Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Question

[lacommunarde.livejournal.com]

As "on June 18, 1948, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted its International Declaration of Human Rights," I figured today would be a good day to ask this. I hope it isn't too off topic...

Which Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen - the one from '89 or the one from '93 - has more similarities with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948?

I personally think that the one from '93 does, but I'm curious to know what other people think.

Comments

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I would agree that it's probably the Declaration of 1793. Robespierre's project for a declaration might be even closer on some points. I'd have to make a detailed comparison to say for sure though.

[lacommunarde.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Would Zizek's translation of some of Robespierre's speeches (it has Robespierre's version of the declaration) be a good one to go on in arguing that Robespierre's project was closer on quite a few points, or should I go with the Oeuvres?

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, there's nothing wrong with Zizek's translation (his interpretations, on the other hand, are arguably faulty, but that's another story). I think it's always best to go back to the original French if possible, but it wouldn't be illegitimate to use Zizek.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

This might be a picky point but if you are talking about this book here (http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/r-titles/robespierre_zizek_virtue.shtml) the translator is John Howe and the text notes are provided by Jean Ducange. Zizek just provides an introductory essay.

I'd like to have an oppinion on Zizek but I just find his style so technical and opaque I'd be hard pressed to say I understand him. It would be nice if Verso did a version of this book with a cover for grown ups too, useful as the bright red blood spattered guillotine on dried blood background is for getting a seat to oneself on public transport it is not exactly helping to dispel the hysteria around Robespierre. Or to highlight that most of his "extreme" and "dangerous" opinions are now what we would call universal human rights.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

You are correct. I apologize for misleading anyone; it was unintentional. At any rate, I've only flipped through it, not read it, so when I say there's nothing wrong with the translation as far as I can tell, it's based on my own cursory appraisal and the fact that I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Agreed about the cover. It seems to me - from the admittedly small percentage of text that I was able to stomach - that Zizek's point is something not too far from, "Well, yes, Robespierre actually was a bloodthirsty dictator. But that's not a bad thing!" So, in that sense, the cover seems appropriate to Zizek, if not to Robespierre.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

It was a picky point. It's just I'm so weirded out by Zizek I just wanted to say the translation wasn't by him. And therefore less likely to be crack.

It seems to me - from the admittedly small percentage of text that I was able to stomach - that Zizek's point is something not too far from, "Well, yes, Robespierre actually was a bloodthirsty dictator. But that's not a bad thing!"

So - that is what he is trying to say. I did gamely try to read the whole essay, and honestly at one point he jumps from Lacan, Levinas, Freud and Stephen King's the Shining via several dialectical paradoxes an abyssal point in one sentence which left me totally confused as to what he was getting at. I don't mean to be anti-intellectual here, but if he is trying to talk about the liberation of humanity perhaps he would be better off doing it in a language the majority of people can understand? There's also an almost identical comparison with Muslim fundamentalism to the one that Mantel makes, OMG they are just both so pure and sincere! - just WTF no, no fucking no.

I mean, he has some reasonable points about power and responsibility, and ... well that's about it. With his mixture of elitism and extremism he just seems to me a perfect trainer for future revisionists. Which is another reason I don't like reading it in public, I feel I am just waiting for some helpful elder to approach me, ruffle my hair, tell me it's just a phase I am going through and that in five years time Citizens will really start to make sense.

But - the only other English translation of Robespierre's speeches is listed at Amazon at about the same price as a year's worth of French lessons, so despite the cover and the intro, I'm pretty grateful for it, because it's so much better to actually read what Robespierre said than to take some biographer's word for it.

Oh and while we are on the subject of Robespierre's declaration of human rights, thanks to that book I now know that in 1793 some guy in stockings and a pigtail was already saying this:

VII The right to property is limited, like all the others, by the obligation to respect the rights of other people.
VII It cannot prejudice either the security, or the liberty, or the life, or the property of our fellows.
IX Any trade that violates that principle is essentially illicit and immoral.

Robespierre would probably not appreciate my response, which is FUCK YEAH! How many transnationals would that make squirm?

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

There's also an almost identical comparison with Muslim fundamentalism to the one that Mantel makes
I would make an intelligent comment here, but I think it just fits much better to say that they both fail history/political theory/logic/common sense forever.

With his mixture of elitism and extremism he just seems to me a perfect trainer for future revisionists.
It is the same kind of sophistry the revisionists use. And with him, I think, you really can't win: either readers likes the style but eventually realize what nonsense the core of his argument is, or they reject the style and Robespierre along with it. Either way, they're thrown in the way of one style or another of revisionism.

the only other English translation of Robespierre's speeches is listed at Amazon at about the same price as a year's worth of French lessons
You don't mean Rudé's, do you?

Robespierre would probably not appreciate my response, which is FUCK YEAH! How many transnationals would that make squirm?
My sentiments exactly. It really is no wonder they'd rather us think of him as some mad, head-chopping dictator. (Or failing that, apparently, a Muslim fundamentalist.)

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

You don't mean Rudé's, do you?

Did Rudé do a collection of speeches? I've got the great lives thingy with Robespierre looks at the world/The world looks at Robespierre which is all good, and has some amazing first hand accounts of Robespierre (I do like the generals shelling beans. Even if Barras' memoirs are not especially trustworthy, that's one of the things that should have been true, even if it wasn't.) Barras is so vile to Éléonore it's almost a compliment. But there are more actual translations of speeches in the Zizek thing, unless you are referring to something else.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

No, that's the one I mean. There are few speeches in it, at least, if I remember correctly, but you're right, that wasn't really the main point of it. It's a pity. One thing I want to do before I die (and by the time I finish I may well be old enough to die of old age) is to translate all of Robespierre's oeuvre into English. But it won't help anyone who wants to read him now; by the time I'm done, anyone who starts learning French now will have learned enough ten times over to read them in the original.

[lacommunarde.livejournal.com]

Yes. Thank you for saying that it's not translated by Zizek. I definitely know what you mean by "weirded out by Zizek" and "waiting for some helpful elder to approach me, ruffle my hair, tell me it's just a phase I am going through and that in five years time Citizens will really start to make sense." The person I'm having this discussion with got the Zizek for me and won't stop doing that and commenting and making bad jokes on the cover.

[maelipstick.livejournal.com]

The person I'm having this discussion with got the Zizek for me and won't stop doing that and commenting and making bad jokes on the cover.

Yes, because the cover was totally designed by Robespierre wasn't it?