Tolerance From on High

In Sampson's Great American city he mentioned the idea of universal constants in regards to urbanization. His example was that of the strip mall, and I recall thinking further of the example of the chain restaurant. There are likely other examples as well, but what I am concerned with are universal constants that appear across diverse cultures such as comparing America to Japan, Africa to Europe, or perhaps South America to Russia. The point being to pick two (or more) different countries whose cultures are excessively different to look for similarities ie don't use America and the United Kingdom as they have too much common ground.


We see certain actions or things are universal among people regardless of where one is located. One such example is that of children playing. We don't need to run numbers or show graphs to say that children probably play in more or less the same way across the world because they are human. Other such actions occur as well, and we can attribute that to human nature. It only seems natural that people who all seem to have about the same nature. In fact, it should be somewhat self evident that people, regardless of what country they are from, want more of less the same thing – to be happy. Now, we don't need to define happiness, rather I would simply say that all people can kindly define it as the absence of pain, loss, etc. Even people whom are raised differently, for example raised to think murder is not wrong, (should) realize that they themselves would not want to be murdered, and thus, murdering another is wrong.


So why would somebody discriminate against another? We might say that they feel threatened or that there is some economic advantage such as the profits made from slavery, but I have another idea that is somewhat... mean. I posit that people are not meant to get along in the way that we push upon them in our overly sensitive world. To clarify so as not to put off further readers, I am not saying we should be intolerant or discriminate.


Let us examine a letter CS Lewis wrote. “Lewis is examining the question of there being a God, or a supreme morality that should be (discovered or) followed. In his writing he notes two separate moralities, that of the Nazi party and that of Christians. He argues that if there was not a supreme morality we could not declare that any one group's actions were better than that of another, so the Nazi's and the Christian's morality would be no different.” This implies that there is a supreme morality, but this is not our focus. We are going to look at his idea of group systems and describe subjectivity.


To have a subjective view of something is to state one's own personal view on the matter. If I were to say that America was the best country on our planet, I would be stating my view. Another person, say, an oppressed North Korean, could say, and mean, the same thing for their country. But how can they say such a thing, we might ask as Americans or people of other prosperous countries. It is simply a subjective view point.


Take an easy example such as sports teams. Let's say that you greatly prefer the Chicago Bears. We don't need to say why, or how, but over time you begin to feel that the Green Bay Packers are a better team and, consequently, the one you want to root for or “side with” – and so you do.


The same can be applied to culture. If you thought another culture was better than your own you can go take up that culture, though you might look different depending upon the culture, nothing stops me, a white, German male from taking up the Japanese culture and following it if I think it is better. Nothing except the fact that I like my culture better – but who doesn't?


So what sort of conclusion can we come to? Well, it seems clear that cultures, when they feel pressured by other cultures, groups, etc., often respond in discriminatory practices consciously or subconsciously.


America can easily be argued to be the greatest country on earth from an objective standpoint. It's frequently spoken of as the world's superpower, and other countries that want to partake in business learn the English language. But America has another, sometimes unspoken potential. Our country, though possessing it's own discriminatory practices, can be (and is now to some extent) the grounds for cultural togetherness – the melting pot of old.


But the implementation is wrong! It should not be that cultures should be forced to get along and mix together. It should not be that a person should have to admit their culture is even equal to another. Rather, it should be taught that all cultures offer something different from their own viewpoint but that doesn't mean you need to partake in it, like it, or not speak ill of it. The system that is the American government is the Ideal Morality spoken of by CS Lewis which designates overarching laws that govern all of the cultures of America. The system isn't perfect, but it changes as people change. They will follow those rules, but they will not and should not be made to cooperate if they don't want to, rather, they should simply get along and have their own areas with equal opportunity and freedom. If they choose to mix, let them, if they don't, let them as well so long as the system enforces equal opportunity.  


It is with understanding that natural curiosity will drive people to different cultures into the melting pot.  Forcing your tolerance upon another group is no different from discriminating, and we can't do it without saying our culture of tolerance is better than theirs.






http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/mere1.html