TBOTSS and colonialism

Adam Stephanides · 30 May 2002, 13:57 · from urth-v0205.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:57:43 -0500
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-1132 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/1132.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

on 5/28/02 1:07 PM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:

> The initial point of this thread was that some of us deny the concept of =
an
> "inbuilt nature" in intelligent species.

Actually, the initial point of this thread was my objection to what I
perceived the Short Sun books to be saying about colonialism.

And I never said anything about "inbuilt nature" in general.  If by "inbuilt
nature" you mean only being predisposed to drink blood, or things of that
ilk, then I wll agree that humans have an "inbuilt nature."  But I see no
reason to believe that it is inevitable, or even probable, that we will
encounter a species that is unredeemable by nature.  Nor, for that matter,
do I believe that there are humans who are unredeemable by nature.

--Adam

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net