[SpamCop-List] Re: The chinese own spam

[Marjolein Katsma]

Miss Betsy (nobody at spamcop.net) wrote in
news:c72o4b$ahi$1 at news.spamcop.net: 

>> No, you're using an entirely unscientific definition.
> 
> No, I am using a scientific definition

A pseudo-scientific definition.

> There is no particular difference in the usage of nation and
> country in American English.  However, I do understand your
> distinction.  In the US, we do have the various Indian Nations
> which is what you are describing (they do have territory and to
> some extent their own law).
> However, they are all US citizens.  If they travel, they get US
> passports.

Ah, there's a difference. I don't know how easy it is for an American
Indian to get a passport but it is certainly not as easy for an Uyghur
or a Tadjik or a Tibetan to get a passport than it is for a Han Chinese. 

> Some of them may not be US citizens; some are born here and so are US
> citizens.  However, they are not "nations" within the US.

Another difference with China.

>> You confuse ethnicity with nationailty.
> 
> It is not the same.  Some people are prejudiced against Hispanics,
> no matter where they come from - Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Peru.

But does it matter whether they're Indian, Spanish or Mestizos?
Different natoinalities and different ethnicity - but groups don't
match. 

> In the US, there is enmity in some areas between black teenage
> gangs and Mexican teenage gangs and neither one trusts 'white'
> authority (which includes both black and Hispanic people).  There
> is no 'racial' prejudice here, but ethnic (as in coming from
> different cultures).

I say it's racist - as in not just coming from different cultures, but
having different descent, and different race. 

> All citizens of China share something in common, no matter what
> their ethnic (or racial) origins. 

Oh, yes. All of them live within the same national borders. And that's
about it. Otherwise I really see *nothing* in common between teh various
peoples in China. 

If you think you know better, tell me, specifically, what else *all* of
them are supposed to have in common apart from living within teh same
borders (contested or not). 

> You are quibbling.  Many people within US borders do not speak
> English.

No, I am not quibbling. People within US borders that do not speak
English are immigrants - not people who lived there already *before* the
national borders were defined. 

> They are unlikely to be running an internet network.

Huh? Do you need to speak English to run an Internet network???

> Perhaps some of the parts of China that do not speak Chinese are
> developed enough to have network admins (just as there are some
> Indian Nations in the US who could have their own networks).

Sure. maybe. And your point is?


> You are quibbling about being stable also.  Are there not parts of
> Europe that have been over the years parts of different
> governments?

Yes.

> Like Alsace-Lorraine?  Is that area a different 'nation' because of
> its history? 

The people may consider themselves to be belonging to a different nation
than the dominant one of the country they live in. "Nation" is not
determined by political borders. It's determined by who you are and what
your descent is. 

> Are the citizens of that area a different 'race' from their neighbors?

No. And they're the same race as the Tadjiks and the Russians in China.

> Genetically, I believe there are different 'races' among some of
> the peoples in China you mentioned - which I have already pointed
> out.

Oh, good. It seems I've convinced you then. Because *I* was the one
pointing out that there are different races in China, not just different
cultures/languages. 

> If you are going to debate with people, then you need to use
> commonly defined definitions - not your personal definitions.

Exactly.


-- 
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.