Also Christine of Pizan 14th-15th century advocated for the Rights of women in general in France. Of course, she did not formulate the principles in a philosophic way because she was rather a professional novel writer, the first one in Europe with the help of the King and other noblemen and noblewomen, but she clearly put forward an intellectual case for the Rights of Women in her City of Women. Even the Saint Francis of Assisi in Italy defended in his way the rights of animals back in the 12th-12th century.
As always, Americans disregarding the legacy of Spain. This is what AI Bing says about the Council of Valladolid in 1550: "The significant meeting you are referring to took place during the reign of Charles I of Spain (also known as Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor). This meeting is known as the Valladolid Debate or Council of Valladolid, which occurred in 1550-1551. The Valladolid Debate was a crucial and historic debate concerning the treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The primary figures in this debate were: Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican friar who advocated for the humane treatment of Native Americans and argued that they were rational beings who deserved to be converted to Christianity through peaceful means. Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, a philosopher who argued that the indigenous peoples were naturally inferior and justified the use of force to convert them to Christianity. The debate took place in Valladolid, Spain, and was significant because it was one of the first times that the moral and legal rights of colonized people were officially discussed. The outcome of the debate led to increased recognition of the humanity of the indigenous peoples and reinforced the need to evangelize them, rather than subjugate them through force." The Spanish had a black professor of Latin at University of Granada back in the 16th century, Mr. Juan Latino: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Latino Also, a slave-painter of the painter Velazquez was freed on the order of the king: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Juan_de_Pareja The Spanish, with all the atrocities committed in America, were already debating, creating and legally defending Human Rights in the 16th century at the same time. This is why the Spanish Empire lasted 3 centuries, because the Spanish also mixed racially in America.
In a broad less academic sense, Human Rights are very old. The Romans and the Carthaginians were practicing Human Rights more than 2 thousand years ago... as long as the submitted tribes accepted their dominance. The success of the Roman culture was precisely the respect of the local traditions and legal rights and gods of the local populations, as long as they submitted to the Emperor, the power of Rome and paid tributes. This is why they never imposed Latin as a language anywhere. They relied on their superior culture. Indeed, local elites quickly adopted the Roman way of life and language because it was so much superior to the ancient way of life. Imagine having engineers building aqueducts and bridges and buildings and open public baths that last until today. Then the rest of the submitted populations followed suit, nobody wanted to be an old tribe after the Romans had given them that superior quality of life and peace and prosperity, let's not forget. When the Romans left Great Britain, there was chaos and war for centuries. The concept of Human Right was different back then, not based on the intrinsic nature of the person, but on the social condition of the person. A white man could be a slave and a dark-skinned African could be a general or an Emperor, like Septimius Severus. This is how it was with race in Rome: anyone that submitted to the Roman values had a social opportunity. This is a strong contrast to Germanic-based Medieval Times and to the USA from its birth till now practically, if we are to consider the treatment and fate of black populations descendants from slaves. Roman women could be repudiated yes, but they could divorce men, such as the case of the wife of Cicero shows, if they had the economic power. The rights of Roman people depended on their social condition and standing, not on the color of their skin, origin and even gender in a way, contrary to 20th century America... even after Eleanor Roosevelt and the Declaration of Human Rights. Even with all the Human Rights declarations the USA did not give the right to vote to blacks until 1965. Of course people could understand that it was bad to be a slave and that everybody could be smart irrespective of the skin color, but there were plenty of opportunities for city Roman slaves to be manumitted, contrary to America in the 19th century... Human Rights were indeed practiced in the distant past. Also the the Catholic Church advocated for Human Rights from the very beginning 2 thousand years ago, because Christianity is a revolutionary ideology for Antiquity that encompasses women, the poor and slaves, all humans had the same condition under the Church, at least in Paradise and on paper. In this sense, the teachings of Jesus are Human Rights formulated in the way thoughts were formulated back then, in religious thoughts, in that ignorant and illiterate society of the time.
Also Christine of Pizan 14th-15th century advocated for the Rights of women in general in France.
Of course, she did not formulate the principles in a philosophic way because she was rather a professional novel writer, the first one in Europe with the help of the King and other noblemen and noblewomen, but she clearly put forward an intellectual case for the Rights of Women in her City of Women.
Even the Saint Francis of Assisi in Italy defended in his way the rights of animals back in the 12th-12th century.
As always, Americans disregarding the legacy of Spain. This is what AI Bing says about the Council of Valladolid in 1550:
"The significant meeting you are referring to took place during the reign of Charles I of Spain (also known as Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor). This meeting is known as the Valladolid Debate or Council of Valladolid, which occurred in 1550-1551.
The Valladolid Debate was a crucial and historic debate concerning the treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The primary figures in this debate were:
Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican friar who advocated for the humane treatment of Native Americans and argued that they were rational beings who deserved to be converted to Christianity through peaceful means.
Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, a philosopher who argued that the indigenous peoples were naturally inferior and justified the use of force to convert them to Christianity.
The debate took place in Valladolid, Spain, and was significant because it was one of the first times that the moral and legal rights of colonized people were officially discussed. The outcome of the debate led to increased recognition of the humanity of the indigenous peoples and reinforced the need to evangelize them, rather than subjugate them through force."
The Spanish had a black professor of Latin at University of Granada back in the 16th century, Mr. Juan Latino: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Latino
Also, a slave-painter of the painter Velazquez was freed on the order of the king: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Juan_de_Pareja
The Spanish, with all the atrocities committed in America, were already debating, creating and legally defending Human Rights in the 16th century at the same time. This is why the Spanish Empire lasted 3 centuries, because the Spanish also mixed racially in America.
In a broad less academic sense, Human Rights are very old.
The Romans and the Carthaginians were practicing Human Rights more than 2 thousand years ago... as long as the submitted tribes accepted their dominance.
The success of the Roman culture was precisely the respect of the local traditions and legal rights and gods of the local populations, as long as they submitted to the Emperor, the power of Rome and paid tributes.
This is why they never imposed Latin as a language anywhere. They relied on their superior culture. Indeed, local elites quickly adopted the Roman way of life and language because it was so much superior to the ancient way of life. Imagine having engineers building aqueducts and bridges and buildings and open public baths that last until today.
Then the rest of the submitted populations followed suit, nobody wanted to be an old tribe after the Romans had given them that superior quality of life and peace and prosperity, let's not forget. When the Romans left Great Britain, there was chaos and war for centuries.
The concept of Human Right was different back then, not based on the intrinsic nature of the person, but on the social condition of the person. A white man could be a slave and a dark-skinned African could be a general or an Emperor, like Septimius Severus.
This is how it was with race in Rome: anyone that submitted to the Roman values had a social opportunity. This is a strong contrast to Germanic-based Medieval Times and to the USA from its birth till now practically, if we are to consider the treatment and fate of black populations descendants from slaves.
Roman women could be repudiated yes, but they could divorce men, such as the case of the wife of Cicero shows, if they had the economic power. The rights of Roman people depended on their social condition and standing, not on the color of their skin, origin and even gender in a way, contrary to 20th century America... even after Eleanor Roosevelt and the Declaration of Human Rights. Even with all the Human Rights declarations the USA did not give the right to vote to blacks until 1965.
Of course people could understand that it was bad to be a slave and that everybody could be smart irrespective of the skin color, but there were plenty of opportunities for city Roman slaves to be manumitted, contrary to America in the 19th century...
Human Rights were indeed practiced in the distant past. Also the the Catholic Church advocated for Human Rights from the very beginning 2 thousand years ago, because Christianity is a revolutionary ideology for Antiquity that encompasses women, the poor and slaves, all humans had the same condition under the Church, at least in Paradise and on paper.
In this sense, the teachings of Jesus are Human Rights formulated in the way thoughts were formulated back then, in religious thoughts, in that ignorant and illiterate society of the time.
35: