Shouldn't "cultural tolerance" be a virtue in a multicultural democratic free society?

Question

People belonging to one culture, simply by being in majority should not ridicule (kidding, joking, and making fun of) people from other cultures. When it is done- day in and day out- at the expense of other because they are a minority, to entertain yourself, it builds up in them a negative psychology towards the society and demands tremendous amount of patience and tolerance on the part of the ridiculed party to control themselves from committing violent and horrible acts such as Virginia Tech Incident, an extreme act of revenge. If you recall there were many other such acts like that in the past, such as the one, where a Ph.D. student shot 5 professors and the one where an employee killed 22 and so on.

While for the sake of the safety of the innocent, such acts should not be condoned in any way, shape or manner, and the strictest law enforcement and community defense is to be brought into play, the root cause must be discouraged also. Understand, not ridicule in a free society.

Answer 1

i agree. no one culture is better than another, and each culture has contributions that benefit society wholly. unfortunately, ideaologies of people different that ourselves (and the difference is basically physical) are handed down generation to generation in the things that are said and done which is unfair because alot of the ideaology is founded in ignorance.

no one should be made to feel inadequate because of their culture or background. in an ideal world, everyone would live peaceably and settle differences without violence. there are so many issues that we deal with from cultural to economic. those that have and those that have not. the disparities are sickening when we live in a place that is touted as the richest nation in the world. sadly we live with and permit so much ignorance and disrespect of others.

Answer 2

I believe the problem goes deeper than simply "cultural tolerance". I would, in fact, prefer to use just the word "tolerance" because I believe that even certain groups of people which are not explicitly defined as a "culture" could fit your question just as easily.

Having said that, I do believe very strongly that most of these acts could, indeed, be prevented by acts of kindness and acceptance by both the larger society and the microcosms of society that these people lived within. Who, for example, truly deserves to be tormented by their peers? NOBODY DOES! It is not difficult for me to understand why these people felt that the only way they could be heard was to take drastic measures into their own hands. What I hope we learn from these and other incidents which I'm certain will happen is that the human psych can only take so much abuse before it cracks and then reacts. Sometimes, it does so quite violently. Your descriptions take into account national events in the USA, but imagine how history could have been different if Adolph Hitler had had a much more tolerant personal history of his own. (His childhood was actually quite stellar, but there were specific trigger events in his life that caused him to become the monster he later became.)

In other words, I think there is still a lot of room for improvement. So long as there are specific groups excluded from those which it is politically correct to be tolerant of, we will always have these problems. When we truly have universal social acceptance, MAYBE we will be able to avoid such situations in the future, but inevitably, there will always be some discontented person somewhere. How do you propose to stop a madman?

Answer 3

I agree. Here in America we live in a multicultural society and that is what makes our country so great! We should all live together in peace and accept each others differences and cultures. I do believe however, that if you come to America you should learn the language and learn our culture as well. If I traveled abroad, I would first try to learn something about the people there, the customs and the language. Just like our ancestors who came in through Terminal Island at the Statue of Liberty, they learned the language and became Americans while still preserving their own customs, culture and beliefs.

Answer 4

While I see and understand your point of encouraging diversity, and that it is something that takes its time to spread into a societies cultual value system (especially into a cultual system that is extremly large with many sub-cultures, to this day), you have to understand that it wasn't only the issue of non-cultural diversity that flipped the student out at VT, the Ph.D student to shoot 5 professors and where one employee killed 22 people, and so on. The people that commit these crimes do so because of deep disturbances (which COULD be inherited) within their psychology. They were bent; they were not right; something was seriously wrong with these people in the head. It could have been for attention, it could have been because these people were not able to get laid within the last 15 years, it could have been because their toast was served to them burnt on the morning of the incident---who is to say? The point is, like the student at VT, there were signs that should have alluded people to the fact that this person seriously needed help--yet it wasn't noticed and it finally came to a head through violence.

Answer 5

You are actually addressing several issues in your statement/question.

Do you think that cultural "tolerance" is reflective of a complimentary and mature society? Tolerance is not the same as an unbiased "acceptance". In fact, it can be more of an insult to imply that "tolerance" is the desired outcome of a emotionally and socially mature multicultural country. Tolerance continues to yield a divisionary field of play, which is one whose rules are still based on subjective judgment. This clearly perpetuates a society of "us" vs. "them", and does not minimize the negative effects. "Democratic" implies that majority rules. Does it not? Is this not potentially an adversarial vs. mediatory issue. Regarding individual freedom, the acknowledgment of "free"-dom brings with it a responsibility not only to ourselves but just as importantly to others (see any existentialist in the literature on the responsibilities of exercising "free"-dom). Is that the actual objective? Is being or becoming a judgmental person/society a virtue? As long as a state of blind ignorance streams through a land, any land, downward social comparison will prevail. In fact, when we as a society examine cultural differences, are we actually focusing on the differences or the similarities "compared" to our society, which we in turn use this examination to form judgments via ethnocentrism? I feel that a collective integration of and an authentic appreciation for cultures would produce a more mature society. Learning in the absence of biased lenses is a possible answer.

In terms of the very unfortunate circumstances that unfolded at VA Tech, it is sad indeed. However, we as a society have an obligation "to learn" from these isolated incidents to perhaps circumvent future occurances via authentic educative means and not through the ethnocentric perspective that so many view the world through. Something that you indirectly bring out in your statement/question is that this not necessarily an issue relating to the perpetrator being a Korean in the USA on a student Visa. There's no predicting, as we've seen in previous instances, that the next assault upon the innocent will be from another country. It may be from a citizen from a family with several generations of being American. I wish a re-occurance of what happened on the VA Tech campus upon NO ONE. However, let's not place an ethnic or cultural tag upon the incident in an attempt to nullify our anger or anxieties.

Answer 6

Cultural tolerance should be taken seriously but remember, it has to work both ways.

Answer 7

why yes, it should, but what does should have to do with anything