Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
handleym at ricochet.net
Mon Sep 21 13:50:52 EST 1998
In article <3605355D.C68AD25E at primenet.com>, Jack Andrews
<amiga at primenet.com> wrote:
> winter+spam at jurai.net wrote:
> > In comp.arch Jack Andrews <amiga at primenet.com> wrote:
> > > What about the "Woman of the millenium"?
> > > Talk about a sexist bunch of crap--------->"man of the millenium"
> > Be realistic. Most of millenial history has been written about and by men.
> > Trying to deny this is silly.
> Exactly, that's the problem, "Most of millenial history has been written
> by men"
> > If the next thing you are going to say is "What about the african-amercian
> > man of the millenium." then my reply is: What about the most influential
> > tyrant of the millenium?
> What does this mean?
I know Wittgenstein said "If I lion could talk, we would not understand
what he had to say", but was it also Wittgenstein who asked the question
"Do lions have history"?
The point is that history is NOT simply the passage of time. It is CHANGE
through the passage of time. No change means no history.
For better or worse, most of the significant change of this millenium has
been caused by white european males. How do you plan to deny this? By
raising bizarre questions about what "significant change" means? By
claiming that simply staying alive, giving birth and raising families
counts as "significant change"?
My opinion only
More information about the Neur-sci