>granted, if he had written it today ( this land is your land) , he
>might have mentioned all the identity groups the country "really"
>belonged to, but isn't it possible he simply referred to a
>collective people?
>
>without any mean or underlying sub text, such as is sometimes
>prevalent in the minds of thought police of our day?
Who's doing the thought policing here, with your all-too-typical dyspepsia about "identity groups"?
Doug