I am not much of a historian but it seems to me that the way people are aroused during the "drumbeat of war" is one of the standard initial stages of a war. Rousing the rabble. If "Gone With the Wind" correctly portrays the South before the civil war, or the history of discussions in Concord, Lexington, and other Middlesex communities is correct, then they certainly have in common the same sort of chest thumping, strutting, and anger generation that came from George Bush before he sent young Americans off to die for his oil buddies.
Does this kind of aroused anger, ever die down without first giving itself expression in violence? Because the rabble certainly are being aroused here, in the US in 2016, and I wonder if that anger must express itself somehow? Blood is already being spilled at campaign events. What happens to the anger if the angry people lose the election?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As it turns out the angry people won the election. Which leads to a truly perplexing possibilities: (1) that they still need and outlet and (2) that the people who lost may have some anger too.
ReplyDelete