“I am not possessed with this common errour, to judge of others according to what I am my selfe. I am easie to beleeve things differing from my selfe. Though I be engaged to one forme, I do not tie the world unto it, as every man doth. And I beleeve and conceive a thousand manners of life, contrary to the common sorte.” —Florio, ed. 1613, p. 113

There is regrettably so much abuse which derives from a limited view of the world and the people in it. Currently the disease of narrowness has spread itself about the Western world, having predominated noticeably in one locale. Understanding these retrograde thinkers begs stimulation of the proposition of narrowness, for one cannot propose it while at the same time deny it. Yet the character of incorruptible limitation does not contradict the motive of openness and acceptance. What is meant to be open is not the “common sorte”, the prejudice of the masses.

It is understandable that there are those who, because of lack of education and material poverty, are biased to what they euphemistically colour as traditional or historic bents, mere habits of thinking and manner of addressing or confrontation. This does not however make the weakness either tolerable or digestible. The cultivation of any garden requires disposition of the weeds.

Often these weeds are so deep-rooted that they disguise their inherent element of survival. Having education and money is no prescription for mental acuity; in fact it can be just as contaminating if misconstrued or allowed to become a mere credential without underlying value.

None of us is entirely free of prejudice, close-mindedness or racism. It is so much easier to pounce upon another than to undertake an investigation or inquiry or calculated exposure.  Yet in spite of the obstruction the determined mind and energy of those who are downtrodden will eventually out. If – as I hereby assert – the value of others, though different, is comparable to one’s own, then it is only a matter of time and jumping over hurdles before the comparability is apparent. It is in the meantime a sad commentary that we haven’t the collective foresight to recognize that what is good for one is good for the other. The inevitable sequel of this encouragement of tolerance is a cooperative and expanding venture.

There are of necessity tangible differences which surface and which require admission and confession during the process of accommodation and understanding. Once again – on the universal platform – we all express our differences differently. It is insufficient to presume that merely refraining from discrediting another is truly acknowledging their differences. Differences, like wisps of paint upon a canvass, exact demonstration. Novelty does not exist in a vacuum or a closet. Thus is we must acknowledge the entitlement to certain apparel, dialogue, accent, skin colour, physical preferences or even nouns-of-address.

On a broader level we mustn’t escape the identity of others by virtue of their current peril or state of want. This feature of the mode of acceptance is one that demands action not just words. Many will continue to be moored to the pillars of the past, whatever evolutionary models may have enabled one’s current station in life. This encompasses not only political and racial qualifications; but also religious and geographic biases.

In short it is best to recall that we see in others what we see in ourselves; and that group prejudice is a dangerous alliance for both sides. Not to mention the utter complacency of refusing to accept reality, the earthen truth beneath the moss.