Andrej Grubacic wrote:

>Yes, that was exactly what I have asked for. My english is imperfect, of
>course, but  think that I'have been clear in my message, or kind request ,
>that lumping "Serbs" into one category, demonized and labeled as
>"genocidal", is something that is in sociology text books described as
>RACISM;

You are totally wrong. It is not "racism" in any sense. "Racism" is, in
simplistic terms, discrimination based on race. "Race", in this context, is
a subdvision of humanity on the basis of more or less unique physical (not
cultural) and genetically-transmitted characteristics.

Serbs are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a unique "race". Therefor
chauvinism or discrimination against Serbs is not and never can be referred
to as "racism".

I understand that for a brief period under the Nazis there was some attempt
to define Serbs (along with some other Europeans) as racially distinct in
some vague and arbitrary way. That was racism in a misguided sense I
suppose, but it didn't even occur to the Nazis to suppose that Serbs were a
unique race, distinct from other slavs. That would be a new concept
entirely.  Unless you can point to an example of Tresy attempting to
portray Serbs as having unique genetic characteristics which distinguish
them from other people of European descent, then you are technically in
error to call Tresy's comments racism.

Chauvinism at worst. Because the English language is not your native
tongue, this error is easily understood and forgiven, but you should
understand that it is a serious error, both technically (because it is
wrong) and rhetorically (because it is so obviously inappropriate that it
serves only to undermine everything else you might say.) Not to mention
that it belittles a terrible social problem, that of *actual* racism.

Please cease.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas