>>like your reactionary and ignorant grouping of europeans,
>>turks, arabs, persians, and indians (maybe asians too?)?
>
>Well turks, persians and europeans (btw turks ARE europeans)
>all have common roots, ie. Indo-Europeans.

most turks would disagree with that.

what is this? are we using the same theories and philosphy that fucking europeans used to divide, classify and oppress people all over the world?

i dont give a fuck if there is blood relation or not, the fact on the street, culture and history shows that all these groups are distinct. there is a history of conflict between europeans and turks, arabs, persians, and indians. there is a history of colonialsm. race theories were used to oppress the latter groups, much the same way as in africa.

i am sure, africans dont like to be lumped togethjer in one group, so why do you want to delegitimize the reality, history and oppresion of other people, using white people theories and philosphies?

seems like black skin, white mind/heart to me.




>Arabs and Indians have a more diverse background although
>both have Indo-european blood. Well Indians, specifically,
>consist of a very diverse gorups of people some with more
>Indo-european (Aryan) roots than others. If I'm not
>mistaken the Northern Indians have more Aryan than Southern
>Indians.
>
>Nevertheless I can't recall yuckwheat ever saying that all
>of those groups belong in one big family.

read posts 50 and 53 and 71.