or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Cultue of the South
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cultue of the South - Page 3

post #31 of 53
Quote:
Relax Lindsay. I would say that prejudices against intellectualism in many parts of the United States are reciprocated by those who generally live in on the coasts or in Europe but are in fact woefully ignorant about religion.
OK, you're right. I get my back up when I hear these pseudo-intellectual idealogues regurgitating the bromide they heard from their 1st semester university flower-child professors who never had to live in the real world. But since some - what? - 90% of the world's population believes in some diety, I shouldn't take them so seriously. Thanks for the reality check.
post #32 of 53
Supposedly Sherman only intended to burn locations of use to the military (rail yards, munitions depots, etc.) but the fire got out of hand and most of Atlanta burned down. True or not, I can't say. Ed. for sp.
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Supposedly Sherman only intended to burn locations of use to the military (rail yards, munititons depots, etc.) but the fire got out of hand and most of Atlanta burned down. True or not, I can't say.
Yeah, well... every time a yankee lights a match in Georgia everyone cringes.
post #34 of 53
edited as had nothing to say. just unsuccesfully experimenting with how to quote and reply to two different people in a single reply.
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Long time lurker, but I had to sign up officially when I read this post by Valmont:
Quote:
Visitors enter at their own risk, as you are now leaving the 21st century. We cannot take any responsibility for what will happen to you should you upset any inbred natives by actually expressing intellectual thoughts instead of being a  religious drone.
My God, man, are you just cranky today or are you always so rude, arrogant, condescending and mean? Seriously.  This is a joke thread.  Lighten up.  Your tripe implies that intellectual thoughts and religion are mutually exclusive??
Yeah you said it, it's a joke thread so why can't we have some fun at the expense of the south?? You see the absurdity of my claim that all southerners are inbred rednecks but not the stupidness of that list be it a joke or not. Is this because I failed to attach a joke disclaimer or just the fact that joking is only fun as long as it doesn't affect you? Making fun of the fact that it's OK to beat up people if, god forbid, they should put an American flag on fire is just as tasteless as my comments about South consisting of a bunch of religious drones. This widespread hypocrisy is really such a drag. BTW I'm wasn't cranky or trying to be rude or condescending, unlike yourself (unless it's just PMS) but just replying in kind to a stupid joke.
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Quote:
(Horace @ April 17 2005,03:43)  Both he and Grant (Northern General and later US President) wrote memoirs of their lives.  These memoirs were influential on American letters.  
I believe Grant's memoirs are considered the finest by a american president. Clinton's memoirs were like the man, too self indulgent. I think Sherman's philosophy behind his path of total destruction was similar to what we did to the Japanese in WWII. We justified dropping the two atomic bombs because we felt it would bring that war to a quicker end, saving lives on both sides. If Sherman hadn't taken such extreme measures, the Civil War would have lasted longer and more lives would have been lost in the ensuing years.
esquire, as a matter of fact, sherman is considered by many to be the father of this whole school of thought, the father of bomber harris and the wwii stratigic bombing campaigns.
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Supposedly Sherman only intended to burn locations of use to the military (rail yards, munitions depots, etc.) but the fire got out of hand and most of Atlanta burned down. True or not, I can't say. Ed. for sp.
sherman fuly intended to destroy the economy and the moral of the south, to de-house and starve as many civilians as it took to stop the war. he felt, and probably correctly, that the majority of the population of the white south was in favor of the war and suppported, morally economically the armies.
post #38 of 53
Compared with the Mongols, Sherman was a pussie cat.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Compared with the Mongols, Sherman was a pussie cat.
more importantly, sherman didn't allow his people to do anything that he felt wasn't specifically aimed at ending the war - rape, stealing for the sake of stealing, torture ect, were not tolerated. the mongols were a looting machine that just happened to win wars. sherman was a war winnng machine that used looting and the destruction of property as its primary weapon.
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Quote:
(johnapril @ April 26 2005,09:47) Compared with the Mongols, Sherman was a pussie cat.
more importantly, sherman didn't allow his people to do anything that he felt wasn't specifically aimed at ending the war -  rape, stealing for the sake of stealing, torture ect, were not tolerated. the mongols were a looting machine that just happened to win wars. sherman was a war winnng machine that used looting and the destruction of property as its primary weapon.
Ghengis Kahn did a lot more good than Sherman. He gets a bad wrap because frankly all people know about him is that he created the largest empire ever. What most don't know is that he encouraged culture, language, allowed different religions to flourish etc... no one is contending that he wasn't a war monger, but many of his other endeavours were crucial to the development of civilization from the pacific to the black sea.
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Quote:
(globetrotter @ April 26 2005,09:59)
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnapril,April 26 2005,09:47
Compared with the Mongols, Sherman was a pussie cat.
more importantly, sherman didn't allow his people to do anything that he felt wasn't specifically aimed at ending the war -  rape, stealing for the sake of stealing, torture ect, were not tolerated. the mongols were a looting machine that just happened to win wars. sherman was a war winnng machine that used looting and the destruction of property as its primary weapon.
Ghengis Kahn did a lot more good than Sherman. He gets a bad wrap because frankly all people know about him is that he created the largest empire ever. What most don't know is that he encouraged culture, language, allowed different religions to flourish etc... no one is contending that he wasn't a war monger, but many of his other endeavours were crucial to the development of civilization from the pacific to the black sea.
your argument is not without merit. Sherman held together (or contributed greatly) the main power of the 19th and 20th centuries. there may not have been a US without Sherman and Grant. the mongols put together several very important central asian dynasites and contributed greatly to civillizaiton in that part of the world. india as we know it, russia as we know it, china, may all e different without the influences of the mongols. but, nobody is going to argue that they were nice people - by all of our standards the mongols were pretty evil.
post #42 of 53
There's a great piece about the Mongols in this week's New Yorker.
post #43 of 53
Quote:
There's a great piece about the Mongols in this week's New Yorker.
saw it, yes.
post #44 of 53
I almost pissed myself laughing when he started in about Tamerlane.
post #45 of 53
Quote:
sherman didn't allow his people to do anything that he felt wasn't specifically aimed at ending the war -  rape, stealing for the sake of stealing, torture ect, were not tolerated.
Oh, no--never.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Cultue of the South