Posted by Rich on July 08, 2000 at 03:13:38:
In Reply to: Re: Voice of a Sinner posted by Rich on July 07, 2000 at 11:42:29:
: : There is more to history than battle and blood. Since most recorded history has been kept by men, the battles and blood tend to take the forefront, but in truth, our American history is much deeper and richer than our low points (wars) would have us believe. Thomas Jefferson did not carry a gun in the Revolutionary War, he had greater things to do, history making tasks that shaped our country far more than any battle or general ever could. To see American history as one battle after another is to limit oneself to those times when men could no longer find control of their destiny except through violence.
: What you say is true, NightSky ... However, it very often comes down to war. The Declaration of Independence meant little without Yorktown; the Gettysburg Address [sic: meant Emancipation Proclamation, if that makes any difference! :)] was mere words till Appomattox; all the Indian "policy" in the world was more or less useless until the matter was settled in other ways. War, for better or for worse, has been the dominating force behind mankind's course through history. It is what usually settles matters ... History is complex & intertwined, but if you take out warfare, little happens ... regretably ...
ADDENDUM ...
When someone, anyone, makes a statement that they know is controversial in a public forum, it should be expected, and tolerated, that those whose opinion differs are heard from ...
I know in this day of "sacred cows," PC, and revisionism, some of my political/social beliefs would not be popular with many of you ... I try leaving them at home, for the most part. They have little place here ...
Just to further clarify my feelings, of course there is more to history than war. War, though, is most often the vehicle through which real change occurs ... throughout history, from the earliest recorded days. I, a man, am not saying that is best; it is the way it is, though. History recorded by men ... would it be different if it were recorded by women? There is no basis for assuming that notion. Would the world be a safer, less brutal place, if it had been run by women? Good question. The Iroqois society WAS run by women, to a large degree. They were one of the most aggressive of all tribes.
We can't re-write history based on suppositions ... History is just that, HISTORY. It happened ... already. It is, as I said earlier, complex. A few words in a post necessarily simplifies. Keep that in mind, all, when reading what others, including myself, have to say ...
I do know this, the thinkers of the Continental Congress, great men that they were, would have been in the inside of a British prison with little relative impact at all, had it not been for the Continental ARMY. I am not a military man ... never served ... yet it doesn't take a lot for me to realize that anyone can say anything, but will everyone DIE for it?