Re: [HIST??] Culture shock

Like I've said before, when people say "x are inflexible idiots", they
mean
x are most likely to be inflexible idiots, not every single x is an
inflexible idiot.  And frankly, if you go by historical precedent, John
A's
"stereotypes" would be mostly right on that account.  And in any case
this
description is a guide, not something that's expected to be followed to
the
letter.  Having a guide for the enemy's possible behaviour certainly
would
be better than nothing at all, or some silly useless guide that says
"the
enemy are human beings just like you, and will show a great variety of
different types of behaviour".	If any officer is dumb enough to think
the
"stereotyped" description is a 100% accurate portrayal of the enemy all
the
time, and always follows the guide to the letter, I suspect John A.
would
kick him out of his army. :)

----- Original Message -----
From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: RE: [HIST??] Culture shock

> Nomenclature is of little importance if you're expecting a group of
sloths
> and you get a group of tigers, which is what you'd be getting if you
were
> expecting "x are inflexible idiots" when x actually will showed nouse
and
> flexibility, thus the question about whether John would have to start
off
> treating x in one way and only change stride (so to speak) once x
proved
to
> be anything else ;)
>
> Thanks
>
> Beth
>
>