This article reviews the three main proposals to combat racial discrimination, xenophobia and exclusion. The author states that the promotion of the philosophy of tolerance, laws against racial discrimination and school education have different attributes that can be used in the fight against racial discrimination. However, success in this mission requires, first, that the different spheres of action of each of them be clearly distinguished and, secondly, that the manner in which these three alternatives can act by mutually reinforcing each other be established.
This article is a review of three main proposals to attack racial discrimination, xenophobia and exclusion. The author considers that promote the philosophy of tolerance, lams against racial discrimination and education have different attributes that can be used in the fight against racial discrimination. However, the success in this mission needs, first, to distinguish with clarity the different spheres of action and, secondly, to establish the May as these three alternatives could operate reinforcing themselves mutually.
One of the most successful social evils throughout the history of societies is undoubtedly racism. The recurrence of racism throughout all times, as well as its high versatility, which allows it to adapt and renew itself in each new era, has given much to talk about in the literature. But perhaps because of the great complexity of this phenomenon, the energy of scholars seems to have been consumed in the exploration of its nature. The issue of his attack seems to have remained pending, more properly said of the importance, or perhaps we should say, of the urgency of establishing systematic ways and mechanisms to eradicate it.
Certainly, almost all literature dealing with racism highlights the importance of fighting against it. Moreover, there have been proposals to counter it, to neutralize it and to prevent it. But these proposals (some of a philosophical nature, others of a legal nature and some of an educational nature) have not been formulated in an articulated manner. Gabrielle Union Claps Back At Terry Crews For Saying There Was No Racism On The Set Of America’s Got Talent. Hence, its action has not been systematic so far and as a result, its results have not been entirely effective either. Meanwhile, the ravages that this social evil continues to cause do not admit further delay in the construction of an articulated and systematic alternative to combat it.
In my opinion, this is the task that those who study the phenomenon of racism and its related evils such as discrimination, exclusion and xenophobia should urgently attend. Certainly, the exploration of the complexity of racism is far from being a concluded issue, but it cannot be ignored that there is an increasingly pressing need to combat it.
A starting point in this direction is the recognition of battle proposals against racism. There are at least three important alternatives that seek to undermine the perverse forces of this phenomenon. One of them is that proposed by tolerating, in its normative philosophical sense, another is that of international and local laws against discrimination and racism and another is that which is in charge, or should be in charge, of the systems Educational schools. Each of these alternatives, as I will try to demonstrate in this article, has a different sphere of action, that is, they do not correspond to disputed proposals; but it is necessary to clearly establish the competences and limits of each of these areas in order to define the possible lines of articulation and complementarity between them.
The tolerance principle
For many years it has been practically a basic rule to look for tolerance in arguments not only to allow the free competition of ideas, diverse views and different political positions, but also to avoid founded exclusion, discrimination and xenophobia. In racism
From the epistle on the tolerance of John Locke (1991) – in which the central topic is the religious issue -, through the ideal of purely political plurality, until our days when it is usual to add to the political plurality the issue of cultural plurality, ethnicity, etc., philosophy, political philosophy and political science have consolidated a whole normative tradition of tolerance.
Many are the writings of political theory and philosophy that appeal to the normative sense of tolerance and prescribe its observance. And in times of growing ethnic, religious, moral, etc. pluralism, in which coexistence becomes conflictive, the most different social disciplines prescribe tolerance as a resource to guarantee peaceful coexistence. Moreover, many characters involved in the preparation of the policies of institutions such as the UN or UNESCO are responsible for disseminating and publicizing the virtues of tolerance (De Lucas, 1997).
Tolerance is the recognition and acceptance of differences between people. It is learning to listen to others, to communicate with them and understand them. It is the recognition of cultural diversity. It is being open to other ways of thinking and other conceptions, openness derived from interest and curiosity, as well as refusing to reject the unknown. It is the recognition that no culture, nation or religion has a monopoly on knowledge or truth. It is a form of freedom: being free from prejudices, free from dogmas. The tolerant person owns their opinions and behavior. It is a positive attitude towards others, exempt from all air of superiority.
But it must also be said that not only the virtues of tolerance are disseminated and clarified as UNESCO does in the previous text; It is also prescribed as an attitude, as a way of life. In this tenor, Kofi Annan stated, the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that: Tolerance, the basis of civil society and peace, allows us to see in the diversity of cultures not an obstacle to respect for human rights or, what is worse, a justification for the violations that are mentioned, but a source of wealth in which we should all drink.