Thoughts about Meister

Scattered thoughts about Meister:

1. I found his idea that victims are perceived as being either damaged or undamaged, and that if victims insist on actual reparations or some semblance of justice, they are demonized and reprimanded, to be very interesting, and a useful way to think about human rights discourse. This notion allows the entire system to revolve around the needs of beneficiaries rather than victims. I am curious, however, about how a system of human rights that revolves around the needs of the victims instead would function. Obviously some sort of reparations would be necessary, remaking society in a way that would allow the victims to be somewhat equal to the beneficiaries. But--taking the US as an example--how does one even begin to make up for centuries of slavery and racism? And how to even begin changing the internalized racism of the beneficiaries? It would take decades if not centuries to change--it is not something that could change overnight. I am not at all implying that it is useless to try--I am honestly wondering what can be done about it.

2. I am also interested in the idea that this sort of thinking about human rights--as being geared towards ending physical pain, which it considers the greatest evil--"remains a political compromise that gives beneficiaries more long-term security than they might have gotten through counterrevolutionary means" (69). And again we're back to the notion that it is actually geared more towards pleasing beneficiaries than it is towards obtaining any sort of real lasting justice for victims. The revolutionary/counterrevolutionary system would necessitate that victims and beneficiaries realize that a system that caters to beneficiaries and perpetuates injustice does precisely that. This system, however, is geared more towards forcing victims to accept an unjust resolution in order to pacify beneficiaries in the name of morality, without even acknowledging that it is fundamentally unjust, and not a triumph for victims.

3. I am also not clear on the Adverse Possession chapter. It seems fairly important but too technical for me and my limited knowledge of economics.

4. I found Meister's description of modern human rights discourse as being a sort of rescue mission to be fascinating. The way I see it, this line of thought--in some cases--allows Western nations like the US to continue their colonizing mission, which was purportedly to bring civilization to savage nations. Human rights discourse thus reinforces and recreates those old hierarchies of power. Western nations can position themselves as more advanced, enlightened, and superior, and the nations they are reprimanding for human rights abuses as being, therefore, inferior.