On May 29, 11:58 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:33:17 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> (in article
> <775d05a9-284a-482d-b9cc-eba88ce27...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 9:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 May 2008 06:21:01 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> >> (in article
> >> <a7ae2e33-3c89-4a92-8fd8-32cd9ba8a...@[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.
>
> > What? Hutus regarded Tutsi (black) as "the other" as you said, clearly
> > consistent with my statement.
>
> It is funny, really. One group of "blacks" considering another group of
> "blacks" as outsiders and you claim it sup****ts your statement. Really
funny,
>
Did what you say above re: Hutus and Tutsis "refute" my claim?
> > And if you had (note tense) no critical
> > mass of blacks around (as in Sweden or Norway) in your society you
> > really couldn't have had racial conflicts that generate headlines
> > (till the recent rape wave...)
>
> Doesn't matter. The "other" is typically found in every society, but it
is
> not remotely true that "blacks" are the other (as you claimed).
>
Please do tell us precisely how if some non-black group is the
outsider automatically translates into "black" not being the outsider.
Careful now, one of your examples is Nazi Germany and there're no
dearth of links how blacks were "treated". (Is that why you're not
practising law now, not good enough to be a lawyer by the way, not
recognizing a non-sequitur?)
> I can make an endless list of societies in which the other are not
"blacks".
> Indeed in some of them "Chinese" are the others.
>
> > And like I said, me against my brother, me and my brother against my
> > cousin, me and my cousin against the world and thus I do love your
> > examples. There are many more....Sunnis and ****ites, Chinese and
> > Malays, Sinhalese and Tamils, etc etc. Such exuberant conflict in
> > diversity! Utopia is still not achieved!
>
> Pretending that I claim utopia is possible is another one of your
dishonest
> debating techniques.
You do agree that utopia is not possible then, correct?
>
> --
> 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.comThe
#1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
|
