A Call for Tolerance

[Emperor_Mike]

In the spirit of tolerance (since we get many issues about it on Asian matters here at YW,) I've decided to share a speech I wrote and delivered as Canada during a session of the Durham MUN. It's only the two opening paragraphs, since the rest of the document entailed boring ideas on suggested social, economic, and political policies/reforms. I think this speech will shed some light on my positions concerning activism, tolerance, and issues that affect minorities (two of you wrote to me that some of my posts seemed ambiguous.)

Hope this clears certain issues up.


------------------------------------



The need for sustainable tolerance among the nations of the world grows increasingly strong as we progress into the new millennium. Humanity’s evolution in the spheres of social and political science over the course of centuries past have been great, but the lingering issue of equality amidst modern day societies increasingly diverse in matters of race, culture and creed is a subject that needs to be addressed by the global community in earnest measure. We have noted, with great distress, the rash of struggles that currently plague our world, from the bloodstained grounds of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East to the killing fields of tumultuous Sierra Leone. We the member states of the United Nations must take it upon ourselves to vigorously pursue a unified policy aimed at addressing these humanitarian calamities by first attending to the fundamental sources of gross prejudices within our national borders. We cannot hope to change the world if our own community infrastructures are in dire need of care. But with circumspect reforms headed by our Governments under the guidance of a global program advocated by the United Nations, we can initiate the necessary steps needed to breed a more tolerant society for tomorrow.

The underlying goal of such an endeavour is to promote tolerance within our respective nations. A world that flourishes on acceptance must be constructed upon solid moral foundations and an acquiescence that Humanity’s differences must end at the colour of our skin, our beliefs, our sexual preferences, and other methods upon which we depend to support our existence. We must work with our local governments, community leaders across the socio-economic spectrum, and, most importantly, the segments of the populace who have the most to gain from such progressive initiatives, and subsequently the most to lose if our works become mired in irresolution. We must approach our objectives with temperance, egalitarianism, and moderation, lest our efforts be perceived as an unfair hand dealt to favoured parties to the exclusion of those who favour the social status quo. A policy that subscribes to positive discrimination will do nothing but stir up the very enmity we currently seek to subdue through channels of social impartiality. It is only with great difficulty and fairness that a healthy constitution can be nurtured to progressively carry the burden and the reformation of a society blinded by discriminations that afflict us today.

...


------------------------------------

[Faithless]

Answer me this: Why the word tolerance rather than acceptance?

You mention it. The Southern Poverty Law Center uses in their program "Teaching Tolerance".

Is use of the word tolerance deliberate? Isn't acceptance better? Tolerate sounds like "put up with" even though you can't really stand. Acceptance goes deeper.

Just wundrin. :)

[AngryABCGirl]

Originally posted by ChottoMatte@Jun 26 2003, 11:17 PM
Answer me this: Why the word tolerance rather than acceptance?

You mention it. The Southern Poverty Law Center uses in their program "Teaching Tolerance".

Is use of the word tolerance deliberate? Isn't acceptance better? Tolerate sounds like "put up with" even though you can't really stand. Acceptance goes deeper.

Just wundrin. :)
The world can barely tolerant everything, much less accept it.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally posted by ChottoMatte@Jun 26 2003, 11:17 PM
Answer me this: Why the word tolerance rather than acceptance?

You mention it. The Southern Poverty Law Center uses in their program "Teaching Tolerance".

Is use of the word tolerance deliberate?  Isn't acceptance better? Tolerate sounds like "put up with" even though you can't really stand. Acceptance goes deeper.

Just wundrin.  :)
We're modeled alongside the real UN. As such, we're purposely vague on all issues. :D

Actually, AznBuffGirl has it right. Promoting "acceptance" is too much for the public to swallow because it may cause people to think that we (the government, authorities, whatever) are trying to get them to do something they don't want to do. So we say "tolerance" instead. It's not implicity telling people that they should accept certain things as they are, only to co-exist with it in (relative) harmony. Hope that answers your question. :)

[Faithless]

OK.

I like this idea of acceptance over tolerance (although not completely related):

http://www.hrzone.com/articles/diversity.html

What is most important to success is acceptance and understanding of diversity. Mere tolerance and equality doesn't cut it. It is attitude toward diversity. Students respond to genuine acceptance and seem to know who is working hard to help them learn. They can see through disingenuous intentions or those just going through the motions. Most importantly, it does not appear to matter that teachers are from the same cultural background or race as their students. Understanding and acceptance is all.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally posted by ChottoMatte@Jun 27 2003, 02:54 PM
OK.

I like this idea of acceptance over tolerance (although not completely related):

http://www.hrzone.com/articles/diversity.html


It's related in many ways and thanks for the link to a very well thought out article. In order for us to promote acceptance as a stepping stone as opposed to tolerance we must make some invalid assumptions that people will, for once, work in concert for the greater good for all. As with all things in life, there will be dissenters around every corner (which accounts for the fact that there's never such a thing as a unanimous poll - even if the issue being dealt with is seemingly clearcut!) and with a matter such as tolerance/acceptance, we'd be hard pressed to make such a giant leap in altering society's attitudes in one sweep.

We all strive for acceptance but at this juncture it's a tad too ambitious of a goal given the woes being confronted by Humanity the world over. God willing, we'll get to a point where everyone can live each other without letting discrimination get in the way of things, but this will take time. Think of tolerance as the first step we must take to general acceptance. Things like women's rights weren't won overnight and I would think that unconditional acceptance of our fellow human beings is very likely in the same boat. :)

[Faithless]

The angry.white.female view of tolerance/acceptance:

http://blog.nandgate.com/archives/00000051.html

Social liberalism today teaches that we must tolerate, well, just about everything. Fine. Tolerance in a society as diverse as ours is likely necessary in order to avoid complete chaos. Tolerance is a part of our social contract, one that is necessary to ensure the survival of society.

However, social liberalism equates tolerance with acceptance. Acceptance, as one can plainly see from the included definitions, requires either approval or the belief that something is normal. There are many instances where we are required to tolerate something, e.g. homosexuality or religious beliefs, but we are not required to accept them. For those of you who think that tolerance = acceptance, think again. Tolerance means allowing a given thing, but it does not define why one would allow a given thing. I may tolerate other religious beliefs, but that does not mean I accept them as normal or valid. Tolerance does not remove one's own feelings or beliefs regarding any particular group; in our society it means that we're passive aggressive about removing those things that are not acceptable, but are required to be tolerated, from society.

I don't equate tolerance with acceptance. And I don't think that acceptance necessarily means you have to believe in it. I think of it in terms of accept it as it is.

With tolerance, there seems to exist an air of hostility. With acceptance you get past the hostility and allow the being of something.

[Emperor_Mike]

<!--QuoteBegin-ChottoMatte+Jun 29 2003, 11:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ChottoMatte @ Jun 29 2003, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The angry.white.female view of tolerance/acceptance:

http://blog.nandgate.com/archives/00000051.html

Social liberalism today teaches that we must tolerate, well, just about everything. Fine. Tolerance in a society as diverse as ours is likely necessary in order to avoid complete chaos. Tolerance is a part of our social contract, one that is necessary to ensure the survival of society.

However, social liberalism equates tolerance with acceptance. Acceptance, as one can plainly see from the included definitions, requires either approval or the belief that something is normal. There are many instances where we are required to tolerate something, e.g. homosexuality or religious beliefs, but we are not required to accept them. For those of you who think that tolerance = acceptance, think again. Tolerance means allowing a given thing, but it does not define why one would allow a given thing. I may tolerate other religious beliefs, but that does not mean I accept them as normal or valid. Tolerance does not remove one's own feelings or beliefs regarding any particular group; in our society it means that we're passive aggressive about removing those things that are not acceptable, but are required to be tolerated, from society.

I don't equate tolerance with acceptance. And I don't think that acceptance necessarily means you have to believe in it. I think of it in terms of accept it as it is.

With tolerance, there seems to exist an air of hostility. With acceptance you get past the hostility and allow the being of something. [/b][/quote]
I agree with you and the article that tolerance does not equal acceptance. The terms are different in every way. We won't go into the dictionary meanings of acceptance and tolerance, but suffice to say, I view both issues as being steps that are part of a wider set of actions aimed at promoting social...liberation? I don't have the exact word for it.

You must have tolerance in place before even thinking about encouraging acceptance. The rise of Protestantism is an excellent example of tolerance leading to acceptance, but not without first having shed rivers of blood in the Thirty Years' War. It is a good event to analyse for those who like to equate tolerance with acceptance. Emperor Charles V signed the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555 in the spirit of tolerating Lutherenism within the Holy Roman Empire. It would take sixty three years before the still simmering resentments between Catholics and Protestants would result in the defenestration of Prague in 1618 and a further thirty years of bloodshed and a third of Germany's population before general (though not wide) acceptance of Protestantism came to pass in 1648.

Hence, my use of tolerance in the speech to the DMUN. Acceptance is too loaded a word to offer to a world that's still fighting over religion, sexual preferences, and the like. We must start from a point so why not work on tolerating before we accept?

[Faithless]

I don't mean to sound like I am arguing you on the tolerance/acceptance issue. Your points are quite interesting and worth pondering.

Check this article about how one person perceived Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s opinion of tolerance vs. acceptance:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/dream.html

In the pursuit of the rights of various groups, under the civil rights umbrella, one thing has become clear. That which was called right by one group is often called wrong by another. Rather than resolving the differences, tolerance is championed as the appropriate response to the varying perspectives that have emerged. Yet tolerance has no cohesive nor healing power in society. It means little more than leaving one another alone. It leads to indifference, not understanding. Tolerance allows the gulfs between us to remain in place. In fact, there is little in the concept of tolerance to pull us away from racial isolation.

Tolerance brings with it an implicit moral relativism. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Moral relativism suggests that there are no absolutes to which we can all be held accountable. Such a thing was far from the thinking of Martin Luther King. In one of his works Dr. King makes the following statements:

"At the center of the Christian faith is the affirmation that there is a God in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values....In contrast to the ethical relativism of <totalitarianism>, Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable."
Dr. King did not speak in terms of tolerance. His ideal was love.

"Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." (Strength to Love, p. 51)

Yet, in current discussions of race relations the word love is seldom mentioned. Dr. King insisted love was the dominant or critical value by which we could overcome racial strife. The love he spoke of was a biblical love, one that is unconditional, unselfish and seeks the absolute good of another party. That kind of love is a tough love, one that confronts wrong and injustice with the truth--absolute truth as decreed by an all powerful God and enables the individual to love their enemy.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally posted by ChottoMatte@Jun 30 2003, 10:04 PM
I don't mean to sound like I am arguing you on the tolerance/acceptance issue. Your points are quite interesting and worth pondering.

Check this article about how one person perceived Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s opinion of tolerance vs. acceptance:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/dream.html

In the pursuit of the rights of various groups, under the civil rights umbrella, one thing has become clear. That which was called right by one group is often called wrong by another. Rather than resolving the differences, tolerance is championed as the appropriate response to the varying perspectives that have emerged. Yet tolerance has no cohesive nor healing power in society. It means little more than leaving one another alone. It leads to indifference, not understanding. Tolerance allows the gulfs between us to remain in place. In fact, there is little in the concept of tolerance to pull us away from racial isolation.

Tolerance brings with it an implicit moral relativism. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Moral relativism suggests that there are no absolutes to which we can all be held accountable. Such a thing was far from the thinking of Martin Luther King. In one of his works Dr. King makes the following statements:

"At the center of the Christian faith is the affirmation that there is a God in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values....In contrast to the ethical relativism of <totalitarianism>, Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable."
Dr. King did not speak in terms of tolerance. His ideal was love.

"Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." (Strength to Love, p. 51)

Yet, in current discussions of race relations the word love is seldom mentioned. Dr. King insisted love was the dominant or critical value by which we could overcome racial strife. The love he spoke of was a biblical love, one that is unconditional, unselfish and seeks the absolute good of another party. That kind of love is a tough love, one that confronts wrong and injustice with the truth--absolute truth as decreed by an all powerful God and enables the individual to love their enemy.
No, no, not at all. Our points of view are actually very similar and we'd be hard pressed to find something to argue about at this moment, though I suppose if we want, we can come up with something. :D

King, like many of us who champion tolerance/acceptance, was a visionary who dreamt of a society free of discriminations of every type. I, too, hope that one day we can live in a world where everyone can coexist with one another without the artificial boundaries set by skin colour, sexual preferences, and religion. But unlike Dr. King who saw the world as it was and wished to promote an almost utopian ideal (i.e. full acceptance and not haphazard tolerance,) I view the difficulties faced by minorities in a practical light. Although I earnestly hope for Dr. King's vision to come to fruition for Blacks, Asians, etc. I recognise that for true acceptance to be adopted, there must be an active and ongoing drive to encourage this at the cellular level of government (i.e. from Federal to Municipal) with tolerance being the first logical step in what may become a decades long journey. Ultimately it will be up to the leaders of our communities and our respective nations to promote an agenda aimed at wiping out the scourge that is hate-mongering.

I suppose being pragmatic to fault can put a dampen on even the most passionate of activists, but looking at things from a perspective that doesn't betray your line of sight with exorbitant promises and "Castles in the Sky" does wonders to allow for a more logical and thorough way of approaching and hopefully solving problems. That is not to say that I don't engage in wishful thinking and dream of social utopia, far from it. I simply have a habit of analysing prickly issues like human rights, social justice and the like from a vantage point that deals with the realities of the situation rather than a set of ideals that have yet to be hammered out, let alone put into practise.