This picture being the face of the board is going to cause strife and anger until it is removed. My feelings on him aside, I think we should choose a more universally accepted face for the board. A poet, a philosopher, an archaeologist, a musician, or many other options would cause less controversy than a general who lead a particularly death/rape filled march.
According to the American media, the opinions and feelings of Southerners can be safely disregarded. Anyway, most of them are spineless. Look how easily they took their flags down. They deserve to be spat on.
I am not American and do agree it is quite disgusting the hatred that Northerners have for Southerners. But, this should be weighed against the fact that the Southerners are a defeated people who deserve contempt for having been so conclusively beaten, as have the Germans. They have proven themselves to be weak and deserving of such a degraded position. Their further capitulation this year on the flag issue is more proof of their defeated mindset.
Why is this the place for that? Specifically choosing a historical figure that disgusts a particular group of people for the purpose of making them feel shame due to their modern issues is not cool.
I don't want to be part of /pol/ 2.0
>or many other options would cause less controversy than a general who lead a particularly death/rape filled march.
I fail to see the problem with this as long as people continue to be civilized while discussing here, we are here to talk about history after all. The only possible problem with him is that he isn't that well known to non-Americans, but it's hard to think of a person that has influenced the whole world, maybe Vasco da Gama or Colombus
It should clearly be Herodotus. I mean come on, he's the father of history, nuff said.
You might as well say that Himmler did nothing wrong and that only butthurt Jews cry that he did his job too well.
You know it's going to bother people. You know people will never be happy with it. Why are you alienating people?
It's a rather recent act of death/rape.
There is a somewhat large group of people who will always see a picture of this guy who they consider their Hitler.
Even if to nobody else, to these people it is disturbing to look at this guy.
Sherman is a significant historical figure who should be evaluated from his actions (the first large scale application of total war in the industrial era) without prejudice to their morality (the murder and destruction of the livelihood of a large number of Southerners). I would also defend the use of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or Bomber Harris as a picture if it were so.
That your feelings are hurt is irrelevant. Go back to your hugbox if you thin buttocks are so easily penetrated. Dirty, fucking whore
If we banned the use of historical figures because feelings are hurt, then more than half the cast of history will have to be discarded. Columbus for his brutal genocide of Native Americans, Genghis Khan for the destruction of rational Islamic civilization, even people peripherally connected to mass murderers, say for example Guderian, would be taboo. The only thing that could be discussed is anodyne and inoffensive topics like Mozart (and his scatological fetishes) or Susan B. Anthony, but even then, you could find ways to condemn them. Then what? Ban them again?
OP is a womanly son of a bitch, possibly a fucking homosexual, whose attempt to circumscribe discussion here should be disregarded. He is possibly from reddit, tumblr or /pol/, who enjoy screaming for things that challenge their mindsets to be banned, as many millennial pussies do.
It should be fine to post about characters as dividing as Hitler, Stalin, Sherman, etc but having one of them as the board's face is going to be constant division without supporters of those people thinking the board is on their side. If it was Hitler, you know the board will be filled with more Hitler supporters. With Sherman the board is filled with more South haters.
I don't want to see
>le losers flag
>lel hicks get out
>sherman tha best he raped the south
in every single American thread.
>There is a somewhat large group of people who will always see a picture of this guy who they consider their Hitler.
Then don't discuss history? It's possible that most important historical figures will cause that in one person or another, one shouldn't be this emotional.
I know you (and many others here too, I guess) are worried about this becoming /pol/ 2.0, but you can't also let that just ruin your experience here
People are still whining today about the Crusades and the European conquest of the Americas from 500-1000 years ago. If we kept pushing back to a time where contemporary people are not buttblasted, we would end up in prehistory. This is not a compelling enough reason.
Everyone is someone's Hitler. And anyone who whines about /pol/ taking over this place, is a weakling who is not prepared to fight to the death for this board's impartiality. They should fuck off immediately to a place more condign to their expectations of mod fiat and restrictions on posting, than remain here, such as /co/ or /tg/.
Then how about the reason that we could have chosen somebody other than a war monger? What drove the mods to choose Sherman? He's too specific a historic figure for it to have been an oversight. They could have chosen somebody that they knew wouldn't cause controversy, but they chose to start something.
>And anyone who whines about /pol/
Get used to it. This board will be full of those whiny cockroaches, they're the same people who were against the creation of this board and now they will frequent it to whine about /pol/ 24/7. I have no idea what drives these disgusting people.
Hopefully they will get bored in time and this can become a comfy board like /int/.
They chose him because he was a meme for sometime on /b/, one of the original boards of this site. This was before the start of this decade so a Johnny Come Lately reddit refugee like yourself would not understand.
>people taking Dixie butthurt seriously
Seriously though, /pol/, tumblr, and reddit are all places you can go to if you can't look at an image without becoming such emotional wreck that you can no longer discuss history impartially.
>more worried about imposing a board culture than letting it develop naturally as it goes along
Such an overtly political agenda can only have been sprung from the mind of /pol/. Fuck off back there if you are so concerned about establishing a safe space.
I am for Sherman and I support this. That is because whoever is in the picture is irrelevant to the purpose of the board, it is only done to placate homosexual tumblrinas who get pierced in the anus by things which trigger them.
Southern manhood is nothing when its modern day acolytes are such colossal women and homosexuals who scream for the mod's tit as if they just popped out of their mothers' cunt. Lee and Jackson are rolling in their graves at the effeminacy of OP. He really is a fucking woman, and should be castrated or raped.
It is absolutely a safe space that you want. You damnned sissy. Mincing little queer. You don't want to be triggered by William T.'s ugly leering Neanderthal mug whenever you come in. It is understandable. Being this triggered by an image is the condition of a fuccboi who spreads his legs and screams for mods to do his bidding.
Well one of those people helped engineer the total extermination of an "inferior" set of races and helped cause the worst war in human history.
Another used any means necessary to divide and conquer a traitorous, slavery-supporting group of madmen, and thereby saved the Union.
One will live on as one of his nation's greatest hero, the other will rot in the gutters of humanity.
If the Southerners were smart, they should cite not Sherman's warcrime of burning Atlanta (which no one cares about since Southerners are pig), but his near genocidal views on the Native Americans in the Indian Wars. That would get progressives on their side.
If you have only a pedestrian knowledge of history in general, then why waste your time on this board? To someone with a genuine interest in history and/or humanities this person is most likely immediately recognizable. If you're here to learn, then maybe keep your mouth shut and your eyes open
>To someone with a genuine interest in history and/or humanities this person is most likely immediately
this person is immediatly recognizable to the average american lardass, don't flatter yourself Billy
nobody outside dumfuckistan gives a shit about sherman
>not amerucan guise, I swear
ok Billy Freedom™, whatever you say
Volunteering Mosley reading this relevant book
I'm chill with Sherman tho
>You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. [...]
>You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. [...]
>In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.
>But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.
- William T. Sherman, Letter to Atlanta
where do people like you come from? I bet you flexed your wrist muscle extra hard when you clicked on that Pepe that you only use to get people "btfo" or "ass blasted", whilst audibly cursing me
Southerners are still okay to villify, the media told them so
Still, it's been done so many times and has so little shock value you'd think it'd be low hanging fruit.
At this point the South is rapidly assimilating into mainstream America- if it wasn't for attitudes like this it might already have happened.
>particularly death/rape filled march
Sherman's March did not in any way have more rape or death than any other military campaign of comparable size, if anything it had less. He specifically instructed his soldiers to ignore civilians unless they were obstructing or harassing them, and evacuated Atlanta before the fire . resulting in civilan casualties below a hundred for the entire March.
Read "Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea" for detailed information
>There is a somewhat large group of people who will always see a picture of this guy who they consider their Hitler.
And those people are completely retarded and laughably wrong.
>Population of Atlanta in 1860 - ~10,000 / Georgia - ~1.1 million
>Population of Atlanta in 1870 - ~22,000 / Georgia - ~1.2 million
>Population of Jews in Europe in 1933 - ~9.5 million
>Population of Jews in Europe in 1950 - ~3.5 million
As you can see from the raw numbers, any comparison of Sherman's to any genocide is moronic.
As the man himself wrote in his Letter to Atlanta (>>26736), his goal with the campaign was a simple one - bring War to the home of those southern landowners who brought it upon the USA. He burned their fields, he destroyed their houses, but he spared their lives, so they may live to understand that war isn't a game, that war isn't honorable, that War Is Hell.
Sherman's actions ended the Civil War, a conflict that resulted in the most deaths of any war the US had ever been before or since. Hundreds of thousands dead, Union and Confederate, because the Southerners wanted to continue the abhorrent tradition of slavery. And Sherman kicked their ass and dragged their delusional minds back to reality, with minimum civilian casualities to boot, and they've been butthurt ever since.
In conclusion, fuck off to /pol/, you dixie loons. Lost Cause isn't tolerated on an actual history board.
>but it's hard to think of a person that has influenced the whole world,
Literally Hitler, there is no other. Not even /pol/ but you cannot deny his overwhelming historical significance. There isn't a person on Earth who wouldn't recognise him.
Hitler basically filled a void that otherwise would have filled by someone exactly the same as him. He was the culmination of a trend, nothing more.
Plus i'm sure a lot of people outside of Europe and North America don't give two shits about him or know who he was.
While I think Herodotus is a much better face for /his/ we're not going to be a bunch of retrospective limp-wristed peaceniks who bemoan every life and culture lost to conquest in antiquity are we?
You southerners bitching about sherman are no better than all those other people that bitch about shit that never affected them. I dont hate you guys, far from it, but you guys need to stop getting offended any time you see something civil war related. I dont get butthurt when you guys constantly shit on the north on /pol/ so stop griping
>Wanting to censor history because muh feelings
Since when did reddit have a say in how 4chan operates?