Another few runs today, 88 from 42. He's played only one or two FC
matches. I'd expect him to get a few more red ball games this season.
An opener worth watching. I think he's WI born.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 20:24:24 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:37:08 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>
>>Another few runs today, 88 from 42. He's played only one or two FC
>>matches. I'd expect him to get a few more red ball games this season.
>>An opener worth watching. I think he's WI born.
>
>He was born in Barbados, but he's since been to an English public
>school (Rugby), which was enough for the moron to categorise various
>white South Africans as English. No doubt he will fail to extend the
>same courtesy to Bethel.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

It's only fair ;-)

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 8:24:32 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:37:08 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>
> >
> >Another few runs today, 88 from 42. He's played only one or two FC
> >matches. I'd expect him to get a few more red ball games this season.
> >An opener worth watching. I think he's WI born.
> He was born in Barbados, but he's since been to an English public
> school (Rugby), which was enough for the moron to categorise various
> white South Africans as English. No doubt he will fail to extend the
> same courtesy to Bethel.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Ah, so you think this blond schoolboy should not play for the Windies because, to quote Viv Richards, the Windies are an African team ?

RH

On Thursday, 27 January 2022 at 15:08:51 UTC, RH wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 8:24:32 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:37:08 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Another few runs today, 88 from 42. He's played only one or two FC
> > >matches. I'd expect him to get a few more red ball games this season.
> > >An opener worth watching. I think he's WI born.
> > He was born in Barbados, but he's since been to an English public
> > school (Rugby), which was enough for the moron to categorise various
> > white South Africans as English. No doubt he will fail to extend the
> > same courtesy to Bethel.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> Ah, so you think this blond schoolboy should not play for the Windies because, to quote Viv Richards, the Windies are an African team ?
>
>
> RH

Who has said this?
Why would he play for the West Indies when he has been here for most of his life. He's been educated here, learned his cricket here. He speaks with an English accent and he behaves in a culturally English way. Of course he can never be a proper native Englishman like Moeen Ali for example', but neither can many others who are obviously not native English but who are considered English enough and qualify to play.

Once again the only schoolboy around here is you.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 8:24:32 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:37:08 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>
> >
> >Another few runs today, 88 from 42. He's played only one or two FC
> >matches. I'd expect him to get a few more red ball games this season.
> >An opener worth watching. I think he's WI born.
> He was born in Barbados, but he's since been to an English public
> school (Rugby), which was enough for the moron to categorise various
> white South Africans as English. No doubt he will fail to extend the
> same courtesy to Bethel.

More bare faced lying from master Unwholesome. My criteria for those born in SA who want to play for SA is that they must have spent most of their childhood in d England and speaks with an English accent, , eg, Strauss. That allows the player to fit comfortably into the England side. .

I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.

The more interesting question is will the Windies chase after this talented and most promising player. Somehow I doubt it, RH

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.

To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?

Finally.....

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
> To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
>
> Finally.....

Let me explain

Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.

RH

On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
> > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
> >
> > Finally.....
> Let me explain
>
> Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
> The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
> The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
> But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
> Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
> The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
>
> RH

This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:15:11 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
> > > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
> > >
> > > Finally.....
> > Let me explain
> >
> > Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
> > The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
> > The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
> > But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
> > Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
> > The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
> >
> > RH
> This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:15:11 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
> > > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
> > >
> > > Finally.....
> > Let me explain
> >
> > Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
> > The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
> > The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
> > But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
> > Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
> > The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
> >
> > RH
> This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.

OK, let's take it in easy stages

Do you deny that social animals rely on signals to distinguish who is and is not within the group?

RH

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 2:09:22 PM UTC, RH wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:15:11 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
> > > > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
> > > >
> > > > Finally.....
> > > Let me explain
> > >
> > > Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
> > > The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
> > > The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
> > > But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
> > > Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
> > > The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
> > >
> > > RH
> > This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.
> OK, let's take it in easy stages
>
> Do you deny that social animals rely on signals to distinguish who is and is not within the group?
>
> RH

What no answer? Have a crack at these questions

Do you accept that humans are part of Nature?
Do you accept that humans are social animals?
Do you accept that all social animals require signals to be able to differentiate between those in and those outside their group?
Do you accept that the behavioural norm for humans is display tribal behaviour?
Do you accept that the norm for humans is to display preference for mates of the same racial and ethnic type even where there is ample opportunity to choose a mate of a different racial and/or ethnic type?
Do you accept that the natural state of Humans is war?
RH

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:15:10 -0800 (PST), Najeeb ybo
<najeebybo@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
>> > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
>> >
>> > Finally.....
>> Let me explain
>>
>> Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
>> The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
>> The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
>> But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
>> Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
>> The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
>>
>> RH
>
>This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.

Now you've done it, you've insulted his Mother.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:39:27 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:15:57 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:15:10 -0800 (PST), Najeeb ybo
>><najeebybo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>>>> > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
>>>> > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
>>>> >
>>>> > Finally.....
>>>> Let me explain
>>>>
>>>> Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
>>>> The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
>>>> The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
>>>> But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
>>>> Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
>>>> The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
>>>>
>>>> RH
>>>
>>>This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.
>>
>>
>>Now you've done it, you've insulted his Mother.
>
>I would be very interested to know how "the language spoken and the
>accent used" works. I can't understand a thick Black Country or
>Geordie accent easily, especially when they use local dialect
>expressions (and natives of those areas would quite often have
>difficulty with Cockney), whereas I don't have any similar difficulty
>with, say, an Australian or coastal American accent. Or, for that
>matter, that of a redleg like Bethell. I don't see why a Cockney
>should automatically assume that a Geordie is a fellow-countryman but
>that a Dutchman who speaks English with what I know to be a light
>Dutch accent isn't.
>
>The other thing that is evident from the illiberal bigot's nauseating
>rubbish is that he is admitting to being so feeble-minded that he
>cannot use rationality to overcome stupid prejudices. But that's why
>he's an illiberal bigot - he's far too stupid to be rational.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

I heard a lad from Cork complaining that someone thought he was Welsh.
People from Cork sound Welsh to everyone except other people from
Cork. People from Larne and right around the north coast speak with a
variety of Scottish sounding accents.

One of our Indian players has six Indian languages and another can
speak eight. The only common language they have is English.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:18:38 AM UTC+11, max.it wrote:

> One of our Indian players has six Indian languages and another can
> speak eight. The only common language they have is English.

There was a story about Gavaskar batting with a runner and he played a ball and called "no" in Hindi, his runner called "yes" in urdu and the non-striker called "wait" in another language.
Needless to say there was massive confusion and nearly a runout.
He got everybody together and said something like "What's wrong with goddamned English?"

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:19:59 PM UTC, RH wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 2:09:22 PM UTC, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:15:11 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > > On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > > > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
> > > > > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally.....
> > > > Let me explain
> > > >
> > > > Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
> > > > The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
> > > > The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
> > > > But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
> > > > Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
> > > > The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
> > > >
> > > > RH
> > > This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.
> > OK, let's take it in easy stages
> >
> > Do you deny that social animals rely on signals to distinguish who is and is not within the group?
> >
> > RH
> What no answer? Have a crack at these questions
>
> Do you accept that humans are part of Nature?
> Do you accept that humans are social animals?
> Do you accept that all social animals require signals to be able to differentiate between those in and those outside their group?
> Do you accept that the behavioural norm for humans is display tribal behaviour?
> Do you accept that the norm for humans is to display preference for mates of the same racial and ethnic type even where there is ample opportunity to choose a mate of a different racial and/or ethnic type?
> Do you accept that the natural state of Humans is war?
> RH

Come out come out wherever you are Liberal bigots .... RH

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 11:46:20 AM UTC, RH wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:19:59 PM UTC, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 2:09:22 PM UTC, RH wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:15:11 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 11:13:24 UTC, RH wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 11:03:39 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:14:32 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > > > > > I f Bethel speaks with an English accent I would accept him as English.
> > > > > > To be clear - you'd accept a black man as English if his accent is English?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally.....
> > > > > Let me explain
> > > > >
> > > > > Humans being social animals need signals to alert them to who is and who is not a member of their group.
> > > > > The most basic prompt for humans to decide who is a member of the group is their physical appearance.
> > > > > The variety of human external difference is startling , for example from the Nordic type to the Pygmies of tropical Africa. Indeed, if the same taxonomic rules were applied to homo sapiens as are applied to non-human species it would not be a surprise if some at least would classified as subspecies.
> > > > > But humans can provide physical markings which allow humans to identify members of this group or that group . At one end there is tribal scarring at the other end the adoption of distinctive dress.
> > > > > Following physical appearance there comes behaviour, most especially the language spoken and the accent used.
> > > > > The more complete and unambiguous the signals the greater the trust in the group.
> > > > >
> > > > > RH
> > > > This is not an explanation, this is a rationalisation to justify your racist behaviour. It only applies to those like you who have maintained their 24th chromosome.
> > > OK, let's take it in easy stages
> > >
> > > Do you deny that social animals rely on signals to distinguish who is and is not within the group?
> > >
> > > RH
> > What no answer? Have a crack at these questions
> >
> > Do you accept that humans are part of Nature?
> > Do you accept that humans are social animals?
> > Do you accept that all social animals require signals to be able to differentiate between those in and those outside their group?
> > Do you accept that the behavioural norm for humans is display tribal behaviour?
> > Do you accept that the norm for humans is to display preference for mates of the same racial and ethnic type even where there is ample opportunity to choose a mate of a different racial and/or ethnic type?
> > Do you accept that the natural state of Humans is war?
> > RH
> Come out come out wherever you are Liberal bigots . Here is something to help you from my https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/iq-and-society - Viz: / :

12. Race and Man

The most potent of human behavioural triggers are racial differences for they exercise the strongest control over the group in a territory where different racial groups exist. Race trumps ethnicity where the ethnic clash is one of people of the same race but different ethnicities. Place a significant population of a different race into a territory where ethnicity rather than race is the cause of unrest and the ethnic factions of the same race will tend to unite against those of a different race.

Nothing demonstrates the natural tendency of human beings to remain racially distinct than the remarkably low rate of inter-racial breeding even in circumstances where there is every opportunity for it, most particularly in the great cities of Western Europe and North America, where the populations are increasingly varied and the prevailing elite ideology positively encouraging of such liaisons.

Even societies which have had very racially mixed populations for a long time display a remarkable ability to maintain retain racial distinctions over very long periods of time – Brazil is an excellent example of this, with social class being very much graded by skin colour. To argue that racial difference is not important to the choice of a mate is as absurd as arguing that the attractiveness of a person is irrelevant to the choice of a mate.

In Freakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner cite a study made of a US dating site (the full story is on pp 80-84). The site is one of the largest in the US and the data examined covered 30,000 people equally divided between San Diego and Boston. Most were white but there was a substantial minority of non-white subjects.

The questionnaire the would-be daters had to fill in included a question choice on race as “same as mine” and “doesn’t matter”. The study compared the responses by white would-be daters (those from non-white were not analysed) to these questions with the race of the emails actually sent soliciting a date. The result in Levitt and Dubner’s words was:

“Roughly half of the white women on the site and 80 percent of the white men declared that race didn’t matter to them. But the response data tell a different story The white men who said that race didn’t matter sent 90 percent of their e-mail queries to white women. The white women who said race didn’t matter sent about 97 percent of their e-mail queries to white men.

“Is it possible that race really didn’t matter for these white women and men and that they simply never happened to browse a non-white date that interested them?”

Or, more likely, did they say that race didn’t matter because they wanted to come across especially to potential mates of their own race as open-minded?” In short, around 99% of all the women and 94% of all men in the sample were not willing to seek a date of a different race. How much stronger will be the tendency to refuse to breed with a mate of a different race?

Another way of testing the desire to remain racially separate is to look at social class and inter-racial breeding. The higher up the social scale a person is the less likely they are to have a partner of a different race – if you doubt this try to find examples of the rich and powerful who have a partner of a different race. Those who have the most choice overwhelmingly choose members of their own racial type, despite the fact that they have the protection of their wealth and position to shield their spouses and children from the effects of racial discrimination.

The experience of imperial Rome nicely demonstrates racial exclusiveness as a historical phenomenon. Despite the racially mixed population, all the evidence we have suggests that Romans of higher social status (the only Romans we have any substantial knowledge of as individuals) rarely took non-white mates (the same applies today: in white-majority countries the higher the status of whites, the less likely they are to have a non-white partner.) Even the Bible has the story of Moses choosing a black wife and meeting with resistance on the part of his people. (Numbers chapter 12)

If sexual desire will not commonly override the natural disinclination to remain racially separate nothing will.

The fact that humans have external racial differences which are sufficiently distinct to allow people throughout the world to broadly categorise an individual into categories such as white and black is in itself indicative of the innate human tendency to breed with those who are racially similar, even though for several thousands of years large human populations of different racial types have existed in close proximity. If human beings did not have an innate preference for those who racially resemble themselves, humanity would have bred itself into something approaching a uniform racial type, at least in those parts of the world which were not very isolated – different races have had regular and numerous contact with each other for at least three thousand years. The alternative explanation to an innate tendency is the truly fantastic one that Man everywhere spontaneously developed cultural barriers to breeding which had nothing to do with any innate tendency. If anything is a social construct it is not race but the liberal idea that Man is a single species.

Race is much stronger as a mediator of who to mate with than ethnic (cultural) difference – think of the very high proportion of those in Britain who have Irish/Welsh?/Scottish/English mixed ancestry. Nonetheless, ethnic differences are culturally potent amongst racially similar populations. For example, on either side of the England/Scotland border, the inhabitants born and raised close to the border retain Scots and English accents even though they may have lived their entire lives only a few miles apart.

Because the tendency to mate with those of a similar race is so strong and universal, both in place and time, it is reasonable to conclude that the behaviour is innate and that cultures necessarily include the requirement for a member of the society to be of a certain racial type. The consequence of this is that someone of a different racial type is effectively precluded from full integration because one of the criteria for belonging has not been met. That is not to say, of course, that many of the habits of mind of an alien culture may not be adopted by someone of a different race. What is withheld is the instinctive acceptance of the alien and his or her descendants as members of the society. Just as no human being can decide for themselves that they are a member of this or that group, no individual can decide that they belong to this or that nation because it is a two-way process: the other members of the group they wish to join have to accept them as a true member of the group. (Stephen Frears the English film director once wryly remarked that he had known the actor Daniel Day-Lewis “before he was Irish”).

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 23:15:09 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:18:38 AM UTC+11, max.it wrote:
>
>> One of our Indian players has six Indian languages and another can
>> speak eight. The only common language they have is English.
>
>There was a story about Gavaskar batting with a runner and he played a ball and called "no" in Hindi, his runner called "yes" in urdu and the non-striker called "wait" in another language.
>Needless to say there was massive confusion and nearly a runout.
>He got everybody together and said something like "What's wrong with goddamned English?"

The large Almac plant is nearby our club they employ a couple of
thousand Indians, they have signs saying you must only speak English
at work. The exception is at the table in the canteen you can't speak
what ever lanuage you like.

In the south they are always trying to revive and boost the Irish
language. After almost 100 years of teaching it in schools they
haven't figured out yet that the pupils don't learn any of it. They
memorise the bits they need for the leaving certificate at most and
never think of it again.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Friday, 28 January 2022 at 10:14:32 UTC, RH wrote:

> My criteria for those born in SA who want to play for SA is that they must have spent most of their childhood in d England and speaks with an English accent, , eg, Strauss.

Your reminder that the very South African sounding Sam Curran is deemed as English by RH.

On Saturday, 29 January 2022 at 11:55:10 UTC, RH wrote:

> 12. Race and Man

Prolixity alert! Prolixity alert!

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:22:58 PM UTC, richsdi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 January 2022 at 11:55:10 UTC, RH wrote:
>
> > 12. Race and Man
>
> Prolixity alert! Prolixity alert!

"It's amazing how little concentration and comprehension these type of patients can deal with , doctor...." RH

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 12:46:18 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 14:22:58 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon
> <richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 29 January 2022 at 11:55:10 UTC, RH wrote:
> >
> >> 12. Race and Man
> >
> >Prolixity alert! Prolixity alert!
> It would make life much simpler for him if he didn't persist with the
> absurd idea that just because he is completely irrational and
> possesses no sense of morality, the rest of us must be as freakish as
> he is.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
"Ah, this is interesting , nurse. See how this patient mistake vulgar abuse for argument.." RH