[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234[5]6789 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:57
Author: Eponymous - 27 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: SRF rule
In reply to: ketch - 27 Apr 2002 's message, "Re: SRF rule" on 06:56

Well, SRF would have been delighted to remain silent on questions about paternity, I'm sure. But as it happens, and unfortunately for SRF, someone pressed the issue publicly.

What I was suggesting was that SRF is similarly delighted not to have to answer embarrassing questions about its mildly racist past. On the whole, I'm sure they'd much rather remain silent on the issue. Wouldn't you?

The notion that Yogananda was "open" about it by announcing the rule as the reason for Chowdhury's dismissal is probably wrong, and definitely beside the point. It's probably wrong because Yogananda might not have meant to let it slip. And it is beside the point because while the existence of an anti-miscegenation policy would not have been a public relations embarassment to SRF in the '30s, it would be one now.

For my part, if I were head of an organization that implemented an anti-miscegenation policy in the '30s, I would make sure that my website had a full accounting of the attendant times and circumstances, and that it contained a full and unqualified expression of culpability and regret. After all, that would be the "enlightened" thing to do, wouldn't it?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.