It is more helpful to take individuals, cases, instances, events, particularities, and address them. If all men are presumed to treat women in this or that way, or all whites or blacks or browns or reds treating all the people in the other groups in this or that way, it is impossible to see the exceptions--and there are many--or to liberate those who would like to be and to do better--and there are always better--or to set forth models of creative, productive and generous behavior.

If we would drop the "isms" and forget about lumping others into despisable camps we could address actual problems and work toward actual solutions, leaving stereotypes and myths behind.

"Particularities" interest historians, of course, but they also do or should interest theologians and religious people in general. Their texts do speak in categories, such as "the whole human race," or "Israel vs. Babylonians" or "sons of Levi vs. versus the sons of Manasseh," but they effect change when, for instance, a prophet can stand up to King David and not treat royalism or monarchism as a problem but David as a problem: "Thou art the man" or when a prophet can offer a vision to individuals who can transform a company, like "the Tribe of Judah" to be agents for good. The prophets set out to break down the basic barrier between "strangers" or "aliens" and "belongers," and that is what we have to try to do today.

'Isms' will only get in the way, and will obscure agendas.