To: long-gone who wrote (75104 ) 8/16/2001 7:02:49 PM From: E. Charters Respond to of 116915 I don't think anyone is accusing you of being a racially polarized person or ethnocentric to any extent, as fairly, that has not been demonstrated. Now, Marcos might equate views on trade with admittedly stereotypically concommitant views on social politics as a rhetorical device, but it is not fair to suggest he is a bigot, even if the idea of the lumping incenses you sensibilities. From what I know, he may be the exact model of an enlightened person in that regard. After all, he indicated he did not like the people in pointy hats. But, he may not be on your side on other issues. So unfair rhetoric does not indicate a personal slight, even if the final distillation could be taken to be insulting. It's just bad argument, not an attack against a person. Quite apart from that, and purely academically, it is entirely possible for people from two camps to choose one side or another with some bias. For instance Heyderich, the Reich protector of the Nazi regime was in fact exactly half Jewish. This did not stop him from taking a stance against that group that has been since deemed quite opprobrious. In fact he was quite vile in his opposition to Jewish raison d'etre. I would rush to agree with you however, that most people that share inheritance from different groups are more inclusive as a matter of course, notwithstanding the perversity of the exceptions. I suppose it would not matter what side one chose, if one did make an exclusive choice - as to correctness. That would seem to suggest that it must be wrong in that case to make choices, if the choice is too exclusive. It seems to indicate too, that good here is only a matter of degree. EC<:-}