I will readily admit than I am neither a historian, professional philosopher, nor theologian. I am also not a psychologist or a leader in the study of human behavior. What I am is a human with opinions, facts, and bodily senses that allow me to make observations. These observations alone are rather objective but are also serve as useful tools in the subjectivity of my experiences. Of course, being subjective and formulating opinions is incomplete without the ingredients of emotional senses and imaginative thinking.
Observations are objective because they are simply facts that I create based my exploratory senses. My observations are simply things that I have seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled first hand. They may enable me to strengthen my subjective opinions, but they are simply facts. Facts are a useful sharing tool since they can be revisited by others. By revisiting the facts that I state based on my observations, other humans are given the liberty to agree or disagree with the statements and perhaps form an argument supporting their position. They could also choose to ignore the facts and be just as unaffected by the statements that I make.
I must also note that a fact may not always correlate with what one may merit as "truth". Although I personally believe that truth should be objective, I have made the observation that once the word "truth" is associated with possessive prounouns, it is subject to subjectivity.
In my short lifetime, I have observed various groups of people interact with one another. Based on my observations, I have concluded that people will form identities based on the commonalities they share with the individual or group they interact with. This commonality may be genetic, such as sharing chromosmal DNA alleles or bearing similar genetic physical characteristics; it may be environmental, such as speaking a similar language or living in similar conditions; or it may be psychological, such as displaying similar behavioral characteristics or sharing similar ideology.These are simply ways that I have observed humans interact and group themselves.
These observations I have made are mainly objective. They are things I have seen or heard or experienced first-hand through direct participation. They have shaped my thinking as a human.
I admittedly group individuals based on the above-mentioned factors and have used those premises to make my initial judgements. At times, I will merge the three factors: genetic, psychological, and environmental into one huge group and it would serve as the premise for my biases and judgements. The issue with merging is that I will automatically make the assumption that a person I hear speak a certain language or dialect is to have specific phenotype that matches that language group and must come from an environment that is identical to the one I have previously observed with another person who speaks the same dialect or language. In such a case, I fail to acknowledge the individual variations that make each human unique. For example, I hear a person speak creole, assume they MUST be from Haiti, and should not have much lighter skin(if they do, they CAN'T be from Haiti, in my mind). When I experience a reality that challenges my thinking, I am forced to either accept it and widen that area of my brain, or dismiss it as an anomally and create justifications for my dismissal.
When I do that, I further reinforce my narrow thinking and allow my preconcieved notions to serve as my template for all human interactions. If I choose to accept the new reality, then I open the avenue for questions, discussions, and the acquisition of new knowledge that matches my observation. Furthermore, I allow myself to see beyond the conglomerate, and look at the individual.
There are various stratifications within cultures and subcultures that are used as identification markers, yet they only serve as superficial survival mechanisms at best. They cannot truly tell me what the person's unique observations and experiences are that further formulate that person's beliefs and shape their individual character. The group divisions only tell me what societal group that person belongs to and perhaps may serve as an introduction to the collective unit which that person may identify with (or which I identify that person with based on my observation). However, unless I have interacted with every single member of that collective unit, I can not truly claim to know all there is to know of that group.
I suppose all this may appear to be foolish regurgitated jargon to some who read this. Others may understand and agree. I believe there can be no tolerance, no end to bigotry, no true peace, until we as individuals recognize at first where our own rationalization may be flawed. Until we realize as individuals how the societies we partake and have engaged in have molded and shaped us. Until we fully understand our own individual thinking and biases and acknowledge them as such.
Furthermore, once we can separate ourselves from the constructed realities of others and learn to embrace ourselves as independent individuals, I think it will make it easier for us to tolerate and embrace the other individuals we come in contact with. That is not to say that we must reject every societal habit and norm that we once knew or have already adapted to, but rather we must learn and understand how these factors have shaped our own individual tendencies.
When I hear or read the constant sermons urging everyone to be tolerant, I first ask myself "How can one be tolerant of others, if one does not even have the sense to be tolerant of oneself?" It is not as complex as this post may make it seem. It is truly as simple as embracing the freedom that we once possessed before we were bound by the obligatory and unspoken rules of society. It is about allowing others that same freedom to truly appreciate themselves.
