Re: BELL CURVE CRITIC EXPOSED?
3 Feb 1995 17:28:31 GMT
email@example.com (Frosch) wrote:
> actually, the confusion of definitions is worse than i had
> picked up in passing. the use of 'african-AMERICAN' to mean
> any person of african descent, i could _just_ manage to forgive
I was talking about Americans.
> as an americocentric slip of the tongue. but using "hindu" as
> a designator of "race"??
I wasn't using "hindu" as a designator of "race". I was using
the statistical fact that not a lot of Africans are Hindu.
Hinduism is not as far as I know a proselytizing religion. It
is much like Judaism in this respect. In particular, at least
prior to the arrival of the British in India Hinduism involved
strictly controlled *hereditary* castes. Brahmins, for example,
were born Brahmins. Hardly an example of the proposition you
seem to be trying to prove, namely:
Hinduism is a religion.
Religion has nothing to do with heredity.
Therefore Hinduism has nothing to do with heredity.
(The middle term is of course the error.)