No, definition. That's my point.
>What's the alternative- to pretend "we're all the same after all?"
>Whenever we interact we are engaging presuppositions, and so what's worse,
>clarifying the way in which identity issues might be important here or
>blissful ignorance.
I'm not propounding ignorance, but rather, an acceptance that difference is
intrinsic to humanity.
>No no no
>there's nothing "rhetorical" about being a minority, and only academics ask
>questions like this one.
Apparently not. Who says I'm an "academic"?
Anyway, I'm not suggesting that _being_ in the minority is "rhetorical",
I'm suggetsting that use of the _term_ "minority" is a rhetorical strategy
that gives the utterer instant credibility as a caring concerned person for
the "poor minorities" immediately reaffirming their place in the dominant
majority.
>And what are the "facts of the matter". And what's
>wrong with guilt?
The "facts of the matter" are instantiations of objective reality
pertaining to whichever is the matter at hand, like when a person dies of
starvation or is murdered because of their identification with a certain
group defined by whichever quality.
And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with guilt. It often shows a
healthy sense of what is RIGHT and that one can recognise one's own
transgressions of this; that one can be WRONG. However, guilt also has ugly
manifestations.
Phil
Phil Graham
pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html