{"id":4116,"date":"1995-09-01T01:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-09-01T01:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/"},"modified":"2022-11-27T02:05:44","modified_gmt":"2022-11-27T02:05:44","slug":"vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance","status":"publish","type":"rbc_letter","link":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/","title":{"rendered":"Vol. 76 No. 5 &#8211; September\/October 1995 &#8211; The Struggle for Tolerance"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"layout-column-main\">\n<p class=\"boldtext\">Intolerance has been the curse of every                     era, and this one is no exception. To fight it, people must                     know what they are up against. And although it can be very                     deceptive, one thing about it is certain: The first line of                     defence against its evils is within oneself&#8230;<\/p>\n<p> You would never guess from what is happening in the world                     today that 1995 is the United Nations International Year of                     Tolerance. Looking at the facts as opposed to the wishful                     rhetoric, you might conclude that this is the international                     year of intolerance instead.<\/p>\n<p>It has been a year that has echoed with the screams of the                     dying and wounded in Africa, Asia, Central Europe, the Middle                     East, and even supposedly peaceful North America. And the                     basic force behind every bomb, bullet and machete stroke wreaking                     the carnage is the stubborn refusal of people to tolerate                     other people who are different from them in some details.                     Ironically, the differences which they find serious enough                     to kill for are often imperceptible to anyone looking at them                     from the outside.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that these horrors have been occurring on the 50th                     anniversary of the end of World War II is especially disheartening.                     That war was a struggle against just the sort of barbarism                     that has produced &#8220;ethnic cleansing&#8221; and the heaps of mangled                     corpses we now see on television newscasts. Was all the blood                     and agony poured into defeating the Axis powers back then                     spent in vain?<\/p>\n<p>A pessimist might say yes, and with some reason. He could                     point to the ethnic groups that have lived side by side for                     generations and have now turned viciously on each other; to                     the doctrinal disputes within religions that are waged via                     drive-by shootings and planted bombs; to the re-emergence                     of that terrifying old symbol of racial hatred, the Nazi swastika,                     on the scene of beatings, firebombings, and vandalism. Citing                     these awful realities, our pessimist would be quite justified                     in asking if anything has really ever changed in the age-old                     story of man&#8217;s inhumanity to man.<\/p>\n<p>The answer is that if World War II did nothing else to advance                     the cause of tolerance, it led to the view among enlightened                     people that intolerance is an evil: not a necessary evil,                     but one which right-thinking people everywhere are duty-bound                     to fight.<\/p>\n<p>Up until that war, everybody but a few idealists in the                     western world turned a blind eye to the discrimination that                     goes hand in glove with intolerance. People by and large showed                     little concern about violations of human rights in their own                     countries and communities, let alone in the far corners of                     the world.<\/p>\n<p>Those fortunate enough to be among the majority or dominant                     classes saw little harm in holding down other people for reasons                     of religion, race, sex, social class or any one of a dozen                     other characteristics. Among the majority who condoned it,                     discrimination was regarded as a simple fact of life.<\/p>\n<p>The rare voices that were raised against it came from outside                     of mainstream opinion. In fact, anyone who protested was liable                     to be ostracized or even prosecuted as an agitator and a dangerous                     radical. Discriminatory practices were so common and widely                     accepted that many of them were actually written into law.<\/p>\n<p>When the atrocities of the wartime death camps were exposed                     for all to see, it became impossible for individuals with                     a normal sense of morality to continue believing that intolerance                     could blandly be taken for granted. The Allied victory marked                     the point at which, sluggishly enough, the tide of popular                     opinion began to turn.<\/p>\n<p>In their recent commemorative book <em>Victory 1945<\/em>,                     historians Desmond Morton and J.L. Granatstein recount an                     incident that signalled the change in attitudes in post-war                     Canada. To explain it, a little background is in order, beginning                     with the fact that for many years, Canada systematically discriminated                     against Oriental immigrants through such measures as the infamous                     Chinese head tax.<\/p>\n<p>Anti-Orientalism was given free rein in 1942 after Japan                     had become one of our enemies. Canadian law was applied in                     all its implacable power to drive Japanese-Canadians from                   their homes, confine them in camps, and confiscate their property.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"quote\">&#8216;The marvel was that&#8230; millions of Canadians                   felt ashamed.&#8217;<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The rationale was that some of them might have been spies                     or saboteurs, a flimsy excuse for forcibly disrupting the                     lives of 26, 000 people, most of them Canadian citizens. The                     existence of a Japanese fifth column had not been proven up                     to that time, nor was it ever subsequently. No matter: as                     their fellow citizens were being herded off to internment                     camps, white Canadians were undisturbed by the injustice in                     their midst.<\/p>\n<p>To add to the injury, the federal government after V-J Day                     tried to deport Canadian residents of Japanese origin to Japan,                     then a land in bombed-out ruins haunted by hunger. When the                     government was unable to pass legislation to make them go,                     it pressed them to agree to their own deportation. However,                     in 1946 a movement arose among concerned white Canadians to                     stop Ottawa from shipping them &#8221; back&#8221; to Japan, where the                     great majority had never been.<\/p>\n<p>The campaign succeeded, but not before almost 4,000 people                     had already left these shores after succumbing to the strong-arm                     tactics of federal officials. Nevertheless, the protest brought                     a new beginning in attitudes towards our treatment of minorities.                     &#8221; The deportation of the Japanese Canadians was an act of                     official racism,&#8221; Morton and Granatstein wrote. &#8220;The marvel                     was that, perhaps for the first time, millions of Canadians                     felt ashamed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It was that same sense of shame over using the might of                     government to treat minorities in an undemocratic way that                     would eventually result in the demise of discriminatory laws                     in other democratic countries. For instance, the notorious                     colour bar in the Southern United States would never have                     been declared unconstitutional in the 1960s if it had not                     struck a guilty note in the conscience of the nation at large.<\/p>\n<p>But the elimination of discrimination on the official level                     has taken place only slowly and haltingly. Not until the past                     few years, for instance, has the official discrimination against                     aboriginal people here in Canada been acknowledged among the                     general public. Many other issues involving discrimination                     have yet to be resolved.<\/p>\n<p>The on-and-off nature of the postwar movement towards a                     more tolerant society goes to prove the point made by the                     famous American lecturer Henry Ward Beecher that &#8220;nothing                     dies so hard, or rallies so often as intolerance.&#8221; But it                     is nonetheless important that intolerance now is viewed as                     an object of censure; and still more important that voters                     have proved willing to support action to counteract it when                     it rears its truly ugly head in distant lands.<\/p>\n<p>If the attempts by the international community to deal with                     lethal intolerance in places like the former Yugoslavia seem                     frustratingly futile at times, it should be borne in mind                     that at least somebody was trying to do something about it.                     The difference between now and the pre-World War II era is                     that the disputants in ethnic conflicts then would have been                     left to fight it out, and the weaker parties would have been                     massacred as a matter of course.<\/p>\n<p>So progress has been made; but against that must be balanced                     an evident weakening in the past few years of the public will                     to enforce and propagate tolerance. Voters in a number of                     countries have elected politicians who artfully play on the                     grievances of their particular groups. It is implicit in the                     way they talk that if another group has to be repressed to                     advance the interests of their own group, then so be it. This                     particularism is capable of reopening the door to official                     discrimination, whether expressly intended or not.<\/p>\n<p>Like the price of democracy itself, the price of tolerance                     is eternal vigilance. One lesson of the 1939-45 war is that                     intolerance starts small and can grow into a rampaging monster                     if left unchecked. In a sneer and an expletive uttered under                     the breath can rest the seed of the murder of millions. Who                     was Adolf Hitler, after all, in 1923? &#8211; the leader of a fringe                     group of bully boys who went around Munich hurling insults                     at Jewish merchants and socialists.<\/p>\n<p>It thus behooves decent people everywhere to be constantly                     on guard against intolerance. But to do so, we must know it                     when we see it, and that is not as simple as it may seem.                     It is easy to detect &#8211; and easy to tut-tut about &#8211; when it                     bursts forth in rampaging mobs, civil wars and mass killings.                     It is harder to identify &#8211; and much harder to acknowledge                     and condemn &#8211; when it exists within oneself.<\/p>\n<p>The first thing to realize is that genuine tolerance does                     not come easily. Giving the other fellow his due may often                     entail the sacrifice of one&#8217;s own advantages and perquisites.                     Harder still, it may entail the abandonment of one&#8217;s own inherited                     attitudes and cherished myths.<\/p>\n<p>It has been said that no one is born intolerant, which is                     true up to a point: early in life, individual children are                     oblivious to the racial origin or other traits of their playmates.                     But people are not born only as individuals; they are normally                     born into groups and grow up subscribing to group beliefs                     and values. While they are growing up, they must depend on                     their groups for physical and emotional support, which forges                     strong bonds of loyalty.<\/p>\n<p>Like their Neanderthal forebears, groups tend to draw lines                     around themselves to protect their own kind, and it is within                     these lines that intolerance is nurtured. On the murky perimeters                     of their circle, people begin to perceive enemies, a process                     that is greatly abetted if those enemies come ready-made on                     account of some historical tribal grudge.<\/p>\n<h3>Those infected by it are often very nice people                   in other respects<\/h3>\n<p>Grudge or no grudge, the feeling that enemies are a threat                     to you makes them bad by definition. The &#8220;fact&#8221; that they                     are bad (and you, of course, are good) further makes them                     morally inferior in your eyes.<\/p>\n<p>A feeling of moral superiority is, however, rarely enough                     to justify discrimination. Other points of superiority must                     therefore be found. Surely it is only right to discriminate                     against members of Group X if they are lazy or ignorant or                     congenitally dishonest or too aggressive or&#8230; you name it.                     No proof of these attributes is necessary. Your group has                     told you about how bad or inferior they are, and that is sufficient.                     Because you desire the approval of your fellow group members,                     you are disinclined to question their beliefs.<\/p>\n<p>The defensive nature of groups explains why they are always                     so prone to &#8220;blame the victim.&#8221; Even as they are striving                     to put another group down, they will claim that it is themselves                     who are being wronged by that other group. A member of the                     dominant group might believe in all sincerity that members                     of a subordinate group are somehow imposing on his rights                     by asserting their own rights.<\/p>\n<p>In this way, intolerance takes on the appearance of innocence,                     which is enhanced by the fact that those infected by it are                     often otherwise very nice people. There is a tone of blamelessness                     in the protests so often heard from members of groups that                     they really have nothing against the subjects of their discrimination.                     They are not against anybody, they will say; they are merely                     for themselves.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"quote\">Intolerance can successfully masquerade as                   its own opposite<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Intolerant people like to think of themselves as long-suffering                     individuals who have been pushed to the point of total exasperation.                     &#8220;Enough is enough!&#8221; they will cry as they try to roll back                     the progress of deprived groups towards full equality. Demagogues                     have learned that this feeling of being put upon is the very                     fuel of power. By capitalizing on it, they are able to build                     mass movements in which they can dupe their followers into                     doing whatever they want them to do.<\/p>\n<p>Any clever politician knows that nothing unites people behind                     a leader like a common enemy, and that paranoia is a wonderful                     tool of psychological manipulation. It is easy to get people                     in this state to become enraged at the enemy, in which case                     they are psychologically incapable of analysing what a leader                     is actually doing. What he is doing, usually, is robbing them                     blind, or exercising his lust for power.<\/p>\n<p>Intolerance is by nature so consummately dishonest that                     it can successfully masquerade as its opposite. &#8220;I have seen                     gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance,&#8221; as the poet                     and essayist Samuel Taylor Coleridge observed.<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the ages, crusaders for justice have gone full                     circle to take the same bigoted approach to their adversaries                     that they objected to in the first place. Intolerance cannot                     be fought with intolerance; that only replaces one evil with                     another. People are still being discriminated against; the                     only difference is that they have different names.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, the question of who is and who is not being discriminated                     against is very tricky. There is a tendency to cry that rights                     are being violated when, in fact, the so-called rights are                     really only privileges which the complainants already possess                     or hope to possess. Then, too, one person&#8217;s right may interfere                     with another&#8217;s. Deciding on whose rights come first is one                     of the chief purposes of our elected assemblies and courts.<\/p>\n<p>Intolerance not only applies to racial or religious differences,                     but to differences in ideas. And it is here that the tolerance                     of people who consider themselves liberal-minded may meet                     its sternest test. We may find some ideas outrageous, and                     we have every right to argue strenuously against them. But                     as citizens of a democracy, we do not have a right to demand                     that our opponents (short of those who pose a public danger                     by inciting hatred) be muzzled, punished, or deprived of a                     livelihood. Inquisitions were not a 12th or 13th- century                     phenomenon. To this day, people around the world are imprisoned                     or suffering in lesser ways for what they believe, or are                     suspected to believe.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"quote\">Seeking someone to blame for the impact of                   change on our lives<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>For a person determined to think on his or her own account,                     the hardest people to be tolerant towards are those who are                     themselves intolerant. Their minds are closed to facts, opinions                     and arguments that do not accord with their own particular                     point of view. But the principle of toleration obliges us                     to put up with them, while making it plain that we do not                     share their attitudes. In many cases, telling them that we                     refuse to go along with their prejudices may be tantamount                     to butting our heads against a brick wall, but we should do                     it anyway for the sake of our own integrity.<\/p>\n<p>Habits can also draw intolerant fire. Here again we are                     constrained by the rules of civilization to make allowances                     for people whose behaviour differs from our own. The great                     American editor William Allen White put the proposition nicely:                     &#8220;Since others have to tolerate my weaknesses, it is only fair                     that I should tolerate theirs.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Granted, it is difficult to live tolerantly in a time, like                     the present. The old familiar ways of life that once gave                     people a feeling of certainty and security are steadily receding                     into history. It is natural to look around for someone to                     blame for disturbing our lives, and we are inclined to fix                     on those who seem outwardly to be responsible for it. Among                     the most popular scapegoats are newcomers to the country and                     the champions of equality who demand a fair break for those                     who have suffered from discrimination or are suffering still.<\/p>\n<p>In Canada, the whole fabric of the population has changed                     in the last two or three generations. Open-minded people can                     readily see that the fabric has become more various, more                     vital, brighter and richer because of the change. And it all                     rests on tolerance, which, in a multicultural society, amounts                     to nothing less than a civic duty. If our social fabric is                     not to be torn apart, Canadians really have no choice but                     to relate to one another tolerantly.<\/p>\n<p>But perhaps &#8220;duty&#8221; is the wrong word, carrying as it does                     the connotation of a chore or a burden. Tolerance is anything                     but a disagreeable necessity; indeed, in the Canada of today,                     it is the key to living a full and satisfying life.<\/p>\n<p>We Canadians should count the blessings that multiculturalism,                     coupled with the quest for a just and fair society, has brought                     us. This is an infinitely more interesting, enjoyable and                     rewarding country to live in than it was before the latest                     great wave of immigration brought the world to our doorstep,                     differently coloured faces and all.<\/p>\n<p>It has also become, quite simply, a better country. We have                     gained in morality in its truest sense since the injustices                     and inequalities of our prejudiced past have been frankly                     acknowledged and addressed.<\/p>\n<p>As with Canada, so with the world; tolerance represents                     the best hope that people may live out their lives in peace                     and security. And, despite conspicuous setbacks in some countries,                     it has been gaining in many parts of the world. For one thing,                     the new global economy has been breaking down the ancient                     barriers of race, colour and religion. To do a good business                     with people, you have to approach them with understanding                     and respect.<\/p>\n<p>In places where there once seemed to be insurmountable barriers                     to people living together tolerantly, the scene has changed                     dramatically. Who a few years ago would have believed that                     blacks and whites would now be working together to build a                     new South Africa on the ruins of apartheid, or that the bitterly                     divided parties in Northern Ireland would have agreed to put                     aside their weapons and move freely in each other&#8217;s neighbourhoods?<\/p>\n<p>Still, it would be a mistake to believe that the battle                     against intolerance is being waged somewhere &#8220;out there&#8221; in                     faraway foreign places. Intolerance has a sneaky way of happening                     in the best of families and in the best of countries; it knows                     no geographic bounds. The first line of defence against it                     is in everyone&#8217;s own household and everyone&#8217;s own neighbourhood,                     where attitudes are formed and put into practice. Canadians                     are no exception: we must keep working at being tolerant,                     if only to show the world the best way to live.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":79,"featured_media":0,"template":"","categories":[1],"rbc_letter_theme":[],"rbc_letter_year":[82],"class_list":["post-4116","rbc_letter","type-rbc_letter","status-publish","hentry","category-uncategorized","rbc_letter_year-82"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.7 (Yoast SEO v26.8) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vol. 76 No. 5 - September\/October 1995 - The Struggle for Tolerance - RBC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vol. 76 No. 5 - September\/October 1995 - The Struggle for Tolerance - RBC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Intolerance has been the curse of every era, and this one is no exception. To fight it, people must know what they are up against. And although it can be very deceptive, one thing about it is certain: The first line of defence against its evils is within oneself&#8230; You would never guess from what [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"RBC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-11-27T02:05:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/\",\"name\":\"Vol. 76 No. 5 - September\/October 1995 - The Struggle for Tolerance - RBC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-09-01T01:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-11-27T02:05:44+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"RBC\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vol. 76 No. 5 - September\/October 1995 - The Struggle for Tolerance - RBC","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vol. 76 No. 5 - September\/October 1995 - The Struggle for Tolerance - RBC","og_description":"Intolerance has been the curse of every era, and this one is no exception. To fight it, people must know what they are up against. And although it can be very deceptive, one thing about it is certain: The first line of defence against its evils is within oneself&#8230; You would never guess from what [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/","og_site_name":"RBC","article_modified_time":"2022-11-27T02:05:44+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/","url":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/","name":"Vol. 76 No. 5 - September\/October 1995 - The Struggle for Tolerance - RBC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-09-01T01:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-11-27T02:05:44+00:00","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/","name":"RBC","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"Vol. 76 No. 5 &#8211; September\/October 1995 &#8211; The Struggle for Tolerance","url":"http:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/about-us\/history\/letter\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":""},"articleSection":"Uncategorized","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"amandeepsingh"}],"creator":["amandeepsingh"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"RBC","logo":""},"keywords":[],"dateCreated":"1995-09-01T01:00:00Z","datePublished":"1995-09-01T01:00:00Z","dateModified":"2022-11-27T02:05:44Z"},"rendered":"<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"wp-parsely-metadata\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"headline\":\"Vol. 76 No. 5 &#8211; September\\\/October 1995 &#8211; The Struggle for Tolerance\",\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rbc.com\\\/en\\\/about-us\\\/history\\\/letter\\\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\\\/\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rbc.com\\\/en\\\/about-us\\\/history\\\/letter\\\/vol-76-no-5-september-october-1995-the-struggle-for-tolerance\\\/\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"\"},\"articleSection\":\"Uncategorized\",\"author\":[{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"name\":\"amandeepsingh\"}],\"creator\":[\"amandeepsingh\"],\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"RBC\",\"logo\":\"\"},\"keywords\":[],\"dateCreated\":\"1995-09-01T01:00:00Z\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-09-01T01:00:00Z\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-11-27T02:05:44Z\"}<\/script>","tracker_url":"https:\/\/cdn.parsely.com\/keys\/rbc.com\/p.js"},"featured_img":false,"coauthors":[],"author_meta":{"author_link":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/author\/amandeepsingh\/","display_name":"amandeepsingh"},"relative_dates":{"created":"Posted 31 years ago","modified":"Updated 3 years ago"},"absolute_dates":{"created":"Posted on September 1, 1995","modified":"Updated on November 27, 2022"},"absolute_dates_time":{"created":"Posted on September 1, 1995 1:00 am","modified":"Updated on November 27, 2022 2:05 am"},"featured_img_caption":"","tax_additional":{"category":{"linked":["<a href=\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/category\/uncategorized\/\" class=\"advgb-post-tax-term\">Uncategorized<\/a>"],"unlinked":["<span class=\"advgb-post-tax-term\">Uncategorized<\/span>"],"slug":"category","name":"Categories"},"rbc_letter_theme":{"linked":[],"unlinked":[],"slug":"rbc_letter_theme","name":"Themes"},"rbc_letter_year":{"linked":["<a href=\"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/year\/1995\/\" class=\"advgb-post-tax-term\">1995<\/a>"],"unlinked":["<span class=\"advgb-post-tax-term\">1995<\/span>"],"slug":"rbc_letter_year","name":"Years"}},"series_order":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rbc_letter\/4116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rbc_letter"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/rbc_letter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/79"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rbc_letter\/4116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4116"},{"taxonomy":"rbc_letter_theme","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rbc_letter_theme?post=4116"},{"taxonomy":"rbc_letter_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rbc.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rbc_letter_year?post=4116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}