Everyone knows what the word "tolerance" means. And the translation, in fact, is not needed. Yes, in Latin it is "tolerance", so what? And just as everyone understands. The question even arises: "Why do I need to introduce an extra word into the language?" It is logical when borrowed words fill an empty niche. There is no concept - there is no word in the language. A new phenomenon appears - the word that defines it also appears. If the phenomenon came from a different culture, it is logical that the definition will be from there. But if there was no TV or computer in Russian-speaking reality, then there was tolerance! So why a new word?
Tolerance Is Not Tolerance
The fact is that the words “tolerance” and “tolerance” semantically differ quite strongly. "Tolerate" in Russian is "to overcome some unpleasant sensations." “I do not like it, but I endure it. I force myself not to pay attention to trouble, ”- this is how one can convey the feelings of a person who is tolerant.
Tolerance is another. This is not overcoming one’s own hostility and irritation (although, of course, the first steps to true tolerance are just that). Acceptance of other people's traditions, another's way of life for granted, a clear realization that all people are different and have every right to be like that - that is what the word "tolerance" means.
A tolerant person only forces himself to put up with the existence of alien cultural norms, alien traditions, alien lifestyle. A tolerant person perceives all this as the only possible order of things. The phrase “we are all equal, we are one” is erroneous. The truth is that we are all different - this is the norm.
Friends and strangers
Before talking about what tolerance is in interethnic relations, it is worth recalling that at a certain stage of development, each tribe called itself simply and unpretentiously - “people”. That is, here we are, gathered here around the fire - people. And who else is hanging around, we still need to figure this out. So what, that two legs, two arms and one head? Maybe this monkey is so bald? You never know. He speaks incomprehensibly, he does not honor our gods, he does not love our leaders. He doesn't look like a man, oh, he doesn't look like …
The Roman word barbarians is a sound transmission of slurred mumble. Var-var-var-var. Burst do not understand what. Here we are, the Romans - people, the right people, we speak clearly, in Latin. And these … barbarians, in a word. And either they will become normal people - they will speak in Latin and recognize the primacy of Rome, or …
Probably, the Huns also had a corresponding evidence base, built on the same principle.
People are us and those who are like us. And all the rest are strangers to whom no ethical and legal norms apply. This is how nations and interethnic relations were formed for many, many hundreds of years. Gradually, the circle of "people" expanded. We and our neighbors. We and our allies. We are Christians, or we are Judaists. We are white people. But constantly there were those who were around the circle, beyond borders. People of another nation, different faith, different skin color. Not like that. Others.
Transformation of a picture of the world
On the one hand, this is still a positive trend. If the circle of "friends" expands, then the culture of interethnic relations, albeit slowly, but grows. If extrapolated, we can conclude that someday everyone will become “their own, ” and, say, aliens will take the place of the bad and the aliens. Or intelligent dolphins - it doesn’t matter.
On the other hand, it is very, very bad. Because the trends clearly demonstrate that people need someone else's, just as their antithesis. We need someone against whom we can be friends, forgetting about small differences for the sake of large ones.
About what tolerance is in interethnic relations, they began to think not so long ago. Just because back in the 19th century, slavery was a very common occurrence, and Australian natives were not taken into account in the census until 1967, thereby excluding them from the population. With rare exceptions, Jews in the Russian Empire did not have the right to leave the Pale of Settlement until 1917, and the conflict, based largely on cultural and religious contradictions, has existed in Ireland for many decades, now flaring up, then dying out. Therefore, international diplomacy of the past, of course, was quite tolerant in the framework of professionalism, that is, diplomatic. But this in no way meant that the task of the state was to educate tolerant citizens. The absence of war is already peace, and whether it is based on benevolent feelings for a neighbor or simply on the realization of the futility of armed conflict is not so important.
Why has tolerance become a necessity?
In fairness, it is worth noting that it was in the twentieth century that the need for tolerance arose. Prior to this, the inhabitants of a particular country were mostly a cultural monolith. The British are the British, the French are the French, the Japanese are Japanese. Strangers - Gentiles, aliens, aliens - of course, were everywhere, but there were few of them. Ethnic tolerance was not very relevant simply because those whom it was supposed to be aimed at were an extremely small group. So, no one cares about flu cases until an epidemic breaks out.
Only the twentieth century, with its active migration policy, endless wars leading to mass displacement, made people think about tolerance. And, of course, the Second World War, which clearly demonstrated to everyone what the dominant of one nation and interethnic relations are based on. More precisely, the twentieth century made it possible to look at the situation not from the side of a white person who was burdened with responsibility, but from the side of a “second-rate specimen” to be either improved or destroyed. Visibility was exceptional. Fascism easily convinced everyone that racial or religious prejudice is bad, and interethnic tolerance is good. Because no one guarantees that one who has just been vested with the rights and power of the majority will suddenly not be a minority with all the ensuing consequences.
International law
In the twentieth century, the number of people who did not understand what tolerance in interethnic relations was sharply reduced. It has become an alternative to religious, racial, ethnic and any other tolerance. The ability to accept a foreign culture, foreign traditions for granted, to adapt to them has become, in a sense, the key to survival. Because the twentieth century is not the tenth, and automatic weapons and explosives have long replaced the sword and dagger.
That equality, which philosophers have been saying for centuries, has finally been enshrined in law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948, for the first time made mutual respect not mandatory, but mandatory. The Preamble to the UN Charter and the 1995 Declaration of the Principles of Tolerance of UNESCO provide definitions that articulate the basic principles of tolerance. They come down to a rather simple statement: all members of the civil community have the right to be different, and the task of the state is the right to provide.
Lack of tolerance in action
As a result, all states that have signed these international acts are required by law to enforce such standards of conduct. This applies both to the norms of criminal and administrative law, in which responsibility for violation of other people's rights and freedoms must be spelled out, and to the requirements of the educational or cultural sphere. The state should not only punish those who seek to restrict others in their national, cultural or religious expression, but also to cultivate tolerance and respect in people, to instill them in society by all available means.
From this point of view, the tradition established in the Russian media to use the dubious term “a person of Caucasian nationality” is a direct violation of the norms of interethnic tolerance. It is extremely incorrect to identify criminals based on their alleged nationality in a situation where this has nothing to do with the corpus delicti. Especially if nowhere does it sound "faces of Slavic nationality", "faces of German-Romanesque nationality", "faces of Latin nationality". If all the above definitions even sound absurd, funny and ridiculous, then why has the "face of Caucasian nationality" become the norm? Indeed, in this way a stable association is simply fixed in the minds of people: a native of the Caucasus is a potential criminal. And it does not matter that the Caucasus is large and multinational, that the population of this territory is diverse and numerous. There, as elsewhere, there are criminals, but there, as elsewhere, there are incomparably more decent people. Creating a stereotype is easy, but difficult to destroy. Interethnic relations in Russia suffer greatly from such rash statements by media people.
The fraternal peoples are no longer such and fraternal
It is precisely with such manifestations of the formation of public opinion that the laws of countries that have ratified international acts in this area should fight. The submission of information in the press and on television, lessons in schools, various events dedicated to the promotion of tolerance and mutual respect - all this should be controlled by the state. The alternative, alas, is sad. Civil disturbances, conflicts, the growth of xenophobic sentiments in society - it is very difficult to deal with such manifestations. It’s easier not to let them go right away. The state must shape public opinion, and then new traditions and norms of behavior will arise that will secretly determine the actions of citizens. Yes, crimes motivated by national or racial intolerance are almost inevitable evil. But if criminals are faced with universal condemnation and contempt, this is one thing. But if they meet with tacit understanding and approval, in extreme cases indifference is quite another …
Unfortunately, at present, interethnic relations in Russia are far from cloudless. Earlier, in the times of the multinational USSR, the mechanism of state propaganda worked precisely on the development of mutual respect, and the emphasis was on the fact that, regardless of nationality, everyone is a citizen of one big country. Now, unfortunately, the level of tolerance towards representatives of other nations has fallen sharply, since little attention is paid to this aspect of education. But ethnic differences in the media are emphasized quite sharply. And one can only hope that the situation will soon change for the better.
Not everything is so rosy
In fairness, it should be noted that the ideal of mutual respect and understanding that the modern cultural community is striving for has quite unpleasant side effects. Tolerance is, of course, wonderful. So is Christian non-resistance. You can turn your cheeks to infinity, if it is consistent with the principles and moral convictions. But no one guarantees that the non-resident will survive. Because his system of moral values includes humanism, and love for one's neighbor, and belief in universal equality. But who said that the opponent will share these principles? It is likely that the non-resident will first be given a good physiognomy, and then simply pushed to the side. He will not convince anyone and will not re-educate anyone - simply because such behavior by representatives of another culture will be regarded not as the exceptional beauty of the soul, but as a banal weakness. “Tolerance” is a term that is far from everywhere and is not perceived by everyone in a positive way. For many, this is lack of will, cowardice, lack of strict moral principles, for which it is worth fighting. As a result, a situation arises when only one side shows tolerance and tolerance. But the second is actively imposing its rules of the game.
Tolerance and chauvinism
A similar problem faced modern Europe. A large number of migrants from the Muslim East and from Africa have led to significant cultural shifts. The immigrants themselves do not at all seek to assimilate, which is understandable. They live as they used to, as they consider right. And tolerant Europeans, of course, cannot force them - after all, this violates the rights of the individual. It seems that the behavior is absolutely correct. But is harmonization of interethnic relations possible in a situation where, in fact, there is no dialogue? There is a monologue of one of the parties, one that does not want to either hear other people's arguments or understand them.
Already, many Europeans are complaining that visitors not only do not want to behave "in a European way." They require that indigenous people comply with the norms and traditions of the old homeland. That is, tolerant Europeans cannot impose their norms and rules, but intolerant visitors can! And impose! Because their culture considers such behavior to be the only possible and correct. And the only way to change such traditions is through restrictions on rights and freedoms, forced assimilation, which is incompatible with the philosophy of mutual respect and individual freedom. Here is a paradox. Examples of tolerance of this kind are quite accurately described by the children's joke "first we eat yours, and then each our own."
