I’m almost loathe to say it, but if the South hadn’t committed treason and started the war to defend state’s rights to allow the owning of slaves, Sherman’s march to the sea would never have happened. There was nothing new in what Sherman did, see for example the 30 years war 1618-1648. Innocents suffer in war, holding Sherman out in particular strikes of personal predjuice. Like it or not, the war boiled down to the South wanting to defend it’s right to own slaves, and they started the war.
What a petty assertion. You cannot wipe away the horror of murderous pillage by hypostatizing millions of innocent people into a faceless abstraction you call “the South” and then justify their suffering by calling them an “it” and assigning to them the mind of the Borg. Sherman did not destroy an abstraction; he destroyed the lives of men, women, and children who wanted nothing more than to feed themselves. If you think rulers and politicians have fucked up, then fine. Punish them. But don’t excuse yourself or your deeds just because you can’t tell the difference between a bombastic lunatic who shot at you and a frail old woman watching her house burn down.
Don’t make me laugh.
Well, I guess it is true that a person hears only what he wants to hear.
If you want to deny reality that’s up to you but the facts are out there for everyone to see.
The invasion was a disaster from any point of view and has strained relations between America and its allies. It was a blatant violation of America’s obligations to the international community as spelled out in the charter of the UN. It was immoral and criminal so nothing could make it good but, on top of that it was a disaster.
You are correct in that there is no comparison between Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Iraq under Bush: the situation is much worse now.
Look at this report prepared by the US government in August 2008:
Disastrous Iraqi humanitarian crisis
Warping the minds of thousands of impressionable college students with his nonsense.
Ah. Well, I’ve never read any of Chomsky’s books (keep meaning to get around, you know how it is), but I’ve seen a documentary on him and heard him interviewed on the radio many times, and I have yet to hear him speak a word of nonsense. Do you have anything particular in mind?
I think they’re referring to his more recent book, which (rightly) accuses Israel of maintaining an “Apartheid” regime over the Palestinians.
Chomsky would sit somewhere near the top of my list of greatest Americans.
And I stand by what I said of Rand. Her particularly vile ‘philosophy’ has been responsible, if not for many deaths, then at least for a systematic rejection of common human decency for countless people.
Of course, you could say this about the civil rights movement. Most of the big changes happend under LBJ, not JFK.
I wouldn’t say countless people. How many American Libertarians or Objectivists or serious Rand-quoters have there been, after all? I think of Atlas Shrugged as more of a cult-item, like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, than a real cultural-political-canon-item like Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
But you still haven’t shown how what Sherman did was different from what any other general in a modern war has done. And if all generals are equally condemned for fighting wars, then the list of generals who were objectively worse than Sherman (in simple terms of numbers of people displaced) is longer than my arm. But you’ve listed him as the fourth worst person ever to be born from the American people. Which designation, I must conclude is solely due to the fact that his actions were carried out against your ancestors, and that had they been carried out on behalf of them, you’d have no problem with his actions.
The six unknown founders of th Ku Klux Klan
Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first National Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan
D.W. Griffith who’s movie [Birth of a Nation glamorized and revitalized the Ku Klux Klan
Are you joking? I have enumerated his atrocities again and again. He is an American who destroyed Americans and America. (If you argue that the CSA was a foreign country, your argument will not hold.) That’s what this thread is about, isn’t it? It seems to me that there is a difference between a bad American and a bad person. A bad American to qualify for this list, as I see it, must of necessity be bad FOR America. Otherwise, he’s just a bad person who happens to be American. In fact, as you can see, my whole list is characterized the same way: Americans fucking with America. If you do not like the way I composed my list, that’s fine. But the suggestion that some other American general in some other war has done more harm to America than Sherman is ridiculous — with the obvious exception of the vile and loathesome Jackson, whom I listed in first place.
Well, you must do what you must. That’s not my problem.
“Revitalized”? You mean resurrected!
(Griffith made Intolerance the following year, perhaps to show that he, at least, did not actually approve of prejudice.)
I don’t see why a comparison is needed; the OP simply asked “Who are the worst Americans?” or words to that effect. I had the idea the OP was asking for opinions and not some sort of matrix to sort out ‘bad,’ ‘badder,’ and baddest.’
Even so, I will agree that Saddam Hussein was very bad; in my opinion, Bush is worse.
Just since it fits in nicely here, I’d like to republish a portion of my 50 Most Important Hollywood Films listing, which included the two movies you mention.
- Intolerance 1916, D.W. Griffith
A remarkable example of too little too late, this monumental dramatic epic, costing a whopping half-million dollars to make, was intended by Griffith to be a defensive response to critics of Birth of a Nation. Dismayed by charges of racism, he put together a dazzling nonlinear movie that used more than fifty transitions from ancient Babylon to the then modern day. It showed how the words and deeds of historic villains (Babylonian priests, Queen Catherine’s evil court, hypocritical Pharisees, and mill owner Jenkins) set in motion social codes and ethics that resulted in dire consequences for modern man. Using his greatest star, Lillian Gish, as Walt Whitman’s Eternal Motherhood to tie together scenes that spanned nearly the whole of human history, Griffith ultimately failed to unring the bell. Incredibly brilliant and innovative cinematic techniques were insufficient to overcome what he already had unleashed. Too complex and baffling for average viewers, and burdened by exorbitantly expensive production, the ahead-of-their-time techniques in the film backfired, leaving in their wake a commercial failure. Ultimately, his staunch pacifism did not resonate with a nation itching to fight a war. He died in 1948, still haunted by the irreversible stigma of “that other film”.
- The Birth of a Nation 1915, D.W. Griffith
Originally titled The Clansman, after Rev. Thomas Dixon Jr.'s play, this movie spawned controversy like never before (or since) seen. Law suits, picketing, and even street unrest (including massive riots that peaked in 1919) throughout the country followed the movie for decades as it was re-cut and re-released in 1924, 1931, and 1938. Shortly after its release, the NAACP published a 47-page pamphlet, “Fighting a Vicious Film: Protest Against The Birth of a Nation”. The National Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures debated fiercely over whether the movie should be shown in New York, but once it opened, it sold more than 3 million tickets in 11 months (an astounding number for the time). Although it was denounced with scathing reviews from horrified critics, President Woodrow Wilson (after the first ever screening of a film in the White House) reportedly declared, “It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” It is a blatantly racist depiction of the birth of the Ku Klux Klan, and is in fact still used today both as a recruitment tool by the Klan, and as an education tool by the NAACP. Despite all that, it is heralded by most movie scholars as the most important American film ever made. It was as technically innovative as Citizen Kane, thanks in large part to cameraman Billy Bitzer, who pioneered a whole slew of techniques, including the “iris effect” (expanding and contracting circular masks). It was the first film with its own orchestral score, the first to use night photography, the first to use moving (or “panning”) camera shots, the first to use total screen close-ups, and much more. It even had a hand color engraved sequence at the end. The film had already made a mind-boggling $18 million dollars before the first talkie was ever released. Because of its lingering controversy, its pioneering technical brilliance, its innovative artistic advancements, and its sheer longevity, this is the movie I’ve selected as the most important Hollywood film ever made.
Griffith is also credited, if that is the word, with Martyrs of the Alamo (I saw a clip once on a PBS documentary and the anti-Mexican racism is unmistakeable); but I’m not clear on what his role in it was – his name appears nowhere in this [url=]IMDb entry.
IMO it’s your partisanship that is getting in the way. I disagree with the 600k number but I do agree with this: plenty of people have died because of the invasion, more than we’d ever want to see. I am not blind to that. What is silly is pretending that before the invasion things were better; I believe you are allowing your hatred for Bush to color your opinion of pre-war Iraq. Hussein was a brutal, evil dictator. Outside of his cadre of Sunni acolytes no one had a hope for a bright future. Despite all the mistakes that Bush has made (and they are legion) Iraqis have hope for a better future.
From your own cite:
The situation in Iraq is not good but let’s remember where it came from.
You would rather have live under Hussein than Bush?
I’m not sure who would credit that film to Griffith. It was written, produced, and directed by W.C. Cabanne. He was at one time an employee of Griffith, but that relation doesn’t really tie Griffith to the movie.
Well, the PBS documentary I saw did.
The Vietnamese had a hope for a better future in 1975 (not before). And now they’ve got a better future/present. Which does not mean they have any reason to thank JFK, LBJ, or Nixon.