Tolerance - what is it? Where do we stop?
About a week ago I had an interesting discussion with a friend about tolerance.
What does it mean? When can one consider him- or herself as tolerant? And should we (Western Europe, US) be 'tolerant' regarding the current developments with immigration and multiculturalism?
I think one cannot name himself tolerant, because it's not black and white. For instance, I would consider myself not very tolerant - meaning that my "borders" or "line in the sand" will be crossed earlier than the one of my friend. But until that border is crossed I am tolerant and after crossing I'll be intolerant. Some people may have their border at gay marriage and some will have it at transgender rights.
Coming back to the question of whether 'we' should be tolerant.. Are we really aware of the consequences that mainstream tolerance brings? I think the current focus is too much on "we're tolerant" instead of "where is our line in the sand". Shouldn't we think about this more before we make fundamental changes to our society that may not be undone?
ps. please excuse any spelling mistakes - I'm not a native speaker.
What does it mean? When can one consider him- or herself as tolerant? And should we (Western Europe, US) be 'tolerant' regarding the current developments with immigration and multiculturalism?
I think one cannot name himself tolerant, because it's not black and white. For instance, I would consider myself not very tolerant - meaning that my "borders" or "line in the sand" will be crossed earlier than the one of my friend. But until that border is crossed I am tolerant and after crossing I'll be intolerant. Some people may have their border at gay marriage and some will have it at transgender rights.
Coming back to the question of whether 'we' should be tolerant.. Are we really aware of the consequences that mainstream tolerance brings? I think the current focus is too much on "we're tolerant" instead of "where is our line in the sand". Shouldn't we think about this more before we make fundamental changes to our society that may not be undone?
ps. please excuse any spelling mistakes - I'm not a native speaker.
Comments (45)
- how would you manifest your intolerance over an idea ? - because over a fact you can take action. ( idea is just an abstraction of the fact, it's a mental construct or projection in our minds ) think of it like the idea of a building and the building itself ( they are totally different )
With ideas it’s most important to extensively outline the consequences of it. What we see happening now is more and more ideas [progressive ideas] many of which most people used to be intolerant to - become actions, tolerated actions. I’m very interested in this shift, but mostly worry about it tbh. For example, women were given the right to vote around 100 years ago. There was a hard fought struggle, but “we” made it. Where are certain groups of people fighting for today? We’ve got LGBT rights (most of it), we’ve got quite a lot of religious tolerance.. and what I’m seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural developments like this) is for example pedophilia. Now it’s mostly discussed as an idea and the “pedophiles” are seen as a group whose ‘rights’ are currently not recognised. When the idea of pedophilia is turned into action, one can see the most horrible, evil things happening we now know. I think that over 90% of people would agree with me on this. However.. the same thing was said about homophilia a couple of decades ago.
There’s two points that concern me.
First, when discussing ideas which are currently being discussed as to whether they’re tolerable or not, we must consider what happens when they become actions. What actually happens to the peoples involved and society as a whole? Ideas often have a more romantic feel to them, while actions display hidden bitter truths.
Second, where does this end? It seems to me that many have become blinded by the idea that we must be tolerant. And that we all eventually will be. Where is our line in the sand? Are we going to draw one that actually holds and can thus also be applied in the future?
I find this very difficult to believe. Have you any actual examples?
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
Salon is a populair, progressive website with about 11 million unique visitors a month ( https://www.quantcast.com/salon.com#trafficCard )
What stood out to me in this article was the tone. Being a pedophile is being described as something that in fact victimises the person in question. Also, notice the links being made to 'being gay'.
I'm aware that what I'm trying to get across might seem a little far-fetched or frightening, but I'm thinking about it in a bigger picture. In the ongoing 'struggle' for tolerance and rights for certain groups. Please note, I have absolutely nothing against people living their life without harming anyone. I just think it's important to think about the longterm consequences of the changes that are being pushed.
in the current state and direction pedophiles will have rights too in a decade or so. Everyone will be allowed to rape a minor ( a few times legally - then it becomes illegal ) this could be a tolerant act of law regarding this subject.
But your concerns are totally valid and the direction we're headed to is pretty clear today. The majority of people are uneducated and mentally ill ( as in deficient thinking according to reality - like a wrong behavior in a clearly stated framework of behaviors ). They live in illusions and the mind plays tricks on them too.
Until we realize what we are, we can never become anything.
We will just run around in circles repeating the same mistakes over and over again until salvation or total destruction.
Until we realise what we are, we can never become anything. - 100% Agreed! I think the problem is the biggest within my generation (the spoiled, unaware millennials). We have no idea where we came from, and are only focused on where we’re going — which is not specified; the only way is forward.
How do you think we can make ourselves more aware of who we are? How can we get people to realise that the acceptance of certain acts or rights can/will eventually be our downfall? Again, this may sound somewhat pessimistic, but when you think about it.. A culture can only exist and survive when it’s well aware of its history and traits.
I see a diminishing of this in Western / liberal culture but an uprising in Islamic culture - which is increasing itself in the West. I have many muslim and Middle-Eastern friends, and I see a certain pride in their eyes when they talk about their culture and religion. Good for them, but consider the demise of Western culture.. Our culture and worldview is shifting - rapidly. If we don’t find out what makes us, us, and make people aware of that, we will lose our way of living and culture.
But in daily life
, since day 1, constantly becoming, but NEVER knowing what we are.
And we are lost in this becoming forever because it never ends, because there is no destination and we will never make it out of the woods because we are simply running after an exist but never stopping to see where we are actually, so in this race we will be lost and doomed slowly.
The 1st problem of mankind if I can say is: EVERYONE wants his RIGHTS but NO ONE EVER talks about his responsibilities after being alive.
We should radically change the entire practice of living.
We should assign certain default responsibilities to every human being on Earth.Because when you are responsible for something you act with great care and empathy.
So for me that would be the 1st step.
So you wouldn't urge tolerance if a white nationalist was barely concealing his rage against the brown foreigner who just moved in next door?
It is just humans getting more and more distracted, having access to millions of distractions each day.
As long as we don't understand what pleasure is and the pursuit of it, what desire is, what fear is and how it can end, and all the other important aspects of life, there is no better tomorrow.
Today people are too cowards to express their minds and say what they think, because of the fear of being ridiculized or misjudged, and they go with the only possible solution that we know and feel, that is Ignorance
Hmm, is that what I said? I really don't think it was!
It's not "what you said", it's a consequence of what you said. If we should not be tolerant, then the white nationalist should not be tolerant of his brown neighbor who just moved in next door. If it were good for nobody, explain how it's not good for the brown guy next door if it's the only thing that's keeping him from being a victim of racism.
I'll ask you again, would you, or would you not, urge tolerance if a white nationalist was barely concealing his rage against the brown foreigner who just moved in next door?
If you want the answer in those bald terms then, no. Absolutely not. It would do far more harm than good - actually it would do no good at all!
You wouldn't ask him to be tolerant?
Is there some new alternative meaning for the word 'no' of which I've not been made aware?
I'm just making sure I understand you before I fully commit myself to abject despair.
If the only thing that would prevent a racist from assaulting an innocent person was you saying to him, listen mate, he's not a bad bloke just be a bit more tolerant, you actually think it would do less harm to say nothing and let him kick his head in for being a different colour?
Please bear in mind that everyone can read what you're saying.
Btw, I think that the revolution is already happening. It's been simmering for quite some years and with all the distractions also come new opportunities such as alternative media. Ignorance is declining as the people are waking up. Less and less people are trusting mainstream media - which never discusses the real issues and is providing most news with a false narrative. The problem is that we need more people wake up and above all to speak out.
You've pretty much encapsulated everything that's wrong with the 'tolerance movement' today. As if it is possible to scold people into abandoning their mindset or make them better like some kind of missionary sent from God (or Queen Victoria - it's hard to tell the difference sometimes).
And what if we persuade him to be tolerant, to put up with it? Do you really think that's a long term solution, that there won't be more and more resentment building up as compromises are made day after day and he is forced to deny his true feelings? That's a recipe for powder kegs that are bound to explode with far worse consequences for everybody. That's what causes riots, fascist rallies and ultimately wars.
So no. The last thing I'm going to be doing is going around telling people to play let's pretend. Let's pretend that you're not unhappy, afraid, fuming. Let's pretend that you can just 'snap out of it' like a good little soldier. Let's pretend that avoiding problems and confrontations and misunderstandings and practising our stiff upper lip is a healthy way to live. Because that's what tolerance is!
In the five steps of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, tolerance is all of the first four and never the last. Regrettably pretty much every social reform movement that ever existed, none more so than the pc and professionally offended brigades of this age, has that totally arse about face. Which brings us back to your judgey, preachy 'despair' rather neatly. All you see in my original post is far from all that is there but you simply can't (or more likely won't) see further than the contradiction of the current dogma. Oh, the heresy!
A long, long time ago (and here's my despair) a black community leader in Bristol, just after a series of riots there, said that race would cease to be a problem in the UK when everybody finally stopped treating it as a problem. Those of us who understand what he meant have grown tired of waiting for it to happen knowing that counselling (let's face it, it's really attempting to coerce) tolerance is just another way of continuing to treat it as a problem.
I think you've got a gripe with something that may or may not be a problem in society, but have jumped on what I've said in a case of mistaken identity. Privacy has nothing to do with anything here. He's put private thoughts onto a public forum. They're fair game. I've not bullied him, nor called him a racist - not even close. Neither have I called for someone to self-censor; only that he thinks about what he's saying before he commits to the position that there is more harm in tolerance than there is in someone being physically assaulted, as in my example. I gave him a chance to side with common sense.
It also sounds like in calling me out, you're trying to make me self-censor. Jeez, what a bigot.
But he decided to go ahead with a position which is clearly untenable to the point of being silly. He outright denies the possibility of my hypothetical even being valid, rather than admit that the tolerance it effects does have a helpful place in society (you're either tolerant or you're not). It's also proven by the fact that his longer response is full of non-sequiturs - not to mention some clearly built-up frustrations he's finally taking out on anything that looks even remotely like the nearest possible target - and self-serving conclusions as to what might happen if we exercise tolerance, all of which are purely his own logicless speculations.
If he had granted it's possibility, then he would have to concede the point that tolerance can be a good thing, in the right situations, if it prevents unnecessary harm, as opposed to it's never being so. His denial was clear when he said "that's not going to stop him!" It is perfectly possible that it might, and that is one situation where the value of tolerance would be evident. It is better to at least try to get each other to act tolerantly, because it might work. It might prevent real, actual harm (as opposed to this vague, invisible harm to society as a whole). Just because tolerance isn't enough or good in all situations, such as these riots you mentioned, does not mean that it isn't in any.
You show me supposed 'harm' in tolerance, and I'll show you the actual physical harm of intolerance. Here's an example: tolerance was what the UK had before the Brexit vote. Now, many people seem to think the vote gave them a green light to verbally and physically abuse anyone who isn't white with a British accent. These racists were always there, but they tolerated the 'Others', and it was working until the vote. That's now gone, and intolerance has taken its place. Literally, they will not tolerate people who are not white and speak with the right kind of accent. Racially motivated crimes are up by 41%.
If something does the job, I'll take it. It works until it stops working, and then you find something else.
I'm not part of this "tolerance movement" you seem to want to pick a fight with, either. Unless by that you mean simply wanting us all to make the effort to put aside whatever disagreements we have with the way other people harmlessly live their lives. How awful of me; I never considered the harm I was doing to people. What a prick I am.
I'm inclined to agree - I think Western liberalism (I don't mean liberal in the American political sense, but the broad tradition of Western democratic, free-market, pluralistic liberalism that all Western countries have) is in some basic way undermining itself. So in that respect, I agree with some of the conservatives. (Although in the USA, in particular, political conservatism is associated with many ideas that I can't abide like gun rights, financial deregulation and corporatism.)
I think, basically, western culture has cut it own spiritual roots; I see scientific materialism as a major cause of that. I'm not advocating a return to some imagined golden past, because I don't think there was one, but I think a reconnection with the spiritual values fundamental to the Judeo-Christian tradition is badly needed: small-scale cultures, businesses, and communities, albeit still able to leverage the economies of scale that globalism provides.
The problem is that the dynamic of modern political economics is that it has to keep becoming something new every day. Nothing lasts. It's the so-called 'creative destruction of capitalism', and it's built into the very modes of living that the Western world now relies on. And I don't think it will change by any kind of enlightened free choice, I think more likely it will precipitate something massively destructive. And perhaps something new will come out of that, but don't hold your breath.
Hence, the reason that the most advanced and integrated democracy in the world became Nazi Germany. Its sort of a schizophrenic way to organize a country but, again, it beats getting nothing. What the future holds is self-organizing systems that will make even western democracy appear tame in comparison.
What does it mean? When can one consider him- or herself as tolerant? And
should we (Western Europe, US) be 'tolerant' regarding the current
developments with immigration and multiculturalism?
[/quote]
"Willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does
not necessarily agree with" -- dictionary
Go back far enough up any branch of your family tree and you will always find
an immigrant, maybe even with a different culture than the ones practiced by
those who were there before you, even if the land was empty. Someone either
tolerated their presence, or were unwelcome invaders who ultimately established
productive roots.
[quote=Linda]
I think one cannot name himself tolerant, because it's not black and white.
For instance, I would consider myself not very tolerant - meaning that my
"borders" or "line in the sand" will be crossed earlier than the one of my
friend. But until that border is crossed I am tolerant and after crossing
I'll be intolerant. Some people may have their border at gay marriage and
some will have it at transgender rights.
[/quote]
I think "line in the sand" is either an odd or fitting analogy. If you
actually drew a line in the sand, any strong wind will erase it. As for
borders, I thought they were a bit odd as they nearly disappear from a
distance. You go back far enough in history, and you will see that acceptance
of most things have fluctuated over time and distance.
[quote=Linda]
Coming back to the question of whether 'we' should be tolerant.. Are we really
aware of the consequences that mainstream tolerance brings? I think the
current focus is too much on "we're tolerant" instead of "where is our line
in the sand". Shouldn't we think about this more before we make fundamental
changes to our society that may not be undone?
[/quote]
Yes, I think we have a long history of reaping the rewards of tolerance. You
could actually reduce it down to scientific and mathematical algorithms. Take
expected return, for
example. That is the value that can be expected, based on probability,
over the long run. Tolerance means accepting low risk in exchange for
the potential benefits. That shows why it isn't black and white, there is
an element of risk. Everything in life involves some acceptance of risk, but
we usually don't think about it. When we do, that risk seems emotionally
unacceptable, but if we objectively look at the benefits, it may be worth
considering. If I really thought about how many people die in car accidents
every day, I ought to never want to drive again -- but the benefits of being
able to travel around far outweighs the risk.
[quote=Linda]
Where are certain groups of people fighting for today? We’ve got LGBT rights
(most of it), we’ve got quite a lot of religious tolerance.. and what I’m
seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are
basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural
developments like this) is for example pedophilia. Now it’s mostly discussed
as an idea and the “pedophiles” are seen as a group whose ‘rights’ are
currently not recognised. When the idea of pedophilia is turned into action,
one can see the most horrible, evil things happening we now know. I think that
over 90% of people would agree with me on this. However.. the same thing was
said about homophilia a couple of decades ago.
[/quote]
Maybe there is a different trend at work here. Progressives are moving toward
respect for rights and consent. Pedophilia is not at the end of that slippery
slope because it inherently means without consent as children can't consent.
When I was little, it was still okay to beat women and children, and now it
is no longer accepted. Doesn't that mean social tolerance is being reduced?
[quote=Linda]
First, when discussing ideas which are currently being discussed as to whether
they’re tolerable or not, we must consider what happens when they become
actions. What actually happens to the peoples involved and society as a whole?
[/quote]
We have considered what happens. Marriage is apparently a good thing for
individuals and society. It decreases STDs and places an obligation of
financial and legal responsibility. Why would we block that benefit from
a portion of society? It seems the only cost here is a bit of discomfort
among some people. Actually, there was a time in Europe when only Catholics
could get married. The problems that caused among protestants lead to the
institution becoming secular.
[quote=Linda]
Second, where does this end? It seems to me that many have become blinded by
the idea that we must be tolerant. And that we all eventually will be. Where
is our line in the sand? Are we going to draw one that actually holds and can
thus also be applied in the future?
[/quote]
Obviously, this ends when there is no more benefit to tolerating the
behavior. Currently the trend in progressiveness is toward more universal
acceptance of human rights. The benefits of human rights is a bit hard to
pin down.
[quote=Linda]
How do you think we can make ourselves more aware of who we are? How can we
get people to realise that the acceptance of certain acts or rights can/will
eventually be our downfall? Again, this may sound somewhat pessimistic, but
when you think about it.. A culture can only exist and survive when it’s well
aware of its history and traits.
[/quote]
There is a psychological tendency to paint history as virtuous and beneficial.
Go back a few centuries and there are a lot of real horror stories. Things
like slavery, proverty, disease and raw sewage. Those paragons of virtue from
our history books engaged in all of that, even gay and child sex. You can
also see the real causes of social downfalls isn't usually due to inability
to tolerate changes, but inability to adapt to them.
[quote=Linda]
- that is exactly one of the biggest problems in our society these days.
No privacy, public shaming, bullying (calling someone racist etc.) - this all
causes people to censor themselves and that is not only harmful for a
discussion, it's also very dangerous.
[/quote]
This is very new feature of society. When I was a kid, it was very hard to
say anything and be heard. Maybe you could write a letter to the editor and
hope it gets published in a newspaper. Now you have the greatest communication
and socialization invention in history and you want to complain about how your
ideas aren't accepted? Those ideas were always there, and some of them were
probably more accepted than today. You could get away with saying a lot of
racists things in the past, mostly because those ideas were shared by the
dominant culture of the time. What is really seems to be annoying is that
some of the ideas we used to tolerate, which were damaging to society, (like
racism and sexism), are on a footing of equality with the rest of the world
and there is no more protection from dominant societies and societies can no
longer dominate or have to submit to each other.
Maybe Western culture is finally returning to those original Judeo-Christian values. Wasn't tolerance the foundation of many of the original teachings? The Jewish commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, the Christian amendment to even love your enemies? Wasn't their a mission to spread the message of love and tolerance to all nations and all people? Maybe the interpretation of those teachings gets colored by political views, but it seems there is more interest in the really radical views of not condemning and rejecting people because they were poor, or doing something not socially acceptable. I think the majority of Christians these days owe their faith to being tolerated and even accepted.
There is a black and a white, but in social affairs those extreme states are separated by many standard deviations of subtle grayscale.
Quoting Linda
"Personal boundaries" would be a less provocative term than "line in the sand" and is as effective. You might be extremely intolerant -- I don't know -- OR it might just be that your personal boundaries have not been crossed recently.
We can all be tolerant of non-threatening and distant people. I can be very tolerant of Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel because they are very distant and the details of their meshuganah do not concern me. The wicked practices of minor apparatchiks in the Chinese Communist Party are even easier subjects of toleration.
Quoting Linda
True enough, but an interesting question is "Why there" -- wherever "there" happens to be.
Because the media coverage of certain topics is so ubiquitous, we may feel like our personal boundaries are being threatened when they are actually not.
For instance, transgendered adults comprise about 1/2 of 1% of the US population -- a little over a million people -- out of about 320 million people in the US. In the last year there have been a handful of cases where schools have been sued over toilet arrangements for transgendered students. Judging by the coverage and the uproar, one would think that the population of transgender juveniles must be in the millions. It isn't --not even close.
Some newspapers provide serious coverage of transgender people, and focus on instances where there is evidence of resistance, and intolerance. Advocacy positions might be taken within the story or in editorial commentary. School boards or employers, or religious spokespeople might be referenced as "intolerant, homophobic, insensitive, xenophobic, or hateful in quoted statements.
The deliberate or inadvertent message is that transgender people should definitely be accepted. If you don't, you are an intolerant and hateful.
In fact, you may have had neither the opportunity nor the motivation to be tolerant or intolerant of transsexuality. But if you have a reaction to the news story that places you in the column of "intolerant" you might think you had been, when you actually had not been intolerant.
Yes, and it was a Jewish commandment, (considered #13 out of 613), too:
[quote=Leviticus 19:17-18]“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.[/quote]
Sure, I believe that some tolerance might have helped us in the past. But how about today? We're experiencing an influx of many different cultures that are still dealing with issues which we have already dealt with.. What do you think we have to win from this? Because I see very few cultural, societal or financial gains at the moment.
Quoting swstephe ... Quoting swstephe
It could very well be the case that this isn't really about tolerance (if that's what you're talking about). It might just be some issues that are being pushed with the idea of keeping the political engaged population occupied. Because who knows what happens when they dive into the more complex matters of international relations, government corruption or the course of their country.
Quoting swstephe
Yes, and I'm not trying to make it sound as if everything used to be better. But my point is that we have to be aware of where we are right now, because it seems that the current trend is that all progression is actually good. Over the long run we risk losing many of the things that - for instance - provide us freedom.
Financially, in general, immigrants bring an economy with them. They tend to look for jobs, earn some money, they spend it on food and rent and pay taxes. That's more money for businesses and more money for government services. Add onto that that many groups in the new influx of immigrants have needed skills. Some people panic at the idea that they are taking their jobs, but often what it means to locals is that they get promoted to leadership positions. There are economists who believe that additional competition has beneficial results. It drives down prices and gives people more choices, helping to improve product quality. Even local companies who run factories in foreign countries, (who often get burned by the host government), might consider returning to take advantage of the situation.
Culturally? Immigrants tend to add more variety to life. I couldn't imagine life here in California without a Chinese, Italian, Mexican and Middle-Eastern resturant somewhere in town. If it weren't for German immigrants during World War II, there would probably be no NASA. There are many other inventions which were the result of immigrants interacting and adopting our culture. That was the whole basis of the Rennaisance in Europe bringing them out of the Dark Ages, (adopting all that foreign technology and concepts).
Socially? It is a bit complicated, while they might bring different practices, (some are technically superior), one of the main points of conversation with immigrant families is how the children tend to abandon their old ways and adopting the social values where they are. Sometimes ithey even take what they learned back to their own society. Eventually each culture can reach a consensus on a better way.
Exactly. I used to consider myself as more of a cultural libertarian, however, since these issues are getting more and more attention in the media, I feel as if it's being pushed. As you said, the number of Americans actually being transgender and the amount of media attention the bathroom issue has been getting - is a great example. The world is 'on fire' and we seem to be looking for problems within our own society to explore / emphasise / push .. causing people to take a stand. And because our boundaries aren't (in most cases actually) threatened, we're inclined to think; 'Meh, why not, everybody deserves rights'. But what would happen if these issues would actually reach us before we were urged to take a stand? Wouldn't we be a bit more critical about them? Or take a bit more time to figure out the consequences?
I want to come back to those three points because I've got a very different experience with them.
Financially: the current influx of refugees / migrant is putting a huge strain on our state budget. Almost all of them aren't working at this moment - yes, we have to keep in mind that the process of becoming a citizen takes one or more years. Still, they are currently fully dependant on government spending when it comes to housing, food, education, health care and 'living money' (to spend as they like).
Because of EU regulation we're only allowed to have a 3% deficit - meaning we have to cut back on social securities for the elderly and students. I've looked into rapports about refugees in Europe and quite a few articles and tbh, they don't lie.. It's putting an enormous strain on our budget. This used to be different with previous influxes, in where the migrants did many low-paid jobs.
Culturally: yes! Immigrants do bring a lot of culture with them and we've enjoyed this a lot here with the Italians, Spanish, Germans etc. However, this is because they bring a similar culture, one that just differentiates on 'details' and general less important aspects such as speech, expression and religious (Christian) branches. They usually take 2 or 3 generations to merge into the main culture. Now we're faced with much bigger cultural differences.. Some freedoms which we've accepted for decades are intolerable in the foreign culture. Instead of the foreign culture 'enriching' the host culture, it's making the host culture adapt itself to the guest culture.
Socially: what I see is not so much an abandoning of their own culture. As just mentioned, the cultures don't easily merge - not surprising when looking at their markup. Also, we're witnessing a polarisation in society. Some have faith in the idea that this will work out over time and some have had bad experiences: cut back on social security, houses being redistributed or being unsafe in public (as I can confirm myself).
I was including Europe, and pretty much every other area of the world, (except maybe eastern Africa). You are right, it is important to know who you are. A lot of DNA and archaeological research has lead to the conclusion that the first Europeans, just after the last ice age, came along the same route as many of today's immigrants:
Quoting Linda
There are other EU laws, such as they must find employment within 2-3 years or they lose refugee status. Many of those problems have been taken into account. Every new group of immigrants struggle at the start, then most become productive, hard-working, members of society. Here is the DIW's analysis of economic impact under optimistic/pessimistic scenarios:
Quoting Linda
You have to ask why they are similar. It is probably because there was a lot of interchange of cultures for centuries. How much did the Romans have in common with the Visigoths? Nearby cultures integrated over time. Look at Christmas celebrations, an outside observer would see it as a strange blend of Middle-Eastern religion/mysticism and local "pagan" traditions. History is full of integration and mutual benefits.
Quoting Linda
They said the same thing just about every immigration. The immigrants arrive, broke, not owning any property, so they end up in cheap neighborhoods. It happened when the Irish, Italia and Jewish refugees arrived in the US. There was plenty of literature written at the time about how they were uncivilized drunkards who couldn't even control their violent or sexual urges. At the time, it wasn't unusual to see signs saying, "Irish need not apply". Then the locals like to complain that those immigrants never try to integrate. I always thought that was odd. When I lived in far away foreign countries, I saw "expat communities", where Europeans huddled together and never bothered to even learn the local language or eat local foods. (I was always the weird one, and a bit of an outcast for treating locals as equals). But I guess that is human nature. I don't expect people to immediately integrate -- it is a process that takes time -- but I think it is important to imagine yourself in their place. If your government and a bunch of foreign factions had reduced your house to rubble and you had to go to their country and beg for help, wouldn't the claim that you refuse to integrate into their culture a cruel and inhumane response? Those immigrants would probably be as desperate as you to find a solution so this emergency arrangement would be as friendly as possible.
Weird how I more or less agreed with the thrust of your post and then start foaming around the mouth because you could have simply stopped at "spiritual values".
There's more to this world than owning stuff but it isn't a religion. In fact, We'd be better off without materialism and religion.
Things, people and circumstances form parts of our ego, as well as our body. Home, our city, the job, family, friends, the economic and the political environment, our abilities and our shortcomings, they all form our self identity, ego. Our ego tells us what we deserve. We fight for our rights, and then more.
The amount of our tolerance for an entity is in proportion to the portion of our ego it occupies. We are more tolerant of our loved ones, than of others.
We judge others by these parameters (our preformed notions; prejudices). We wish punishment for those who are better off than we think they deserve to be.
Our mind stores our emotions to relive once again. That is why a surgeon builds a different emotional make up (character) for himself, than a murderer, even though they engage in cutting others up. When we wish punishment for others, our mind swallows that emotion. I suspect this is the reason Jesus told us not to judge others, or we will be judged by our own parameters. An angry person creates angry world for himself, and loving person receives love.
Also in this modern age of globalization there's no room for intolerance. Everyone's connected in one way or another - we all depend on each other if civilization is to survive.
The three primary colors – blue, red, and green – when combined produce an array of hundreds of millions of shades.
The four basic temperaments – choleric, melancholic, sanguine, and phlegmatic – when combined produce the planet’s 7 billion people.
The different races combine to define what we now call humankind.
The laws of physics – the law of gravity, the law of conservation of energy – combine to give us the world as we know it and to which we have adapted.
Thus, tolerance is an imprecise and even harmful concept.
See how polite this sounds: “I am tolerant of others’ opinions,” “I am tolerant of others’ skin color,” “I am tolerant of others’ religion.”
But see how stupid this sounds: “I am tolerant of the color blue,” “I am tolerant of the law of gravity.”
Instead of tolerance, the correct word is awareness.
I am aware that the law of gravity is an integral part of the general laws of nature. I have to adapt to this law in order to survive and grow.
I am aware that the color blue (and the colors green and red) are an integral part of the color palette. I have to accept this as truth.
I am aware that other people’s skin color, religion, personality, manners, and ethnicity are an integral part of humankind and its development.
These things will always exist, whether or not I am tolerant of them. I can only choose to be aware of them and accept them as truth.