Command and control, not meekness
Ed Pontaoe
14 Mar 2008
Mr. Oriel, I am fascinated how you wiggled thru the muck and came out as muddy as you first got in.
Your post on the 12th on lessons on meekness caught, as always, my inquiring mind.
The way you plucked and interpreted it from the Internet in a way you deemed pleases, on the assumption that nobody will notice it, is as always your brand of argument.
Was it meekness or corporal punishment, Mr. Oriel? I say this because the website you took this anecdote did not title it as . . . . meekness.
This anecdote about George Washington during the Revolutionary War was not about meekness, but of command and control.
Was it a resignation on the part of Washington in dismounting his horse to give a hand in a beleaguered defensive outpost on a corporal who was doing his job? No, none of whatsoever.
The verbal exchange with the squad leader was a corporal punishment he made on the corporal in command responsibility, which a military unit is a unified organism that under such conditions will act as one pulling themselves together.
If you believed Washington was submissive, subdued . . . deficient in spirit and courage, then such attributes couldn’t make Cornwallis surrender at Yorktown.
Curiously enough, Washington affirmed that shaking hands was beneath a president and demanded on bowing to White House visitors.
Courtesy not meekness out of respect.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
