resentment as “an emotional apprehension that others are receiving undeserved advantage… this will be felt most strongly when it involves personal loss.” After the death of Jane from sorcery, her kin were hesitant to discuss her death for fear of “attacks and counterattacks of sorcery.” The harmony that the Kpelle moot brought was not
Karlsen highlights with an remarkable accuracy, the prejudices connected with areas of the particular portrayal of women along with the linkage of the "lady as-witch" idea inside United states tradition. Many contemporary individuals ended up being perplexed by such hasty action against a force that has no evidence. Karlsen brings a plethora of ideas to the table regarding these prejudices and explains in detail, the injustices performed against entirely innocent individuals.
hysteria brought about by the witchcraft scare in The Crucible leads to the upheaval in people’s differentiation between right and wrong, fogging their sense of true justice.
The term witchcraft is defines as the practice of magic intended to influence nature. It is believed that only people associated with the devil can perform such acts. The Salem Witch Trials was much more than just America’s history, it’s also part of the history of women. The story of witchcraft is first and foremost the story of women. Especially in its western life, Karlsen (1989) noted that “witchcraft challenges us with ideas about women, with fears about women, with the place of women in society and with women themselves”. Witchcraft also confronts us too with violence against women. Even through some men were executed as witches during the witch hunts, the numbers were far less then women. Witches were generally thought to be women and most of those who were accused and executed for being witches were women. Why were women there so many women accused of witchcraft compared to men? Were woman accused of witchcraft because men thought it was a way to control these women? It all happened in 1692, in an era where women were expected to behave a certain way, and women were punished if they threatened what was considered the right way of life. The emphasis of this paper is the explanation of Salem proceedings in view of the role and the position of women in Colonial America.
The notorious witch trials of Salem, Massachusetts occurred from June through September. It is a brief, but turbulent period in history and the causes of the trials have long been a source of discussion among historians. Many try to explain or rationalize the bizarre happenings of the witch hunts and the causes that contributed to them. To understand the trials and how they came to be, we must first examine the ideals and views of the people surrounding the events. Although religious beliefs were the most influential factor, socioeconomic tensions, and ergot poisoning are also strongly supported theories. A combination of motives seems the most rational explanation of the frenzy that followed the illness of the two girls. This paper looks closely at the some of the possible causes of one of the most notable occurrences in history.
Mahoney, Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 12 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 5( 1998)
In this essay I will discuss the role of gender in witchcraft and why the majority of people executed as witches were women. There have been various explanations by different historians for why the majority of witches accused were women. One of the first models concerning Witchcraft and gender to be produced was the ‘Witch-cult‘ idea. This theory was devised by Margaret Murray in the early 20th century and revolved around the idea of Witchcraft being an actual pre-Christian religion. This pagan woman-based religion centred around ‘The Horned God’ who from the Christian point of view was Satan.
The book begins with a brief history of the colonial witchcraft. Each Chapter is structured with an orientation, presentation of evidence, and her conclusion. A good example of her structure is in chapter two on the demographics of witchcraft; here she summarizes the importance of age and marital status in witchcraft accusations. Following this she provides a good transition into chapter three in the final sentence of chapter two, “A closer look of the material conditions and behavior of acc...
The books thesis is based on why a person was accused of being a witch and the relative circumstances thereof. Marital status, sex, community standing, wealth, and relationships with others all play an important part of a person chances of being accused of being a witch. Karlsen’s words make for a richly detailed portrait of the women who were prosecuted as witches. The witch hunting hysteria seized New England in the late seventeenth century. Why were those and other women likely witches? Why were certain people vulnerable to accusations of witchcraft and possession? These are the questions answered in this book.
The evidence of witchcraft and related works has been around for many centuries. Gradually, though, a mixture a religious, economical, and political reasons instigated different periods of fear and uncertainty among society. Witchcraft was thought of as a connection to the devil that made the victim do evil and strange deeds. (Sutter par. 1) In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and twentieth century, the hysteria over certain causes resulted in prosecution in the Salem Witch Trials, European Witchcraft Craze, and the McCarthy hearings. These three events all used uncertain and unjustly accusations to attack the accused.
The philosophy of rights has been a perennial subject of discussion not only because it is embedded in the intellectual tradition and political practices of many countries but also because it exhibits deep divisions of opinion on fundamental matters. Even a cursory survey of the literature on rights since, say, the time of the Second World War would turn up a number of perplexing questions to which widely divergent answers have been given: What are rights? Are rights morally fundamental? Are there any natural rights? Do human rights exist? Are all the things listed in the UN's Universal Declaration (of 1948) truly rights? What are moral rights? Legal rights? Are basic moral rights compatible with utilitarianism? How are rights to be justified? What is the value of rights? Can infants have rights, can fetuses have them, or future generations, or animals? And so on.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,