[SpamCop-List] Re: The chinese own spam

[Marjolein Katsma]

Miss Betsy (nobody at spamcop.net) wrote in news:c715pn$rr7$1
@news.spamcop.net:

> race:  any of the different varieties of mankind, distinguished by
> form of hair color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions,
> etc.; many anthropologists now consider that there are only three
> primary major groups, the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, each
> with various subdivisions.  The term has acquire so many
> unscientifict connotations that in this sense it is often replaced
> in scientific usgage by ethnic stock or group.

Those "many anthropologists" surely are a minority, and don't agree with 
current scientific thinking, certainly not current scientific thinking 
in biology and genetics (or linguists, for that matter).

> So I was using the 'scientific' definition of race in layman's
> terms.

No, you're using an entirely unscientific definition.

> It is a nation.  It has one seat in the United Nations.  It has one
> government.

No, it's a *country*. Just having a government or having a seat in the 
United Nations doesn't *make* it a nation. They, themselves, recognize 
different nationalities (though fewer than they should).

> Racism is prejudice of one race for another.

Exactly. That's why it is the same thing as your PC "ethnic prejudice". 
You confuse ethnicity with nationailty.

> They are not racist because they do not see all people of all
> nations who are of a particular 'race' or ethnic stock as being the
> same.  They see only the people (of whatever race or ethnic stock)
> who are citizens of a particular country as being all the same.

That would mean seeing all citizens of China as the same - well, that's 
racist, too. Because they aren't. Call it "reverse racism" but it's 
still racism.


>> *Perceived* race. Racism doesn't have to be targeted at "actual"
race -
>> there's no such thing as 'yellow races'. The mere fact that you
even use
>> such a term _is_ racist. And immensely insulting.
> 
> It is a scientific term.

"Yellow races" most definitely is not a scientific term.

> It is descriptive, just as blond hair, blue eyes is descriptive.

Descriptive of what? Skin color does *not* equate race.

> From my dictionary: nation: the people of a territory united under
> a single government, a country.  Also, a stable, historically
> developed community of people with a territory, economic life,
> distinctive culture and language in common.

China is *not* "a stable, historically developed community of people 
with a territory". It's a large number of very different communities, 
with very *different* cultures, certainly not a language in common, and 
inseveral areas not all that stable either. NOTE: many people in China 
do not even speak Chinese, let alone being able to read or write it.

>> No, it applies to your *origins*. For instance, Uyghurs, Tadjiks,
>> Mongols and Han are all *different* races (of Turki, Indo-European,
>> Mongol and "Han-Chinese" origins) - and they all live within the same
>> country; are recognized even in China as being different
>> "nationalities". (Not that the Han's definitions are all that
>> clear-cut because they call the Hui a "nationality", too, just
>> because they're muslims - but ethnically they're Han.)
>>
> 
> I doubt very much if they are different 'races' - though they may
> have different customs, characteristics, language, and a common
> history (definition of ethnic).

Han Chinese and Hui certainly aren't different - like I said - but all 
the others definitely are different races. (Even if you take skin color 
into account, which I don't - I look only at genetics and ethnicity.)

Even if you want to use such a fallacy as "yellow races" (note the 
plural), at least two of the peoples I've mentioned are not the same 
race as the Han Chinese.

Believe what you want - but you might try to look up something about 
these peoples I've mentioned. (Only a small part of the number of 
different peoples inhabiting the country called "China".)

> see above definition from the dictionary.

There are countless dictionaries, many no doubt with a better 
definition. Just because a dictionary lists a definition doesn't mean 
that's a correct one.

> I am not arguing with you about the prejudice against China because
> there are spammers there.
> 
> However, it is not a racial prejudice, but a prejudice against a
> nation.

A nation that doesn't exist. Prejudice against *perceived* nation, 
*perceived* race, is still prejudice and racism, even if it isn't 
founded in any reality.


-- 
Marjolein Katsma - Amsterdam, NL - http://hshelp.com/
Spam reporting addresses: http://banspam.javawoman.com/report3.html

Spammers steal resources: they're my enemy.
Cyveillance steals resources: they're my enemy.
The enemy of my enemy can be my enemy, too.