Making Sense of Human Rights

Some say we live in a global human rights regime. I'd accept this as a matter of contention, as there's a difference between ideal and practice, but ok. Also not everybody agrees on the ideal, or to whom it applies. But one thing I believe is certain: nobody would have thought those rights up if it did not make sense for those people to have them.

Society Against the State

In 1648 a bunch of guys sat down and decided that the best way to end wars of religion would be to create states. Sovereign states with sovereign rulers, and what happened inside those states was no one's business but the rulers'. People eventually stopped warring over religion, at least in Europe – they started warring “internationally” instead, as states became nations and saw in themselves something intrinsically unique to their respective nations that must be defended at all costs. Bloodshed ensued. Within the last 100 years the entire planet has been fitted into a neat pattern of nations, states, nation states, term it as you please, nice coloured spaces on the map, characterised by their internal affairs being nobody's business but their own. It is seen as a result of 'development', as something inevitable, as all societies must eventually progress towards having a State, and this is a Good Thing. While we're at last shedding some of the “my genocide is nobody's business but my own” thinking, and people are also beginning to get a grip of why “everybody must develop so as to be as civilised as us” may be deemed offensive, that a state should be inevitable is not so easily forgotten. Historians and other clever people sought out evidence in the sources of history to show why all peoples must eventually develop state structures in order to govern themselves, as not having a ruling power is equal to being Neanderthals, to paraphrase only slightly. Which brings me to what I want to present to you today. Is the State inevitable?

The romantic, nomadic Gypsies. In real life they're called Roma, and their life is not all that romantic

One of Shakira's latest hits is called ”Gypsy”.* It's one of her usual ”not saying much substantial” songs that she began writing after becoming widely popular. Regular story, something about getting hurt and getting over it. Some assumptions are made that Gypsies tend to get emotionally hurt by love more often than the rest of the population, and that their presumed continued nomadism can be compared to something as romantic as flying. However, what particularly caught my attention in the lyrics was the following piece:

”'Cause I'm a Gypsy
Are you coming with me?
I might steal your clothes
And wear them if they fit me
I don't make agreements

just like a Gypsy”

To summarise: Gypsies steal, and never agree to anything.

In this blog post I would like to investigate this assumption and some of the possible consequences it can have.

First of all, who are the Gypsies?