Posted by Alexander from 126.96.36.199.cfl.rr.com (188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 at 10:33PM :
In Reply to: Re: the Confederate flag posted by Sadie from D007111.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu (184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 at 10:10PM :
I don't think there is any thing wrong with that at all. I just never used to hear them referred to that since I was little. It's only recently within the last ten-fifteen years that its been more widely used. The Iranians and Armenians never used to describe the middle east as the middle east, but as Iran, or Persia, or Ilam Province etc. So I am just not used to it, thats all. I know you were only kidding:) Also, what kind of rifle does your father shoot? I have a rifle too. Is it a hunting rifle or another kind?
Also, I used nations to describe the people only because it would take to long otherwise. For instance, I mentioned Pakistan... Do you know which Pakistanis I am most familiar with?
I'll bet you tend to think of brown hair or eyes and darker skin when you think of Pakistan, or maybe Islamabad, but I think of only one area. The beautiful area in the northwest that once used to be joined with northeast Afghanistan. Before the colonisation and imperialism of interfering nations that it. I think of the tribal people who don't worship any Christian, Moslem, or Jewish god, but their pagan system. But to be general, I simply said Pakistan. However, I do agree with you about these generalizations. There's nothing wrong with them. The only one I don't like is those like "middle eastern" because it just seems to broad. South West Asia or something like that seems more appropriate- but that's just me:)
-- signature .
Post a Followup