Is tolerance a modern invention?

[zanshin]

My neighbor, who is fairly polarized Catholic, claims tolerance is a modern invention and self esteem is too. I'm think tolerance is inherent is Taoism and a very old concept, although I'm not sure if there's a word that directly translates, and also in Buddhism. Not sure about Christianity, the Greeks and Romans often basically assimilated outside religions and customs, but not sure if there is a Western tradition that implies tolerance. What do you bums think? What about self esteem?

[Aaron]

My neighbor, who is fairly polarized Catholic, claims tolerance is a modern invention and self esteem is too. I'm think tolerance is inherent is Taoism and a very old concept, although I'm not sure if there's a word that directly translates, and also in Buddhism. Not sure about Christianity, the Greeks and Romans often basically assimilated outside religions and customs, but not sure if there is a Western tradition that implies tolerance. What do you bums think? What about self esteem?

 

Your neighbor is partly right. Up until the middle part of the twentieth century most people were intolerant of other races. Although I know racism and genocide was prevalent in the East, I don't know enough about the history of Asia to make a commentary on it, but in regards to the West, what I can say is that when one looks at history, what one finds is that people consistently judged others based on race, sex, religion, and even wealth. The Western world, for instance, didn't see slavery as being wrong until close to the middle of the nineteenth century. Even those who fought against it, abolitionists, weren't thinking of the slaves they were trying to free as equals, but rather as inferior people that deserved compassion. If you weren't racist before the mid-twentieth century, then you were probably raised in a cabin in the middle of nowhere and knew absolutely nothing about Western society.

 

As an example of the extent of intolerance, keep in mind the Irish were persecuted when they first emigrated to the United States in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth century. Many were forced to take jobs that were traditionally performed by other minorities suffering discrimination, such as African Americans. People would destroy Irish camps and even lynch Irish men for crimes committed in the area, so it's not just people of other races and religions we are bigoted against. The fact of the matter is that for most of our existence, and some would say even currently, we have traditionally feared and loathed those who were different.

 

In regards to self esteem, I think that only the term is modern, the idea has been taught to children in most cultures, at least on a national level and to a degree a personal level. I think in part, this notion of self esteem is responsible for a lot of the racism that went on and still goes on.

 

Aaron

[zanshin]

YEah, self esteem is tricksy, you need some sort of confidence to do what is right and compassionate instead of following the crowd. Narcissism and nationalism are not conducive to compassion to those on the outside. We are social beings and it's our nature to identify with groups. I like to think people can be compassionate by nature and have some sort of inherent moral compass, but you are right about racism back in the day, they really did think other groups were inferior. We also talked about virtues and values with idea that virtues (via Thomas Aquinas) are objective but values more subjective. I think tolerance is a virtue but it is based on respecting values of others. Then again, I don't feel tolerance for racists, so still situational.

 

hmm, how do I practice tolerance? I like this guy and enjoy hearing his opinions which I mostly disagree with. But his opinions and really important to him (value), if I disagree and debate leads to him being offended. If I listen politely and ask more academic and philosophical questions snowballs to an attempt to convert me. I really am academically interested in his views and he knows a lot of history and philosophy. Could not be less interested in following his religion for myself.

[manitou]

I think there's two sides to the idea of tolerance. On one hand, yes, the world is getting smaller by the day and people MUST learn to tolerate cultures different than their own.

 

But sometimes I think tolerance turns into a type of political correctness, which we seem to have in the U.S., which disallows us from talking about the very things that need to be talked about. There is still a huge scab on racism here - and the scab prevents us from getting to the original wound. We just keep covering it up and think that because calling someone a racial epithet is now frowned upon, that the problem has gone away.

 

No racism here? Huh. Have we ever previously seen a white Democratic president totally obstructed, every step of the way, by Congress?

 

As to self-esteem, which I've never had until much later in life, I think self-esteem comes from being an esteemable person. I'm not sure it can be artificially manufactured by constant mantra or anything.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I'm not anti-Christian, but, like every other socio-political group, many have swallowed this kool-aid as if Christians brought morality to humanity. Many Christians believe that they had a revolutionary view of slavery, when in fact the Stoics were almost eliminating slavery before the Church came along and even had slaves themselves.

 

And racial boundaries seemed to be much less in the days of Ancient Egypt where people from all around would go to learn, and the Ancient Egyptians (black Africans, if you look at the statues of the day) were highly influential on the Ancient Greeks and Romans.

 

Now, one can say that African Americans were highly influential on white Americans in terms of music and the way that Christianity is practiced, while still being viewed negatively, but I think it was a very different story in Ancient times. It seems that the lines were drawn nationally/politically rather than racially up until about 300BC (so 3000 years or so).

 

Maybe now the political elite are multi-national, so they need to divide and conquer by other lines.

[doc benway]

Many Christians believe that they had a revolutionary view of slavery, when in fact the Stoics were almost eliminating slavery before the Church came along and even had slaves themselves.

 

Organized Christianity in the US was the strongest opponent to women's rights and emancipation in the 18th/19th century.

I've always found it ironic that the African-American population (not to mention the female population) embraced the very institutions that fought tooth and nail to keep them down.

 

I'm no authority on history but I tend to think that there's really nothing new psychologically and emotionally in humanity.

Intolerance has plagued us forever and those preaching tolerance have always been a shining beacon for us to follow.

Same with self esteem - always an issue for some, not so much for others.

And just like today, official positions and institutional behavior aren't much reflective of the individuals they claim to represent.

[Aaron]

I think Manitou and Steve make some good points, in particular I would have to say (as a gay man living in the United States) that intolerance is still prevalent in society today. I have made friends who upon learning I was gay stopped being friends with me. I believe it also effected my consideration for a few jobs I've applied for. Even if you take away the intolerance towards gays, there is also a great deal of racism in the United States, and it isn't just among the whites, but also among the African American, Asian, and Latino communities. The problem is that we can't come to terms with our past, or refuse to give up views we've held to be true for so long.

 

I hope that the children of today will be closer to overcoming these problems than the adults of today are and I honestly think they are. I think the decline of Christian values in America is a blessing for everyone living here. I'm thankful that people are not blindly following religion and have started to think for themselves. These are a few of the reasons I hold trepidation for the future, but also have great hope concerning it.

 

Really change begins with each of us. It starts when we stop blindly following moral dogma and begin thinking about the actual consequences of actions.

 

Aaron

Edited November 9, 2011 by Twinner

[manitou]

I'm thankful that people are not blindly following religion and have started to think for themselves. These are a few of the reasons I hold trepidation for the future, but also have great hope concerning it.

 

Really change begins with each of us. It starts when we stop blindly following moral dogma and begin thinking about the actual consequences of actions.

 

Aaron

 

Couldn't agree more, Aaron. We developed brains for a reason, and to be kept open and in a state of continual learning. For someone to grab onto a particular dogma, kind of like a monkey gripping onto a fence, only inhibits their further progress. Dogma is a cage. When the brain kicks in and we actually start to ask ourselves whether any of this makes sense or not (the dogma) the enlightenment can begin. In the end they all lead to the same place; the entity within. When the cage is let go of, then the similarities between all can be observed and understood.

[gendao]

And racial boundaries seemed to be much less in the days of Ancient Egypt where people from all around would go to learn, and the Ancient Egyptians (black Africans, if you look at the statues of the day) were highly influential on the Ancient Greeks and Romans.

Egyptians =/= Nubians.

 

There was probably more and more mixing with Nubians that gradually "Africanized" their features over time...but even as late as the post-Dynastic periods, Egyptians still looked more like northern Indians than Nubians (although this is admittedly still subject to open debate).

Looks like the Greeks and Romans in post-Dynastic times were describing Egyptians as they would have looked since the pre-dynastic and formative period:

 

"The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone."

Manilius, Astronomica 4.724

 

"The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically."

Arrian, Indica 6.9

 

"As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians."

Strabo, Geography 15.1.13

Now, one can say that African Americans were highly influential on white Americans in terms of music and the way that Christianity is practiced

Obviously, White Americans exerted far greater influence than vice-versa if Africans converted to their religion, rather than vice-versa.

 

The irony is that White liberals hate Christianity, yet strongly endorse Blacks...who also tend to be some of the most fervent Christians (slavishly replacing one master with another). Hilarity ensues!

 

 

Anyhow, I would agree that liberals measure progressiveness by increasing tolerance.

 

Thus, since the 60s counterculture, we've seen progress in vastly increased tolerance for:

Youthful promiscuity

Babies with no daddies

No-fault divorces

Slacking on the dole

Deficit spending

Drug usage

Preemptive wars

Big Bro legislation

Etc.

 

That's great, but we still have a long way to go! Hopefully, in the future, we can also liberate enslaved children from their parental masters and grant them the fully equal rights of any human: sex, voting, marriage, etc. too! Why should anyone be a 2nd-class citizen merely because of age?

Edited November 9, 2011 by vortex

[Harmonious Emptiness]

That is so riddled with subtle BS I don't even know where to start or even if I should..

 

First, those geographers were all between 100BC and 100CE, while Egypt changed hands several times around 500 or 300 BC so it's rulers at the time were no longer Egyptians but middle eastern, Greek, Roman, and others for about 300 years by that time. The original Egyptians were dark, and they lived in Africa, so they were Black Africans. A lot of people in African and Ethiopia, by the way, look basically white with dark skin. Not all Africans look like their from the West African countries.

 

 

There seems to be some obviously prejudiced implications in your post, but I'll leave others to make their own assessment. I don't have time for those types of arguments with anyone on line...

 

Egyptians =/= Nubians.

 

There was probably more and more mixing with Nubians that gradually "Africanized" their features over time...but even as late as the post-Dynastic periods, Egyptians still looked more like northern Indians than Nubians (although this is admittedly still subject to open debate).Obviously, White Americans exerted far greater influence than vice-versa if Africans converted to their religion, rather than vice-versa.

 

The irony is that White liberals hate Christianity, yet strongly endorse Blacks...who also tend to be some of the most fervent Christians (slavishly replacing one master with another). Hilarity ensues!

 

 

Anyhow, I would agree that liberals measure progressiveness by increasing tolerance.

 

Thus, since the 60s counterculture, we've seen progress in vastly increased tolerance for:

Youthful promiscuity

Babies with no daddies

No-fault divorces

Slacking on the dole

Deficit spending

Drug usage

Preemptive wars

Big Bro legislation

Etc.

 

That's great, but we still have a long way to go! Hopefully, in the future, we can also liberate enslaved children from their parental masters and grant them the fully equal rights of any human: sex, voting, marriage, etc. too! Why should anyone be a 2nd-class citizen merely because of age?

[gendao]

First, those geographers were all between 100BC and 100CE, while Egypt changed hands several times around 500 or 300 BC so it's rulers at the time were no longer Egyptians but middle eastern, Greek, Roman, and others for about 300 years by that time. The original Egyptians were dark, and they lived in Africa, so they were Black Africans. A lot of people in African and Ethiopia, by the way, look basically white with dark skin. Not all Africans look like their from the West African countries.

Well yes, there were numerous races that inhabited the land of Egypt through the millenia, which is why you can't discuss "Egyptians" without specifying the era & class. But, they certainly weren't all simply Black.

 

For example, the Egyptians had colonized Nubia for several centuries - but then slowly weakened and got taken over by Nubia around 800 BC as the tides turned.

The period of 1550 B.C. to 1100 B.C. marked the colonization of Nubia by Egypt. By the Eighteenth Dynasty, Egypt had control over Lower and Upper Nubia, while Southern Nubia remained independent. The Egyptians began to call "Lower Nubia the land of Wawat and Upper Nubia refers to the entire regionbetween the first and fifth cataracts. Therefore, any reference to Kush,considered to be a Nubian province, would be considered part of Nubia in general. Nubia the land of Kush". This colonization resulted in the disappearance of a particular Nubian C-Group; these peoples began to adopt Egyptian culture in favor of their own. This colonization was especially bitter as it occurred during the reign of Tutankhamen who was the son of a Nubian woman.

 

Soon after the Twentieth Dynasty in Egypt, the Egyptians lost control over Nubia and the land was plunged into a dark age. Around 900 B.C., evidence of a Nubian monarchy begins to emerge. Since this monarchy begins in Upper Nubia, it was often known as the Kingdom of Kush. These early rulers were buried in tumulus - a distinctly Nubian tradition. This ceremony has led many to believe that the Kushite Kings were of Nubian ancestry. By 770 B.C., these kings were extending their rule to the North. In Nubian history, the period is commonly called the Napatan Period (named for the royal capital of the time). Soon, Nubians "paid back the insult by subjugating the 'all powerful' nation" of Egypt to Nubian control. The Kings now wore the crown of the double cobra - signifying the unity of both Egypt and Nubia.

Thus, Egyptians and Nubians were actually fierce "master/slave"-type rivals.

Anyhow, probably what most people are interested in is who actually built the Great Pyramids of Giza & the Sphinx?

 

Of course, this is highly-debatable, as estimates of its construction time range from 10,500 years ago to around 2560 BC. That's about an 8500 year span! Which to me, leaves a LOT of room for discussion!

 

 

 

Anyhow, just to clear any media-induced assumptions or bias on "Black Christians" out there - here are the actual stats.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Well, did you even watch the video? The Egyptians were black in the 18th dynasty as well, before Nubians took the throne. If you look at pretty much all the statues before then as well, they are very noticeably black. It wasn't until the later periods that other races started to take over. When I'm talking about Egypt here, I mean Khemet "the Black Land" where is now Egypt and no longer the same as Khemet.

 

edit: also, don't miss the end of the video where he compares Khemetic-Egyptian and Nubian.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness