Download PDFIntroduction
In the midst of a global pandemic that effectively shut down the entire world, the continued discriminatory treatment of African Americans and the entire BIPOC community in the United States ignited an unprecedented international public response. People all over the world were aghast as they watched the asphyxiation and murder of George Floyd by a police officer on their screens. Officers are meant to be protectors and enforcers of the law, and the world felt starkly disappointed by a clear rejection of such pledges. The term “protector” has become associated with feelings of control and oppression, when instead it should stimulate feelings of safety and support. Prompting a reignition of the Black Lives Matter movement that began in 2013, protests around the world were held for weeks on end to call attention to serious systemic problems concerning the treatment of minority individuals not only in the United States, but everywhere. While the demands of the protestors seem obvious and humane to some, they continue to enrage and befuddle others, who see no apparent issue with unbalanced social treatments. The current 2020 political climate encourages closer scrutiny on matters of human rights and what actions should be taken in the event of infringement of those rights. In terms of the treatment of people of color and other minorities in the United States, should the United States be considered in violation of human rights? If so, why isn’t anything being done? What, if anything, should be done, and who should enforce it? This essay seeks to uncover some of the reasons these questions are so difficult to answer.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), decreed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948, was created in response to the atrocities committed during World War II and designed to prevent future injustices and crimes against humanity. This same document is the standard by which rights are thought to be protected today. The apparent need for a documented definition of “human rights” prompted the creation of the UDHR, which consists of 30 articles that have since become integrated into countless international and national laws and constitutions. The UDHR proclaims that its outlined universal standards and behaviors will be protected and upheld by national and international administrations for the benefit of all who fall under it, theoretically, all human beings.
Per its current rhetoric, still unrevised in over 70 years, I believe the UDHR perpetuates a standard of unfair and biased laws that cater to the agenda of ruling elites while putting the majority population at a disadvantage that is unlikely to be challenged, let alone amended. Subjective language used throughout the document has furthered an unbalanced allotment of rights by normalizing hierarchical word usage that privileges Western power. It is important to recognize the document’s biased agenda through a rhetorical understanding of how language in the UDHR is representative of the politics it aims to promote, and what can be done to amend it. The overidealized decree has simply provided guidelines for behavior rather than providing a set of standardized, binding laws. It fails to recognize cultural differences that conflict with the Eurocentric nature of the written rights. Principles are written to appear logical so that they rhetorically appeal to widespread, or universal, audiences, but fail to accept that divergent perspectives do not all follow a singular logic. Today, the UDHR is not universally acknowledged, accepted, or enforced and there is continuing debate on how modifications need to be made in its construction and implementation.
In the first half of this essay, following the historical context of the document, I examine some of the ways the rhetoric of the UDHR is essentially flawed and requires scrutiny. Insufficiencies include issues with the genre of the document, imbalanced and biased selection of whose rights are truly protected under the document, how the rhetoric fails to meet the needs of a universal audience, and how a singular ideology perpetuates a hierarchal, elitist, and discriminatory set of laws. Following the analysis is a series of suggested possible corrections to the language of the UDHR, and how things might be altered in light of alternate perspectives. Before concluding, a brief discussion of the nondiscursive elements of the recently created illustrated accompaniment to the UDHR reveals further insights on the ideologies of the document. Many of the examples used in this essay describe US situations and references because, as an American student who grew up in the United States, these are examples I can speak on with the most confidence. Although this essay seeks to uncover ways the UDHR privileges Western ideologies over non-Western ideals, I believe the American examples of non-adherence to the values in the UDHR further demonstrate how it has become unreasonable to highly value its rhetoric if it cannot even serve the groups it seems to favor. How is it then supposed to protect anyone at all?