Cultue of the South - Page 3

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.

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.

Yeah, well... every time a yankee lights a match in Georgia everyone cringes.

edited as had nothing to say. just unsuccesfully experimenting with how to quote and reply to two different people in a single reply.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's a great piece about the Mongols in this week's New Yorker.

saw it, yes.

I almost pissed myself laughing when he started in about Tamerlane.

Oh, no--never.