In a message dated 4/19/2004 1:19:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes: would speculate rather the opposite. Family ties are ordinarily the strongest, and they don't normally have to be enforced by manifestations of violence to outsiders. In contrast, teenage gangs are rather loosely tied, and hence require constant violent manifestations of loyalty. That's a good point, but do families require the type of defense that cultures do? It would seem that the smaller the scale, the easier it is to come to an understanding. Example: I had a discussion with a Muslim bookseller in the subway. Ultimately we agreed to disagree. He gave me a free copy of Abdessalam Yassine's "The Muslim Mind on Trial" and we parted on friendly terms. He knew I was not a threat and our discussion was personal (or familial). Had I dared to debate someone in a more public forum like a Mosque in Saudi Arabia (assuming I had been allowed into one), I doubt we would have parted with goodwill and a gift of a book. Omar writes: "The World War II was started by the then relatively recent nation-states of Germany, Italy, and Japan. These days, both the Israelis and the Palestinians are relatively new nations which by no means take their group identities for granted. (The Israelis having been scattered all over the world until recently, and the Palestinians currently being so.) This is very simplistic but, I submit, less so than the above." Omar's on to something here, despite his attempt to be insulting. Who started WW2 is beside the point. However, new cultures do have more at stake in their defense than settled ones. But can we say that new cultures (or those who identify with new cultures) are more violent in their defense of these cultures from perceived Others? ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html