Initially a theory which concerns the subjugation of Eastern Oriental countries, such as African and Asian countries, by the colonizer, it can also be applied to the West Indies. Like the East, the indigenous people of the West Indies are also othered and labelled by the colonizer as “irrational, depraved (fallen), childlike, [and] ‘different’” (Said, 1995, p. 40). These derogatory labels dehumanize the natives and as a result they are not viewed as human. Basically, the European colonizer is viewed as ‘normal’ whereas the natives are negatively perceived as something ‘abnormal’ or ‘unnatural’. Such negative representations of the indigenous people are prevalent in Christopher Columbus’s letters and Mary Rowlandson 's
The precondition is that the government of the nation-state lacks a strong political will to ensure that there is harmony between diversity groups. The reason why conflict cannot be prevented as long as there is diversity in a nation-state is due to the lack of equity and inclusiveness within a society. There is usually biases towards the majority
Roland H. Stromberg (1990) emphasized that Burke considered the revolutionary ideas as philosophes’ mistakes. Political rationalists whose method was unrealistic, and plenty of abstraction (p. 36). Therefore, Burke not only adopted a counter-revolutionary attitude, but a counter-enlightenment one. The contrast between Burke’s favourable attitude to the American Revolution and his direct rejection of the French Revolution is unusual. That is why there is a desire to understand the reason behind this radical change.
"They had more than a century ago is considered to be inferior race, whether in social relations or in political relations are not with Caucasian par... Whether in moral or political, this is considered a 'axiom', no one will argue, and no one wants to refute." The principal founder of the thirteen colonies in North America is Britain, and the "involved in the slave trade than the world Ren any country deep". 1717 Maryland law, 1775 Massachusetts bill shows that occupy the dominant position of the actual situation is, these bills intended to build eternal insurmountable obstacle between the two races. For example, their marriage is not allowed, and more obvious argument is, even in the wedding will also face criminal penalties.
The authoritarian regimes gas been causing obstacles to impede international jurisprudence of human rights. First of all, in the aftermath of the 1990s' Asian Values claim, which mentioned filial piety and loyalty as a core idea formed by Confucian tradition. The Confucian traditional values in the claim seem impede to think of human rights. Then, the advocate of collective wellbeing followed a harmonious society, which is originally seen as the ultimate goal in Confucianism, had been used to defend the authoritarian regime from the international intervention. A harmonious society had been demonstrated as an orientation to maintain a social values of a political stability by the CCP 4th leaders, Hu Jintao.10 Hence, owing to the transformation of Confucian thinking as a political use, and human rights abuses, reported by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the question whether there are human rights perspectives within Confucianism becomes a heated
The inner Baduy people deem the outside culture as disruptive, and any form of intrusion from other cultures is frowned upon. Punishments for disregarding this rule can take in the form of societal punishment, exclusion, and ultimately exile. This value of protecting one’s culture against the influence of others goes against the modern culture of globalization, where the more diverse ideas and views there are, the better off the community is. This modern community embraces multiple perspectives of the same issue, believing that a rich blend of ideas and perspectives will make life better off. The inner Baduy tribe and the globalization culture have conflicting views on what makes their cultures better off, in which one embraces influences from other cultures and the other deems that to be immoral.
The compatibility between democracy and Confucianism has long been a controversial topic since the first introduction of this idea from the west to China in the late nineteenth century. In my opinion, the definitions applied on democracy give great variation upon the results of the discussion of the controversy. According to Oxford Dictionary, exclusive means ‘excluding or not admitting other things’. As for democracy, I would like to define it as ‘a mode of decision making about collectively binding rules and policies over which the people exercise control’ (Beetham, 1992) and democracy and Confucianism are not mutually exclusive upon this definition because Confucianism would accept the instrumental value of democracy. In the following parts of the essay, I would like to first discuss some other common definitions which I think they are not appropriate in discussing this topic and provide with reasons.
The essence of Vargas Llosa’s argument is that nation-states in their attempts to defend of their national identity oppress and deny their people individual freedom. Mainly because the “collective identity” they impose is based upon language, religions, customs and characteristics which can never fully define individuals. After all “individual differences prevail over collective traits” (Vargas Llosa, 2001, p.5). This
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. Censorship can have positive effects on society; however, it hinders freedom of speech, can insight dictatorship, and oppress individuals. The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc.
In reality, these dharmas often contradict one another. Mahabharata rejects envy-filled Duryodhana similarly as violence-avoiding (pre-exile) Yudhishthira, it praises a practical “reciprocal altruistic” Yudhishthira (post-exile). Mahabharata doesn 't approve of non-reaction to injustice ["showing the opposite cheek" philosophy] for that signals the evil individual that wrong act pays. The text doesn 't treat sva-dharma or sadharana-dharma superior to every alternative however suggests a middle