ohio jones wrote: .. The victor not only writes the history, but erects the monuments.
The South seems to be an odd exception to this, having lost the war but never really conceded.
Still, there are few if any statues of Lee in the North or of Lincoln in the South ...
i've always lived in the north, never owned a Confederate flag or other items from the U.S. Civil War. when i was young, my family took a brief trip south, got as far as Atlanta area, was puzzled about various new things i saw, including the Confederate flag .. this was before interstate highways, so, lots of rich sights to take in.
i asked about the Confederate flag. my father said, "winning and losing wars are two different things." he described how winners could more easily "forgive+forget," it's harder when losing. i believe he was wise about many things.
i've always thought it's a testament to general diversity and acceptance in the U.S., that the north never felt the need to full-on destroy the South, to remove all vestiges of their past, to think of genocide, or other harsh penalties that "winners" of wars often employ.
it was a civil war. many families divided, many fighting against one another: "the people" were tired of war, all had suffered, people wanted to move on. taking it further would not have been moving on. it would have continued it.
winners of wars, or even everyday arguments, are best not to "rub salt" in wounds.
you won. now, get on with more important things.
having said that ^^^
there is a lot of poignant literature that has come out of the South, that could have only come out of the South. we have a common history. not identical, some harsh, ugliness, but, still, history.
it's part of the whole.
now i'm reading, there are demands for new statues to replace the former.
would it have been impossible to erect new statues without first destroying the former?
but, then, i never believed it's about flags or statues.
it's about mob rule on all matters. no act will satisfy this kind of appetite. it's not possible.
for decades, logical thinking Christians have been trying to "negotiate to peace" via human law, human acts. it does not work. it's based on a false premise that the mob is seeking logical answers.
if that were the case, they would have arrived at them without aggression.
the appetite cannot be satisfied with human logic, human law.
so, decade after decade, it continues. words, stated demands change, the insatiable appetite does not. Jesus told us all about this. some listen.
fwiw. this is my view. i think it may be the not-articulated view of some others who are silent (?)
silence does not equate to certain agreement - no matter how some may accuse that it does.
neither do noisy accusations equate to truth.