| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Janithor" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2004 03:17:20 PM |
| Object: |
For Neoholistic (politics) |
x-no-archive: yes
Here's one example from today's Yahoo! News:
--------
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)
"...Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara used his country's annual
address to the U.N. General Assembly opening debate to deliver a fierce
critique of Israeli policy, even as the Jewish state accused Damascus of
"directing terrorism" and threatened preemptive strikes against
militants on its territory.
....Shara said Israel had built up a nuclear arsenal, expanded Jewish
settlements on Palestinian lands, built a "racist segregation wall,"
which Israel says is intended to keep out suicide bombers,"
--------
Whatever the arguments for or against the wall are, what does race have
to do with it? Illegal land grab by Israel, an attempt to keep out
suicide bombers, whatever. These arguments at least make logical sense.
But racist? Aren't jewish people semetic as well? IIRC, Hebrew and
Arabic have a common foundation. He's just throwing out a loaded word
to hype his argument. And even if you think calling it racist is
legitimate, well, this is why I bring up the race issue so frequently:
because they do!
.
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: For Neoholistic (politics) |
29 Sep 2004 08:28:32 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Here's one example from today's Yahoo! News:
--------
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)
"...Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara used his country's annual
address to the U.N. General Assembly opening debate to deliver a fierce
critique of Israeli policy, even as the Jewish state accused Damascus of
"directing terrorism" and threatened preemptive strikes against
militants on its territory.
...Shara said Israel had built up a nuclear arsenal, expanded Jewish
settlements on Palestinian lands, built a "racist segregation wall,"
which Israel says is intended to keep out suicide bombers,"
--------
Whatever the arguments for or against the wall are, what does race have
to do with it? Illegal land grab by Israel, an attempt to keep out
suicide bombers, whatever. These arguments at least make logical sense.
But racist? Aren't jewish people semetic as well? IIRC, Hebrew and
Arabic have a common foundation. He's just throwing out a loaded word
to hype his argument. And even if you think calling it racist is
legitimate, well, this is why I bring up the race issue so frequently:
because they do!
(Couldn't reply earlier)
Yes, Hebrew and Arabic have a common mother tongue, but genetically
very close languages don't imply genetically very close speakers (though
it often happens). These days being "Jewish" is more a cultural or
religious thing. I doubt most Israelis are "100% semitic" (does that
sound so bad to you as it does to me?). Anyway, the word "race" in
European languages used to mean "people from the same nation" until
the 18-19 century. I suspect "racist" here is meant in the sense of
"unwilling to have people they consider a 'different tribe' (be that
because of ethnic, cultural and/or religious reasons) in their society",
rather than the strict sense of "racist" as we usually understand it.
But that's just my guess. In any case I see your point, and it's a good
one.
--
"Una chica de metal que nunca podré besar" - Aviador Dro
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: For Neoholistic (politics) |
29 Sep 2004 12:25:26 PM |
|
|
In message <2rvr53F1fdffjU1@uni-berlin.de>, neoholistic
<ekqbwpo@terra.es> writes
Yes, Hebrew and Arabic have a common mother tongue, but genetically
very close languages don't imply genetically very close speakers (though
it often happens). These days being "Jewish" is more a cultural or
religious thing. I doubt most Israelis are "100% semitic" (does that
sound so bad to you as it does to me?). Anyway, the word "race" in
European languages used to mean "people from the same nation" until
the 18-19 century. I suspect "racist" here is meant in the sense of
"unwilling to have people they consider a 'different tribe' (be that
because of ethnic, cultural and/or religious reasons) in their society",
rather than the strict sense of "racist" as we usually understand it.
But that's just my guess. In any case I see your point, and it's a good
one.
As I understand the science, there are no races of Homo sapiens (or only
one, depending how you look at it). According to some palaeontologists,
there was once another - Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neandertalensis) -
but that's disputed (Homo neandertalensis). That's how big the gap has
to be to have two biological races, not that it stops racists believing
in political races.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: For Neoholistic (politics) |
30 Sep 2004 01:09:58 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <2rvr53F1fdffjU1@uni-berlin.de>, neoholistic
<ekqbwpo@terra.es> writes
Yes, Hebrew and Arabic have a common mother tongue, but genetically
very close languages don't imply genetically very close speakers (though
it often happens). These days being "Jewish" is more a cultural or
religious thing. I doubt most Israelis are "100% semitic" (does that
sound so bad to you as it does to me?). Anyway, the word "race" in
European languages used to mean "people from the same nation" until
the 18-19 century. I suspect "racist" here is meant in the sense of
"unwilling to have people they consider a 'different tribe' (be that
because of ethnic, cultural and/or religious reasons) in their society",
rather than the strict sense of "racist" as we usually understand it.
But that's just my guess. In any case I see your point, and it's a good
one.
As I understand the science, there are no races of Homo sapiens (or only
one, depending how you look at it). According to some palaeontologists,
there was once another - Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neandertalensis) -
but that's disputed (Homo neandertalensis). That's how big the gap has
to be to have two biological races, not that it stops racists believing
in political races.
Yes, I think those are the only two races that coexisted in Europe.
Either the Neanderthals became extinct or were "assimilated" by the
Cro-Magnon. However the claim for the "validity" of the concept of
"biological races of man" has never stopped among militant racists,
not allowing the scientific fact to spoil their system of belief.
Different "ethnicities" do exist, though, and are often called, quite
imprecisely, "races", by forensics and others, but that's probably
because the word is shorter and the term stuck (differences include
varying tolerance to alcohol for example, or the shape of some bones,
so forensics can clasify human remanins as belonging to an "asian",
"caucasian", etc, person, with a very high degree of success, just by
looking at a skeleton).
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
