Quick– read the following paragraph and tell me what you think:
The women legally arrived…in 2002; (their employers) then confiscated their passports and refused to let them leave their home, authorities said.
Domestic slavery? Nightmarish abuse of Sri Lankan maids, at the hands of Arab employers? That’s what I thought. I was only half right (Thanks, KXB).
Two Indonesian women were subjected to beatings and other abuse and forced by a couple to work in their home in a swank Long Island neighborhood without pay for several years, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
Authorities said they uncovered the abuse after one of the women was found by police wandering outside a doughnut shop on Sunday morning, wearing only pants and a towel…[IHT]
Apparently, employees at the store thought the woman was homeless, until she started slapping herself and trying to utter the word “master”.
Varsha Mahender Sabhnani, 35, and her husband Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani, 51, both from India, entered not guilty pleas at their arraignment in U.S. District Court and were ordered held pending a Thursday bail hearing. Their attorney did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. [IHT]
The women were only allowed outside of the house if they were taking out the garbage; when anyone visited, they were stashed in a 3×3′ closet. That’s pleasant compared to this:
The women were subjected to beatings, scalding water thrown on them, and forced to climb up and down stairs as punishment for misdeeds, prosecutors said. In one case, they said, one of the women was forced to eat 25 hot chili peppers at one time.
One of the women also told authorities she was cut behind her ears with a small pocket knife and both were forced to sleep on mats in the kitchen. They were fed so little, they claimed, that they were forced to steal food and hide it from their “captors.”[IHT]
It’s just so depressing. What quirk of destiny relegates one South Asian woman to endure the beatings of her Arab mistress while halfway around the world, her desi– albeit privileged– counterpart metes out similar viciousness to another brown human being? Sri Lankan and Fillipino maids get abused in the middle east, the Indonesian survivors from this cringe-inducing story were enslaved by people our parents might associate with, right here in the U.S and desperate, option-less women everywhere are exploited by those who should know better but don’t care. For shame.
PS, I think this is the thread you meant to post on. So I’ll take the liberty of answering here. Yes, in fact Malcolm X was one of the first to bring this issue to the UN after his meeting with African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia, etc.. It was he that felt the black communities problems were part of a larger human rights violation, but that had to do with reconnection with estranged homelands, and Pan-Africanism in general.
There’s no parallel with child labor here, the rest of the world simply does not give a #$@(. Believe me, one look at Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay will show that the US really has little interest in preventing child labor internationally (or nationally, when they can get away with it). Have you heard of a place called Saipan?
This international posturing and condemnation really doesn’t do much unless it’s accompanied with substantive action. As for WWII, you can also make the argument that the gov. made whatever to the African American community in order to prevent them from finding reasons not to enlist, as Pearl Harbor expedited America’s role in the Pacific theater, and not out of succumbing to international pressure.
That reveals your cynicism; assuming the worst motives in people. Perhaps you are projecting your own compassionlessness onto others? In any case if such “condemnation out of political convenience” results in the correcting of wrongs, why would anyone whose primary concern is alleviation of injustice and suffering complain about it or reject it out of hand? For example, you can impute whatever motivations you please onto the British but you cannot in good conscience deny that their banning of widow-burning, human sacrifice etc were good for India. Similarly, there is no denying that child slavery and untouchability are inexcusable violations of human rights, and that neither the indian government nor the indian culture have shown the will to end these abominations; so if it takes “politically motivated” american and european moral pressure to get indians to clean house, why is that such a bad thing?
Whats funny here is that you actually think that you are making a clever point since you keep repeating it. When I pointed out your naivety, ignorance and dishonesty I showed why that was so. You OTOH are just being frivolous and dishonest.
202
there is no denying that child slavery and untouchability are inexcusable violations of human rights, and that neither the indian government nor the indian culture have shown the will to end these abominations;
194
India alone may have half a million children in its brothels, more than any other country in the world.
192
India already has laws in place; but it does not have the will to enforce them.
179
India needs to be relentlessly shamed and sanctioned by the international community till it starts enforcing the laws against child labor, untouchability etc.
161
Its very obvious that India is filled with people who think like you, which is why such abominations are tolerated by the government and the culture.
tadaa.
Sorry! I posted my comment on the wrong thread – So this is my 2 cents —-
There’s a lot of different angles to this story going on. But I just have to support one angle before I get back to my work —-
International pressure had a lot to do with the US passing its civil rights laws – many black activists appealed to the international community to see America’s hypocrisy in its Jim Crow domestic laws as compared with the International Human Rights.
Some commentators seem to think that this takes away from American civil rights activists – why would this be the case?! Instead it shows that the activists, just like those of today, are smart enough to use the international stage to propel US laws to meet their potential. It is a very important strategy that works in an increasingly globalized world.
World War II had a lot to do with American civil rights activists voice getting louder and more influential. As many American civil rights leaders pointed out to the world —- how/why can Americans fight and die for human rights in other countries, when Americans do not respect human and civil rights for their own citizens?
I’m reading John Hope Franklin’s biography – as an eminent historian, who was invited often overseas for talks and conferences, he used this international platform to speak about America’s problem with racism and he often states that this international platform could help in ending racism at home.
HMF – a couple of points to you:
Yes, in fact Malcolm X was one of the first to bring this issue to the UN after his meeting with African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia, etc.. It was he that felt the black communities problems were part of a larger human rights violation, but that had to do with reconnection with estranged homelands, and Pan-Africanism in general
I guess what you wrote was meaning to support my contention that the international community and the US’s role in the international community, played an important role in the US’s own passage of civil rights. I don’t know if Malcolm X was the first, but whatever.
There’s no parallel with child labor here, the rest of the world simply does not give a #$@(.
Well, this wasn’t what my comment was about- but I do think that in an globalized community, international pressure can and sometimes does influence nation’s human rights enforcement for the better – so yes, the issue of child labor, – it does help (however slow) when govts that practice child labor are reminded that violates international human rights. Yeah, so Jackoff had support from companies that use child labor — what does that have to do with what I said?
Now, I remember sparring with you about your generalization of the South (in the US) and how you felt it was allright to generalize about the South as a geographic zone – generalize the South as intolerant, racist, etc.
Why then do you spar with Prema about her generalizations about India (not the religions in India) but India, as a geographic zone – looking at its record on human rights?
This international posturing and condemnation really doesn’t do much unless it’s accompanied with substantive action.
Yeah, well…I never said that international pressure not coupled with anything else can do the trick…I said it was and is influential. And WWII – I didn’t even understand your comment/argument about that issue….My thoughts are- there’s a confluence of many factors that helped pass such laws like the Civil Rights Act and VRA of the 1960s, including the fact that America was fighting a war to end fascism, the Nuremburg trials with put a mirror in America’s own record of human and civil rights, the list goes on.
He certainly was one of the first to bring it to the UN.
I assumed your comment was in support of Prema’s assertion that “and America changed in the 1960s in part because it was facing foreign condemnation for its legalized discrimination against minorities.” is somehow evidence that foreign condemnation will occur and will be effective against whatever incredulities occur in India, in the form of child labor – when in fact, the powers that be are indeed probably very happy their products can be sold for cheaper prices.. and would only offer any resistence on their terms, their schedule, and their convenience.
As for being called cynical by prema, that’s somewhat like being called “a little nutty”, by Michael Jackson.
A mirror that was held up by the oppressed minority, almost exclusively. The same way Frederick Douglas said “The white slave owner was forced to face his assertion that only pure white blood was superior, when confronted with his children reared by the slave women he lay in bed with”
My point is, the US saying to the Soviet Union “You treat your people badly, look at the Gulag” and the Soviet response of “Well you treat your people badly, look at Jim Crow” does virtually nothing to help the oppressed peoples. of either variety, if that was ever the intention in the first place.
I’m not offering any stance on those statements either way, it’s her historical imbalance, by saying the civil rights movement was in any significant way (if it was an insignificant contribution, why mention it at all?) egged on by international pressure, in particular from Soviet Communists, that it was born out of some compassion for Black America, and [even if true] somehow that’s evidence it would be effective in the domain of child labor.
As for my allegations against the South, that discussion panned out on another thread, I’d suggest digging it up and reopening it, if you feel it necessary.
is somehow evidence that foreign condemnation will occur and will be effective against whatever incredulities occur in India, in the form of child labor – when in fact, the powers that be are indeed probably very happy their products can be sold for cheaper prices
Yeah, I can understand the frustration, but from what I understand of the US’s own civil rights record, or South Africa’s eventual abolition of apartheid, or even India’s drafting of its constitution – the international human rights structure does help. I know it often has to fight a battle with capitalism but I can’t imagine what the US would be, if it didn’t have to face an international stage with its record of civil rights, when it was trying to lead the world in human rights.
My point is, the US saying to the Soviet Union “You treat your people badly, look at the Gulag” and the Soviet response of “Well you treat your people badly, look at Jim Crow” does virtually nothing to help the oppressed peoples. of either variety, if that was ever the intention in the first place
My point is international pressure and interanational human rights treaties do help and can help ending human rights abuses– I can’t imagine what the world would be like without them. I know there are so many instances in this world, in the US,in India, where everything is ignored, profits trump human rights – in my own life I can see these things on products I use….But I feel sure, that for all its failures, having international treaties helps put the pressure on everyone and can make a difference in improving human rights. And I’m not saying international pressure is the ONLY thing that helps reduce human rights abuses.
it’s her historical imbalance, by saying the civil rights movement was in any significant way (if it was an insignificant contribution, why mention it at all?) egged on by international pressure, in particular from Soviet Communists, that it was born out of some compassion for Black America
I agree with Prema that international pressure significantly helped with the US reevaluating its own laws. I forget what Prema said about the Soviets, but the cold war, was helped significantly as well, as a leverage for American civil rights activists to say, “America you preach about no freedom in the communist block, but America you do not provide freedom to the majority of your citizens (minorities and women).
As for my allegations against the South, that discussion panned out on another thread, I’d suggest digging it up and reopening it, if you feel it necessary.
I don’t need to go back and read it b/c I remember what you said and I strongly disagree with what you said. I brought it up, in the hope, that you remembered what you said and what you are saying now seems contradictory to your previous arguments. It seemed from this statement, If it’s partial then your comparison with India’s holds little water, because India with all it’s inherent maliciousness and imcompassion would need much more, correct? – your sarcasm was directed at Prema’s own condemnation of India, which was based on generalizations.
I agree with Prema that international pressure significantly helped with the US reevaluating its own laws.
The effect of international pressure on the US civil rights movement is overstated, IMO. Yes, to some extent, it may have helped, but the US has shown (repeatedly) that it is largely impervious to international pressure with regard to its own policy goals. In fact, if US laws change significantly, it is usually the result of significant internal, political pressure.
It was the rise of the civil rights movement in the South (with Medgar Evers leading the charge way before Dr. King) that produced real pressure to make change. Similarly, the US continued to maintain strong ties with apartheid-era South Africa, in spite of severe international pressure to do otherwise. It was only internal pressure that forced the US government to speak out against apartheid practices in South Africa (not to mention US corporate divestiture from South African owned companies).
I also think that although international treaties are technically “the law of the land” under the Supremacy Clause, they lack the force of US law, and often courts (and politicians) will not give these treaties the weight they deserve. For example, in a recent Texas death penalty case where a Mexican national was sentenced to death without being given his treaty-required consular rights, the US Supreme Court went so far as to say that it cannot base its decisions on pressure from international bodies.
Civil Rights Movement and Soviet Union.
Maybe, Maybe, 1% effect.
Here is the timeline of Civil Rights movement, and how as HMF has said, “gained traction when the silent majority and the US Federal Govt. (somewhat) starting backing it“. Look @ some landmark cases in US Supreme Court, the judges, and attorney’s involved in it, and leaders emerging from Southern African American churches too. The landmark case of 1954 Supreme Court decision is entirely a local issue. Civil Rights and WW II
Again, the only tangible effect was desegregation of the US military afterwards, especially during the Korean War. The desegregation if the US military had some real profound effects but not the Nuremberg trials.
I remember exactly what I said. But I couldn’t tell you if it’s contradictory because I didn’t bother to follow Prema’s arguments for making her claims – because that’s not what I was contesting.
But I will say my statements re: the south, were not all-inclusive or “over generalizing” in the least. As I quoted references of a Southern white man who I find to be spot on with his analysis of the American racial landscape/power differences. Like I said, if it interests you so, dig it up and respond there.
Exactly. This was my original point. The countries that could do something about America’s misgivings didn’t care, and those that did care couldn’t do anything! There’s absolutely no comparison to a country like South Africa that doesn’t have superpower status, and the ability to drive international dialogue towards its own ends.
Thanks Kush for your percentage – but my guess from my understanding of what I’ve read about US civil rights movment is that int’l pressure and the cold war, influenced US own civil rights at %60.
I can’t remember the details of the Brown v/s Board case – I remember having read parts of it, that a large part of the argument from Brown’s side was social science research. I don’t know if US’s international role in the UN was at all directly mentioned – but I think that climate definitely influenced the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Plessy v/s Ferguson – that case happened I think in the early 1900s —- the US was much more isolated in the world – not a world leader – and the ruling was that separate but equal was okay. The reconstruction period — again, the US wasn’t a world leader and the US didn’t have to face condemnation in the world, b/c as far as I know, human rights laws hadn’t gained the leverage and prominence as it did at the end of the Nuremburg trials.
Brown v/s Board was somewhat a reversal of Plessy’s case – and I think that it’s no accident that ruling occurred after WWII and after Nuremburg….there’s many factors that influenced the US transformation to a more equal society and I still believe that international pressure and politics had a significant impact.
Are there any international human rights lawyers out there with a take on the Nuremburg trials and its impact on domestic US agenda? Or any of these legal cases?
I also know that in the organization I work in currently, – we are a national civil rights organization and we are trying more to get into the international human rights field, b/c we recognize that the international treaties can buffer our own stances on different issues – such as the need to grant DC citizens representation in Congress, or the need for fair immigration laws.
Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896, just before the US began to get seriously involved in international policy/politics.
You’re right to say that Brown v. Board I reversed some of the effects of “separate but equal” which the Supreme Court had condoned in Plessy, but much of Brown was based on social research within the United States, and there is no hard evidence to suggest that the Court was motivated primarily by international doctrine on the subject (or even pressured by international bodies). Rather, the Court itself was made up of a number of “progressive” judges who simply felt the time had come to make a change.
Of course, they screwed it up with the “all deliberate speed” language that effectively allowed states to dither and delay for almost 25 years after Brown was decided.
I should add that the “all deliberate speed” language is actually from Brown II, a case that mandated US district courts to issue and enforce school desegregation orders in various states.
Just a cursory look at the wikipedia links you gave Hema, revealed this:
Another work which the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration.
I didn;t know about this guy, or didn’t remember him, but now reading turns out he’s Swedish and UNESCO is part of that whole international human rights regime that started after WWII. Anyways this is just one thing, just from wikipedia, that show how international human rights seemed to make it’s way into US courts.
Anyways this is just one thing, just from wikipedia, that show how international human rights seemed to make it’s way into US courts.
I don’t think that’s particularly conclusive, because Myrdal’s book was one of 7 books cited in note 11 of Brown I, and there is no indication the Court gave it more weight than any of the other works.
Plus, as I indicated earlier, the Court will often cite international human rights treaties and then decide contrary to those treaties because the Court doesn’t see the treaties as accurately reflect the state of US law.
What I’m saying is, it would be very nice indeed if international human rights groups had significant impact on civil rights movements in the US, but in reality, that impact is quite limited. It only becomes relevant when internal pressures and political movements align approximately with international pressure and human rights treaties.
Gunnar Mydral was one of the world foremost economist.
The report you mentioned was written by Gunnar on behest of the Carnegie Foundation (long before 1954 judgement – 10 years), an American entity.
I do not think these reports meant much unless the local people and situations forced change………therefore, local leaders, especially in South get 90% of the credit, 9% Federal politics, vote banks and electoral math, and 1 % USSR, Declarations, et al.
I don’t know what Carnegie was like back the 1950s but it has a very international outlook and it’s mission is influenced by international human rights doctrines. My organization currently gets a lot of money from them.
And I still hold firmly to :i>but my guess from my understanding of what I’ve read about US civil rights movment is that int’l pressure and the cold war, influenced US own civil rights at %60.
What I’m saying is, it would be very nice indeed if international human rights groups had significant impact on civil rights movements in the US, but in reality, that impact is quite limited.
What is quite limited? I say it is not “quite limited” and particularly after WWII and during the height of the Cold War, the US civil rights progressed b/c of international attitudes and commitments. Let me put it this way —- I do not think the Civil Rights law of 1964 would have been passed w/o the new international human rights mileu that came from the killings that ravaged mostly white Europe and white Europeans – the bravery of American civil rights activists went hand-in-hand with the tragedy that the world had to look at after defeating Nazism. I think America’s Civil Rights acts wouldn’t have been passed until much later.
I do not think the Civil Rights law of 1964 would have been passed w/o the new international human rights mileu that came from the killings that ravaged mostly white Europe and white Europeans
I disagree. If anything, cases like Plessy, and the 11 school desegregation cases brought before Brown only show that the civil rights movements had been fermenting in the US for a long time, and WWII and Nuremberg had only a limited impact on the US civil rights movement through the 50s and the 60s. By limited I mean that desegregation, Title VII, the Civil Rights Act, etc. would have happened organically in about the same time frame, regardless of international human rights activities of the time. The greatest impact on the US civil rights movement was the change in US demographics immediately after the Depression, and the advent of the more progressive-minded Baby Boom generation. It had little to do with human rights movements in Europe.
I disagree. If anything, cases like Plessy, and the 11 school desegregation cases brought before Brown only show that the civil rights movements had been fermenting in the US for a long time, and WWII and Nuremberg had only a limited impact on the US civil rights movement through the 50s and the 60s.
Yeah, things might have been fermenting and it would have gone fermenting for a lot longer;
<i>The greatest impact on the US civil rights movement was the change in US demographics immediately after the Depression,
I don’t agree with this at all.
and the advent of the more progressive-minded Baby Boom generation. – were these people born more progressive or something? These progressive ideas corresponded with international HR and went hand-in-hand with the Cold War Vietnam War – and why/how were we fighting for the “end of oppression” in Vietnam; how could we go in front of the UN and decry communism when in our own country we didn’t have equality and freedom?
It had little to do with human rights movements in Europe. – it wasn’t a human rights movement in just Europe – it was worldwide, after a world war was fought and humans had the technology now to destroy the world. One of the reasons the UN was created was to prevent these type of world wars and the role that the US was supposed to play in the UN, with it’s human rights doctrines, helped incite civil rights demands in the US.
were these people born more progressive or something?
No, they had a more economically sound life, and were the motivating force behind many of the “college-based” movements of the 60s (like the VietNam protests, for example). They were also civil rights activists.
I think you give too much weight to the creation of the UN as a body designed to promote international human rights (and conversely, too little weight to the internal pressures that were the real impetus for the civil rights movement). The US saw the UN at its inception as a tool for prevention of war, not as a tool for promoting international human rights. Any human rights implications were incidental at most.
I’ve already said this, but explore all the civil rights Supreme Court cases and you will found at least implicit disdain for the UN, and for international human rights treaties, rather than use of those treaties or principles as support for civil rights decisions or legislation. The US has always been, and remains impervious, to international human rights activism, other than any that is home-grown.
No, they had a more economically sound life, and were the motivating force behind many of the “college-based” movements of the 60s (like the VietNam protests, for example). They were also civil rights activists
I don’t think blacks in the US had a more economically sound life in the US at that time. And if you are talking about white America – white America had pretty sound life in the 1890s and that was the during the height of Jim Crow laws.
but explore all the civil rights Supreme Court cases and you will found at least implicit disdain for the UN, and for international human rights treaties You’ve said this and the one wiki article you pointed out prominently pointed to a Swedish man’s book and an adherent of UNESCO. You said that it’s one book out of so many, but the facts are that Brown’s cases’ ruling was against segregation. Also I can’t help but think that since this book is pointed out specifically in wiki, that this one was influential in the court’s ruling.
I guess if I was going to write a paper on my position, I would do more research that could specifically support my view. I realize I’m not a scholar on this, but just my opinion from my own work and my own studies and reading. There’s probably different research that supports our different stances on this matter.
You’ve said this and the one wiki article you pointed out prominently pointed to a Swedish man’s book and an adherent of UNESCO
I wouldn’t lean too heavily on this. The book was commissioned by an American organization, and was merely one of many sources cited (in a footnote, and not relied on) by the US Supreme Court in Brown. In fact, the Myrdal was cited as “see also”…the very last book cited by the Court, almost in passing.
The Court itself never makes any mention of international human rights, or any sort of international pressure to end school segregation. The only thing that is clear from Brown is that all the justices agreed that it was time to end segregation. This was a reflection of the average national mood at the time and really had very little to do with the UN or international human rights.
I don’t think blacks in the US had a more economically sound life in the US at that time.
Do you really believe that only American blacks were involved in the Civil Rights movement? The movement also involved significant numbers of white people, many of whom were neither segregationists nor from the Jim Crow-dominated South. Their contributions should not be belittled just because they were white.
Brown is not the only US civil rights case either. I direct you to more recent cases like Medellin v. Dretke, (a death penalty case) where the Court expresses doubt as to whether an International Court of Justice decision applies to the US, even though the US is a member of the ICJ, and a treaty signatory. Or Roper v. Simmons, (an 8th Amendment case) where Justice Scalia expresses such contempt for international law, and seriously casts doubt on whether international law should ever be taken into account in deciding US cases.
I don’t see a lot of respect for international human rights treaties from the US Supreme Court.
PS,
The bedrock principle for your stance rests on the US being in some way (other than morally) answerable to the world for its actions, and I don’t see how this case is established? I understand the hypocritical position the US takes by stating it is the “leader of the free world” and how it’s exploitable by Soviet aggressors. but it comes back to “sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me”
I’d say it was more so the internal hypocrisies that forced changes. from Jesse Owens being an olympic hero abroad, then coming back and becoming a circus act to black WWII veterans coming back to be lynched. The US silent majority had to face itself, and acknowledge the tremendous contribution African Americans had made, particularly in combat, as they fought in large numbers in every major conflict since the civil war. The idea they were inferior subhuman beings was constantly eroding, and the white power structure didn’ t want to admit it. I believe those contradictions coupled with tremendous bravery and fortitude of the civil rights leaders were the primary driving forces.
The combination of ignorance, irrationality and pretentiousness seen here: in HMF, tandon, hema, rahul, kv, eight dollars etc, is something remarkable:
Read and weep:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_10-25-04.html
“As Michael Klarman observed in his monumental work FROM JIM CROW TO CIVIL RIGHTS, published this year: “In the ideological contest with communism, U.S. democracy was on trial, and southern white supremacy was its greatest vulnerability, made all the more conspicuous by the postwar overthrow of colonial regimes throughout the world.” President Truman’s civil rights committee cautioned: “[T]he United States is not so strong, the final triumph of the democratic ideal is not so inevitable, that we can ignore what the rest of the world thinks of our record.“
In an amicus brief for the United States filed in Brown, the Attorney General urged:
“The existence of discrimination against minority groups in the United States has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries. Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.”
The brief included a letter from Secretary of State Dean Acheson on the adverse effects of race discrimination upon the conduct of U. S. foreign relations. Acheson wrote:
The United States is under constant attack in the foreign press, over the foreign radio, and in such international bodies as the United Nations because of various practices of discrimination against minority groups in this country. . . . Soviet spokesmen regularly exploit the situation in propaganda against the United States. . . .
[T]he continuance of racial discrimination in the United States remains a source of constant embarrassment to this Government in the day-to-day conduct of its foreign relations; and it jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.
Within an hour of the Chief Justice’s announcement of the Court’s unanimous conclusion that, “[i]n the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place,” the Voice of America broadcast the news, in 34 languages, around the globe. The U.S. Information Agency promptly placed articles on Brown in almost every African journal. Time magazine commented: “In many countries, where U.S. prestige and leadership have been damaged by the fact of U.S. segregation, it will come as a timely reassertion of the basic American principle that ‘all men are created equal.’ “
Newsweek magazine observed: “[S]egregation in the public schools has become a symbol of inequality . . . . It has also been a weapon of world Communism. Now that symbol lies shattered.“
The combination of ignorance, irrationality and pretentiousness seen here: in HMF, tandon, hema, rahul, kv, eight dollars etc, is something remarkable:
Point to me one place in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. Board, where the Court either cites international human rights or bases its decision on something other than its reading of the 14th Amendment. Without an express assertion from the Court, there is no way to know if in fact Brown was motivated by prevailing trends in the US (including a fear of communism), or by forces outside the US.
After that, we’ll discuss the meaning of the word “ignorance” and your inability to comment without expressing contempt for your fellow commenters.
http://mdudziak.com/cwcr.aspx
“In 1958, an African-American handyman named Jimmy Wilson was sentenced to die in Alabama for stealing two dollars. Shocking as this sentence was, it was overturned only after intense international attention and the interference of an embarrassed John Foster Dulles. Soon after the United States’ segregated military defeated a racist regime in World War II, American racism was a major concern of U.S. allies, a chief Soviet propaganda theme, and an obstacle to American Cold War goals throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Each lynching harmed foreign relations, and “the Negro problem” became a central issue in every administration from Truman to Johnson.
In what may be the best analysis of how international relations affected any domestic issue, Mary Dudziak interprets postwar civil rights as a Cold War feature. She argues that the Cold War helped facilitate key social reforms, including desegregation. Civil rights activists gained tremendous advantage as the government sought to polish its international image.
“This nuanced, scholarly appraisal of the relationship between foreign policy and the civil rights story offers a fresh and provocative perspective on twentieth-century American history.”
–Harvard Law Review
“Mary L. Dudziak . . . astutely explores the intimate relationship between the policy of communist containment and the civil rights movement. . . . Her book thoughtfully and thoroughly documents how ridiculous and hypocritical we appeared to the post-colonial, newly emerging nations of Africa and Asia by championing the ideals of freedom, democracy and economic equity around the world while at the same time shamelessly denying access to those very same principles to millions of Americans at home.”–Edward C. Smith, The Washington Times
In 1952, over 20 different parties filed amicus curiae briefs in Brown v. Board, and only the US’s brief as amicus even mentions the sceptre of racism and communism.
It’s also telling that in spite of the extensive impact of international human rights and the sceptre of communism on the civil rights movement that you’re alleging, the US Supreme Court decided in favor of “separate but equal” with respect to the DC area schools in Bolling v. Sharpe (because the 14th Amendment did not apply to the federal government, and DC is not a state).
If international human rights were really the biggest impetus for school desegregation (bigger than the actual law (i.e. the 14th Amendment)), then why did Bolling come out the way it did?
Er, that should read “decided against “separate but equal” with respect to the DC schools…” Bolling applied the 5th Amendment instead. That decision doesn’t mention communism and Soviet propaganda either.
The overarching point I’m trying to make is that while international human rights developments may have had some effect, the court decisions are made only by the application of the law, and not my amorphous principles regarding communism, racism, etc.
Hema, you act too fast, see. We’re not naive any more.
Quoting one report verbatim is really not necessary, and neither does it build a case that the US was indeed answerable to the world for it’s actions. Neither does it build your case (even if true) that it holds any merit in the context which you originally made it, the child labor issue. And if you read Dudziak carefully, you’ll see that she doesn’t disagree with the given narrative of civil rights, rather points out an unintended plus point the civil rights activists had at their disposal.
That was really hard to do.
US: Government Asked to Act on Teenagers’ Job Safety
August 5, 2002By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
ith nearly four million teenagers at work across the nation this summer, many health safety experts say it is time for the government to revise its 60-year-old list of jobs barred to young people . Federal rules already prohibit people under 18 from many hazardous jobs, including mining and logging, but some pediatricians and children’s advocates want the Bush administration to declare other work off limits, including construction and window washing.
A 15-year-old boy died when he fell four stories while working as a window washer’s assistant outside Seattle.
Teenagers engage in a number of fields, including construction, garbage collection and work on roofs.
Children’s advocates applauded most of the report, but several said they feared the Bush administration would sit on the recommendations.”This report sat around for months and months before being released, and now we’re concerned that nothing is going to be done with it,” said Darlene Adkins, coordinator of the Child Labor Coalition, a nationwide group of consumer advocates, pediatricians and parent-teacher associations. “Given the fact that 500 kids are injured in the workplace every day, there’s a critical need for us to take this report and use it to strengthen work rules for teenagers across the country.”
Kathleen Harrington, a spokeswoman for the Labor Department, said federal officials were placing a priority on child labor problems and were studying the report.
Many children’s advocates and safety experts say government action is needed because each year 200,000 workers under age 18 suffer injuries and about 70 die, about one on-the-job death every five days. The injury rate for teenagers — 4.9 injuries per 100 workers per year — is almost twice that for adults Injury rates are highest for young Hispanic workers, who often take dangerous, low-end jobs, including those in construction and agriculture. They frequently face language problems and receive little training.
40 percent of teenagers who died on the job were doing hazardous tasks.
Adam Carey, a 16-year-old working at a country club north of Boston, died when the golf cart he was driving crashed into a wooden deck.
“There are many employers not watching out for kids and not obeying the law,” said Adam’s mother, Maggie Carey of Beverly, Mass. “If the law had been enforced, my son would be alive today.”
Blame for the injuries and fatalities is shared by teenagers, parents, employers and the government, public health experts say. Two summers ago, Daniel Molina, then 16, had his pelvis crushed while walking between machines at a San Antonio factory that makes fiberglass oil-field pipes. He can no longer run, he is legally blind in his left eye, and metal plates hold his pelvis together.
He had no training. “I had to learn everything by myself,” he said.
Ms. Adkins of the Child Labor Coalition criticized the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health because it did not call for limits on unsupervised work or a ban on teenagers’ holding cash-handling jobs.
Two years ago, Justin Mello died at age 16 while working in a pizzeria outside Detroit. He was the only worker in the shop shortly before 11 p.m. when robbers forced him into the cooler and shot him to death. Michigan prohibits people under 18 from working in cash-handling jobs after 8 p.m.
Henry Mello, his father, said, “My son is dead because the owner chose either not to know what the law is or to ignore it.”
Many safety experts voice concern about the disproportionately high injury rate for Hispanic teenagers. From 1998 to 2000, 20 percent of teenagers who died on the job were Hispanic.
John Henshaw, director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said the government was increasing efforts to alert Hispanics and teenagers about dangers on the job.
A 1998 study of 562 teenagers in North Carolina found 31 reported using forklifts, tractors or riding mowers and 36 percent reported using ladders or scaffolds. A 1996 Massachusetts study of 300 high school workers found that 19 percent used food slicers and 13 percent box crushers. The occupational safety institute recommends easing restrictions by letting 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds use meat slicers although “People often get their fingers or fingertips sliced off.”
About three-fourths of deaths to workers under age 15 occur in agriculture, and more than half of teenage deaths in agriculture occur in family businesses, often in tractor rollovers. In late June, a 14-year-old boy was crushed to death in Wisconsin when he and his 16-year-old brother were demolishing a concrete silo on their family farm.
“In family businesses, parents often don’t realize they’re being careless about safety,” Dr. Pollack said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/national/05TEEN.html
Union Network International http://www.union-network.org – contact@union-network.org
Thanks Prema, you brought up some great points – and really quickly. Quoting your docs were helpful and shows how it is an important component of how international reputation did impact US’s own civil rights.
Hema, I’m really confused at your line of reasoning with the Bolling case – my point is and you seem to agree, is that international law and international politics did effect US passing its own civil rights laws. Where you and I differ is that you think these civil rights laws happened in a vaccuum – very little input from anything other than US law. I am saying that after WWII, the world become much more globalized and that had a huge impact in helping the US meet their civil rights promises.
I read the Bolling case a long time ago —- according to Wik – there were legal arguments that weren’t as powerful in that case as it was in the other Brown cases. Just b/c prejudice still existed in the 1950s, that this case didn’t fall on the side of civil rights, does that mean that international politics and human rights didn’t play a HUGE role in passage of US civil rights laws? No
My case is that civil rights during that period came to the foreground, b/c it was an apt period in international human rights and international politics for that matter.
Hema – the more recent cases you bring up with Scalia, they are past the civil rights period. One of the major critiques of the BUsh administration is that it acts in a vaccuum without any adherence to the int’l community. But then internationally the world is very different now, than it was in the 40s – thru early ,70s. I would think the US winning the Cold War and that Bush is an arrogant idiot, plays into the isolationist policy that Bush administers now. I think it is really unfortunate that the US, NOW, has come to disregard the interational community.
US could not help be immersed in the international community after WWII – it was the beginning of major international hr, organizations and doctrines as well as the Cold War….that mileu was influential in changing the US’s own archaic, blatantly racist laws. Now it is a different time
Do you really believe that only American blacks were involved in the Civil Rights movement? The movement also involved significant numbers of white people, many of whom were neither segregationists nor from the Jim Crow-dominated South. Their contributions should not be belittled just because they were white.
As far as belittling white civil rights activists I would never do that and none of my words expressed anything like that. As I stated, “And if you are talking about white America – white America had pretty sound life in the 1890s and that was the during the height of Jim Crow laws.” – I said that to show that just whites enjoying a healthy economy couldn’t in and of itself be the reason for changes in US civil rights. I stated that there’s been plenty of other times in US history where white America was well off and it didn’t mean that they were in way trying to bring equality to the minorities in this country.
I will say though that having a healthy economy in the US was another factor that probably helped create an environment that changed civil rights in the US for the better. And yes, US laws and a reinterpretation of the Constitution of course is influential — but the catalyst for the actual change was the international community and the changes in internationl politics and HR – of which the US was a big part of bringing about – as the victor in WWII.
I’d say it was more so the internal hypocrisies that forced changes. from Jesse Owens being an olympic hero abroad, then coming back and becoming a circus act to black WWII veterans coming back to be lynched. The US silent majority had to face itself, and acknowledge the tremendous contribution African Americans had made, particularly in combat, as they fought in large numbers in every major conflict since the civil war. The idea they were inferior subhuman beings was constantly eroding, and the white power structure didn’ t want to admit it. I believe those contradictions coupled with tremendous bravery and fortitude of the civil rights leaders were the primary driving forces.i>
That last bit you wrote – “those contradictions” – I believe that those contradictions only became painfully clear b/c of US immersion in int’l politics. The realities of these contradictions would have remained dormant to white America for many more years, without it’s involvement in the outside world.
Also, I believe the WWII and the contradictions the Allies had to face with their colonies, helped facilitate the former colonies’ eventual independence.
And if you read Dudziak carefully, you’ll see that she doesn’t disagree with the given narrative of civil rights, rather points out an unintended plus point the civil rights activists had at their
I’m not sure what you are saying here – you are saying Dudziak treats int’l politics and int’l organizations as a small part of changing US civil rights? Well I haven’t read Dudziak, but just look at the review of her book on amazon – http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Civil-Rights-Democracy/dp/0691095132/sr=1-1/qid=1170198188/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0128569-2432119?ie=UTF8&s=books
The description of her class is: Mary L. Dudziak is a legal historian whose research focuses on international approaches to legal history. She has written extensively about the impact of foreign affairs on civil rights policy during the Cold War and other topics in 20th-century American legal history.
And her book is called, “Cold War Civil Rights” and a review of it says:
“Impressively researched and vividly written. . . . Convincingly demonstrates how Cold War pressures both empowered and constrained the civil rights movement’s quest to build a more just America.” Rogers M. Smith author of Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History
That’s interesting – apparently there’s some things in the book that also shows how the Cold War “contrained” american civil rights.
Hema, I’m really confused at your line of reasoning with the Bolling case – my point is and you seem to agree, is that international law and international politics did effect US passing its own civil rights laws. Where you and I differ is that you think these civil rights laws happened in a vaccuum – very little input from anything other than US law. I am saying that after WWII, the world become much more globalized and that had a huge impact in helping the US meet their civil rights promises.
Yeah, in retrospect, my Bolling argument is really poorly worded. What I was getting at was that if the decisions in Brown, and Bolling which was its companion case were based primarily on issues raised by international law, the Court wouldn’t have bothered to distinguish the two cases from one another the way they did. I think the decisions were based primarily on a new understanding of the purpose of the 14th Amendment, and were not motivated to a great extent by international law.
I think our disagreement is mostly one of degree. I don’t doubt that the US was concerned about its place in the world, and the example it wanted to set of freedom and equality. I just don’t think the international perspective was the primary motivator for the Civil Rights decisions. I think the decisions (and the environment that led to them) was a result, primarily, of internal pressure and politics.
Hema – the more recent cases you bring up with Scalia, they are past the civil rights period.
That’s true in theory, but IMO, also a bit short-sighted. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 didn’t end the struggle…it merely created a set of enforceable standards. For minorities in the US, any interaction with the criminal justice system, for example, is fraught with all types of potential civil rights hazards. Both the recent cases I referenced are “civil rights” cases in that they raise the civil/constitutional rights of the defendants.
Cold War ! = International Human Rights Declarations
Cold War ! = UN, UNESCO
The question is between 60% (your estimate), and 1% (mine) about international effect on Civil Rights. Maybe, it is somewhere. Definitely not 60% (majority cause). Maybe, 5-10%.
You should read carefully the desegregation of the US military. A lot of people think it became the foundation stone for civil rights movement later. Maybe, desegregation of US military has some valid point in your support through Korean War and WW II. Korean War did force US military to desegregate but more as a forced tactical move, not a lofty declarations.
Early, in the afternoon, I was reading excerpts from Dudzaik’s book (long before) Prema posted anything here. She clearly points out some of the effects of international politics and civil rights were “image making“, and “after glow“. The real change in Civil Rights was local induced (efforts by leaders, civil disobedience, and also electoral politics), and, sure you can use it for propaganda much later, not the other way around. This distinction is the key. Also, McCartyhism killed any inspiration from outside source.
Little I read, she does point out that it was becoming important for US to project themselves in the free world, but being a catalyst is entirely another question.
Great discussion, people.
I explicitly stated that the Soviets championed the Negro cause. My contention is that it did jack. BTW China issues its own Human Rights reports on the United States every year, which of course makes the US quaver with fear 🙂 Read this report over. It does succeed in making the US look like a big punk, and that’s probably the goal. United States Human Rights Report
SpoorPremaCist: That picture of Prema/Doordarshan is hillarious 🙂
Pretty decent link on Cold War Rights
Gives a fairly complex view.
An excellent write up “ONE NATION, ONE ARMY“
Could someone please explain how a post on desis enslaving and abusing their domestic workers became a post on whether or not international forces brought the U.S. Civil Rights Movement to bear?
Also, wrt Communism/USSR, folks should read Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression by Robin D.G. Kelley. Sooper interesting.
Any Jo blo can write an amazon review, I chose this one as a more revealing and thorough one:
http://mountainrunner.us/2006/11/book_review_mary_dudziaks_cold.html
It seems that the US Gov was more interested in preventing their image from being broadcast worldwide, rather than doing some internal gutting to ensure it doesn’t happen in the first place, where the latter is much harder. Sure, with the passing of Brown v Board of Education, Civil Rights Act, et al, the US had evidence for “progressing on the race situation” and could perhaps counter the communist claims of hypocrisy, but that doesn’t imply they were passed strictly, mainly, or even significantly for that reason. It’s much easier to revoke passport privelages, and accuse people of “overblowing the problem” as they go overseas. Controlling one’s overseas image is a helluva lot easier than one may think. It doesn’t require self-reflection. Any overturning of past legislation is a tacit admission of wrong-doing, and America has never been in that business.
Somehow I think Dr. King and Malcolm and Medgar and Rosa and…. etc.. etc.. had a lot more to do with it.
In fact, if you look at Malcolm X’s statements when he went over to meet with African leaders:
“Why, every day, the black African heads of state should be receiving direct accounts of the latest developments in the American black man’s struggles – instead of the U.S. State Department’s releases to Africans which always imply that the American black man’s struggle is being ‘solved'” – Autobiography, pg 353
Whatever % it was, it still does not correspond to the current situation. India is NOT trying to win hearts and minds and doesn’t have a history of changes due to some “international pressure”. Nuclear disarmament, anyone? So, realistically speaking, some bogus half-assed declaration by the US Congress in an attempt to placate some Xtian missionary orgs allied with hate-all-non-dalits dalit orgs. (caveat: only some dalit orgs. are like that) is not going to make things better. And, this has nothing to do with whether I want it to work or not, so Prema hold ur breath and easy with the haterade.
This message board has become side-tracked. The couple was indicted yesterday. The daughters were subpeonaed to testify and left without saying anything, invoking 5th amendment rights. To me their silence says alot. If they had anything to say to defend their parents, wouldn’t they have?
I guess the problem, jd, is not so much defending their parents but trying to cover their own asses (either from being parties to the case or from being accessories)?
HMF:
Its one thing to be naive and ignorant (that can be corrected), but its something quite else to be so stubbornly and willfully dishonest. As the desi saying goes: you can wake up a sleeping man but not one who is just pretending to be asleep.
Despite all the evidence, this genius still thinks that the idea that international condemnations played a significant role in ending instituitionalized racism in America is “the craziest thing in the world”!
Obviously he is deluded enough to think that he knows more about this issue than “Jo blos” such as:
“Although the Brown decision did not refer to the international stage, there is little doubt that the climate of the era explains, in significant part, why apartheid in America began to unravel after World War II.” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.)
“The existence of discrimination against minority groups in the United States has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries. Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” (Attorney General of the United States in an amicus brief for the United States filed in Brown)
“The United States is under constant attack in the foreign press, over the foreign radio, and in such international bodies as the United Nations because of various practices of discrimination against minority groups in this country. . . . Soviet spokesmen regularly exploit the situation in propaganda against the United States. . . .[T]he continuance of racial discrimination in the United States remains a source of constant embarrassment to this Government in the day-to-day conduct of its foreign relations; and it jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.” (Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in the amicus brief for the United States filed in Brown)
Of course its true. And of course it can be applied to India as well. The international community needs to get serious about India’s gross violations of the human rights of children, untouchables etc, and apply strong moral pressure on India. As the Times of India noted:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1063699,prtpage-1.cms
“Of course, super patriots will bristle at the fact that Washington is lecturing to us on the subject. But perhaps this is exactly what we need to make us sit up and do something about this ghastly trade in people, especially women and children.”
“If Washington’s hectoring galvanises New Delhi into action, it would be a signal service to the millions who are living in slavery.”
To me their silence says alot. If they had anything to say to defend their parents, wouldn’t they have?
Interesting. The 5th Amendment usually only applies to witnesses who are concerned about self-incrimination: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”
If they were worried about self-incrimination, it does make you wonder about any complicity they may have had. On the other hand, the 5th Amendment (and any common law privilege that has the same effect) would be utterly meaningless if choosing to keep silent were always to be construed as guilt, or evidence of complicity.
Maybe these people just didn’t want to get up in court and talk about their parents.
This genius thinks you did his work for him:
“climate of the era” is a general term. Furthermore, you failed to address my point that the US was more interested in controlling it’s broadcast image, rather than changing it’s internal policies, and I can equally bold and underline comments made by conservative politicians of the time stating “Such claims were overblown, overexaggerated”
It’s certainly not of any moral compassion towards blacks the communists were making their claims. And you continually fail to recognize the US’s history of shielding to international criticism, which is even more evident today vis a vis, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, etc.. as it was noted in the review I quoted.
You’re saying the same shit again. Read up oh, I dunno, the last 50 posts to see why the parallel does not hold.
And for crying out loud, get a working vocabulary that exceeds the words naive and ignorant
Dumb and dishonest “point”. Silly of you to lie that one can read that lucid article, by a Supreme Court Justice, and still remain confused about the context of her use of those words. All the quotes from my last post are from that article. How could anyone be confused about what “climate” they were referring to? Why do you think the American Secretary of State advised the Supreme Court thusly: “The continuance of racial discrimination in the United States remains a source of constant embarrassment to this Government in the day-to-day conduct of its foreign relations; and it jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.”
Another typically dumb argument. How do you imagine it could broadcast the image of champion of freedom, of “moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world”, without changing its internal policy of race discrimination?
I wasn’t confused about the climate, I just stated it is defined as a “climate” rather than a direct impetus.
Read #242
Ok. cmon, I know you can do it. Respond without being insulting. We’re all behind ya, just focus.