RAK can't admit it when he is wrong.

On Wed, 28 May 2008 06:21:01 +0800, RichAsianKid wrote
(in article 
<a7ae2e33-3c89-4a92-8fd8-32cd9ba8a744@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> On May 27, 1:51 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> For example, in Rwanda, the Hutu regarded the Tutsi as the other (and
vice a
>> versa) but RAK would regard both as "black".
>> 
>> For another example, in Scandinavia, the Swedish people regard
Norwegians as
>> the other (and vice a versa) and RAK would regard both as white.
>> 
>> For Nazis the "other" were the Jews, RAK would regard both Germans and
Jew 
>> to be white.
>> 
> 
> In general I value Homo Sapiens (including an African) over a gorilla,
> but I also value a non-African more than an African (first bifurcation
> after Homo Sapiens). Ingroup/Outgroup boundaries are fluid and
> mallelable, and principle remains "me against my brother, me and my
> brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the world." BTW
> your examples are evidence against the possibility of "utopia" or a
> "one-world" given how similar these groups are to an 'outsider'.

I refuted your claim. Be an adult. Admit it.

You made a specific claim, (neatly snipped) which I now quote: "Perhaps 
that's why blacks are always seen as the "other" in virtually every
society."
If you have any integrity, you will not admit that this statement is
false.

-- 
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive 
crossposts.)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----