Bob Munoz wants us to change the language so that we are not just tolerating other groups of people. We are accepting them wholeheartedly.
—
It really ticks me off when folks sling the word “tolerance” when they really should be saying “acceptance” of other who are different. Social scientists, the media, politicians, even people who are different in their beliefs, ethnicity, or race use the word tolerance when they really mean acceptance.
Personally, I tolerate mosquitos, sloppy car washes, extremely hot and cold days and I could continue to fill this page with examples of what I tolerate. I do not want the majority of this country or other groups to tolerate me. I will settle only for being fully accepted for who I am.
To say that you tolerate members of a specific group is difficult for me to grasp. What you are really saying is that you really don’t approve of members of a group, however, you put up with whatever it is that irritates you or you find socially unacceptable.
I have always been of the mindset that I will settle for nothing short of being accepted. Consequently, I have had to verbally spar with some folks who had good intentions but insisted that we need to tolerate a certain group. “We must show tolerance towards one another”. Why not make this a better world and say, “We must demonstrate acceptance so that we can all share the same level of feelings, trust, and respect regardless of who you are”.
—
Photo: ambar stefania / flickr
Why does it feel like I’m reading a critique of John Locke? My favorite such response came from Washington, writing a century later: “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.” Granted, that was in a religious context, not a racial one. Still, people have been arguing over “toleration” for centuries, specifically with regard to the question of whether mere toleration is sufficient.
@Paul Hobson Yeah, well,…maybe.I don’t disagree with the idea that,at least,Americans need a device to force people to tolerate each other,lest all manner of chaos ensue.We should not forget that there are many examples of resistance to the inevitability of toleration.For instance,many whites not only accepted blacks but they risked their lives and reputations helping them.There is no greater demontration of accetance than that.Throughout American history there are many other examples of acceptance.One doesn’t have to be as enlighted as MLK to be accepting of others.As you know,the founders understood that democracy was a threat to freedom(the ruling class mostly).Freedom,naturally,was… Read more »
Of course, I’m not saying that no one has gone beyond tolerance – whether here in America, or elsewhere. Of course there are those who have, and those who always will. What I am saying is that it is futile to DEMAND that others do, because many times, others simply won’t. The human shadow looms large, and fear of the other runs deep in the human brain – deeper than we like to admit. See Stanley Kubrick’s “2001 A Space Odyssey”, where us monkeys over on this side of the river just aren’t all that accepting of them monkeys over… Read more »
Hi Bob May I ask you a question. Can you name a country anywhere in this world that manage to create the kind of society you want? And if that country exist, then how did they treat the newcomers into that country? Do you support the ideology called multiculturalism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism And what about all the great world religions in this picture. Islam and Christianty try to live side by side in Europe. Europe also have millions of Roma that struggles to survive outside the state they originally belong to,and their living conditions are worse than life in a third word… Read more »
“Not all Asians are studious, have squinty eyes, and speak the same language…” Hee hee! On my suburban commuter train into the city, if I am not napping, I read the NYT…sometimes I will get some old guy in a suit staring at me and saying something totally ignorant, like: “Wow– you can read all of that so fast…?!” (as if to imply that if I am Asian that I wouldn’t know how to read English….!)….instead of saying something rude back, I just smile and say very clearly that I read the paper everyday and then I mention what I… Read more »
Could just be a slow reader. I’ve had a comment before on reading fast, my brother reads even faster and shocks me lol.
Is there a middle way between Mr. Munoz’s initial essay and Paul’s response? Can striving toward language that celebrates diversity and honors peoples’ dignity stengthen the social contract eloquently describe by Paul?
Jeff writes: Can striving toward language that celebrates diversity and honors peoples’ dignity stengthen the social contract eloquently describe by Paul? — Hi Jeff – Striving is good, and strengthening the social contract is good, and kindness and compassion and true acceptance of “the other” is also good. It’s all good, when it’s held as a PERSONAL goal – or even a societal goal. It becomes bad – counterproductive – when it becomes a DEMAND that I make on others, which was the reading I got from Bob’s post. Here’s a quote, right from the beginning: >>> I do not… Read more »
Paul you said “And really – for folks who identify as progressives, liberals, lefties, etc – where do we come down in the question of TOLERANCE versus ACCEPTANCE when it comes to (say) Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz or even Pat Robertson. With the vast gulf in our political and social views, are we all so fully ACCEPTING of them? Or do we merely TOLERATE them, without necessarily wanting to break bread with them, and date them and marry them? That’s a rhetorical question, btw. (grin)” I would like to move this question from “rhetorical” to a question that I… Read more »
@Tom Hey man,yo wwwwhuzzupper!Of course I accept that Sarah and Pat are idiots.Ted Cruz,however IS DEFINITELY NOT AN IDIOT…he’s a political opportunist.You gotta shrew to pull that off.Just kidding.But then again,Pat claims he can heal you long distance through prayer alone.It is ironic or perhaps fortuitous that I should attempt to answer your question because it neatly dovetails into one my areas of irritation with GMP.Tom…my respected conservative friend and online foil…this is what it feels like to be black.To be tolerated is to be marginalized is it not?It is to come face to face with your powerlessness and the… Read more »
Ogwriter, very well stated … I knew if anyone may respond, you would. Of course you’re one who I believe “accepts” me for who I am and I’ll take it a step further without hesitation, respects me as well. And without it having to be said, I accept and respect you too. Why the heck can’t other people do as we do with one another? I struggle with all of this because it’s so out of the park for me, that I need the occasional reality check that there are still aspects of society that needs a lot of work.… Read more »
ERROR…. that wasn’t suppose to say “you people”…I was changing “you” to “people” and didn’t delete. Really really bad place to have made that error.
Excuse me but MLK was everybit as angry as Malcolm X.He just expressed it,perhaps,more wisely.He understood that angry black folk,no matter how righteous and natural, scared the shit out of most whites.Malcolm wanted to face this fear whites had directly.Blacks have not been allowed to react naturally to their oppression.Their reaction to their oppression must always be approved by white society to be legitimate.MLK understood this and fashioned his movement around this idea.
Later in life, after leaving Elijah Muhammed and the Black Muslims, and embracing a larger vision of Islam, Malcolm’s anger underwent an alchemical change, and become more like MLK’s – anger not at a people, but at human ignorance, which is very different. If you want to do a compare and contrast about being angry over a terribly unjust situation, two good figures are MLK and Stokeley Carmichael – or the early Malcolm X and the later Malcolm X. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about here, you should read some history. I actually lived through this history, so… Read more »
Oh yeah. Like ‘blonde moment’.
Bob writes: It really ticks me off when folks sling the word “tolerance” when they really should be saying “acceptance” of other who are different. Social scientists, the media, politicians, even people who are different in their beliefs, ethnicity, or race use the word tolerance when they really mean acceptance. — I can’t tell you what particular social scientists, media people and politicians individually mean when they use the word “tolerance”. Perhaps some do really mean “acceptance” in the sense that you use that word. But here are the facts: The social contract in a democracy is based on tolerance,… Read more »
Paul, I was going to say the same things, but you said it way better!
The author’s article sounds to me entitled and demanding.
And full of a delusional idealism.