who are 'They'?

"They" are the set of persons who "we" think are not "we".

You have probably heard the phrase, "it's us versus them".  That's
what I am talking about: in order for there to be an "us" -- unless
"we" (the persons who are defining the group) include everyone within
the term "us" -- there has to be a "them", people that are not "us".

I think that there are some circumstances in which the "we"/"they"
dichotomy is valid, at least to a limited extent.  If the people on
one side of a table are eating chicken, while those on the other side
are eating fish, the first group of people could get together and
proclaim, "We are eating chicken, while they are eating fish." 
Likewise, a group of members of the Democratic Party could look over
at a group of members of the Republican Party and say, "We are
Democrats, while they are Republicans."  A group of people under 6
feet tall could say of those over 6 feet tall, "We are under 6 feet
tall, while they are not."  In other words, if a certain set of
individuals is doing a particular activity, or has a particular
identifiable status or characteristic, which another set of
individuals is not doing or does not have, then one set may label
itself "we" and the other set "they" (and vice versa) to the extent of
the objective difference.

When such thinking is not accompanied by a value judgment, or is not
used to treat the "other" set of people differently, one could say
that such classification is harmless in itself.

Even when not harmless, in some circumstances such thinking may be
important, and even vital.  For example, if a soldier can't
distinguish "us" from "them", then every other soldier looks like an
imminent threat, even if only about half are.  (On the other hand,
every other soldier would also look like a friend.  I suppose it
depends on when the confusion between "us" and "them" arises -- before
or during the battle -- as to whether the result would be more or less
bloodshed.)

But in my view, in most situations a distinction between "us" and
"them" is accompanied by the judgment that one group is better or
worse than the other -- typically with "our" group coming out on top
-- and thus results in unnecessary harm.  The views that "we have the
right to this land while they belong somewhere else", "we are
civilized while they are not", or just simply, "they are not like us",
have been prime causes or prolongers of wars, colonialism,
segregation, and other negative discriminatory treatment.  (I presume
that you don't need citations for this statement.)  The feeling that
"they" have aggrieved "us" only worsens the cycle of violence (whether
physical or mental) and counter-violence.

It think that it's better to take the view that the "we"/"they"
dichotomy is a false construct, unless proven otherwise and limited in
scope to the evidence of actual difference.  It seems to me that the
history of classifying people into groups (races, ethnicities,
nations, regions, etc.), and especially into "us" versus "them"
generally leads to no good.  If "we" think that "we" are superior to
"them", "we" should just remember that "they" are likely thinking the
same thing about "us", and in general no one can say for certain who
is right.

I like to follow the dictum of Walt Kelly, "We have met the enemy, and
he is us."  The enemy, those who seem different, have more in common
with us than we might suspect.  We are all in this world together, and
we won't solve much by breaking ourselves down into "us" and "them".

- justaskscott-ga


No search strategy used: just whatever logic, informed by experience,
I happen to have.  (I sometimes think that since I never studied
logic, I must be illogical.  ;-)  )

Or if it's the "They" in "That's what they say..." it is often one's
self, forming an opinion based upon news, rumors, or other sources of
information that justify the opinion.

example:
Person 1 - Are we going to war with Iraq?
Person 2 - Yes, that's what they say.
-or-
Person 2 - No, that's what they say.

Person 2 is actually "they" in this example. He/She has formed an
opinion on an event that they have no control over nor have a true
professional opinion on. This opinion could have been formed from news
reports, conversations with others, but ultimately, it is that
person's own opinion based upon their feelings on the subject.

"They" can also be a fictional group for avoiding blame.

example:
Person 1 - Did you hear that John's been cheating on his wife?
Person 2 - No! How did you find out?
Person 1 - That's what they have been saying.

Person 1 has either first or second hand knowledge of John's
infidelity, but wanting to avoid any possible blame in the future,
invents a fictional "they" to pass theblame in case John ever hears
that Person 1 knew about his situation.

Adding to justaskscott's answer, it is apparent that "they" can be a
person, serveral people, or one's self, depending on context.

Flajason-ga,

Good comments!  I've always thought that "they" in this context is
much like the passive tense as illustrated by the statement "Mistakes
were made."  Both constructions are ways of avoiding responsibility,
by assigning the responsibility to no one in particular.

As scot and jason infered, we they them and us is typically propaganda
with little or no substance. Gennerally it is better to find
similarities and common goals than to point out the differences which
are typically exaggerated.  Neil