>     And I have dealt with Tresy's misguided belief that we were involved
in a
> moral effort in the sky over Yugoslavia, but Trescy's lumping of all Serbs
> into one is a case of stereotyping, not racism, and all the adolescent
> squealing of "fellas like you";-) won't change that.

Well, I think that racism has a very precise sociological explanation.
Because I am coming from social science millieux, and because I used to
write quite a lot on the subject for more serious purposes, I think that I
am capable to make that difference. If you mark a whole entity, a whole
nation or a race, as "fellows", and in other mails genocidal people, people
of killers, and so on, and these were Tracy's very words, than, in lenguage
of social science,
by all modern sociological classifications, from Gurevitch to Bourdieu, this
IS
racism........There is never one racism. There is a racism of colour, of
intelligence, of rich and so on and so forth. These are the words of modern
sociology. According to a definition of racism as a sentiment of some people
or group of people who are trying to mark some other group of people, by
their impresionistic
principles, to be less worthy than some other group. If Serbians , and not
"some Serbs" are genocidal, this is racism. If you are calling them "fellow
serbs", you are adding one even more pejorative note in best tradition of
classic racism.
 These are some sociolgical facts. In previous letter I tried to explain the
emotional side. It didnt work. Here are the facts. And I hope that old
stalinite proverb "If
the facts are saying so, bad for the facts" isnt acceptable. But if
racism on Chomsky list exist, and even defenders of such an attitude have
their say, seconding "sterotyping" ( Bourdieu would be delighted to hear
this
game of words:(
than- who knows?
Cordialy,
                    Andrej G.
                  www.dissidence.org