>My statement was to a specific comment.

specific, yes. to this post, no.

>It is the issue for this post but not the issue
>for the problems of the world.

right. i was under the impression that here at okayplayer we're solving the problems of the world post by post instead of all at once?

which is an unecessarily rude way of saying you should start a post saying race is not the problem, or bring up an old one

>"RAce" isn't either it is just a symptom of a greater illness.

very true

>>is western/non-western love more the issue
>>
>Those two things are totally different and incompatible.

i don't understand how. we are all animals first and foremost beneath all things. but we have brains that we can use to twist our thoughts into oblivion. love, though, is a universal human function. a human NEED i would say. can't live without love.

love is a basic human function. culture can only mess so deep with it.

of course, we live in a world that's pretty obsessed with love. because of that we call all kindsa things love. and all that extra stuff (which is not love anyway) confuses the hell out of us.

>One can never "love" the enemy. That is suicide (i.e. genocide).

i think the "problem" here is that the line between enemy and friend is not a distinctive one

>like "Blacks can love whites..."
> This has NOTHING to
>do with the compatibility of
>Western and non-Western worldviews.

so blacks=nonwestern and whites=nonwestern? man, that is shortsighted and not very well thought out. even contradicting your earlier self.

you said that western and non-western love are incompatible. how does that not relate to the compatibility of western and nonwestern worldviews?


==**peace**==

"Words without work is not enough." Sizzla

There is more danger in the word exotic than in a sharpened machete --me

"The logic of divide and rule is still valid today." Capleton

DPP; DomePoem Poets; Vibe Nation; One ppl under the spoken word