In researching for the Human Rights exhibition I am planning, I came across the anti-hate violence organization Not in Our Town. A video featured on the site shows how, through the transformative power of art, a group of middle school students are responding to the murder by seven local high school students of an Ecuadorean immigrant. While the situation bringing about their discussion is truly reprehensible, the wisdom of these kids could be a lesson to us all.
(On a slightly separate note, but relevant to the situations studied within our class readings about human rights: I find it noteworthy that in discussions of inclusion and tolerance, and in calls for understanding and acceptance of all races, sexes, ethnicities, religions, etc., what is often excluded is acceptance/tolerance for people of different politics. Now there are some groups that just can't seem to play nicely together.)
Hmmmm ... on the subject of acceptance of people of different politics ... there's two distinctly different issues there. This is not the same question as, say, accepting someone of a different race or religion without judgment. Those distinctions don't have actual ethical implications (as long as you consider someone's religion as something expressed as an identity, not used as power), so accepting the person is a matter of not judging them on those grounds. Politics as identity - calling yourself a Republican or a Libertarian - is also innocuous on the surface. However, politics tend to attach behaviors concerning the rights of others, and they often involve the exertion of power. I don't passively accept someone else's political beliefs if they are in a position of power or privilege and are exercising their political ideology in a way that infringes the rights of others. I also don't accept someone's politics if they are encouraging harm to others. That's a different thing than just "accepting" someone's self-identification with some political party.
ReplyDelete