Groups and Minority rights Essay

Upholding the rights of minority groups and cultures by various nations has become a serious problem in the current modernized world. This, in my opinion, is a result of globalization, which has caused a variety of different cultures to emerge in various regions of the globe where dominant cultures already exist. It has been a very contentious subject of discussion how to handle these new societies without violating their human rights and still uphold the values of the dominant society (for example, liberalism). Regarding how to approach this circumstance, different people have different perspectives. For anyone to come up with a good strategy what rights minority groups or cultures should enjoy and how these rights should be given to them, I believe that one must first get an understanding of what groups and cultures are, including their characteristics, variations, and general behavior. Only then can one be in a position to understand the need to uphold the rights of these minority groups and come up with a sensible plan to do the same. In this paper, I, therefore, seek to compare different views relating to minority groups’ rights and look at the various rights being enjoyed by minorities.

Human beings in their behavior are organized into groups of people who share a common understanding of what is right or what is to be the convention (Kymlicka, 75). The groups may then share common values, institutions and offer a way of life socially, religiously, economically and recreationally to their members, At this point, they are referred to as “societal cultures”(Shapiro and Kymlicka 79). It has been argued that cultures are organized territorially based on a shared language (Kymlicka, 76). This argument has varying degrees of truth in it. In the current world, cultures sharing a language may exist in different territories often within other cultures. For this reason, an argument like Dworkin’s that the United States is ideally made up of a single culture organized around a shared language (English) is most definitely wrong.

However, it is true that there exists a dominant societal culture in the US which is ideally centered around the shared English Language. All other groups that fall outside this main culture are then termed as the minority groups or cultures. These may include immigrants, or in some cases, the indigenous occupants of a country that through colonization or federation, has been overshadowed by the dominant culture (Kymlicka 77). Generally, these leads to there being two types of minorities: there are ethnic groups or minorities, and then there are the national groups or minorities.

Ethnic groups are usually composed of the immigrants into an existing culture. These groups often tend to get integrated into the dominant culture although they may still retain their culture in part. National groups, on the other hand, are usually the groups who have as a matter of circumstance become the minority group in what is historically their homeland due to such factors like colonization(Kymlicka 77: Shapiro and Kymlicka 102). These tend to resist integration into the dominant culture more vigorously and with more success than ethnic groups. The national minorities may also seek to get a territorial recognition.

Regardless, group culture is essential to its members. This explains why minority groups fight to be recognized. Taylor argues that recognition or lack thereof is part of what shapes our individual identities (30). Cultural membership also gives people a sense of belonging within a multicultural nation (Tamir 4). It is also through cultural membership that individuals are able to make meaningful decisions.

The recognition of different cultures gives any multicultural nation a diverse and vibrant cultural setting. In this regard, some scholars suggest that the whole idea of separate cultures should be done away with and instead a larger and more fluid adaptation of different cultures should be adopted (Waldron 751). However, this view would be too much of a deviation from the standard order of human life. Taylor goes ahead to argue that nonrecognition is certainly a form of oppression and it may lead to low esteem among the members of the unrecognized culture (May 135).

After understanding all this, it is then the role of modern governments to come up with the best way to accommodate minority groups so that they are not disadvantaged by the general practices of the dominant culture. Governments should not try to force the minority groups to get integrated into the dominant culture as this move could be interpreted as a form of oppression. Full integration of national minorities is however practically impossible (Connor, 350). Governments must, therefore, ensure that they act in a just way about minority groups while still maintaining political correctness.

Most modern nations, having adopted liberalism, should recognize that cultures, even the minorities, are significant in the freedom of its citizens (Tamir, 5). It is this freedom that liberal governments must always seek to give their call residents of their countries even those who belong to minority groups. However, these minority groups must also be liberal or be ready to be liberalized. This means that it would be tough for a government to recognize cultures which do not allow all their members the fundamental rights and freedoms.

Many theories have been floated on how governments should best treat minority groups. It is the function of a liberal government to ensure that all citizens are treated with complete equality(Bhargava 102; Barth 94). This balance is best struck by “the accommodation of differences”( Kymlicka 75). Some of the measures that have been used include setting up of group-specific rights such as territorial autonomy which puts in place restrictions on members of the dominant culture such that it becomes more expensive for them to move into areas occupied by minorities(Kymlicka 109). Other special group rights include land claims and the right to use their language. To protect minorities from being victimized by legislative decisions made by members of the majority, the minorities may be given veto power or have several legislative seats allocated to them (Shapiro and Kymlicka 86; Pattern 47; Carens 112).

While some people argue that Governments are not under any obligation to facilitate the development of minority groups, I believe that a government should put in place correctly timed measures to protect the minorities as long as it is clear that they are at a cultural disadvantage (Sandel 101; Zurn 90). However, how governments handle national minorities should be different from how they treat ethnic minorities. This argument is based on the idea that ethnic minorities such as migrants into a country chose to denounce their earlier culture and move into a newly established culture, they, therefore, have no moral authority to demand special rights(Glazer 123; Rawls 307).

In conclusion, liberal governments must promote the equality of all persons regardless of their cultural grouping. They are bound by the underlying most idea of liberalism (freedom for everyone) to not only recognize but also facilitate the accommodation of national and ethnic minorities. This they must do fairly and by the existing principles and values.

Works Cited

Barth, William Kurt. On cultural rights: the equality of nations and the minority legal tradition. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2008:256. Print.

Bhargava, Rajeev. Political Theory: An introduction. India: Pearson Education India, 2008:350. Print.

Carens, Joseph H. Culture, Citizenship and Community: A contextual explanation Of Justice as Evenhandedness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 200:284. Print.

Connor, Walker. “Nation building or nation destroying?” World Politics. 24.3(1972) 319-355.

Glazer, Nathan. Ethnic Dilemmas, 1964-1982. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983:359. Print.

Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1995:290. Print.

May, Stephen. “Critical multiculturalism and cultural difference: Avoiding essentialism.” Critical multiculturalism:Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education (1999). 11-41.

Pattern, Alan. Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations Of Minority Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014:344. Print.

Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009:560. Print.

Sandel, Michaell J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1982:252. Print.

Shapiro, Ian and Will Kymlicka, eds. Ethnicity and Group Rights: NOMOS XXXIX. Vol. 39. New York, NY: NYU Press, 2000:643. Print.

Tamir, Yael. “Liberal Nationalism.’ Philosophy & Public policy Quarterly 13.1/3 (1993):1-7.

Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994:175. Print.

Waldron, Jeremy. ”Minority cultures and the cosmopolitan alternative“ U. Mich JL Reform. 25(1991): 751.

Zurn, Christopher F. *Recognition, redistribution and democracy: dilemmas of Honneth’s critical social theory” European Journal of Philosophy. 13.1 (2005). 89-126.