Civil Rights vs. Natural Rights; This bog’s take on racism

Thanks to GBfM for inspiring this post.

The United States as founded by Thomas Jefferson is the first federal body to grant natural rights to its citizens. Whereas England believed in the divine privilege of the royalty, the United States was the culmination of Enlightenment thought by the likes of Kant, Hobbes, Locke, and Hegel.

Natural rights are synonymous to man’s existence, and that these rights are granted by the divine. The resulting belief is that they cannot be taken away without destruction of the person. Natural rights are the most ontroversial issues that man is subject to: right to life, right to be free, or right to have a personality or experience pleasure (Jefferson’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

In a monarchy, the person has no rights unless granted by the king. Special people in the king’s favor were elevated to positions of privilege over the common man. Man had little incentive to be free, but lots of incentive to have privilege.

An important factor to either rights or privilege is that they exist regardless of personal beliefs. A person might believe that he should be important and respected, but without natural rights, he could suffer for that belief. Also, a person might believe that he is a nobody, but natural rights give him power that contradict his own limiting beliefs.

Lets consider racism and African slavery at the time of the founding of the United States.

It was a personal belief of the white man that Africans were sub-human, and their treatment of the black man was a contradictory violation of the black man’s natural rights as granted in the USA. But as mentioned, natural rights exist regardless of personal belief. It is incumbent on the violated party to declare their natural rights. 

The newly minted Americans had just experienced the same phenomenon. They declared their natural rights by claiming that they were free from England. It then put the onus on England to try and enforce the divine word of the king. The American Revolution resulted. Why? Protection of natural rights must respond with equal force to those attempting to enforce their personal belief. When England knew that the Americans declared their independence, they responded with war. Americans knew that war would result from their declaration, but they did it anyway to solidify their natural rights.

It was incumbent on the enslaved black man to declare his natural rights. It was therefore incumbent on the enslaved man to respond with equal force to those attempting to enforce their personal belief.

To my knowledge, the slaves had no interest in declaring (and most likely fighting) for their natural rights. For that reason, their offspring are guilty by association. They are guilty of demanding privilege. Privileges are contradictory to the philosophy of the United States, which was founded on natural rights granted by God. Entitlements and privileges for skin color are not natural rights.

It seems as if racism has evolved into black men attempting to change the beliefs of white men. Rather than proactively declaring their own rights, they would rather try to convince white men to invent rights for the black man and to earmark the Constitution with those inventions. The problem is that the Constitution is founded upon natural rights, no more, no less. The bedrock of the Constitution does not extend to the the sandy foundation of amendments.

The Constitution exists to protect the natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Let me say that I as a white man I would have no issue if black men declared themselves independent of this country’s apparently racist regulation. Why? I logically see them as protecting their own natural rights. They are willing to fight for their natural rights. I respect that. But I do not respect black men who try and convince me that my personal beliefs are not my own. At that point, they are inversely trying to violate my natural rights! I have a natural right to my personality and its beliefs.

That is why I don’t believe that a black man in the Presidency represents any racial power or change. It is a celebrated ignorance of their violated natural rights. Until the black man proactively declares his natural rights, racism is not a logically valid phenomenon. Until the black man is ready to fight against the personal beliefs arrayed against his natural rights, he will not experience freedom granted by the divine.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Civil Rights vs. Natural Rights; This bog’s take on racism

  1. Keoni Galt says:

    Good post….just one correction I might suggest:

    …the first federal body to grant natural rights to its citizens

    What it can grant, it can take away.

    The United States as founded by Thomas Jefferson is the first federal body to recognize the natural rights of its citizens.

    As the dead, rich, white and certainly sexist owner of slaves wrote:

    “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right .”

    • Grit says:

      I agree that using dead rich white men in a civil rights argument is impotent, especially while the opposite, dead poor black slaves, is extremely potent.

      I argue in favor of natural rights, and slaves had every natural right to declare their independence from being an enslaved person. But they did not do that. Therefore an argument using past slavery to fight for modern privilege is invalid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s