"Actually, if you think about it, we should be striving for more than just tolerance. Tolerance is simply not objecting to the Black History Month signs in the second-floor hallway, tolerance is not making a fuss about the luncheon, tolerance is what many of us have been practicing for far too long."
I consider myself a tolerant person. I don't object to Black History Month signs in the second-floor hallway, I didn't make fuss about the luncheon, and tolerance is what I've been practicing for almost as long as I understood what it was. As far as I can tell, my tolerance has never had a detrimental effect on anyone. I think that if everyone had a live-and-let-live attitude (like mine) the world would be just fine. Unfortunately not everyone does.
I'm curious about why tolerance is not enough, and what specifically we should be doing instead. "Gaining knowledge" is kind of vague. Are you saying that everyone should study "other" cultures? (I don't want to derail discussion here, so I won't go into my cultural differences spiel.) If so, why is that better than live and let live? I can't learn everything in my life, so some cultural knowledge is going to remain unlearned by me in favor of other things. I don't see how not learning about people is going to make me less tolerant of them. Or is tolerance not the goal now, considering that you did say it's "unacceptable"? Is the gaining knowledge goal a part of the tolerance goal, or is it an object in and of itself?
If people must be so insistent on pigeonholing everyone and breaking everything down into racial or cultural groups, what's so wrong about these groups just ignoring each other? Better yet, we could stop insisting on grouping everyone together in semi-arbitrary ways based on race. Aren't we all Americans? Aren't we all citizens of the world? Aren't we all humans? I would rather I and everyone have the option to ignore anyone and everyone else if they wanted to, and anyone and everyone could ignore me.
In conclusion, I don't accept your challenge. I don't have to care about someone to tolerate them. I'm a skeptic in most matters, this one included. You won't get people who aren't tolerant to become that way by challenging them, and you won't solve the problem that they create through their intolerance by getting people who already align with your basic views more fired up about them. In then end, all I see is polarization, and a distinct lack of any common ground or attempts to reach the people who still act on discriminatory thought, which is the real problem. (Not saying you can't have discriminatory thoughts; thought is free from all restriction. It's on the actions that cause problems.) If people want to learn more about other groups/races/cultures/etc, I congratulate them. There is no question that more knowledge is a good thing. I'm explaining why I don't feel the need to devote myself to that study.
A few things I'm curious about
"Actually, if you think about it, we should be striving for more than just tolerance. Tolerance is simply not objecting to the Black History Month signs in the second-floor hallway, tolerance is not making a fuss about the luncheon, tolerance is what many of us have been practicing for far too long."
I consider myself a tolerant person. I don't object to Black History Month signs in the second-floor hallway, I didn't make fuss about the luncheon, and tolerance is what I've been practicing for almost as long as I understood what it was. As far as I can tell, my tolerance has never had a detrimental effect on anyone. I think that if everyone had a live-and-let-live attitude (like mine) the world would be just fine. Unfortunately not everyone does.
I'm curious about why tolerance is not enough, and what specifically we should be doing instead. "Gaining knowledge" is kind of vague. Are you saying that everyone should study "other" cultures? (I don't want to derail discussion here, so I won't go into my cultural differences spiel.) If so, why is that better than live and let live? I can't learn everything in my life, so some cultural knowledge is going to remain unlearned by me in favor of other things. I don't see how not learning about people is going to make me less tolerant of them. Or is tolerance not the goal now, considering that you did say it's "unacceptable"? Is the gaining knowledge goal a part of the tolerance goal, or is it an object in and of itself?
If people must be so insistent on pigeonholing everyone and breaking everything down into racial or cultural groups, what's so wrong about these groups just ignoring each other? Better yet, we could stop insisting on grouping everyone together in semi-arbitrary ways based on race. Aren't we all Americans? Aren't we all citizens of the world? Aren't we all humans? I would rather I and everyone have the option to ignore anyone and everyone else if they wanted to, and anyone and everyone could ignore me.
In conclusion, I don't accept your challenge. I don't have to care about someone to tolerate them. I'm a skeptic in most matters, this one included. You won't get people who aren't tolerant to become that way by challenging them, and you won't solve the problem that they create through their intolerance by getting people who already align with your basic views more fired up about them. In then end, all I see is polarization, and a distinct lack of any common ground or attempts to reach the people who still act on discriminatory thought, which is the real problem. (Not saying you can't have discriminatory thoughts; thought is free from all restriction. It's on the actions that cause problems.) If people want to learn more about other groups/races/cultures/etc, I congratulate them. There is no question that more knowledge is a good thing. I'm explaining why I don't feel the need to devote myself to that study.