MennoNet.com

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:01 pm**

Esp since 2015, after Dylann Roof murdered defenseless victims in their own church building,
there has been an (obama initiated) emotional, political, violent movement to remove “all things Confederacy” from public view, public knowledge, from study, from existence.

A delayed post-war annihilation of the enemy, the enemy’s thoughts. A clean sweep.

At the time, ohio jones posted a brief comment something like this one (i just read on the internet). i’ve been mulling it over, trying to figure out, what did happen, post U.S. Civil War, and, why?

Why did the north win, yet they did not feel driven to obliterate the south?
Was winning enough? When is winning enough? To obliterate smacks of genocide, doesn’t it?
Are defeated enemies always obliterated? Is this a necessity? Is it in any way Christian?

The question:

.. please have patience as i try to move quotes here ..

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:30 pm**

Well... I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Robert E Lee was racist but Pres Lincoln wasn't...

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:01 pm**

Sigh.
i could not retrieve the quote i wanted in the OP.
It’s not an uncommon question. i’ll paraphrase:

Karin Leslie wrote something like:
Why would any winning group celebrate their defeated enemy?

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:05 pm**

Quoted from comments on a news page:

Arthur Paronyan (Armenia) wrote to Karin Leslie:
“US has been exemplifying for its approach to its history.

Heroes from both sides of civil war where honored.
That's what you (U.S.) can teach the rest of the world.
Now the way to disaster started.”

To Arthur Paronyan - i agree.
The U.S. Civil War was unique and pain-filled in young U.S. history. There were high costs on both sides, families were torn, divided, warring against one another.

When the North won, winning was sufficient.
They felt no need to annihilate the South.

For those who care enough to think it through, there are good messages in that history that have potential to lead others regarding
“how to behave civilly” after winning.

Destruction without study comes at a high cost. Memorizing narratives is not study.

Even in other major world wars, there was space for mutual respect, and even forgiveness of prior sworn enemies.

Annihilation is primitive.
Society advanced beyond that.

Beware when Ignorance comes callng. Regrets follow.

.. Arthur P wrote:
“I am Armenian.
Was borned in Soviet Union. Live in Russia.
I know very well how paifull could be the Civil War if defeated side is anhiliated.
Many Russian issues rooted back to 1917.
Oversimplifying is very dangerous”

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:15 pm**

.. Why would a winning group celebrate their defeated enemy? ..

Well. To begin, i don’t believe recognizing or remembering or tolerating or acknowledging equate to celebrating. Or worship.

As a Christian, these artifacts are not idols. Not all are Christian.
i appreciate art, and history. i respect other’s property. i respect public property. i’m not intimidated by it. i do not personally own any of these things, i understand others do.

Example.
My view of the rainbow flag is that it is blasphemy of God’s created rainbow. That’s serious.

Personally, i dislike seeing it anywhere. i don’t believe it belongs on gov property.
i loathe it has great appeal to children; i wonder why so much was made of the cartoon camel on cigarettes, but these rainbow logos have free reign, in schools, churches, retail, grocers, et al.
i don’t like it. others do as they please.

i pray for awareness and love for God’s creation, not a gaudy political logo promoting sodomy.
i’m not vandalizing/removing political logos. i hope hearts change. i have no desire to annihilate.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:35 pm**

Soloist wrote:Well... I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Robert E Lee was racist but Pres Lincoln wasn't...

There are many questions that don’t make much sense, outside usefulness for destructive political division. For too many, that achievement is enough.

Page 230 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... start=2290

temporal1 wrote:
MaxPC wrote:
Grace wrote:
What is funny and strange these people were wearing Kente scarfs, which originate from the Ashanti, who were slave owners and traders.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 345941002/

The logical message being, Confederate flags, et al., are allowable.
There is a common misperception that “a thing’s existence” equates to celebration. No.

i have a notion to start a topic on “winning,” versus “annihilation.”
maybe later.

This is an example of how Dems readily explain-away their actions as it suits them, while employing intolerance and vitriol to those not “with them.”

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:50 pm**

Soloist wrote:Well... I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Robert E Lee was racist but Pres Lincoln wasn't...

One fought to preserve slavery. One fought to preserve the union, and eventually moved to free the slaves. Both were racist by today's standards, but I do think you need to judge people by the standards of their time.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:54 pm**

temporal1 wrote:Esp since 2015, after Dylann Roof murdered defenseless victims in their own church building,
there has been an (obama initiated) emotional, political, violent movement to remove “all things Confederacy” from public view, public knowledge, from study, from existence.

A delayed post-war annihilation of the enemy, the enemy’s thoughts. A clean sweep.

I don't think that's true. There is a strong move to stop celebrating racism and slavery. That means not having statues that celebrate this cause, towering over public spaces, standing on the way into the court of Justice, in the place of honor in public buildings. These statues were erected in the early 1900s as a way to rewrite history, they were not present at the end of the Civil War. They are part of the same "Lost Cause" narrative as The Birth of a Nation.

After all, that's what the Confederates clearly said the Confederacy stands for. For instance, here is the Vice President of the Confederacy in The Cornerstone Address:

Stephens wrote:The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Stephens wrote:Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

That is not a cause we need to celebrate and promote. And we do not need to glorify the symbols that are loved most by white supremacists who threaten violence.

Happy to supply quote after quote from the Confederacy, as many as you need, to make this point clear.

By all means, let us never forget this history. But let us not celebrate the heroes of slavery today. I would much rather remember Lee in his later years, as he sought reconciliation and fought for education. Not on a horse with a sword, but in his library.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:07 pm**

.. That is not a cause we need to celebrate and promote. And we do not need to glorify the symbols that are loved most by white supremacists who threaten violence.

Happy to supply quote after quote from the Confederacy, as many as you need, to make this point clear.

By all means, let us never forget this history. But let us not celebrate the heroes of slavery today. I would much rather remember Lee in his later years, as he sought reconciliation and fought for education. Not on a horse with a sword, but in his library.

This is in the history category, the central question is about winning versus annihilating defeated enemies. My interest is in the historical success-failure of how enemies are treated.
Arthur P, in Armenia, shared his experience.
Save your googles for elsewhere.

As well, i stated i do not agree that statues and flags auto-equate to celebration.
Look at the DNC bowing with proud African regalia, formerly slave owners/traders.

If African regalia can expand in definition, as they claim, then so can U.S. history.
Will they drape Confederate flags over themselves next? Why not?

Not to mention, it’s highly unlikely these various statues meant anything to anyone until they were deliberately targeted. People are busy. Most may have walked by these various things daily without attaching any name to them, at all.

Political constructs aimed at division. Successful!

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:15 pm**

temporal1 wrote:
.. That is not a cause we need to celebrate and promote. And we do not need to glorify the symbols that are loved most by white supremacists who threaten violence.

Happy to supply quote after quote from the Confederacy, as many as you need, to make this point clear.

By all means, let us never forget this history. But let us not celebrate the heroes of slavery today. I would much rather remember Lee in his later years, as he sought reconciliation and fought for education. Not on a horse with a sword, but in his library.
This is in the history category, the central question is about winning versus annihilating defeated enemies.

I thought Lincoln was incredibly merciful to the South, seeking a path of reconciliation. Do you disagree?

I think it's rather late to decide how to treat the people who lost the Civil War. Those decisions were made in the 1860s and the decades after that. But I don't think we should celebrate the glorious military that bravely fought for the cause of preserving slavery. I don't think we need to make sure that the symbols celebrated by White Supremacists have a place of honor in government buildings or are welcome at NASCAR events.

I suspect you don't have a lot of this in Illinois. Here in North Carolina, I've seen plenty.

MennoNet.com

Winning versus Annihilation

Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation

Re: Winning versus Annihilation