More or less tolerant?

[Nathan]

It seems that throughout history various people have been discriminated against. Slaves, women, black people, Jews, etc. But it seems that, as a general rule, in the end these people get the equality they deserve.

Church and state are separated so people can go about their religious beliefs and practises without fear of toture or death from the government or ruler. Women are allowed to vote and hold jobs. Men can be "housewives" without being mocked (much). Everything seems to point towards a world becoming more and more tolerant.

However, recently there seems to have been an alarming trend in the opposite direction. Examples:

-Same-sex marriage banned in the USA
-Positive discrimination in favour of women (and ethnic minorities) when offering jobs for fear of being called sexist (or racist) against them.
-The English are no longer allowed to display the St. George flag in their own gardens because it will "offend members of other cultures living in our country).

Ahhh, I have to go to bed, I'll continue this later.

[Worm of Despite]

It seems that throughout history various people have been discriminated against. Slaves, women, black people, Jews, etc. But it seems that, as a general rule, in the end these people get the equality they deserve.

Well, I suppose one could say minorities have indeed met more compassion and understanding than in recent decades, but I still don't think anybody has it as good the WASPMs (as far as USA goes, anyway). I doubt full equality will ever be met, much the same way I doubt war will cease for all time. As long as there is a majority that wants to keep their privilege (in this case, the whites), there will be intolerance of others.

Personally, I think the increased tolerance of late is less about individual improvement in character but more a popular movement. It's what sweeps through us at the time that makes us choose where our sympathies lie. For example, during the time of Galton and Eugenics, one sees some of the most educated and respected citizens holding ideas deemed normal by their generation but racist to us. Had we lived back then and been socialized from birth into the higher rungs of society, we would’ve been right in line with them. Ack, I'll stop rambling.

But anyway: I'm never surprised when I see steps back. I mean, it's only natural for a liberal/radical surge to be met with a conservative/reactionist one, and vice verse.

-Positive discrimination in favour of women (and ethnic minorities) when offering jobs for fear of being called sexist (or racist) against them.

I haven't looked into that issue enough to comment, but I remember a really good episode of All in the Family where Mike lost his job to an African-American. Someone else might know it.

-The English are no longer allowed to display the St. George flag in their own gardens because it will "offend members of other cultures living in our country).

That reminds me of an issue here in Georgia, USA, where many African-Americans protested the state flag having the Confederate "stars and bars", which they effectively got rid of. Personally, I was on the side of the African-Americans, since the Confederate symbol wasn't added until after Roe vs. Wade, which is quite telling.

[duchess of malfi]

A little off topic:

I used to talk quite often to a little old African American lady who was in the nursing home which is part of our Veteran's Affairs Medical Center. She was a very sweet lady. She had served as a nurse in WW2.

She had been raised in the segregated southern US. She had served in a segregated military.

She loved to tell people about how much better the world is now. She would always gesture at herself, and then the rainbow skin hues of the various doctors and nurses who took care of her. That a white or Asian nurse or doctor would take such gentle and loving care of a black woman on a daily basis and see her only as a patient rather than first a foremost a person of color would have been truly inconceivable in the world she grew up in. That her roommate for years at the VA was a white female vet, also a nurse from WW2, and that they were close friends would have also been inconceivable. The two women would not have even been allowed to serve in the same unit back in the war because of their skin colors. And here they were, roommates and friends...

The world is not yet perfect. There is still hatred and discrimination and intolerance. But the changes in the lifetime of this one woman are mindboggling when you contemplate them. The world is so much better now...

[Avatar]

The changes have been great, and on the whole, I do think that the world is better now.

(So the US army was still segregated in the 1940's? )

I think Foul makes an excellent point about the back and forth of the tide of popular opinion. And recently, (up until the last few years at least) things have been on a fairly liberal run. Guess the wheel is turning huh?

Still, I think that the backward steps are never enough to return to what was. Each time, a little less ground is lost to prejudice etc. Because once you've given "liberal" concessions, it's hard to take them away. It might succeed for a while, but they'll always come back in the end.

I also agree with Foul about the flag issue in this case, but only because it was added so recently. If the symbol had been on the state flag since it's inception, I'd feel a little differently about it.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

Yes, I'd tend to agree with you with the "2 steps forward, 1 step back" thing, but why should we take steps backwards at all? If we were really becoming more tolerant shouldn't the pace of change increase?

How can such a huge issue as banning same-sex marriage be supported so strongly in the USA? What happened to the open-mindedness and tolerance of the free country? Nobody's being hurt by gay people being married, so why ban it?

I think there's still too much religion in politics, perhaps I should have made a different thread to discuss that.

[Avatar]

I think there's still too much religion in politics...

Very true. And I think we often underestimate the impact that religion has on our laws and societies. Remember that to a large extent, the "morality" of the western world is still based on a biblical interpretation, and so are the laws.

The reason that almost every argument seems to come down to religion, is that religion is the foundation for many of the practices and views that are prevalent today.

We take steps back because people are resistant to change, I think. Even (hell, perhaps especially) when the change isn't going to actually affect them in any way.

People subconsciously think everybody should be like them. And that they know what is best for a person, or group, or whatever. Or at least, that the person or group isn't capable of choosing for themselves.

I agree that I can't understand this oppostion to gay marriage, for exactly the reason you mention. If you're not gay, why the hell should you care what gays want to do? Who gets hurt if you allow it? Nobody. Only peoples sense of "morality" and "Decency". And where do those "senses" tend to come from? Yep, religion.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

Yes, that seems to make sense.

I really can't imagine feeling a sense of moral outrage about something that hurts nobody and has no effect on me whatsoever. The only reason they've actually got is "This book, which may or may not have been written by God, told me so."

I don't see anything wrong with religion until it starts taking away rights from minority groups.

Same-sex marriage isn't legal here either, but civil partnerships for same-sex couples are. They offer all the same rights as marriage except adultery is not grounds for a dissolution of the partnership. Christian groups are lobbying against it, saying it's just a quiet way of instituting same-sex marriage. Damn right it is, and a good idea too.

[Avatar]

Damn right it is, and a good idea too.

Couldn't agree with you more.

--A

[Loredoctor]

We need quality to come back into political or social decisions. Until then, we repeat history.

[Avatar]

And how would you define that quality?

--A

[Loredoctor]

And how would you define that quality?

--A

Oh God, here we go Quality is defined by those who are capable of making informed decisions.

[Avatar]

So in order to make good decisions, the people making them should be informed?

It's too nebulous a definition, although perhaps my question was unclear. What I get from your definition is just more questions.

Anybody who can make an informed decision is automatically of higher quality? Well, in essence, I could agree with that. The problem is that in terms of the people making decisions, they are making "quality" ones, based on their information.

Simply being in a position to make those decisions doesn't mean that they will be quality ones, does it?

--A

[Loredoctor]

So in order to make good decisions, the people making them should be informed?

It's too nebulous a definition, although perhaps my question was unclear. What I get from your definition is just more questions.

Anybody who can make an informed decision is automatically of higher quality? Well, in essence, I could agree with that. The problem is that in terms of the people making decisions, they are making "quality" ones, based on their information.

Simply being in a position to make those decisions doesn't mean that they will be quality ones, does it?

--A

They earn the right to be in higher positions because they can make informed decisions. And how do you decide what is quality? Science.

[Avatar]

They earn the right to be in higher positions because they can make informed decisions.

And therein lies the fundamental point of our disagreement. They do not earn the right to those positions (I assume you mean political positions) by being better qualified, they "earn" it by convincing people that they are the best option for the job. The people don't decide who will be elegible for it, the party makes that decision.

If your view of this were accurate, how do you account for the corrupt, the greedy, and the simply inept? Plenty of them have held high positions over time. Their ability to make the right decisions isn't what's important, it's their ability to convince the voters that they can. Whether that's true or not can only be proved by time. And very often, time proves that it is not true.

--Avatar

[Gart]

My feeling is that the backlash that we're seeing is a consequence of intellectual tolerance having to become practical tolerance. By which I mean that it's fairly easy to be tolerant in the abstract; quite another when you're faced with something on a personal level.

"Tolerance" is in itself quite an interesting word, when you think about it. My dictionary defines "tolerate" as "endure, permit, allow to exist...etc.", which I would catagorise as largely applying to negative situations - one endures something unpleasant, for example. By saying that we're tolerant aren't we implying that the people we're being tolerant of are doing something wrong?

On the other hand, I think that tolerance (heh) and respect should be two way streets. We should show both to minorities, absolutely; but as with Nathan's example of the English flag, said minorities should similarly respect or at least accept the culture of the country to which they've come. But it's difficult to enact or enforce a law against "taking the p*ss".

[Avatar]

An excellent post Gart, (and always a pleasure to see you here or in the 'Tank).

You raise a very interesting point, and although I could point to evolving usages of vocabulary, I think that, in essence, that is just the way that people feel when it comes to tolerance. "I'll put up with it, but that doesn't mean I think it's right."

Perhaps acceptance would be slightly better, but I think that even there, there is a bit of a negative implication.

The thing is though, I think, that we're going to have to "accept" that. It's highly unlikely that we're going to convince people who believe that "X" is wrong, to change their minds. Best we can hope for is that they accept that others don't think that it is.

That really was a great post, especially the difference between "abstract" and "practical" tolerance.

--A

[ur-bane]

Agreed, Gart. Excellent post.

"I'll put up with it, but that doesn't mean I think it's right."

Exactly. If something didn't rub you the wrong way, there would be nothing to tolerate.

[[Syl]]

I could point to evolving usages of vocabulary...

Or devolving, depending on how you look at it. [/ot]

[Plissken]

Personally, I think that as a culture, we're continually improving. As an example in Western Culture, race relations started out as, "Holy Crap! Those people have black/red/yellow skins/different clothing! Are they demons? If not, do you think we can conquer them?"

[Avatar]

I tend to think the same. Sure, it's slow and difficult going sometimes, but even in our time, hell, perhaps especially in our time, there have been unbelievable changes.

Who can imagine what the future will hold for us? And every small victory makes the next one just that much more inevitable.

--Avatar