> > In what way would 'celts' require sympathy?
> ok....well looking at the history and how the Celts in Ireland
> and Scotland for instance, have been so vicously attacked by the English
> have as a result become majority English speaking and how many have been
> systematically starved to death or emigration.....you don't think think
> calls for a bit of sympathy?
No. The people who starved or suffered are almost all dead long ago. Pain is
not hereditary. A collective sense of having been wronged exists. That is
patently obvious and a valid position to take. I still don't get it, though.
Why sympathy? Understand, remember, and get on with making now better.
Sympathy cannot redress wrongs, nor can it prevent them recurring. My
objective is not to denigrate your views or feelings, just seek clarity.
> This isn't to be confused with outright "pity" if that's
> what you think I'm talkign about. It's about compassion.
My question remains with regard to compassion. As with sympathy, it is a
passive state. Again, not 'wrong', but I wonder if that is the end-point?
The sequence of events seems to be: knowledge, understanding, [compassion if
you will], action. Ceasing the process at compassion is an 'easy option'
perhaps? Just musing over the possibilities.
> From eveyrything else I said, I sure didn't expect anyone to take issue
> my referring to someone sympathising with celts. wow.
Not taking issue with anything. Just asking questions.
> Webster's dictionary refers to ethnicity as "of or relating to races *or*
> large groups of people classed according to common traits and customs"
> Common traits and customs exist within the context of a people's
> culture...whether it's the culture of a people who are considered a race
> just a large group of people. Either way, it can be called ethnic, IMO, if
> Webster's defnition is to be believed.
So an individual's ethnicity is their own enactment of their culture? Seems