[SpamCop-List] Re: The chinese own spam

[Miss Betsy]

"Marjolein Katsma" <nobody at spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94DDCF6DDFA1Chomesitehelp at 216.154.195.61...
<snip>
> 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.

That's an internal problem within that nation.  If an Uyghur wants
to use a passport acceptable to other nations, he has to get one
from the Chinese government.

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

Hispanic is a broad term and some people are prejudiced against
anyone who fits within that broad term.  Others aim their prejudice
against people of a particular nationality.

>
> > 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.

There are two different races involved, but the primary clash
between gangs does not come from prejudice against another race,
but in what they consider their 'territory'.  And they are both
united against authority - which, as I pointed out, has
representatives of several races and cultural backgrounds.

>
> > 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.

And that is the definition of a nation.  There are no nations that
don't have minority groups.

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

There are laws that are national and which influence how they
interact with each other.  They probably have a common history
(even if the borders changed many times).  Many of them probably
get their information through the same media channels (or at least
know what their neighbors are getting as well as their own).

> 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?

That was my point.  Knowing Chinese is not a prerequisite for being
a network admin unless it indicates a level of education.

> > 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.

The people of Alsace-Lorraine may consider themselves of German or
French ethnic descent, but they are citizens of the nation they are
now a part of.

And you are contradicting yourself.  If they are the same race as
the Tadjiks and the Russians in China, then the OP can't be racist
in his remarks because he is not including them in his indictment
of Chinese ISP's.  A racist is one who judges that a whole race has
the same characteristics.

>
> > 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.

You didn't convince me.  In my very first post on this subject, I
said, "but I believe that not all Chinese citizens are considered
the same 'race.'"
>
> > If you are going to debate with people, then you need to use
> > commonly defined definitions - not your personal definitions.
>
> Exactly.

race was a term used by anthropologists to describe differences in
human populations; over the years, the scientific definition has
been more closely refined.  However, race is still used in layman's
language to describe the three major groups of human populations
described by anthropologists.

nation or country is a politically defined population defined by
territorial borders and recognition by other nations, having its
own laws and government.  There are nations 'within' other nations
that have agreements with each other defining their powers.  In
general, those outside the dominant nation consider them
politically as part of the dominant nation.

ethnic group is a population that has a common culture, but are not
necessarily a separate nation.  They may, or may not, be the same
race.  An ethnic group may also be part of the national culture in
which they live and are considered citizens of that nation. There
are national ethnic characteristics that can be shared by all races
and ethnic groups within that nation.

If you want to use other definitions, then cite your source.

Miss Betsy