A Rose By Any Other Name...

We could take it a step further than that :

The recognition of differences is vital to us, but it isn't only the difference(s) that an individual would exhibit against those of a "majority", but how any 'other' is different from 'me'. The majority is merely the aggregate of 'me'-s, each clinging to the majority-mean to self-identify. This is not an evil thing, as human beings are social creatures by evolutionary heritage. One may be wise however to examine closely the similarities which bind the group (and certainly the ones that determine its out-look on "differences") as to whether this majority is a natural or an absurd one.

The differences we notice are, naturally, the rarer ones. The ones that Brian was pointing out above are no so very rare - somebody is going to have poor eyesight, be a little overweight, have ginger hair, or be homosexual. The probability of this occurring even in quite small groups is very high -- not because "someone" has to fill that role, but just because these variations are the most common. Introduce an albino into the group and that is going to get noticed (albinism only occurs in about 1/20 000 individuals).

But what makes this vital 'difference-spotting' harmful to us on the social level is when we mix it in with the value judgements of "good/better," "inferior/superior," desirable/disgusting" ... We tend to give meanings to things that allude to some kind of reassurance of the 'me'-ness wrought by the 'identity' value of belonging to the group - le 'majority' (whether it be as populous of a set as we want to think or not). We have to be discrimintating or else we'll die. But often discriminations are not to protect Life, but to protect the image/meaning we're trying to make Life conform to. That is where our evil starts ...