History can never remain the same, because every era must rethink its past. Our perspective on our origins changes, and for that reason—not simply because new facts have been found—no account of how the present emerged is definitive for long. Since histories of human rights began to be written, however, I have often felt that the enterprise faces an especially challenging obligation not to lose track of how fast our present is transforming. Human rights are some of our highest ideals, and they have become so in an age when lived history can seem to be accelerating so quickly that written history cannot match the pace of change. Historians had never written about the origins and path of human rights before the principles ascended to the status of a moral lingua franca in global affairs mere decades ago. Soon after the search for their background began, no earlier than the 1990s, scholars began to dispute how to conduct their inquiries: the uplifting liberal internationalism of the initial post–Cold War moment suddenly looked very different after the Iraq War and the disturbing chaos it unleashed. Having first been tasked with celebrating how the invention of human rights marked the beginning of the end of history, scholarship now became a forum in which to debate the propriety of liberal interventionism abroad, the progressive credentials of nongovernmental advocacy, and the outstanding visibility given to the spectacle of mass atrocity.