Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2010, at 12:37 PM, c b wrote:
>
> > Probably , a complementary reductionist (but valid) argument,
> > with this component a stronger influence than the history back in
> > Britain, is that the Southern culture was prone to violence because so
> > much violence had to be deployed to conquer the Indigenous Peoples and
> > suppress and work the African slaves. The honor thing is just a
> > shockingly hypocritical and phony rationale.
>
> I love how many people are commenting on this paper without having actually read it. Don't let me stop you - carry on. It's kind of funny.
>
Well the particular question re southern violence is rather less sinteresting than the general questions of historical and social analysis which the article raises (and that is quite independent of anything more the authors have to say on the particular topic).
And even if some of the list subscribers read as fast and cover as much as John Quincy Adams, still there will always be more texts they want/need to read/read than they have time for. So why not respond just to the abstract of this article? Carrol