Tolerance

[David Morris]

>From: Murthy Yenamandra
>
>Hartwin Gebhardt wrote seemingly a long time ago:
> > [..] Criticizing or challenging another's group identity, whether by
> > painting a black dung madonna or in conversation, is perfectly fine,
> > provided the power relations are (more or less) between equals. 
>Otherwise
> > its an act of terrorism.
>
>Interesting formulation. But the catch is to establish unambiguously
>when the power relation is equal and when it is not, don't you think?
>Even when it is unequal, usually both sides will claim that they are
>the defensive party and that the other side is terrorizing them...
>Whether you call it terrorism or a challenge between equals, the
>conflict and its consequences are still there and the real problem is
>what you do about the conflict - "tolerate" it or "resolve" it. Either
>way we could end up in places we don't want to, but the hard thing is to
>figure out which one is preferable in a given situation?
>
> > The word tolerance does not feature - it is merely
> > a liberal buzzword used to legitimize the hegemony of the Western middle
> > class world view.
>
>One could say that, but as long as the inherent inequalities of power
>persist, it may be vastly preferable to some of the alternative
>scenarios, such as the stronger party brutally asserting its power and
>terrorizing the weaker.
>
>I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just thinking out loud.
>
>Murthy

I agree with you both.  This "equal power relations" stipulation is 
indefinable thus unenforceable.  And "tolerance" is used differently by each 
of you, thus both correct:  Tolerance of the verbal "attack" must be 
protected at all costs.  Tolerance of physical attack must be outlawed.  The 
verbal may have its costs, ending in violence, but the weighing of greater 
evils must here apply.

David Morris

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com