Re[2]: Flaming sexism

Subject: Re[2]: Flaming sexism
From: "Arlen P. Walker" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 10:47:00 -0600

Unfortunately, it has been very true in the past. For example, our
constitution was written with the idea of freedom for all but that all
seemed to be defined as all IF you were a)male and b)white.

I'll go back to being a good little boy on this topic after I clear up what
seems an all-to-common misconception. Nowhere in the Constitution is freedom
limited to one gender or race. It *is* however, limited to property holders,
which effectively disenfranchised the majority of *all* races and genders,
including white males.

This shortcoming was addressed, and is being addressed, and it has regrettably
(even tragically) taken longer for some groups than for others. But to paint the
original document itself in racist terms is historical revisionism in the

(The preceding is intended simply as statement of historical fact about the
document in question, and should in no way be construed as an attempt to foment
discussion on the appropriateness of the delays -- note I *did* say
"regrettably" -- nor as an attempt to continue a discussion of a topic I'm sure
we're all sick to death of. Come on folks, let this one go!)

Have fun,

arlen -dot- p -dot- walker -at- jci -dot- com
In God we trust, all others must supply data

Previous by Author: TECHWR-L Digest - 11 Jul 1995 to 12 Jul 1995
Next by Author: Outsourcing
Previous by Thread: Re: Certification Panel
Next by Thread: Anyone found info on Comtech's Pub$Estimator yet?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads