It is discrimination unless you are also a black person and you are calling another person a blackrat. That is just the way of the world even if no discrimination was intended. However, in that case, I believe that discrimation was intended - against 'rats' or low-life criminals, not necessarily black criminals. A poor choice of words regardless.


>Hi Peter,
>
>
>>Well okay, I may have exagerated. But you can think of a citizenship test, an oath ceremony and, one of my favorites, the preparedness/normalcy of changing one's name. These things are normal in the US since decades, we are only beginning to think about such things.
>
>Well, of course we have the 'inburgerings test' which was just introduced a few years ago. It needs time, IMO. As for changing one name. I'm not sure if this really going to help or is even allowed by law to force upon people.
>
>>>The point is, we should be that sensitive. People here often don't even know what is discrimination is. If I say: "That turk on the corner smells bad", I'm just saying something about an individual, not about turks..., yet it is so easy to light the fuse this way.
>
>>But how can you be sure it's a turk? My father resembles a turk, but he isn't. In practice, I never say that. I'd say "That person on the corner smells not so nice". But if it helps in a discussion, I do use words that are seen by some as discriminative. The most recent debate is about 'allochtoon'. I like that word and don't regard it as discriminative.
>
>If you know the person for example? Maybe I've should have said, the "Black guy" on the corner. Anyways the specification of'"Turk" or "Black guy" or "Chinese", or "Old man" or "Red guy" is just to identify who we are talking about, not an act of discrimination. I do remember an incident on the train station in Hoorn (it was in the papers) where one of the NS staff was trying to catch a black guy who did not pay for the train trip. He said "Get over here, you black rat". I wondered why this is discrimination? He was not saying that every black person was a rat, rather that this individual was both black and a rat.
>
>>>Well, I'm a fan of charles, though I tend more to agree more with max westerman. Unfortunately I not much of a book reader though: It blurs my mind to absorb just the viewpoint of one individual.
>
>>This is a book with readable sections, not much longer than your epistles. :)
>
>Hmmm, I did not find my epistals that long. I've produced much longer messages in the past, AFAIK.... But anyways, I'll try to make it shorter next time.
>
>Walter,