When I write, "If I was a Moslem I'd..." that means, fairly obviously, in normal communications, that I'd be the average sort of Moslem leaning towards those who put strong weight on their Islamic identity rather than those who merely wear an Islamic fig leaf for social purposes.
It's a bit like if I wrote "If I had a house in the USA ..." one could reasonably infer that it would not be an igloo, tent or Bill Gates' house but a generalized sort of middling house.
Words are fuzzy in definition, but aim at a core matching to reality.
When one writes "New Zealanders are friendly, Islamic Jihad is not", that doesn't mean there are no evil-doing hideous people who are New Zealanders [the prisons are stacked with them and swarms are on the loose conducting carnage operations] or that there aren't some really nice, friendly, Islamic Jihadists who see Jihad as more of a moral activity conducted within one's own mind than an effort to separate infidel's minds from their shoulders [by mechanical action].
People are so scared of being seen as being racist that they are incapable of making derogatory comment about groups, even when called for and obviously true. Even if the group specifically demands to be recognized in that way.
Groups of people are not identical. Japanese really are different from Chinese. Japanese women really are different from Japanese men. Chinese women really are different from French women. Moslems do not think the same as Buddhists. Negroes are not the same as Caucasians or Ashkenazi Jews.
That doesn't mean all Negroes are in prison. Heck, Condoleezza Rice is still not in prison. Of course a lot of the Loony Liberal Left would like to see her in prison for crimes against humanity. Which is quite ironic really.
<Generalizations are fine, but when you generalize from a minority and then tar the majority with it, that's dangerous prejudice- the kind that makes people feel they can kill bunches of civilians with impunity; the kind of prejudice that makes people feel nuking cities is justified to kill the "barbarians" >
When Panzers are driving over your face, it's no longer prejudice. When Japanese are bombing Pearl Harbour in droves and murdering en masse across Asia, it's not prejudice.
Prejudice is deciding BEFORE the evidence. When the evidence is in, it's not prejudice.
It might well be that it was only a minority of Japanese and Germans forcing the mass murder. Bad luck for the rest. Those being murdered are not in a position to put a fine distinction on the situation.
That's why, when push comes to shove and there is sufficient generalized support in a community for a particular action [as there is in Palestine with a democratic majority voting for Hamas and bulk murder of Jews] then those who they would attack are not really in a position to identify the actual evil-doers.
Hence the point that what matters is the philosophical foundations, and the evil-doing divide is between Libertarians and the rest.
Mqurice |
