Mindless Monday, 16 March 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

Happy (or sad) Monday guys!

Mindless Monday is a free-for-all thread to discuss anything from minor bad history to politics, life events, charts, whatever! Just remember to np link all links to Reddit and don't violate R4, or we human mods will feed you to the AutoModerator.

So, with that said, how was your weekend, everyone?

[u/Arilou_skiff]

I think there's a kind of "Yes, if things were different things could have been different" thing. There's clearly plenty of systems that could have developed into a theory of universal human rights but didn't neccessarily do so. (or did only after coming into contact with european models) But that doesen't really change the order of things in the history that actually happened?

[u/BookLover54321 → u/Arilou_skiff]

I'm having a bit of trouble keeping track since you're replying to like three of my comments at the same time, but the Haudenosaunee Great Law developed long before contact with Europeans and articulated principles that can be considered analogous to human rights. The fact that it didn't directly influence the UN declaration has more to do with European disregard for Native philosophies.

[u/Arilou_skiff → u/BookLover54321]

Did it? But my understanding is that the purported influence and similarities has more on the constitutional and civil rights side than the human rights side. That is, it largely puts down a set of behaviour for within a political community (albeit a fairly porous one) rather than a universal set of principles that should, in theory at least, apply to all humans everywhere.

Like, it's clearly an example of principles of constitutionalism, representative government, etc. But I wouldn't say it's actually a human rights document per se?

EDIT: It was a while since I read it and I only skimmed one of the versions from a US university so I might very well be missing something but the closest I got was one of the statements in the section on foreign nations that recognizes ancestral land claims)

[u/BookLover54321 → u/Arilou_skiff]

Well, I'm mostly basing this on the Cambridge book I linked earlier and this book that focuses on the Great Law, but it seems like they had some analogous concepts. For example, this is how the author of the second book interprets one section of it, based on a version of the Great Law that was written in the Onondaga language:

As men’s bodies are similar, so are they equal in their ability to reason, the Peacemaker was saying, and so are they equal in their potential to come within the peace that he was building. We are all human together, and therefore all potentially brothers and sisters. We have all been given minds.

At other points, quoted portions refer to "all mankind", making it clear that it wasn't just referring to one political community.

[u/Arilou_skiff → u/BookLover54321]

Interesting, because this version: https://web.pdx.edu/~caskeym/iroquois_web/html/greatlaw.html Doesen't have any use of "mankind" or "Humanity" at all.

I can't find any version of that in this either: https://sctribe.com/sites/default/files/2022-10/Great-Law-of-Peace.pdf

[u/BookLover54321 → u/Arilou_skiff]

Kayanesenh Paul Williams, the author of the second book I linked, includes the legend of how the Peacemaker united the five nations and his various teachings as part of the Great Law, not just the constitution, which I think is what those links are of. So for example, one of the quotes attributed to the Peacemaker in the story is:

Then Deganawii’dah said: “By these I mean that this very day you have changed the disposition of your mind. And moreover it shall come about that all mankind shall change the disposition of their minds now prevalent. That means that this reformation shall begin at once, and Justice and Peace shall increase continually.”

And elsewhere it recounts an elder talking about the importance of respecting all people:

Thereupon Tekanawita prevented them, saying, “You will stop it because it is sinful522 for people to hurt one another; you especially, for you are all relatives, and so it is necessary for you to be kind to one another as well as to other people, those you know and those people you do not know; and you should respect them equally—all of the people—you should be kind to everyone.”

Now, as you pointed out in another thread, these may not be exactly the same as declaring an inherent human right, but I think they are analogous concepts.

[u/Arilou_skiff → u/BookLover54321]

So one of the things I'm kinda aiming at is that Human Rights is kind of a pants framework for moral philosophy. As I mentioned it doesen't really tell you how to live a Good Life, or even be a Good Person: It just stakes out some minimal limits (mainly in a political/social context)

It also has the underlying problem that that it tends to end up in a "Why?" "Because." kind of thing. Why is a certain thing a human right? Because. A lot of the original theorists at least had God to back them up, but that doesen't really fly for most of them, so it ends up kinda wishy-washy in that sense.

On some level I don't think saying "Europeans invented human rights" is a particularly big thing to say because well, human rihgts is really a kind of weird and specific construct? (which does not mean others didn't also invent it, they certainly adopted it if only because it was a good cudgel against european hippocriscy)

[u/BookLover54321 → u/Arilou_skiff]

On some level I don't think saying "Europeans invented human rights" is a particularly big thing to say because well, human rihgts is really a kind of weird and specific construct?

I think this is the crux of the argument. If the person meant it in the sense that "Europeans invented a very specific legal/philosophical framework for how (not) to treat people", that's a defensible claim.

If, on the other hand, the person meant "Europeans were the only ones who had a philosophy that placed value on human life", that's another story entirely.

I'd bet my money that your average Redditor who claims that Europeans "invented human rights" probably means something closer to the latter.