Everyone knows what the word "tolerance" means.And the translation, in fact, is not needed. Yes, from Latin it is "tolerance", so what? And so everything is clear to everyone. There is even a question: "Why do I even need to add an extra word to the language?" It makes sense 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 appears. If the phenomenon came from another culture, it is logical that the definition will be from the same place. But if there was no TV or computer in the Russian-speaking reality, then there was tolerance! So why new word?
Tolerance is not tolerance
The fact is that semantically words“Tolerance” and “tolerance” differ quite strongly. “To tolerate” in Russian is “to overcome some unpleasant sensations”. “I do not like it, but I suffer it. I force myself not to pay attention to trouble, ”this is how you 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 towards true tolerance are just that). Accepting 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 such - that is what the word "tolerance" means.
Own and others
Before we talk about whattolerance in interethnic relations, it is worth remembering that at a certain stage of development each tribe called itself simply and unpretentiously - “people”. That is, here we are, gathered here by the fire, - people. And who there still wanders around, it is still necessary to understand. So what, that two legs, two arms and one head? Maybe this monkey is so bald? You never know. He says it is not clear, he does not honor our gods, he does not love our leaders. He does not look like a man, oh, does not look like ...
The Roman word "barbarians" is a sound transmissionmuffled mutter. "Var-Var-Var-Var". Babbling do not understand what. Here we are, the Romans - the people, the right people, we speak understandably, in Latin. And these ... barbarians, in a word. And either they will become normal people - they will speak Latin and recognize the primacy of Rome, or ...
Probably, the Huns also had a corresponding evidence base built on the same principle.
Transformation of the picture of the world
On the one hand, it’s still positivedynamics. If the circle of “our own” is expanding, it means that the culture of interethnic relations is slowly but growing. If you extrapolate, you can come to the conclusion that sometime everyone will become “their own”, and aliens, for example, will take the place of the bad and the alien. Or reasonable dolphins - it does not matter.
What is tolerance in interethnicrelationship, began to think not so long ago. Just because slavery was a very common phenomenon in the 19th century, and the Australian Aborigines were not taken into account in the census until 1967, thereby excluding from the number of citizens. With rare exceptions, Jews in the Russian Empire had no right to leave the Pale of Settlement until 1917, and the conflict in Ireland, based largely on cultural and religious contradictions, has been around for many decades, now flashing, now fading. Therefore, the international diplomacy of the past, of course, was quite tolerant within 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 towards a neighbor or simply on awareness of the futility of an armed conflict is not so important.
Why has tolerance become a necessity?
In fairness it should be noted that it is inThe twentieth century necessitated tolerance. Prior to this, the inhabitants of a single country were mostly a cultural monolith. The British are British, the French are French, the Japanese are Japanese. The aliens — non-believers, foreigners, aliens — of course, were everywhere, but there were few of them. Ethnic tolerance was not very relevant simply because those to whom it was supposed to be directed were an extremely small group. So, nobody cares about the cases of the disease until the epidemic breaks out.
International law
In the twentieth century, the number of peoplethey do not understand what is tolerance in interethnic relations. It has become an alternative to religious, racial, ethnic, and any other tolerance. The ability to take someone else's culture, other people's traditions for granted, to adapt to them became in a certain sense a guarantee of survival. Because the twentieth century is not the tenth, and automatic weapons and explosives have come to replace the sword and dagger.
Lack of tolerance in action
Как следствие, все государства, подписавшие These international acts are obliged to legislate such standards of conduct. This applies both to the norms of criminal and administrative law, in which the responsibility for the violation of the rights and freedoms of others, and to the prescriptions of the educational or cultural sphere should be stated. The state should not only punish those who seek to limit others in their national, cultural or religious expression, but also cultivate tolerance and respect in people, implant them in society by all available means.
From this point of view, entrenched in RussianThe media tradition to use the dubious term “person of Caucasian nationality” is a direct violation of the norms of interethnic tolerance. Determining criminals, based on their alleged nationality, in a situation where it has nothing to do with the actual composition of the crime, is extremely incorrect. Especially if there is no “person of Slavic nationality”, “person of German-Romance nationality”, “person of Latin nationality” anywhere. If all of the above definitions even sound absurd, ridiculous and ridiculous, then why has “the face of Caucasian nationality” become the norm? After all, in this way a stable association is simply fixed in the minds of people: a person from 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, decent people are disproportionately more. The stereotype is easy to create but hard to break. Interethnic relations in Russia are greatly affected by such rash statements by media people.
Fraternal peoples are no longer such and fraternal
It is with such manifestations of formationpublic opinion and must fight laws of the countries that have ratified the international instruments in this field. Submission of information in the press and on television, lessons in schools, various events dedicated to the promotion of tolerance and mutual respect - all these should be monitored by the state. The alternative, alas, is sad. Civil disturbances conflicts, the growth of xenophobic attitudes in society - such manifestations to fight very hard. It's easier not to let them in right away. The state must shape public opinion, and then there will be new traditions and norms of behavior that are behind the scenes to determine citizens' actions. Yes, crimes motivated by ethnic or racial intolerance - evil almost inevitable. But if criminals face universal condemnation and contempt - is one thing. But if you meet a tacit understanding and approval, at least indifference - is quite another ...
Unfortunately, currently transnationalrelations in Russia are far from cloudless. Previously, in the days of the multinational Soviet state propaganda mechanism worked exactly foster mutual respect, and the emphasis was on the fact that, regardless of the nationality of all - citizens of a great country. Now, unfortunately, the level of tolerance towards people of other nations has fallen dramatically since this aspect of education has received little attention. 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 so rosy
In fairness it should be noted that that idealmutual respect and understanding, which seeks the modern cultural community, has a rather unpleasant side effects. Tolerance is, of course, wonderful. Just like the Christian non-resistance. You can expose the cheeks to infinity, if it is consistent with the principles and moral beliefs. But no one guarantees that the non-resistance will remain alive. Because his system of moral values includes humanism, love of neighbor, and conviction in universal equality. But who said that these principles will be shared by the opponent? There is a high probability that a non-resistance will be given a good face first, and then simply pushed aside. He will not convince anyone and will not rehabilitate anyone - simply because such behavior by representatives of another culture will be regarded not as an exceptional beauty of the soul, but as a banal weakness. “Tolerance” is a term that is far from being everywhere and perceived by everyone in a positive way. For many, this is lack of will, cowardice, the absence of rigid moral principles that are worth fighting for. As a result, a situation arises when only one side exhibits tolerance and tolerance. But the second is actively imposing its own rules of the game.
Tolerance and Chauvinism
A modern problem faced a similar problem.Europe. A large number of migrants from the Muslim East and from Africa led to significant cultural shifts. The migrants themselves do not at all strive to assimilate, which is quite understandable. They live as they are accustomed to, as they see it right. And tolerant Europeans, naturally, cannot force them, because this violates the rights of the individual. It seems to be absolutely correct behavior. But is the harmonization of interethnic relations possible in a situation where there is essentially no dialogue? There is a monologue of one of the parties, the one that does not want to hear or understand other people's arguments.
Already, many Europeans are complaining thatvisitors not only do not want to behave "in a European way." They require that indigenous people comply with the norms and traditions adopted in their old homeland. That is, tolerant Europeans cannot impose their rules and regulations, but non-tolerant 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 restrictions in rights and freedoms, compulsory assimilation, which is incompatible with the philosophy of mutual respect and individual freedom. Here is a paradox. Examples of this kind of tolerance are quite accurately described by a childish joke: “we will eat yours first, and then each his own.”
Tolerance - not equal servility
К сожалению, следствием подобной ситуации is the growing popularity of fascist movements. The desire to protect, preserve their culture, to protect it from coarse intervention by others makes some Europeans keenly feel their own national identity. And this results in forms that are far from civilized.
Можно сказать, что волна межнациональных Conflicts that have swept Europe lately are, in a sense, a consequence of an overabundance of tolerance. Because at a certain point people forget what tolerance is in interethnic relations, and cease to distinguish it from servility. Mutual respect is one and the same. Unilateral mutual respect does not happen. And if one of the nations does not want to reckon with the traditions and norms of the other, then there can be no talk of tolerance. If this fact is ignored, conflicts are inevitable. And they will be much more serious - simply because they will flow out of the legal field. The revival of extremist fascist movements in Europe as a symmetrical response to the cultural imbalance caused by a large number of visitors, this clearly proves. Like every, even the most wonderful and humane measure, tolerance is good only within reasonable limits. Overdosing turns the medicine into poison.
