Anticolonialists defended universal rights against cultural-difference exceptions

Evidence

At this point, the anticolonialists were the universalists, and they too spoke in the name of humanity. Rejecting the relevance of cultural difference, they argued that, while colonial clauses may be acceptable in agreements on ‘road traffic, customs duties or narcotic drugs’, they were out of place in a covenant devoted to human rights. Women, including women representing countries with Muslim majorities, played a particularly significant role in undercutting Cassin’s paternalistic arguments. Iraq’s delegate, Bedia Afnan, wondered how ‘the degree of evolution of a people could prevent it from enjoying rights’ that Cassin himself had acknowledged were ‘inherent in human nature’. Women had been granted equal rights in Syria, Iraq and Egypt, where ‘the tradition of Islam was allied with political freedom’, she argued, but not in the dependent territories, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya. For opponents of the colonial clause, it was colonialism, not cultural or religious difference, that was the barrier to the universal extension of human rights. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 271

Categorization

• XREF: Contradicts the contemporary assumption that universalism is necessarily the imperial position; also connects to the reader’s human-rights-discourse debates about who speaks for the universal. — connects to: Anticolonialism and civil rights shared core antiracist aims despite different targets — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 98; Multicultural citizenship reconciles universal rights with minority particularistic claims — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 830; Human-rights language served to restrain postcolonial popular sovereignty — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 295 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Anticolonialism and civil rights shared core antiracist aims despite different targets #expands (0.82) — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 98
• Human rights rhetoric masks imperial assumptions that racialize colonized peoples #complicates (0.82)
• Human-rights language served to restrain postcolonial popular sovereignty #complicates (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 295
• Anti-colonial rights advocates unwittingly armed later coercive interventions in global capitalism’s interests #complicates (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 273
• The abstract universality of rights discourse enables its expansion to excluded groups #expands (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 228
• Multicultural citizenship reconciles universal rights with minority particularistic claims #qualifies (0.78) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 830
• Liberal rights discourse has historically justified rather than opposed empire #complicates (0.78) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 72
• The universality of human rights versus cultural relativism is the core civilizational divide #expands (0.75) — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 522