The Martin Case Causes Divide in America's 'Universal Values'

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 25 July 2013
by Shan Renping (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Renee Loeffler. Edited by Robert O'Connor.
After Zimmerman was acquitted in the Martin case, it sparked a wave of protests in cities across the U.S. calling for an end to discrimination and the abolition of biased laws. This incident leads us to think about and debate America's social system, as well as America's common use of the phrase “universal value.”

If we state that this concept of universal human values really exists, this should be a basic building block for equality. In democracy, the topic of human rights in politics is a wide field. There are many areas to be disputed, but the concept of equality is clear and indisputable.

After the Martin verdict [and] the demonstrations that have swept across America, let us examine their so-called equality, as well as what can be referred to as “human rights.” Even in America there is not a definite general consensus. In American society there are serious divides revolving around this concept of universal values. With America's different ethnic and political groups and the controversies between them, it makes it difficult to define what these concepts even are and how to defend them.

This week America also experienced another incident: The city of Detroit declared bankruptcy. This means that Detroit's 700,000 citizens are entering a situation where there is no government to look out for them. This has the potential to cause people's everyday lives to crumble, as people are dependent on their surroundings.

American government, at least in Detroit, is unexpectedly facing a big problem. Many people can't afford to pay taxes, causing a shortage of funds, creating a lack of ability to change. This then causes the local government to unexpectedly declare bankruptcy, breaking the local government from their responsibility to the common people. A government should be held responsible for its people; this should be a universal value in a modern society.

We've come to realize America's internal problems are numerous, many involving opinions on the value of humanity. America's legal systems are quite strong, and in dealing with demonstrators, America doesn't hesitate to use force, maintaining America's unity — at least in mainstream society.

America mostly uses the phrase universal value in foreign relations. It uses this phrase mostly for its own benefit, not necessarily out of any true belief in it. For example, the people's thoughts on human value and goals are similar. However, America dictates which opinion is most beneficial and will defend the favored party's actions with the defense of universal values. America wants results to comply with its political traditions and sense of superiority and to be beneficial in foreign relations, using media to relay America's public opinion to the world.

We can say America has chosen to present its good side to the world, but its good side also needs universal values, which is another matter. We can see even a truly equal America is difficult. To establish undisputed universal values, at the very least every country should jointly discuss what equality is, and from this the definition, universal values would be determined by everyone. But who has ever seen this sort of international conference? America and its Western allies always have the final say.

According to America, it isn't really about what the people say things are, it's about what benefits America's operation and not really even for the benefit of its people. America's grasp of universal values is flexible. It can use them to put pressure on Syria, Iran and other governments as a political tool, it can use them to interfere in China and Russia's affairs — but America can also change its definition at a whim in relations with other countries such as Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally. All actions are for America's own benefit.

America has many more incidents like the Martin case, demonstrating to other countries how such incidents are dealt with. A developed country like America, where narcissism is used in place of beliefs, has used such incidents to control standards set by the world. Too many other countries are without any great influence, accustomed to saying, “America says it's possible, so it must be right.”

In considering America we need to re-evaluate our thinking and understanding. Before our level was insufficient. We lived in ignorance. Today, we've grown and gained knowledge, enabling us to have an equal opinion in matters of economics, military affairs and politics. We must remember when dealing with this powerful country that not everything it says is correct; a good majority of proclamations are designed to present a controlling attitude to sway the world to its benefit.

We need to carefully watch what happens next after the Martin case and how Detroit deals with its bankruptcy crisis. These small incidents can allow us to understand how America is using them to manipulate others.


单仁平:马丁案,美围绕普世价值严重分裂

2013年07月25日07:19 环球时报 我有话说(76人参与)

单仁平

  美国佛罗里达州枪杀黑人少年马丁的白人社区协警本月被判无罪后,示威浪潮波及全美百余座城市,人们呼吁结束种族歧视,废除不平等法律。这件事引发的思考和争论触及了美国的社会制度,以及美国人常说的“普世价值”。

  如果说“普世”的价值的确存在,那么对平等的追求该是最基础的之一。民主、人权可以解释的政治空间太多,容易莫衷一是,但平等的概念更清晰,不容辩驳。

  但马丁案及随后席卷美国的抗议潮让我们看到,什么是“平等”,以及进而引申的什么是“人权”,在美国并没有达成真正共识。美国社会围绕这些“普世价值”严重分裂,能否以及如何落实它们,美国不同种族间、不同政治派别间争议重重。

  美国本月还发生了另一件事:底特律市政府宣布申请破产。这意味着底特律70万弱势人群的社会福利进入无人照应的状态,他们以这座城市为依托的个人生活将随着环境的崩溃而陷入混乱。

  美国的社会治理至少在底特律一隅出了大问题。很多人交不起税,一些地方政府没有足够税源,又缺乏改革勇气,最后竟可通过宣布破产摆脱他们对黎民百姓应尽的责任。而政府必须对老百姓负责,这大概也是现代社会的“普世价值”之一。

  我们发现美国社会内部的冲突还是相当多的,而且很多触及了人类流行很广的价值观。美国的法制相当强硬,国家机器对抗法者使用暴力毫不犹豫,这维护了美国围绕“主流社会”的统一。

  美国谈论“普世价值”的更多兴趣和热情是朝向国外的。支撑美国这样做的首先是它的国家利益,而不像是信仰。比如人类有很多相近的价值观和追求,但美国获得了规定它们当中谁最重要,并将之命名为“普世价值”的权力。美国的选择要顺应本国的政治传统和优势,还要契合它的国际战略,它的软实力帮助其调动全世界的舆论资源,推广这些选择。

  应当说美国挑了一些“好东西”向世界推广,但好东西要“普世”,完全是另一回事。我们看到,有些好东西要“普美国”都很困难。按说要真正建立无争议的“普世价值”,至少需要各国讨论共商,从流行的价值观里挑选普遍适应性最强的。但谁见过这样的国际大会?一切都由美国和它的西方盟友说了算。

  由美国说了算,而不是大家说了算的事情,一定是围绕美国利益的操作,而不可能成为全人类的公益追求。所以美国对“普世价值”的掌握很灵活,它可以成为压叙利亚、伊朗等国的政治工具,可以用来骚扰中国、俄罗斯,却可以绕开沙特阿拉伯等仍处于君主制的美国铁杆盟友,全看怎么做最符合美国的利益。

  美国带着一大堆类似马丁案的内部争议,教别的国家怎么判一个具体的案子。社会发达使美国将过头的政治自恋当成了自信,它把为本国利益而操纵世界看得天经地义。世界大多数国家与之相比过于弱小,它们习惯了“美国说的可能就是对的”。

  对美国我们需要思考和再认识。以前我们与之差得太远,懵懵懂懂。如今我们积累的资源和经验可让我们以更平等的心态看那个经济、军事、政治以及思想的霸主,那里不是什么都对,它的言行中有相当一部分属于装腔作势,忽悠世界。

  我们有必要仔细观察马丁案的下一步进展,跟踪底特律如何走出破产危机,它们可以成为我们认识美国用来解剖的“麻雀”。▲(作者是环球时报评论员)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Trump’s Film Tariffs Hurt Hollywood

Canada: Donald Trump’s Oddities Mask a Real Threat that Lurks in Plain Sight

Canada: Tell Me Again Which North American Leader Is Acting like a Dictator?

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Austria: The Deal for Kyiv Is Better Than the Many Threats against It

Topics

Canada: Tell Me Again Which North American Leader Is Acting like a Dictator?

Australia: Trump Is Washing His Hands of the Ukraine Problem, Without Quite Saying It

Australia: Musk Turns Away from Trump in Bid To Rescue Tesla

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Australia: Played by Vladimir Putin, a ‘Weary’ Donald Trump Could Walk away from Ukraine

Canada: Donald Trump’s Oddities Mask a Real Threat that Lurks in Plain Sight

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?