Posted by Doc M on July 08, 2000 at 12:11:31:
In Reply to: Re: Word VS War posted by Christina on July 08, 2000 at 11:11:06:
: : : : 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?
: This has been a really interesting discussion and I'm just dropping in to add one small perspective I have. I generally avoid political/social opinion type things because I too have dealt with the "political correctness" problem a lot. I'm very liberal on many things and quite conservative on others, but that's really not relevant. Here's my simple two cents, derived from historical reading I've done, college courses I took, etc.
: Could the reason that most battles and wars weren't started or perpetuated by women be that traditionally, in most cultures throughout history, women have been subordinated and taught that their place is at home and not on the battlefield? I say this because in looking at a lot of women, you can find aggressive tendencies just as ferocious as with most men. If you read personal histories of wars, ranging from the Revolution and Civil War all the way back to the ancient Romans and Celts, there were plenty of women who when asked to or threatened took up arms to defend their lands, families. etc. The Greek tale of the Amazons is just one example. I personally have had discussions with women who, in naming what aims they would take to defend hearth and home, are every bit as aggressive and, excuse the term, "war-like" as a man in the same situation would be.
: I tend to believe that human beings are human beings, regardless of gender, and that basic instincts are the same in every person. Deep inside every woman there is a part of her that could make war or go to battle if she had to, deep inside every man there is a part of him that could be every bit as nurturing a parent or person as a woman is. It just depends which sides are cultivated or encouraged by the culture in which someone is reared. I know I personally have struggled with cultural ideas of what a "woman" is because a lot of my instincts, opinions, actions, preferences do not fit into the tight circle of what our culture thinks "all women" feel or like.
: Okay, that's my two cents...I'm staying out of it from now on..
Don't stay out of it, Christina -- your's is the best post
I've read so far! Of course, I agree with every word of
it which is what makes it the best! LOL! For an excellent
fiction book on this very topic, read Rita Mae Brown's
High Hearts -- it's set during the Civil War, and chronicles
the adventures of a young southern woman who disguises
herself as a man and joins the army to fight along with
Post a Followup