Frosch (
4 Feb 95 01:33:19 GMT

> (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.

maybe _you_ think that is what you were doing, but as i note
from a different post, you are not even taking into account that
the newsgroups to which this is being posted (any of the above)
are INTERNATIONAL. to say "black means african-american", with
not even a nominal pointer to social context, is a gross failure
acknowledge that reality. "black" does not mean that, it means a
range of things in different social contexts, one of which is
u.s. society. [and you deleted without comment my pointer to the
use of "black" in australia, although this directly contradicted
claims you made in another post.]

>> 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.)

to be brief: bullshit. and bullshit for which you needed to
delete your original paragraph (and my transliteration) to make
the reconstruction halfway plausible.

>In article <3gp0bt$>,
> <> wrote:

>>[...] If, for example, someone were to identify me as black,
>>and then discovered that I was in fact a dark-pigmented Hindu,
>>I'd expect him to admit his error. "Black" means "African-