[thechat] King Preaches Abstinence to Parading Maidens

[Chris Marsh]

> > As I mentioned before, "white" is a political descriptor. Why would
> > someone from the UK be white? And if you are separating "white"
> > britons from everyone else, why would you do this if you believe
> > everyone is or should be equal? I am not being entirely serious on
> > this point--rather I am illustrating that it is very easy to see
> > racism and discrimination where there really is none,
> merely because
> > one is obsessed with it.
>
> I am not interested in UK politics unless it is harmful for

I used the word "political" not in the governmental sense, but societal.

> Muslims in any way. In Pakistan, "angraize" word is used for
> the whites of Europe and America without knowing it's real
> meaning. It means "Englishman" or "someone from England". It
> is used just for a recognition. It does not contain any
> intention of racial discrimination. All Africans are called

So "angraize" is pretty much the same as "paki" in England? In other
words there is nothing inherently derogatory about it (paki being a
contraction of pakistani) but could be used in a derogatory fashion if
the user of the word had the intent to do so?

> "habshi" in Pakistan without any distinction of country. This
> word is used for any black with African background. It is a
> common word and does not contain any racial offence. This

How do you know? Are you African? You cannot say that a word does not
contain racial offense, as it is the listener that *takes* offense from
its use.

> word is just for recognition. "Habshi" means "some one from
> Habshah". Habshah is the old name of Ethiopia, an African

Etymology is irrelevant. A word is just a sound, it is the current use
of a word that is relevant.

> country. Races of Humans are a fact. We cannot deny them.
> Races have been developed by the different environments in
> which Humans live on this earth. Just as other living
> organisms on earth, humans developed their skin colour, their
> bodies dimensions according to the environment of their
> places of dwelling. Now races have become recognition. My
> sentence: "I strongly believe in equality of all humans
> without any difference of sex or race." has been
> misinterpreted. It doesn't mean that I don't believe on the
> existence of races. It means that all humans must have equal
> rights and opportunities. There must not be any division of
> rights and opportunities based on races.

I would have to disagree with this. This is a very complex subject which
is often dismissed by hyper-simplified solutions. Why should all humans
have equal opportunities and rights? It depends on the society and
status of the individual. I will give you an example. 1) I believe that
a burglar forfeits all human rights the moment he embarks upon his
crime. The law disagrees, but in this case I think that the law is an
ass. 2) Why should a Muslim be afforded similar opportunities to
practice his religion as a Christian in a Christian society, and vice
versa? 3) Why should a non-national be afforded the same rights of
residence as a national?

Trying to make everyone equal is the way to madness. You would have to
break down all borders and standardise all laws, education, prices,
standards of living etc. etc.

> John's general
> attitude to my posts gives a clear impression of racial

I will have to call you on that. I have re-read all of the posts, and
nowhere can I find clear evidence of racial discrimination. Please
quote...

> discrimination. Look at your own post. You have objected and
> challenged my opinion but there is a big difference between
> your attitude and that of John's. You have written in a
> general way and have NOT used any offensive or aggressive
> language or words. On the other hand, look at the very first
> reply of John to me under this thread:
> http://lists.evolt.org/thechatarchive/Week-of-Mon-20020909/361
> 2746.html

I think that you are being a little over-sensitive here. You have been
on this list a while, so you will have noted that to cite your own
opinion as fact whilst simultaneously promoting your religion is bound
to irritate at least a couple of people on this list. His response was
not aggressive, and is probably about as offensive to you as yours was
to him. My advice would be that if you make the decision to allow
yourself to become offended so easily, it may be better not to involve
yourself in debates. This would be a great shame, as debating is fun and
useful--even when it becomes heated.

> My original message was to Erika, not John.

Regards

Chris Marsh