[15465] in APO-L
Re: Promises
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (S. Dawn Heyse)
Mon Nov 11 17:55:21 1996
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:49:52 -0500
Reply-To: "S. Dawn Heyse" <heyses@WINNIE.FIT.EDU>
From: "S. Dawn Heyse" <heyses@WINNIE.FIT.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199611111712.MAA03767@winnie.fit.edu>
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, The Italian Stallion wrote:
> > I suppose then that along the same line as what you are stating
> > above, you are opposed to what the Yankees (those residing north of the
> > Mason-Dixon line) did during the civil war?? See, several of those
> > Yankees went down south and helped fight to end slavery (a way of life for
> > the southerners that they thought wasn't doing any harm to anyone else).
> > I guess what they did was just to make themselves look morally superior,
> > hmmmm.
> Okay, I'm not going to get into this with you. Obviously, you realized
> that Auburn is in the south, and hoped to make me angry by citing a "we
> were right, you were wrong" thing about the civil war. Well, a few
Well, you may not have made Mark mad with your poorly-educated comment
about the war, but you did me. I'm going to try not to insult you, as you
are a Brother, and Brotherhood stretches across regional boundaries.....
I AM opposed to what the yankees did during the war--they compelled
several million people, at gunpoint, to rejoin a nation that they did not
want to be a part of, for the purpose of taking economic advantage of
them. The South was poor for a hundred years because of an economic rape
perpetrated by the north.
As Mark said, slavery was only a minor issue, though it may be said that
the Federal Government's attempt to meddle in State affairs in that area
was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was more of a clash between
two dissimilar cultures than a crusade for human rights--the yankees DID
clothe their economic and cultural motives as such (a crusade) so that
they WOULD appear to have the moral high ground.
Anyway, if you want to make an analogy between the war and our current
situation, a more suitable one would be that the all-male chapters are
like the Southern States, and the National Fraternity is like the Federal
Government. If the Federal Government messes around in business that has
been delegated to or reserved for the State (like the chapter's
membership), then the State may be forced to secede (like Theta Xi
chapter).
I would like to state, for the record, that I have no opinion
as to whether the all-male chapters should be allowed to remain that way.
It matters not one whit to me. I do not believe that it is proper for the
National Fraternity to dictate who may and may not pledge at a certain
chapter or chapters. However, I also do not believe that it is in
accordance with our principles and our oath to exclude someone solely on
the basis of their sex. Nationals shouldn't have to tell anyone
that--they should be able to see it on their own. That is why this whole
argument is pointless--neither side will ever change the other's mind by
insults and screaming. Even calm, reasoned debate may not help, as both
sides are convinced of their rectitude.
Oh, well. It's always something, isn't it?
Bug
http://www.fit.edu/~heyses
**********************************
If you want to be missed by your
friends--be useful.
-- R.E. Lee, General, CSA
