Juha:
>Indeed, I think that the key criteria for identifying racism is to ask (a)
>whether
>�Linguistics, genetics and anthropology are happily mixed up� and (b)
>whether there is an intended (either explicit or implicit) claim for the
>superiority of some ethnic
>group, �defined� in the confused sense just given. If both criteria are
>satisfied, then it is racism pure and simple.
This definition is narrower than my definition of racism which would include
the
act of irresponsibly bringing race or racial stereotyping into very
inappropriate
situations or topics, if indeed it is ever appropriate. Racism to me is not
just about
hatred but about ignorance and irrationality. In this case, this topic is
inappropriate
for the application of race or genetics. Immediately, the premise of an
"Indo-
European race" is illogical, as too is obsessing over general genetic traits
of its
speakers. This is because, as it is quite obvious to most, anyone of any
genetic
stock can adopt any language, and we cannot _possibly_ know what the average
Indo-European speaker looked like! We can only make vague, subjective
guesses.
So this unscientific talk makes for a fruitless discussion here.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail