General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI seriously think we are seeing the beginning of America seperating into two or three countries.
There was a professor at a college I went to who taught Geography. He would saythat he believe in the next 100 to 150 years we will see America divided up into two or three nations.
I use to think it was an interesting theory BUT man I'm starting to think we are seeing the beginnings of the country being pulled apart.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
superstring1
(29 posts)Nm
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)There are places here that I simply cannot relate to at all. Welcome to DU! 
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Welcome to DU!
PatSeg
(52,159 posts)I can say it has always been that way. We are just more aware of it right now. 40 or 50 years ago it was actually much worse. Television and later the Internet have brought a lot of our diversity to the surface.
In addition, people relocate today more than they did years ago, so many states cannot stay locked in their ignorance and fifties mentality.
We are a very diverse country and that has been our greatest strength. It is also the cause of many of our biggest problems, but it keeps us from going the nationallstic path of former powers that rose and fell - Germany, Japan, England, Spain. Many people, particularly on the right, try to give us a distinct identity, but it doesn't work. Our unique identity is our DIVERSITY. Look back throughout history and you will see great civilizations rise and fall because they embraced a nationalistic pride, believing they were better than their inferior neighbors who looked different, spoke another language and wore funny clothes.
"United we stand, divided we fall" is not just a worn out cliche.
gateley
(62,683 posts)nanabugg
(2,198 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The move to civil war, as in the cold phase, started in the 1990s... but with the end of the American Empire, the Continental core will break up. In my opinion more than two to three countries. We are going to see four to five.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)i.e. a huge sustainable resource-rich region in the Pacific NW.hot damn.
I'm all for it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Indeed.
But yes, culturally there are many differences between the different regions. You know when it was damn noticeable? When my dad had surgery in Cleveland. I was not visiting. I lived there for a month. The flag flying at the Police Station might have been the flag of the United States, I might have been using dollars at the store, but it sure did not feel like the same country.
It was very strange.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)of this failed nation's imminent collapse.
I'll check out the book. Thanks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)NEOBuckeye
(2,917 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)canEHdian
(62 posts)Wasn't it actually The Nine Nations of North America?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You are right, that goes for posting late at night.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)one?
cascadia is fantasy.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but actually there have been well-informed people mostly
environmentalists who've been advocating for Cascadia
for decades.
Plus most genuinely "NEW" anything of real value, starts
out as a dream or fantasy, so there.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)Except...no control over who ...controls.
One region or 10, unless you put up a wall and have a "friendly" legislature", the same problems will crop up
that we currently have.
Aristus
(71,647 posts)then I look forward to life in the Republic of Cascadia...
millijac
(85 posts)Well MA and VT anyway!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)If I could pull it off, I would.
Never been to either state, but have always
especially appreciated VT from afar.
I use to work with Community Land Trusts,
and know how Burlington was one of the
first places in USA where it was developed
and widely used to keep housing affordable.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)I'll take the south and be happy
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)I am wondering if it is just the veneer coming off and showing that there has always been a divide.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)Would love to let the South go. They have never stopped fighting the Civil War and have always dragged the country, it's educational system, and its health system down, down, down. Their power in Congress makes the whole world more dangerous.
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel
(3,273 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It would be worse than that bad Harry Turtledove alternative history series where the South ends up bombing NYC and Philadelphia with B-17s in the 1940s. No thanks.
diane in sf
(4,217 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)You think they'll turn in their nukes for a few bucks? What do you think they are, Kazakstan? 
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)"to us"?
who is "us"?
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Note the "Red States in the Red" map
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...that in every South Bashing thread on DU over the last 10 years,
whenever someone insists that "The South never stopped fighting the Civil War",
the person making that claim lives somewhere else?
In 2006, my wife & I moved to the Deep South from a Big Blue Northern City,
and in those years I have lived here, I can't recall a single conversation with anyone here who is still fighting the Civil War.
It just never comes up. 
The only place I hear that is from a rather close minded and not well traveled element
on DU who seem to enjoy broad brushing a region of the USA that contains some of the toughest, bravest, and hardest working Democrats I have ever met.
I saw more Rebel Flags and "I love Rush" bumper stickers in Michele Bachmann's district in Minnesota than I do in my adopted neighborhood in the rural South.
Map of Blue Counties in the 2008 election
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)they will all want to move in and bring their intolerant stereotyping minds with them.
Let them keep their winter cold, their cement lifestyle, the crowds, the traffic, the noise.
Let's just keep this area our little secret, whatdda say?
tosh
(4,453 posts) dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)..laughing with ya there....
xmas74
(30,022 posts)I've never heard anyone in this area really talk all that much about the Civil War, except in a historical perspective. (And Missouri had lots of battles-lots.)
Over time here on DU I've tried to figure out the line that is "the South" and what isn't. I think it's anywhere east of Denver but west of the Mississippi yet north of Cleveland and south of-forget it. I haven't figured out their imaginary line. Anyway, it's nothing like many on here think and I'm barely into it. (Some would say I'm not there, though I'm close to the Ozarks. Most here on DU would call me a part of the South.)
Let it all roll off your back.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)A/C is required. How much A/C is run depends on each person's comfort level, and ability to pay the electric bill.
Mr. Dixie is outside or in his tool shed all day, with no A/C but has a fan.He wears the bare minimum.
I am a wimp, and stay inside with thermostat set at 80 and 2 box fans. The fur children prefer to stay with me..no fools are they.
"the heat" is an issue for anyone east of the West Coast, the only difference being 110 degrees in dry heat or
a "feels like (heat index) of 111 with actual temp being 96 here.
You don't see many people outside walking around during the summer here. Exception being the crazy golfers.
demwing
(16,916 posts)and I have lived in Florida for the last 4 years, and though I don't see rebel flags in St Petersburg, if I go visit my dad in Kissimmee I see tons.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Your experiences in Florida VALIDATES the observation I made in my post,
AND the point I made by posting this county by county voting map of the 2008 election.
Nowhere is solid RED or BLUE.
Everywhere is a shade of purple,
some more than others.
No one place has a monopoly on bigotry, intolerance, or ignorance.
You can even find it on DU.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
demwing
(16,916 posts)and I responded that I am one of the people you claim doesn't exist.
I have made such a recent claim (that southerners are still fighting the civil war, or at the least still bitter about it).
I do not "live somewhere else" - I live in the south, and have for a few years.
I am not close minded - I'm a progressive democrat!
I am well traveled - I've been to three countries and have driven, not flown, through about 40 of our 50 states. I have lived in Hawaii, California, Utah, Georgia, Indiana, and Florida.
Yet I say that many southerners are still hung up on the civil war. So yes, your claim is nonsense.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Good luck with your quest.
demwing
(16,916 posts)and still see a solid wall.
ncgrits
(916 posts)I am so SICK of the ignorant broad brush bashing of the South! Or any other region for that matter. Map looks pretty damn purple to me. And the South has plenty of true blue parts to boot.
God I love DU except for this one ugly streak. Probably overdue for another break.
cordelia
(2,174 posts)I was born in the South and have lived in the South off and on for over 30 years, and I cannot recall one Southerner wanting to rehash the Civil War. Ever.
It's finished; it's done. Most of us moved on long ago.
edit: typo
cordelia
(2,174 posts)are very divisive and contribute nothing, don't you think?
It's very dismaying.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)the less focus on them.
Seems a lot of folks are falling for it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)whole idea is based on the idea that the USA has become separated regarding goals a long time ago. Immanuel Todd (spelling?), Kunstler, Chalmers Johnson and many others have been talking about this for a long time. It is only half a joke here in NE MN when we wish we could join Canada.
superstring1
(29 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)
liberalhistorian
(20,900 posts)of science fiction; I've never heard of that series before. Is it supposed to be pro or anti-Southern in perspective? (the "settling accounts" subtitle has me wondering).
diane in sf
(4,217 posts)cordelia
(2,174 posts)Indicates intolerance and small-mindedness. On your part.
ChickFullofHate
(26 posts)cordelia
(2,174 posts)Oh, please enlighten us.
ETA: Off to enjoy time with friends who are tolerant and not so filled with hate.
Hope you enjoy your day.
EastTennesseeDem
(2,675 posts)If there's something wrong with something in America, kick it out!
Let the gay people who live there fighting for some modicum of decency fight it out on their own. Put the liberals who are working tirelessly on changing minds and hearts of outdated political and social and religious belief systems at the mercy of unchecked southern conservative politicians.
I studied geology at Vanderbilt, and my department's professors went to the state capitol a year or so ago to fight yet another creationist bill. You think they would have had the freedom to fight the good fight if they lived in Biblebeltstan?
I shudder to think of what would happen to these people if the south was cut off. I have a feeling that liberals like myself would be caught in a hateful crossfire, which we are fighting so hard to gather reinforcements against.
"Letting the south go"? That's fucked up rhetoric.
superstring1
(29 posts)
spanone
(141,008 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)No more than the area you are from is a uniform collection of lazy thinkers who resort to stereotypes rather than put forth an intelligent conversational point.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)They scare me down there. I feel like I am in a completely different world.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I happen to live in a medium-sized Southern city who elected, last year, a Latina who got her start in public service organizing unions for Cesar Chavez.
The difference between the North and the South is this: city sizes. The South, with the exception of Atlanta and Memphis, has smaller cities with smaller populations and has many more rural areas. The blue/red divide is not the Mason-Dixon line - it's the city-county line.
For example, the ONLY reason Pennsylvania, a non-Southern state, tends to lean blue is because of the huge populations in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The center of the state - the rural areas - lean red. In fact, there is not one wit of difference between "Pennsyltucky" and rural Alabama.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I live in the South and NEVER have ANY conversations with ANYONE about the Civil War. Never.
It's brought up by people on THIS board far more often than it's ever discussed down here.
FWIW, in response to the entire thread: about 40 percent of my Southern neighbors lean left and/or vote Democratic. If we're separating by region, what explains the 40 percent of us or so in the South who have NOT become brainwashed right-wing idiots? Some evolution. 
ejpoeta
(8,933 posts)a ken burns documentary and it goes through the revolution in like 6 or 7 parts. One of the parts was talking about the south and how many of the battles in this one area didn't even have any british soldiers in them. It was like a civil war instead of a revolutionary war. I found that very eye opening personally.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)BBC did a series on the Revolution called Rebels and Redcoats.
Quite interesting how many different viewpoints there are of the same issue.
Always nice to get out of the polarized thinking trap, don'tcha agree?
ejpoeta
(8,933 posts)and you are right about the polarized think trap.
Jawja
(3,233 posts)"War of Northern Aggession," as my ancestors called it....
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Here in 2012, no one below the age of 70 calls it that.
In fact, no one in the South really ever discusses the Civil War outside of history class.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,706 posts)With family that was very much into the "Confederate Heritage" thing. Never heard it referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" until the 1990's. At first, it seemed to be a sort of tongue-in-cheek term, but after hearing some neo-confederate discussion, I found out that historical revisionism is alive and thriving in the Heart of Dixie.
In the 1960's and 70's, it was seldom referred to as the "Civil War" either. It was called "The War Between the States" (there was even a Bullwinkle gag about that).
Just my observation from West Alabama (Arizona)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)How soon these whippersnappers forget how much blood was shed keeping the Union whole. Hell, a massive percentage of the war dead are unknowns.
braddy
(3,585 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We can move all the neo-cons and Plutocrat minions to their hellholes. Without their obstruction we can finally move forward as a society.
meanit
(455 posts)I believe that America can do better than that. Why should we let these sewer dwellers tear this country apart? Yes, they've seized control of the media, they have well organized propagandists that brainwash their useful idiots daily, they have their "plants" in the SCOTUS and other parts of the government and they have millions of undisclosed dollars flowing in from fascist minded billionaires and corporations, but it's all smoke and mirrors. They have had to cheat and steal to get where they are now, yet they are really not representative of the people. Everything inch they have gained is based on pure bullshit.
Rather than break up this country, they should be pounded back down into the holes and under the rocks that they crawled out of. Drive them right out of any meaningful positions of power.
Kind of gives a new appreciation for the decisions that Lincoln was faced with over the Civil War. But the country didn't give in to the extremists of that day and age either.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We won the Civil War and the Confederates have been quite successful at being a pain in the ass and a drag on societal progress ever since. Even if they couldn't stop the march of civil rights, they are STILL doing jaw-droppingly massive damage to the economic well being of blacks, and now they are dragging down the entire working class.
Worst of all, we now face global warming - and again, the post-Confederates are proving damned good at slowing down, or even preventing efforts to stop global warming.
We don't have enough time to try and straighten these people out within our own borders. African American poverty is too urgent to let us waste that much time. Mother Nature will not give us that much time.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)I had no idea we had a powerful block of "confederates" down here, who are have dragged down "societal progress" and are responsible for "preventing efforts to stop global warming."
I find this alarming, and hope you will help me identify who this powerful group are.
Is there a uniform I should be looking for?
Wait...names...gimme some names of the leaders of the Confederates down here, so I can learn more about them.
I must admit that focusing on Republicans has taken a lot of my time, but I want to spare some energy to identify and address the menace of The Confederates" because no one I know in my town would support such a dreadful sounding group.
I live in a racially mixed middle class nieghborhood, so with the information you give me, perhaps ALL of my neighbors can work together to identify the "Confederate" menace. Sounds like an urgent topic for dicussion.
thanks for the alert on this dangerous sounding group, looking forward to more info.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Tell me you aren't ignorant of all the Confederate flag-waving Republicans, the incessant plague of racist behavior and dog whistling that goes on in the South.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)no more than I am ignorant of all the Dems down here.
I don't see a lot of "Confederate flag waving" Republicans tho.
They tend to wave the American flag, indeed, to drape themselves in it.
And I am not dumb enough to attribute racist behavior and dog whistling to ALL Southernors,
since I know that such behaviors are not done by ALL, even most, southernors
and that such behavior, according to the news, is also found in non-South states.
( see Arizona and Ohio for most recent examples)
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)of Jim Crow" notes that Jim Crow laws began in the Northern 'free' states and only migrated to the South following the end of Reconstruction (1876).
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)Took a lot of history courses way back when.
I am actually surprised that so much blatant stereotyping of the South goes on, esp. on DU. 
Apparently there are, even here, education deficit people who do not know that
President Johnson, of Texas, was responsible for the post 1963 Civil Rights acts and
The Great Society programs which Republicans from all over the country are now trying to destroy.
mentalsolstice
(4,640 posts)Let's see, California got us Nixon and Reagan. The NE brought us the Bush dynasty. And who the hell knows where Mittwit calls home, but as far as I can tell none of his houses are in the South. The southern city I live in has had black mayors, police chiefs, council people, U.S Reps, for at least 20-30 years, and we all seem to get along just fine.
Progressive dog
(7,572 posts)There is plenty of blame to go around over the issue of black equality, but the simple facts are that;
1) The southern states chose to secede when the north resisted the expansion of slavery
2) After reconstruction, those states used vagrancy and even debt to imprison blacks and turn them over to the new slave-masters who could now exploit them till death since their were always more where they came from.
3) The Federal government did not step in to stop this until 1941.
4) The civil rights act and voting rights acts have cost Democrats the south and instead of this cost lessening after almost 50 years, it is getting worse.
When will we finally stop seeing the 'he did it too' argument from the south.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)California, have ancestors who fought in the Union Army, was born in abolitionist Massachusetts and take as hard a line toward the ante- and post-bellum South as anyone on this board. I did grow up in slave state Missouri, but got out of there after I got my undergrad degrees.). It's more a case of 'he did it first' (meaning the North first enacted Jim Crow laws BEFORE the South did. Specifically, in the 12 years of Reconstruction from 1865-77 when slavery was no longer legal, thanks to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.) I don't have Woodward's book ready to hand but can get you cites if you require them. (Will have to get the book from the library.)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)There is "us", and there is "them". "They" drive pick-ups with rebel flags, gun racks, and truck nutz. "They" drink American beer (the. horror, the. horror), shop at Walmart, eat at Chick-fil-A, and own guns. "We", of course, are well educated, genteel, loving, and thoughtful.
"We", who want "them" to go away, are going to be terrified when "we" realize they're going to be demanding the same real estate "we" think is "ours".
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)when we so busy attacking ourselves????
In truth, one of the things I like most about the south is most people here do NOT argue about religion or politics.
There are 10 neigbors in my immediate area.
2 are real estate agents and Republicans, one Baptist, one Methodist
one is a fundy preacher and his wife and 4 kids..I have no idea who they vote for, no yard signs.
3 are black and Baptist and Dem
one is a Methodist and republican who goes to same church as a Democrat neighbor
and we ALL get along just fine, chat away with each other, agree on common things, share garden produce, bakery items, etc.
They are very nice about ignoring the fact I do not attend church, and I have an Obama bumper sticker,
and I was not "born here".
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)don't want to move to. I say this because there is a huge logistical consideration in doing so. So huge as to make it impossible in the eyes of ANY planner with half a brain.
First of all, a splintering of the US means a splintering of its troops. So your military support goes from 2-3 million to MAYBE 1 million and probably LESS. Let's NOT forget that the military is comprised of (to hear DUers put it) those less intelligent and less educated. In other words, they comprise part of the group you want to move behind the fence. Would you expect them to support the order of "Okay troops! We're gonna go round up the rednecks! We're gonna put them behind fences and separate them so they can't fuck with our plans to build a better society! Let's GOOOOOOO!!!!!"
Secondly, there are between 19,000 and 25,000 cities in the US depending on how you count. There aren't enough military vehicles to make it possible to sift the "good" from the "bad", and transport the "bad" to the place of your choosing.
"We (who do you include in your group? Who do you exclude?) can move all the neocons and plutocrat minions to their hellholes".
That's just fucking elitist talk and I would rather be in the group you were TRYING to move than in the group you would leave behind because they marched the goosestep march of everyone who agreed with you.
This short post is the BEST argument for the Second Amendment that I've seen yet.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If America were to split in half, there would be NO REASON for Conservatives to live in Liberal America. They truly believe that they can make it in Dumbfuckistan, and they will move on their own rather than live under a "Socialist" state.
I said nothing about forced relocations. That's called ethnic cleansing.
ChickFullofHate
(26 posts)Yup I support a peaceful split 100% let them create the gun toting, theocratic, Randian country they want. It will be fun watching the place turn into a third world s-hole overnight.
The only down side of a separation is that we will have to militarize the boarders ala N/S Korea more to keep them away from the rest of the world. Picture Kim Jong Un with a mullet and southern accent running the place.
Earth Bound Misfit
(3,569 posts)
Welcome to DU.Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"Picture Kim Jong Un with a mullet and southern accent running the place." - comedy gold!
superstring1
(29 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Family, the views, the mild winters and the fact that its our fucking home.
I'm sorry that more South bashers were allowed to join DU.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ncgrits
(916 posts)I'm outta here. Screw it. One less Southerner y'all will need to herd into the appropriate hell hole.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You can move them out EASILY, without the use of troops.
Legalize gay marriage and you've practically forced them out at gunpoint.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)You just said it.
From your post above:
Obviously, "We" is not the conservatives. "We" in that sentence is you and whomever else would be part of the "We can move" them contingent.
You are not saying "The neo-cons and Plutocrat minions can move" - you are saying "we can move" them.
The clear implication of that sentence is that someone other than the "neo-cons and Plutocrat minions" will be moving them - there is nothing in that statement that indicates they would have a choice. Only that they would be moved.
That really doesn't suggest free-will at all. Rather, it pretty clearly lays out what you believe should occur - they will be moved and society (without their presence) will "finally move forward".
So, no - you didn't use the specific phrase "forced relocation" (or ethnic cleansing) but what else do you call "moving" people "to their hellholes" so the people who are not "moved" can "finally move forward" ?
Is that the way it works on DU now? I've been wondering about that. No one has to own what they say unless they use VERY SPECIFIC language and if they don't use the EXACT SPECIFIC language - well then, they just didn't say that!
You're not the first person I've seen making that particular argument; it is a fascinating take on owning what you say, but there is an old cliche that fits here:
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
If such a scenario as you spell out were to happen, it is entirely possible that a segment of American society would voluntarily leave "Liberal America" - but that is NOT what you originally said. At least admit that much.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Jesuits blush.
Just yesterday, someone was kind enough here to point out to me that he didn't understand why everyone was so worked up about Romney not releasing his tax returns, b/c Romney at some point had to have showed them to someone, i.e., 'released' them. When I replied that Romney had never released comprehensive returns for any public campaign, he responded, "I meant released them to his accountants or financial advisors."
So I'm agreeing with your point about owning both the denotations and the connotations of our words here. On a psychological level and speaking from personal experience, I find that I make statements whose full implications I may not have realized initially. When someone here rightly calls attention to those full implications, rather than acknowledge and retract (if appropriate), it's far easier to slip into the equivocation mode.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I don't believe "the government" is going to move anybody anyplace, but I do believe if the economy were better, we'd see large numbers of Americans moving to the region of their choice.
I, for one, have been trying to move back to my home state of California for a few years now. I've applied to many jobs without success and will continue to do so. I'll probably die with an application in my hands.
But really; I think there would be a quiet, but pronounced, exodus from one region to another by disenfranchised Americans if it were economically feasible. I think we'd see first the formation of communities where the citizens shared common values and ideals, then on to cities and states. Kind of like what we have now with the "countries" of America that make this thread topic possible.
It's funny: Kansas used to be progressive with its anti-slavery and pro-women's rights history. But now, I've find Gov. Brownback, Rep. Yoder, SoS Kobach, and others to be irritating and tiresome with their TeaBagger mentalities. And they're supported by a majority of Kansans (the Governor, both Senators, and all four Representatives are GOP); I don't see this changing anytime soon. Hell, it took Kansas a little over a 100 years to go from progressive to Tea Party. Where to now?
But if I was offered a job tomorrow in the Golden State, I'd be out of here in a New York minute! (With apologies to good, progressive Kansans of whom I know a few... )
Afterthought: A few days ago my wife was "accosted" by a stranger at a gas station. She had just put an Obama sticker on her car a few days earlier and this fellow already starts an argument with her. She told me he didn't stop with just the asinine comment he made when she went inside the store to prepay, but he remained to "debate" her after she came out and while she was filling her tank! The loonies here are getting out of hand!
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)progressive people are just moving out of Kansas than fighting. It seems the TeaBagger mentality is running the entire state, when I look up the ladder of command, all I see are TeaBaggers, like the ones you mentioned.
Give it a few more election cycles and I really wonder where KS will be. Brownback thinks people move out of the state based on taxes, there's a hell of a lot more going on than that, some just want to get the F out of Kansas and the TeaBagger mentalities in gov.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)The specific impetus to move was my divorce. I was actually in the place of being able to move anywhere I wanted, and so I took a good hard look at several different, widely dispersed places.
I moved to Santa Fe, NM and for the most part I really like it here. Generally speaking the politics and social ways are liberal. However, because Governor Richardson ended his term highly unpopular, collectively the voters elected a Republican, Susanna Martinez, as his replacement. She's not too terrible, just somewhat incompetent for the job.
What bothers me a lot about this state, and the main reason I will eventually move somewhere else, is that there's an amazing level of corruption at all levels. Local police chief gets caught selling police property (including both used and new bullet-proof vests) on Ebay. A local government has a sweetheart deal with a paving company. I was told shortly after I moved here not to even bother to try to get a job with the state government because many of them are held by specific families, and obviously I'm not one of those families. The public schools are not very good at all.
But at least here I can be very openly liberal and progressive. I love the climate. There's still a lot of parts of the state to see and explore that I haven't gotten around to.
My main point is that no one state is perfect. And no one state has no redeeming features at all.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)sometimes when one has found the perfect place the entire game sometimes changes.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)was a suit brought against Topeka's segregation policy in its public schools and that was back in 1954.
With the exception of a few places like Lawrence and Emporia (of William Allen White fame), I'm pretty sure Kansas' claim to progressivism was pretty much a non-starter after about 1900-10.
Where in CA are you looking? (I'm in SoCal and it's pretty shitty here right now.)
KansDem
(28,498 posts)...but would entertain the notion of moving anywhere in the state. I have friends in both northern and southern California, so I will have "family" where ever I wind up.
I'll be 60 next year and look at this endeavor as a kind of "third phase" in life...
KansDem
(28,498 posts)You have a point. I remember hearing about the John Birch Society when I was growing up in Long Beach (CA). What I didn't realize until just a few years ago is that it was co-founded by the father of the Koch Bros., a Kansas dynasty (Koch Industries headquarters are located in Wichita), so I imagine Koch Family politics have influenced Kansas for quite some time.
Also, I discovered recently that the organization that placed the JFK "wanted" posters around Dallas just days before his assassination was financed by the Birchers:
On the very day JFK visited Dallas and died, the local newspaper, The Dallas Morning News, featured a full page, black-bordered anti-Kennedy advertisement prepared and paid for by persons affiliated with the John Birch Society, one of the most infamous right-wing extremist organizations of the 1960’s. The ad claimed to be the work of “The American Fact-Finding Committee,” in reality a nonexistent organization. Bernard Weissman, listed on the ad as the chairman of the Committee, however, did exist; he was the person who actually placed the ad. Weissman later testified before the Warren Commission. He was one of the few witnesses before that body who deemed it prudent to appear accompanied by an attorney.
--more--
http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_24blownaway.html
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the various regions in the USA that are separating us. The rural areas do not need the same things as the urban areas. The South is more interested in privatization and "small" government than the North while the North is already turning to national health care and other issues.
Many issues are stymied because of these differences and that keeps many regions from working on things like climate change, education reform to keep our public school systems not to mention finance reforms that would help us control the banksters once again. We need some kind of regional system that will allow us to use our tax money in our own areas for these things and no other area should be allowed to say no to change because they do not believe in it.
I realize that there are many in each region that are fighting for progressive goals and I feel sorry for those who fight against such odds. I am not sure this will stop the breakup though. There are pressures that will demand change - among them the drought/water shortages and the heat issues. There is already talk about people fleeing SW USA in the near future due to these conditions. It will not happen because of secession - it will happen because of need.
Lex
(34,108 posts)per capita. Way more than the blue states do.
We support them but left on their own, they'd have to become more educated, more progressive-- to survive. It would eventually make them less Red.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)This is an interesting point, but of course, without facts, I cannot determine the validity of it.
I am sure that you have that info at hand, pls. share it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Coast excluded of course.
"Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16."
Full information and a map at
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
I read you post, took 30 seconds, found this. Just saying.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)but did not provide the facts to back it up, which was my point.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But actually those are well known yes, facts. Red states (not just in the south) tend to take more in federal dollars than blue states.
I susect it's got to do with the well known allergic reaction to taxation.
There are also enough cultural divisions that in some ways we are indeed diverging into different countries. This is not just north versus south, that is but one of the divisions. The culture in the West is as divergent from the central plains, as the North is from the South. This happens to countries as part of their natural evolution, even in much smaller nations. Admitting that ain't bashing.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I've visited other places and can't see that people are all that much different: anyone who's in the 99 percent struggles to put food on the table, clothes on their backs and a job to get up and go to. On the downside, we all eat too much crap and are getting fatter and we all watch too much crap TV (I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but national trends show we're all kind of dumb).
Look, the reddest part of a blue state (Orange County, CA) is just a backward as Canton, Mississippi and the bluest part of a red state (Atlanta, GA) is just a progressive as New York City.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you can make an argument that this is more of a core value in the NorthWest than in Virginia where mining is king and the destruction of mountain tops is ongoing.
Religious values have also been shaped by dominant churches in different regions of the country. Yes, there are deep differences between Pentecostal faiths, and Northern Calvinist ideologies.
The ideas of equality among different groups do indeed vary from the coasts and what at times is derisively called fly over country... but the differences are real, and indeed so are the believes between north and south, scarred by a civil war.
There are other deep cultural differences, such as the centrality of rights, in things such as labor.
All these are just under the surface, and are significant enough that the culture changes.
Now you want obvious, food choices and regional cuisine. THey are what makes any nation rich, but they are also indicators of different cultures.
And yes, if you watch the history of English, it will mark to you the different dialects as well.
It is not necessarily bad... but it becomes a real problem when they become deep.
Yes, people are unified by the struggle to put food on table, as well as another little factor, the US lacks class consciousness, and that is a unifying factor, we simply lack it. And that could be a unifying factor above all the differences, cultural or religious, or even linguistic.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I don't know about per capita but here's a per state graphic:
It is interesting how many red states take in more than they pay out. And they cry the loudest about spending. Gotta love the irony.
Julie
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)Alabama breaks even on the numbers, same amount coming and going.
And Texas, Fla and Georgia break even, all told.
Ednahilda
(195 posts)and lump tens of millions of dollars difference in the same color category. The dollars-and-cents list at the bottom is a lot more precise.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Alabama gets $1.66 for every $1 paid in taxes. There are only 6 states that get more per tax dollar than Alabama.
CrispyQ
(40,667 posts)Thanks for posting.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)Of the bottom 10 states in Federal tax dollars received per tax dollars paid, 8 of them are Red states.
SDjack
(1,448 posts)A big advantage may be to reduce the ability of the resulting countries to conduct war. Except, of course, among ourselves.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)In 2008 over 3.5 million Texans voted for Obama.
Texas is now more PURPLE than it is red.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)but not yet
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)People will have citizenship in one international mega-merged diversified conglomerate or another and not everyone will have the same level of citizenship privileges. I hope I never live to see such a thing.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts) white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Great book.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)And here are a couple of less convolution reviews on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Bantam-Spectra-Book/dp/0553380958
jwirr
(39,215 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts) Bette Noir
(3,581 posts)Bragi
(7,650 posts)I just downloaded the book and put it on my e-bedside, e-stack of e-books to read. - B
gateley
(62,683 posts)
suffragette
(12,232 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)There would be endless wars over land and resources.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Oh they say no, they want peaceful revolution. lolz Yeah, there won't be any fighting over resources or anything. Those rooting for this reveal their naivete and ignorance.
Julie
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
xxxxxxx <3RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)I'm not either, but I know that what you are seeing now is *NOTHING*. Really. Talking about the breakup of our nation over what's going on now is over the top hyperbole.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Let's say we split in half along the lines we had during the Civil War. Seems to me that those southern states get hit the hardest when it comes to hurricanes and wildfires....Without the tax dollars of a United States, who would be their safety net? Perhaps as a test, we could let Texas go...I am thinking there would be plenty of support from its citizenry and its governor..plus the savings in Fema funds alone for the rest of us makes this attractive.
http://wildfiretoday.com/2011/05/05/texas-has-received-25-fema-grants-for-fires-this-year/
We could pick up Puerto Rico so no flags need changing.
Bette Noir
(3,581 posts)Same with Alaska. Who keeps Russia from picking that plum?
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Please, in case I have misrepresented my own feelings on any state seceding from our union, let me be clear, I do not advocate for such silliness. We are fifty members of a family. Growing that family would not bother me, nor would giving the District of Columbia a larger voice in our government. I only used Texas as an example because of Rick Perry's hypocritical grumbling about Texas seceding and the state being as of late, one of the larger receivers of much needed aid from FEMA.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Adolphe Menjou thought so anyway regarding encroaching communism.
superstring1
(29 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And reality is that Texas is enough of a pain, I see more of a wall, than a border. It would be interesting given the treaty f Guadalupe Hidalgo. I suspect there would be more likely unease.
Alaska, which was sold to the US by the Tsar, that is more likely, but again you are making a lot f assumptions. They are busy with a lot of internal issues right at the momemt. No, Canada is more likely actually.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Russian citizens. Imagine their embarrassment.
Chipper Chat
(10,768 posts)Pacifica (CA,WA,OR, HAW)
Mormanica (ID,UT,WY,NEV, MON, N&S Dak, AZ)
Religiousica (the South+Indiana)
New England (the present blue Northeast + upper midwest)
Gulfica (Florida, Puerto Rico, Cuba?!!?)
Alaska might break away. Colorado and New Mexico - who knows?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Will Gulfica import Coors Light?
Chipper Chat
(10,768 posts)More likely Corona from Mexico.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Yum. I get tummy aches after corona though, I heard its made with dirty water? I want me Coors!
SDjack
(1,448 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts) bvar22
(39,909 posts)If there were Beaver Piss in Coors,
then it would have some taste.
As it is..... light carbonated water.
Give me Dos Equis Ambar
or
Modelo Negra
"I once ran a Marathon because it was on the way."
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Alaska should be part of Canada. It's the only thing that makes sense.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
aquart
(69,014 posts)Yeah, that'll be peaceful. And how will this island empire be defended? From, say, Mexico or a Colombian cartel?
Let me know when you figure it out.
Sanity Claws
(22,336 posts)You omitted all of the mid-Atlantic states.
Atlantica?
NJ is nice to have in your group --- it can be the butt of all jokes.
Fla Dem
(27,421 posts)as the blue Northeast.
I would be torn over Virginia, maybe the NE part could be split off to what he/she referred to as New England, but I like calling it Atlantica. Anything south of that would be part of Religiousica.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)are pretty much all on the same page politcally and socially (as a whole majority).
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)and I renamed some of your states:
Mormanica becomes Deseret (that's what they call themselves, no idea why)
Religiousica become Gilead in honor of Margaret Atwood
Gulfica becomes Gulfland because I can't say Gulfica without it sounding like "Gull fucka"
New England gets split into N. Atlantica and S. Atlantica because I can't imagine that all those big important states want to be renamed after a tiny little pip state.
Oh yeah, I dissolved Nevada, gave Vegas to Pacifica and Elko to Deseret. I also took Moab away from Deseret and gave it to New Sierra.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)give up an ocean harbor without a fight.
Chipper Chat
(10,768 posts)Will there be a demilitarized zone between North and South Atlantica?
firenewt
(298 posts)was in '98 if my memory serves me. I'm fuzzy on the dates and details but can provide links if anyone is interested.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)If Texas secedes and forms a union with the South, I am getting to Michigan as fast as I can.
johnd83
(593 posts)When a state is "conservative", it usually means there is a 55%-45% split (or somewhere around there) between dem/rep. There are some situations where it is starker, but there aren't clear lines that are easily drawn between mentalities. There is also a major generational divide between around <35 and >35. That is where the major split is rather than geographical regions.
Edit: the media tends to hype the differences, but really most Americans don't pay attention and don't care about politics. The differences are highlighted and hyped a lot more than they really are.
Lex
(34,108 posts)And that makes it impractical for a split into parts.
johnd83
(593 posts)Some city suburbs are also very conservative even though the people are educated and wealthy. NY is really a mix of very liberal and very conservative randomly scattered and intermixed.
Lex
(34,108 posts)ONE thing that's really weird about American elections that crops up when you look at voting by precinct or congressional district is how strikingly our cities lean Democratic. Even after yesterday's Republican victories, there's scarcely a major city in America that isn't represented in congress by Democrats. Run down the top 30 incorporated places in America; the only ones represented by Republicans are Fort Worth, Texas and (as of January) Columbus, Ohio. Every other major city in Texas, and in fact every other major city in the South, is represented mainly by Democrats.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)Most of the people who live in the burbs in the northern areas are much more liberal about social issues.
They vote for republicans because they pretend to be fiscal conservative even though by every known measure when self-professed conservatives takes control, deficits rise, inequality is rampant and taxes creep up by transferring taxes to fees...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Their concern over the deficit (more on that in a moment) trumps rational thought. You can point them at the republican record since st. reagan, but it is water off a duck. You can point out that a democrat, clinton, actually brought the annual deficit under control, and that as soon as the republicans got back in control they undid all that and flooded us with new debt, but all you get is crickets. You can bring up the hate agenda of this party and they shrug. You can ask repeatedly what exactly should be cut from the federal budget to bring expenses down to revenue and they cannot answer the question.
What is it with deficit trolls? Who here has been affected in any way by 'the deficit'? We've had a fucking deficit almost every damn year since I was born. At one point we were lied to and told that interest rates would 'go through the roof', and yet we have some of the largest peacetime annual deficits ever, and interest rates are at historic lows. In fact I would welcome an increase in interest rates, plus a bit of inflation to go with them.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)johnd83
(593 posts)Any group that attempts to secede will be labeled terrorists and quickly exterminated.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Or at least, it's one of the many groups that wouldn't allow a breakup. The US Federal government as a whole wouldn't allow it, either. If for no reason other than costs alone at that.
What I find to be head-shaking perplexing, is why so many DUers are all in favor of such an idiotic event? Any time some stupid republican in one of the southern states jokes about secession, we get a flood of DUers egging them on, as if they want the Union to break up even more than the dumbass repubs. I sometimes wonder if the Civil War ever truly ended
Pirate Smile
(27,617 posts)
Brother Buzz
(39,567 posts)New England Puritans, Quaker, Virgina Cavaliers, and the borderers, or backlanders . All covered in his fine book Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: A Cultural History)
Bette Noir
(3,581 posts)Or are you one of those people who think history started when white Americans took over? It ain't necessarily so.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And Hackett Fisher does aknowledge the Native/ Spanish/ Mexican roots of the Southwest. In his work he even admits other historians are better prepared to tackle them. Book is highly recomendable if you have any interest in that period.
left coaster
(1,093 posts)There is archeological proof that there was a seafaring culture that lived in So Cal in 8,000 BC.. For centuries, indigenous and migrant tribes of native peoples thrived along the coastal and inland areas of what would one day be called the greater Los Angeles area. Some 300,000 people made up of mostly Tongva and Chumash, were living here in So Cal, when Cabrillo sailed into San Diego bay and claimed "the island of California" for Spain, in 1542. Mission San Gabriel Arcángel was established five years before the big doings back east in 1776, and not far from the mission, the Spanish also founded the first Euro civilian enclave in the area, the El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles in 1781.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It speaks of regional influences in the US brought about by immigration from specific regions in Britain. It is about what already happened, in the early days of settlement, not what might happen in the future.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Period, end of sentence.
Bette Noir
(3,581 posts)(Don't tell-- so do I.)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but culturally I think we have a lot more in common with northern Canada than with the United States. There's something different about living in the far north.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Geography is not culture, if it was, then Russia would share that culture as well. Does it? And why is it that Canada does not elect folks like Palin, yet other Red American States do?
If Alaskan culture is as you say it is, we the lower 48 would love to see some electoral proof of that pudding anytime now.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)and Lisa Murkowski, who at least tries to be moderate, handily defeated Teabagger Joe, which is a sign that we're not as batcrap crazy as some of the southern states. And, as I mentioned, Alaska's true political nature has been muddied by the introduction of Texas and Oklahoma oil men and their politics into our system. If you do any research on Alaska's history, you'll find that it was a deeply Democratic state at the time of statehood. We have a very progressive state constitution (some would say socialist). Civil rights were guaranteed for our Native population back in 1945 (see Elizabeth Peratrovich), well before civil rights laws were passed in the Lower 48.
I blame everything on Big Oil, and so do a lot of other people, which is why Sarah gained her popularity here. A lot of people forget that she presented herself as a corruption-fighter during her early gubernatorial term, working closely with the Democrats in our state legislature. As for the Permanent Fund, I'd give it up in a heartbeat if Conoco-Phillips, BP and Exxon (not to mention Shell) would just get the hell out. I wouldn't even mind paying state taxes, and I'm not alone in that.
I also want to point out that over the past few years, our Senate has been overseen by a bipartisan majority. There was a 50-50 electoral split, Democrats and Republicans. All the Democrats and some Republicans formed the bipartisan majority, leaving the Tea Party wing in the minority. I like that.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
JVS
(61,935 posts)If anything, it should belong to the federal government.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Over 60% of the state of Alaska is owned by the federal government. The rest is shared between state ownership and Native ownership. A mere 1% of the state is privately owned.
Fla Dem
(27,421 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)No one has seen her in quite a while. If she's here, she's laying low. Her approval rating here is well below the national average.
unblock
(55,911 posts)the north/south division was apparent by the time of independence but that common enemy thing put the domestic differences on the back burner. but as soon as our independence was cemented in the war of 1812, north/south squabbling came to the fore in earnest.
domestic politics became one delicate dance and careful compromise after another in an effort to avoid or at least defer all-out civil war. this worked for decades, right up until, well, it didn't. then even after the civil war, the north/south differences remained, though they took a different form.
arguably, the differences never went away, though again, they took a back burner to more pressing issues, such as completing our slaughter of american indians, stealing land from spain, the world wars, the cold war, etc.
seems the absence of a great international rival has allowed our domestic differences to bubble back up.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)has been going on since the 1820's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)
Cascadia would be home to slightly more than 15 million people (15,105,870), and would have an economy generating more than $675 billion worth of goods and services annually. This number would increase significantly if portions of Northern California, Idaho, and Southern Alaska were also included. Its largest city, Seattle, itself has an economy slightly smaller than Thailand, but larger than Colombia and Venezuela. By land area Cascadia would be the 20th largest country in the world, with a land area of 1,384,588 km² (534,572 sq mi), placing it right behind Mongolia.
A research study by the Western Standard in 2005 found that support for exploring secession from Canada was at 35.7% in British Columbia, and 42% in Alberta. While difficult to gauge support specifically in Washington and Oregon, because no research has been done for those states, a nationwide poll by Zogby International in 2008 found that 22% of Americans now support a state's or region's right to peacefully secede from the United States, the highest rate since the American Civil War. However, none of these studies are specifically about forming an independent Cascadia. The movement saw much discussion in the 1990s, and while the increase in security and American nationalism after 9/11 set back the movement's momentum for some time, the concept has continued to become more ingrained into society and the public consciousness.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)because it's closer to you than it is to the rest of Alaska, and it's already separated from the rest of the state by the Yukon Territory. The rest of Alaska (which would then be without a capital and thus no government) could join up with Canada or we could become our own little country.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)There is a reason I live in Northern California. The whole Northwest Pacific Coast region is progressive. It's almost a different planet from the South or the central tier states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma).
The climate is great. The scenery is fantastic. We have great and varied agricultural production, and that's not even counting the wine and weed.
If the country splits apart, I'm staying right here.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Things are more conservative up here in Southecentral and the Interior, but it's mostly because of all the transplanted Texas and Oklahoma oil men. It never used to be that way here.
aquart
(69,014 posts)So cute the way you envy Europe and the 30 Years War and the Hundred Years War and the World Wars.
Yep, that's the way to go!
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)More likely what we will see is just a continued erosion of most of the things that made the country strong and good, gradual deterioration into large areas of poverty, and perhaps an invasion by another country tired of our prattling.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)and the founders were pretty well aware of them. If I remember right from reading, the theory was that the greatest overall equity and protection of the minority parties from what might be called the "tyranny of the majority" was to embrace a diverse range of people, such that all were minorities in the whole. This would be the opposite of some of the more homogeneous European societal organization, and it explains (among other things) why the constitution was written with the redistricting provisions that it does have.
So there was never any homogenenous "america", and the divisions we have are there more or less by design. There is always a normal human desire to separate out into homogeneous groups of like-minded individuals, forming an exclusive and coherent society without "those others" (whoever they may be), who disturb the internal peace, ease, and privileged status of the majority...but diversity in parts is what the country is built from.
We might not get to relax much, but that's how its always been!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The Traveler
(5,632 posts)
At least, not until I have figured out my exit strategy.
To be clear, Duers, you will NOT kick the South of the Union before I have made good my escape. Clear? Clear. Thank you.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)It'll probably occur the same way again as most people, especially those who ignore science and history, are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
SDjack
(1,448 posts)Everyone is free to sell, buy, and relocate.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Just draw the green line all the way to the East Coast and it's the perfect dividing line even today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missouri_Compromise_Line.svg
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)back in colonial times. Malaria became endemic very early on, and tended to wipe out the labor the colonies needed to prosper. They had to import labor from Africa - the only people on earth with some genetic resistance to the disease - and so (short version!) the character of the country south of that line became different from the character north of the line.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Although not a factor today. Today's issues are still rooted in economics and somewhat about the slavery/working conditions of the population so I see your point.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)I wish it would.
Separate the crazies and the racist and the homophobic Mfers and the rw religious fundies. Hell all the religious in my book.
But then I worry about the vicitims brought up in those societies without hope of enlightenment. To live thinking you were inferior because of your race or gender or orientation. To be barred from voting or health ad or education due to predjucie and whim and fear of those in power. To be taught liberals are evil and you'll rot In hell for questioning the status quo. that you're a sinner or deciant or insane for not buhlieving what you're force fed.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)But seriously - we've had far more divisions in the past and stayed united. Hell, we had a whole fucking civil war and still managed to reunite.
airplaneman
(1,372 posts)The rich get richer and the rest of us keep sinking down. There is then 10 million people living in the streets with another 10 million seeing their fate to join them very soon and another 10 million that don't see any other fate but joining the rest on the streets. We will then see our own form of Syria, Egypt, Libya come to be as a quickly growing mass of people will have nothing to loose. We will have our own suicide bombers and terrorist and chaos. This will result in our own bloodshed and going into a period of chaos, death and destruction. The resulting government will not necessarily be any better but with a lot of people dead the pressure for the remaining resources will have diminished. We are also in overshoot and with global warming and water becoming more scarce the human population will peak and start its decline in the next 10 to 20 years. As a society we are becoming increasingly dysfunctional and are starting to look like we are incapable of coming to terms with what will be a serious decline for society as a whole. I do wish we really do wake up and start moving in the right direction but it seems to me that this is simply not happening. Maybe we will come to our senses as things get worse and worse but I really think we are in serious trouble and by 2100 there will be less than a billion people and still declining. I find it hard to believe the USA will break up and all will be well.
-Airplane
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)doing some type of poll. The divisions are sharp and distinct and growing more so IMO. I was wondering about how the divisions might occur. Through governance, civil war, just people more alike dominating geographical areas, etc. I think it will occur sooner than later. I've never felt such tension in this country.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Name the advantage to ANY part of the US to do something so stupid?
I love completely witless hysteria.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)"witless hysteria" is in the eye of the beholder.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)why? There are indeed rifts.
Also, countries evolve and at times split apart. Not even mighty Rome survived...
Hell, the UK is slowly breaking apart into it's component parts, in a very peaceful manner mind you.
You don't believe me? Look at the Scotts, they now have their own Parliament to deal with all internal matters.
I could see the US coming apart in that same way, slowly and purposely... or in a blood bath. But the divisions are just getting deeper. And no, forget about Johnny Reb and his couter part in the Blue Wools, that is but one of the divisions... there are more. And if that happened, it will not be with formal armies either.
Warpy
(114,385 posts)because we sure as hell can't occupy the same small country with the nutcases in either Texas or Arizona.
It would suit me fine, too.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Otherwise look who WE get stuck with.
Remember that song Stuck In The Middle With You? Well, that's us. We are all we've got. I suppose we could invade Wyoming. Hardly anybody lives there and the liberals would be happy if we did.
Warpy
(114,385 posts)and I can tell you right now there is no way the majority Hispano population here would join a bunch of right wing teabaggers in Texas and Arizona.
Shoot, it's one way to get national health insurance. The IMSS in Mexico is jokingly called "Inimportante Madre Su Salud"* by the locals, but it beats the nothing we have here.
*Your life is of no importance.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)We have to push back very hard on these Christo-Facisists who would take this country to hell with them. They are very powerfully organized ... and they get out the vote. They are especially very powerful in the South. They are as fanatical as any terrorist in the Middle East and Asia .. they plan on replacing the Constitution with the Bible. If there were anything that is driving this country more further apart it is ridiculous religious fanatics.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Right after I move there.
Yeah Its Spin
(236 posts)
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)in the northeast as opposed to catholic. New England specifically.
Amazed by all the southern baptists. I knew there were a lot of them, but I had no idea it was SO prevalent.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)For example, the largest church in Rogers, Arkansas, the largest city in Benton County (extreme northwest corner of the state) is the Catholic Church, which occupies a huge campus. While the mainstream Baptist Church might be the single largest Protestant church in the city, there are many others, including Methodist (2), Wesleyan, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Christian Church, Seventh Day Adventist, Church of the Nazarene, Church of God, and who knows how many others.
BBGC
(61 posts)I want to make a case as to why this country won't breakup into separate nations.
For one thing, the country has been much more divided before. (civil rights movement, civil war, etc.) I suspect that the current divisions are not significant in comparison.
Secondly, most americans wouldn't know how to "divide" the country if they were motivated to even do so. We have americans showing their "support" for an idea via stuffing a fried chicken down their throat. We are not dealing with visionaries here. The vast majority of people have the intellectual capacity of a goldfish. As long as the vast majority of the public has fast food and TV the country will be mostly stable. Bread and circus. It works today just like it worked for the Romans.
Third and finally, most americans don't actually care about politics. Sure, many of them have an opinion. Any uneducated fool has an opinion about everything, but are they going to do anything in support of that opinion? Usually not. Go ask random people on the street what they think of the United States giving humanitarian aid to Brazil. (Don't personally know anything about the subject, just made it up... may not even be happening) Instead of a smart answer, which would be "I don't know about that subject and therefore can't tell you", you'll more than likely have people tell you they are for it or against it with zero knowledge of the issue. Because most americans have an opinion doesn't mean they understand or are motivated by an issue to take action.
I suspect that many of the problems leading to discontent today (read: inability of many people to secure jobs leading to a middle class lifestyle) is largely due to globalization and the lack of americans with the necessary skills to do more than flip a burger. I would suggest researching the statistics as to the percentage of the population with less than a high school education as well as the percentage of the population with little or no higher education. It is truly startling.
My biggest surprise? Why the elite haven't started a war to thin the numbers of those who are not seen by the upper classes as being productive. (I am talking a major WW2 style war) Historically, that would be the normal cycle of events. I was certain it would happen under Bush.
I suspect that many of the problems leading to discontent today (read: inability of many people to secure jobs leading to a middle class lifestyle) is largely due to globalization and the lack of americans with the necessary skills to do more than flip a burger.
Are you saying that the folks that can't find employment is the lack of knowledgeable burger flipping? Should this become a doctorate course?
BBGC
(61 posts)It may be impolitic to say it, but it's the truth. I am not exempt from that criticism either. I have absolutely zero skills when it comes to any of the STEM fields, like most Americans. The fact is, most of the "good" jobs are in those fields today. If India and other nations can supply people who have actual STEM educations, then they will get the jobs. The sooner we acknowledge that and fix our busted education system the sooner we will stand a chance in the world again.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)"The vast majority of people have the intellectual capacity of a goldfish."
That I don't agree with. They (we)have been conditioned not to use what they have, schooled to look to others for validation of our "rightness". The past few thousands years has included some remarkable achievements, by these same people. We have innate capacity which is being underutilized or deliberately re-directed for purposes of control, which means we can train them differently. Just have to figure out how to open the window in their mind, instead of trying to make excuses.
"I would suggest researching the statistics as to the percentage of the population with less than a high school education as well as the percentage of the population with little or no higher education."
Ok, give you that. But there are millions with some or all of a college education who consider it a high point in their day when they can even find a job flipping burgers.
So maybe it's not the lack of education, but the lack of the right kind. Maybe we don't feed the human spirit any longer, don't show people the strength that comes from cooperation, have abandoned each other so the wealthy can feed on us individually.
And in that last paragraph, I don't believe in "upper classes". I do believe in dishonest, venal, greedy and wealthy people, however. And those people, (read "Broke, USA" and some of the recent books on poverty) take billions of dollars every year from "non-productive" people in fees and fines and interest and purchases, and they target those charges to people who make under $30K/yr. How can we call someone non-productive when whole corporations are created to reap billions of dollars in fines and penalties from them, in jail and out? They will have nearly complete control of and power over our lives when everyone is one of those fee-paying machines, whether it is with city parking meter revenue or a mortgage. They are doing their dead-level best to make it happen, and we are letting them (sometimes voting in people who help them). They want more "non-productive" people - read the quarterly reports.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,142 posts)cognizant, worth reading and appreciated.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That's the exact same meme as the Romney supporter who said 'the common people just don't understand'. I reject it no matter which side of the snot box aisle it comes from.
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #179)
BBGC This message was self-deleted by its author.
BBGC
(61 posts)Admitting that you don't know everything is the beginning of wisdom.
Something a (good) college education should teach you is that you don't know sh**. It sure taught me that, and I am a senior at the moment running a 4.0 at a state university with over 150 semester credit hours. Though, I suspect recognizing that I don't know everything is part of the reason I have a 4.0. My peers often tell me that I am "so smart", and my response to them is always "No, I'm not."
The fact is, most people don't know much about most subjects. The ones that THINK they do are usually the ones who are the biggest fools. I don't know if you have a college education, but if you do, and you never figured that out, then I'm sorry for you.
I used to think I understood economics. Had an opinion on everything economics related. By the time I had 9 undergrad credits in economics, I didn't have much of an opinion anymore. Why? I learned I didn't know nearly as much as I thought about the scarcity of resources and the allocation of said resources among unlimited wants.
Nice little phrases like "Buy american!" sound good. The fact is.... It's. Not. That. Simple.
A good natural science education should do the same. At my university, professors made sure to point out common misconceptions in peoples everyday understanding of the world around them. After taking those classes, I felt like a complete idiot because I thought I understood the most simple of natural processes.... The fact is, I didn't.
Trying to take complex issues and solve them with simple little solutions is the biggest mistake a person (or group) can make. Trying to take complex issues and reach simple understandings of said issues is also a mistake.
Most people who make it through undergrad have only touched the surface of their majors. I wouldn't say most people truly understand a field of study until they reach the PhD level, with few exceptions.
Anyway, I often wonder how people who have never intensely studied certain fields can claim to know so much about them. Perhaps that should be the definition of a fool. The fact is, my original claim holds true. Most people don't know much about anything, and that includes me.
Pirate Smile
(27,617 posts)before and during the Civil War. It makes any divisions we have today look like a lovefest.
cali
(114,904 posts)As someone upthread said, who knows what the world will look like in 200 years, but barring the unforeseen extraordinary, this country will not be breaking up into smaller entities anytime within the coming decades. It's not even an interesting theory. It's pure speculation with no foundation.
Response to Justice wanted (Original post)
Post removed
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It would be a pain in the ass to have to deal with Canadian-style border crossings, but an EU-style system of open borders would be OK.
The new countries would allow people to easily choose between living in a low-tax, low-Government-service type of regime, and a more high-tax, high service system.
pampango
(24,692 posts)would make it unlikely that people would want to create a North American "EU". They would be more likely to want to "wall off" the bastards that "we" just separated from.
If the human right to live where one wants were possible in a North American "EU" (like it is in the real EU) people could vote with their feet on what type of society they wanted. That makes me think that it would be the conservative, low-tax, low-benefit new countries that would oppose open borders since it would lead to a loss of population over time which no politician wants to see.
NoPasaran
(17,317 posts)Unless you're going to make people stand in line to get in.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)All the greedy people who care about nothing about how much money they can amass can live by themselves. All the religious fundamentalists can live by themselves, and those who believe in working together and respecting each others privacy and activities that don't infringe on others can live amongst each other. Of course, it's a little simplistic, but hypothetically, it's not hard to guess which group would do he best.
Kablooie
(19,041 posts)and that's not ours.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)or whatever the current population is? That way everyone gets Their Own Country of One.
Marr
(20,317 posts)And more people are realizing that every day, whether they shop at Piggly-Wiggly or Vons, buy "couches" or "devans", eat lutefisk or rellenos.
I'd expect a massive, resurgent labor movement, or possibly even violent riots on Wall Street long before I'd expect to see the breakup of the United States.
TBF
(35,632 posts)due to my proximity here in South Texas I see the libertarians on Facebook every day. These are folks who are lucky if they make 40K a year, and they have decided (with an assist from FAUX news I'm sure) that the government is evil and must be kept out of their lives.
The churches are very influential down here and the loyalty is not to the US. I know there are other free thinkers down here but you've got to really search to find them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)spend billions to foment the less important differences among us....so that we will ignore their impoverishment of us all and blame/turn against one another instead.
agentS
(1,325 posts)Pay SPECIAL attention to the top of page 2.
Having lived in the Dirty Souf for a long time, I would not trust the South with "secession". It would be a drain on the rest of the continent's resources while the good ole boys make their mint off of oil extraction. Basically it would be like Lebanon or Yemen or Nigeria, complete with ethnic/religious violence and cross border shennagins/refugees.
I'm not saying that the people there are all bad, but that the bad people will benefit and the rest will die horribly or flee from their homes into the rest of the Americas.
We're stuck together- it keeps the rest of the continent safe.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And yes, I foresee lots of violence.
ChickFullofHate
(26 posts)What do you have in common with someone living in region (fill in the blank) besides being called American and supposedly being Homo Sapiens?
I know I don’t. The values of say VT are very different then the values of Alabama both places and their respective inhabitants want very different things in life.
The good people of VT have more in common with the people of Quebec or the people of California then Alabama or Virginia.
So what is the value of the current continued agreement between the states?
I see none what so ever.
cali
(114,904 posts)from the values of Maine of MA or Maryland or California and we have language in common- always considered a big commonality. And I'd bet that the inhabitants of Alabama and us Vermonters want a lot of the same things out of life- to be able to work with dignity, to provide for our children and see that they get a good education, etc.
The value of the union? Rather significant still.
ChickFullofHate
(26 posts)OK sure Sparky, they sure do speak, read and write Standard America English down South, why Ole Dubya was a shining example of a Southerners stellar command of American English.
You want to interact with em, go for it, me I no longer will have anything to do with em.
cali
(114,904 posts)and it has nothing to do with interacting with "them".
We live in one country-like it or not- and as Pema Chodron so sagely said: Start where you are. Well, that's where we are, not some fantasy of 3 or 7 or whatever countries.
ChickFullofHate
(26 posts)to change that either for the nation or me personally.
I refuse to have anything do with anyone, any place or any business that does not share my values.
I can easily boycott a chicken sandwich just as I can boycott an entire state.
You want to be part of them or play nice with them, have at, enjoy, I wish you luck...you will need it.
cali
(114,904 posts)to separate nations?
I boycott lots of places. I have little interest in going to places like Alabama (been there, done that), but I'm not so deluded that I think I can split up the country.
ChickFullofHate
(26 posts)but if I did have that America and the world would be a much better place.
can I do it alone, nope, can I do it, I do not know, but what I can do is not participate or deal with people or places I do not like.
For example, I have a family member that for all intents and purposes is dead to me; I have not spoken to them in close to 30 years, I honestly do not know if they are dead or alive nor do I care.
I do the same with a meat sack at work, I refuse to even acknowledge their existence, I totally ignore them they are dead to me.
It drives them nuts too they are getting close to the breaking point too, looking forward to their psychotic break!
zazen
(2,978 posts)I've heard it said that resentment and ongoing rage are like taking poison in order to kill someone else.
Anger is useful in letting us know our boundaries and expectations have been violated. I don't think we're meant to live in it our entire lives.
ChickFullofHate
(26 posts)NoPasaran
(17,317 posts)Or Greatest DU Name?
NoPasaran
(17,317 posts)Ethnically, he's a Yankee.
Ishoutandscream2
(6,773 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I don't see we're all that different.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)is just the growing pains of the right wing minds. They are continually playing catch up with us intellectually and so it only appears we are fracturing. In actuality, they are just evolving and learning at a slower rate than us. The children of right wingers today won't be as immaluable tomorrow as their parents are now. There are little battles going on amonst them at the family scale that will reshape their socio-political outlook. All this noise is just them learning. They will cave before the country is split, I think. If they lose this election, I think that might finally knock the wind right out of them because their predictions of utter disaster if Obama was elected are being thoroughly disproven.
muriel_volestrangler
(105,558 posts)Both because they won't fight each other, and also because none of them would want to become something other than the United States armed forces.
National politicians also won't want to lose the influence they have from being part of the most powerful country in the world. Look at how much European politicians are trying to hang on to the Euro, although it's only been going a few years, and is far smaller in its scope than the whole organisation of the USA.
If you think there's a significant movement for a split, tell me: how much "our region is doing better in the Olympics than yours" is there? How much solidarity is there between different states that would end up in the same region under the divide you foresee? Do we see South Carolinans regarding Louisiana politicians as 'one of us', because of geography (rather than any party affiliation)?
randome
(34,845 posts)In a short time, Congress will be, in a sense, united -Democrats and Republicans versus the Tea Party. The Tea Party is the Id of our collective consciousness. It currently needs some 'treatment' but the patent as a whole is not in danger of fracturing into alternate personalities.
no_hypocrisy
(54,276 posts)You won't get peace and unbridled commerce with Balkanization of the 50 states. You get competition, poverty, even competition for more states to leave their group and join another. Not to mention provocations to engage in military actions by those "well regulated militias" that won't take their marching orders from their government.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Make people from San Francisco get a passport to get to the warm beaches of Southern California.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)were always afraid of will come true. Sharia law in the south by christains and always blaming the north for their troubles.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)which is most common within the regional pockets of its strength.
When this talk comes up I think of this map showing the 2008 electoral map
To me, the core of anti-federalism in the US doesn't seem to be a desire to be sovereign states, but rather sentiments of anti-taxation and anti-regulation. Complaining about these things isn't as much a struggle for independence as it is simply de rigueur.
Reagan tapped into the resentment of social change brought about by civil rights and environmental protections. He set the Republicans on their current course when he said "government is the problem" meaning the federal government.
His statement was general and sufficiently ambiguous for the antifederalists in different regions of the nation to rally around it. It appeals to corporatists and citizens seeking life without conformity to social standards or social responsibilities.
superstring1
(29 posts)Nm
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)With some notable exceptions urban centers even in the South tend to go Democratic. While Rural areas even in the North tend to go Republican. It seems as if it is urban America and rural America who are living in entirely different plains of consciousness than any divide such as South versus North or East versus West.
Election results by county
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
cali
(114,904 posts)and Maine VT and NH are certainly rural but they're mostly blue.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)If we take for example Erie County, PA where I grew up - Erie (a small city - but nonetheless a city) Erie County went for Obama - but that was largely because the city of Erie went for Obama and perhaps some of the closest suburbs - leave that pocket just a few miles - and the areas is overwhelmingly Republican. In fact, New York, PA, Ohio and pretty much everywhere - once you get out of the actual city and its immediate suburbs- you tend to find yourself in GOP strongholds and a much more conservative and perhaps even a much more traditionally religious environment. There are liberal rural areas. But these tend to be either university communities or places that like Vermont or Santa Cruz County, California or even parts of Idaho that became attractive to people who moved in from urban centers or in some cases places that became overspills from cosmopolitan centers - Napa Valley, California for example tends to go Democratic. But that is a very different kind of rural area than cattle raising country.
Part of a the point I want to make is that I disagree with the OP that a split up is probable - partly because - although America is living in different states of consciousness and there does seem to be vastly different America's at least in terms of how people see the world - this divide is not something that offers any conceivable way of drawing a geographic line - such as East/West or North/South. Population demographics change things also. We see places like Virginia or even Utah developing cosmopolitan pockets that reflect the more urban side of America. I cannot imagine any scenario of how to divide America into two separate independent entities separating the areas of higher cosmopolitan consciousness from areas of a more traditional social conservative consciousness.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)My city is very liberal, but my county is very conservative.
All my city representatives are liberals - all my county reps are conservative.
Go figure.
Baitball Blogger
(51,718 posts)I'm about as isolated as anyone can be, living in a right-wing area. If it weren't for the internet I can't imagine surviving it.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)reporting on a group in Iowa (basically Paulnuts) who have made their way into the news cycle largely because the Republicans failed to front their candidate for Senate.
These groups are insidious in the same way that reactionary militias are.
Here is a link to their site so you can get an idea of their thought processes. I'd be interested in educated responses to their reasoning on the legality of their actions. If acted on, is this treason?
http://www.republicofiowa.org/
kickysnana
(3,908 posts)
d_r
(6,908 posts)are as bad as are the posts on right wing sights about splitting up America.
There isn't a STATE that is "blue" or "red."
Some counties are red and some are blue. Basically cities are bluer and the country is redder. But even then, it is usually 45% one and 55% the other. And MOST of the people in both country and city are closer to the "middle" than they are to the "left" or the "right."
We are a nation of purple. Some redder, some bluer, but purple.
Ishoutandscream2
(6,773 posts)who want some of us to go away.
randome
(34,845 posts)...because, in theory, it doesn't require dealing with those we don't like.
'Simplistic' is more accurate because Progressives are everywhere there are Conservatives.
This entire thread is an exercise in venting.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I think every county but one went for Obama in 2008. Dems have a super majority in both houses. We have a dem governor. Our rep is dem. Both our Senators are dems.
I think the splitting up thing is stupid, but let's face it, there's a huge difference between New England, for example, and the deep South.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)lose their way of life. When the South saw that the end of slavery was coming they correctly realized that the end of slavery would mean the end of their traditional way of life. As long as we have a country were socially conservative people can more or less live as they see fit and operate more or less freely in their socially conservative world and conversely as long as more socially liberal minded people can more or less live as they see fit and more or less operate in their more liberal minded community - there is no real reason why a split could occur.
If the tensions between the socially conservative and the socially liberal became so great that a desire for seperation could occur - there would still be the question of where do you draw the lines? I don't see how it would be possible to draw a geographic line separating these different levels of consciousness.
Even still if one community did become convinced that they could no longer protect their way of life and even if it were possible to draw a geographic line - there simply is not any evidence of an economic community that would benefit from such a split. The leaders of American independence had the backing of an economic community that had every reason to see a great advantage in political independence and disadvantage in remaining under British sovereignty. For that matter the Southern aristocracy as the time leading up to the Civil War had every reason to see an advantage in independence and every disadvantage in remaining with the Union.
As divided as Americans are we can still pretty much live as we see fit, operate in our communities pretty much as we see fit, with no definable geographic boarders separating the different world views and certainly with no conceivable vested economic advantage in political separation.
Curtland1015
(4,404 posts)The United States will be no exception. The real question is, when will it break up and why.
Looking through history, the most likely reason will be money. The haves versus the have nots.
Still, even though I do think it is inevitable, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon... and I don't want it to.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)A nation without conservatives would be Utopia.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You think a new nation will not have conservatives in it's mst?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The few conservatives left on the progressive side would lack the power to continue to cause widespread, poverty, suffering, misery, sickness, injustice, inequality, lack of opportunity, environmental devastation, war, and death.
And that is exactly what conservatives do everywhere. They totally impede our evolution with their profound inability to accept and adapt to change, and they keep prevent us from making the world a saner, safer, kinder, freer, cleaner place.
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin
I'd give up a lot to be able to help create a better world without conservatives fighting change every second of the day,
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Countries split. It's not because of conservatives and liberals hating each other. The reasons are much murkier than that.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)We should begin negotiations immediately.
So, btw, like, what are some of these these "murky reasons" you speak of?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Politics, resources. Usually one minority desperate to get "it's way" and the ballot not achieving it. National pride.
In the modern period it usually is preceded, with exceptions, by civil wars.
Civil wars lead to the actual use of that eliminationist rethoric by the way. Politics though rare if ever leads. Ethinic pride and religion do, on the other hand.
I hate eliminationist rethoric because I know the actual results of it.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I got no use for bigots and bullies who do nothing but obstruct progress. I am so done with them and they don't care much for us either. We are not united states.
BootinUp
(50,950 posts)Haven't read it yet, but my initial thoughts are that with a great economic crash that we had, people may tend to move back to where they have more family. Not sure on what scale it will happen or over how long a period of time it will occur, or even if it is a measurable trend. But if it did happen on a significant scale, it would only result in less diversity and that could contribute to whatever will happen.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)I think it will be soon discovered that mini arsenals are being built up and secreted away by fanatics who think the only way is a violent revolution.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)No one particular area has a monopoly on hate, bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, or fear.
It is On Parade in this thread.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I see at least 4 different ethnicities that make op the US:
Yankeedom: Northeast, The Great Lakes, and the Upper Midwest, northern Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Mormon-dominated Interior West.
Greater Appalachia: Appalachia, the Inland South, the Ohio River Valley, southern Missouri, and Northern Texas
Deep South: The old cotton-growing regions.
Left Coast: California, Oregon, and Washington
NoPasaran
(17,317 posts)We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and belongs to ALL of us.
In 2006, my Wife & I moved from Big Blue North (Minneapolis)
to dark Red rural South (Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas).
We claimed our piece,
and aren't going back.
We love it here.
Pristine environment
Fertile, inexpensive land
Abundant clean water
Abundant wild game
Long growing season
Low CoL
Low Winter Energy demands
If you Hate the South,
then don't come here.
The rest of you are invited over for Corn Bread, Green Beans, and Watermelon!
---bvar22 & Strakraven
Turning the South Blue
"One Heart,
One Love"
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Their thesis is that there are four different and distinct generational types in this country, and have been since the late 16th century, coming out of England even before this part of the continent was settled. Where each generation is in its life cycle determines a great deal about what's going on politically, socially, and economically in this country.
The book came out in 1991, which makes it a little dated, but not as much as you'd think, since the last part of the book looks ahead through the end of the 21st century.
I can't begin to do it justice, but essentially we are now pretty much in the middle of a Crisis era, which began on September 11, 2001, although they had no idea exactly when or just how the crisis would start. But they did hope it would be delayed until around 2020, when the various generations were in better alignment to deal with a Crisis. They point out, in rather exquisite detail, that the reason the Civil War was so brutal and so devastated our country for such a long time, was that the various events that precipitated the Civil War occurred sooner than they should have in terms of generational alignment. In fact, that crisis/war was so terrible that one complete generational type didn't even get born, according to them, so we as a country lost a valuable kind of citizen.
Somehow, even though I bring up this book on DU every so often, or tell people I know about it, I am yet to meet anyone who has ever read it. Please, someone here, read it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
And it has some good points by the way.
In my view the most prescient line was the constitutional crisis... I went back and re-read that section recently. Yup, we are in the midst of one.
kurt_cagle
(534 posts)Fourth Turning's definitely worth reading as well. I do think that both Strauss and Howe did have a tendency to cherry pick data points to fit the theory, rather than vice versa, but overall there is some merit to the approach. I use the year 1999 as the dividing line between the Millennials (1980) and what I call the Virtuals, which puts the GenXers starting about 1962 or so and the Boomers into 1944, which fits temperament more consistently than where the demographics sit. It also means that the leading edge of the Boomers are now entering retirement.
We're not in the crisis period yet, but heading there fast. At this stage we're in the societal distrust phase - there's a loss of confidence in our social, government and business institutions, there is no trust in the value of money or those who handle it, it's difficult to push things through politically in one direction or another because there is no one dominant political force or will. Conservatives become radicalized because the world that they know is falling apart, and what had worked previously no longer does, and their natural reaction is towards xenophobia, generalized persecution complexes, and paranoid schizophrenia. Progressives on the other hand feel frustrated because they recognize the need for reform in the system but they can't get the momentum going to make it happen, and there is no compromise in the political forums.
The leading edge of the boomers will become more impotent over time, and the dominance of the Baby Boom generation in politics will go from conducting it to reacting to it (consider that the peak of that movement is now past the midway point). Behind them you have the GenXers now entering into the political sphere. The GenXers for the most part are less political and more technically oriented and generally much more introverted. Obama is actually a pretty classic GenXer, even though he's on the cusp. He was thirteen when the Vietnam War ended, came of age with the rise of the personal computer and networking, and has a far more technically oriented mindset than either Bush or, for that matter, Clinton, who was frequently tweaked for his "wonkiness". He's certainly more technically oriented than Romney, who is a classic Baby Boomer management type (he was born in 1947, almost a full generation apart).
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)In fact, it only intensifies.
Your wish for a divided nation becomes a nightmare when you realize "they" would want the same real estate you do.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I doubt seriously if anyone here (including myself) thinks the nation is going to split up any time soon.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)first off no one can leave without a fight, we've established that.
Second those nations that have split like you say did say after being independent entities forced together by political expediency (like the czechs and the slovaks).
The US grew and developed as one contiguous nation. If we'd (for instance) forcefully incorporated Canada or Mexico recently I could see them pushing hard for a separation. But Americans have no alternate national identity to cling to to spur such a civil war. Not any more.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)About a 1/3 deny it, 1/3 insult the shit out of everybody and only a 1/3 can actually entertain a new idea; and that's on a liberal democratic site, LOL.
It proves the point of the post, the country is extremely divided. Plus, it could be a positive change, 99% of the assumed results are negative. It's possible a split could work out well for all involved.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)The people who have the power always resist the people gaining power. Some of white America is scared shitless about the growing browning of America. They want to hang on to the power they've had up till now. They will be overcome by the Browning and life will continue as before. It's just the dying violent spasms of a few in the growing minority of Whites. They fear they will be treated with the discrimination they themselves abuse minorities with. I doubt that will happen.
kurt_cagle
(534 posts)I've lived in most parts of the country except New England, though have visited that region several times. Overall, it's worth noting that the primary divide that you see is driven largely by rural vs. urban populations, but this presents a problem given the overall structuring of districts based less on population and more on geography.
State representative districts have lately been gerrymandered to such an extent that urban populations have tended to end up getting concentrated into one or two districts while rural and suburban districts are often split into several. The effect of this is to significantly reduce the voting power of the cities in comparison to the rural areas. This has generally meant that the HR has been shifting more and more conservative over time. The Senate has always been conservative, because the two senators per state have given a distinct advantage to the comparatively sparsely populated south and west (except for the coastal areas west of the Rockies).
I do expect the country to break up eventually, probably within the next 40 years, primarily because of resource depletion, decreased mobility and the rapid disintegration of the American Imperium globally. Ironically, I think the idea of a second "Confederacy" is unlikely unless based from Texas, both because I think Appalachia will end up trending blue over time (you see the emergence of this already in the map above) and because the most heavily racist elements in the South (and elsewhere) are in their mid-to-late 60s and older. I think that the big drivers will end up being whether what we're seeing on the Christian right is resurgence or (as I suspect) an increasingly desperate bid for legitimacy.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)the "red staters" among them they are barely holding off and whose politics have a certain gravity on policy.
Very few places where the split is more than 55/45 either way.
I also think even a wand could be waved to just make it so, all new factions would pop up over night. The divisions are more complex than is apparent with the radical regressives in the spotlight.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Better Off without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession
...
Publisher Comments:
Lets talk about secession.
Not exactly the most suitable cocktail party conversation starter anywhere in the country, but take that notion deep into the heart of Dixie and you might find yourself running from the possum-hunting conservatives, trailer-park lifers, and prayer warriors Chuck Thompson encountered during the two years he spent traveling the American South asking the question: Would we be better off without em?
The result is a heavily researched, serious inquiry into national divides which is unabashedly controversial, often uproarious, and always thought-provoking. From a church service in Mobile, Alabama, where the gospel entertainer announces "Islam is upon us!" to a store selling Ku Klux Klan memorabilia on a quaint little street in South Carolina — Thompson lifts the green velvet drapes on a South that would seem to belong more to the time of Rhett and Scarlett than the dawn of the twenty-first century.
By crunching numbers, interviewing experts, and roaming the not-so-former Confederacy, Thompson — an openly disgruntled liberal from the Northwest — makes a compelling case for southern secession. What would the new nations look like if Virginia governor Bob McDonnell was elected as the first President of the Confederate States of America? If a southern electorate was left to fend for itself while the North did damage control on an auto industry decimated by cut-rate, union-defying southern voters for the last hundred years? If the BCS championship football game were replaced by a North vs. South Coca Cola/ Starbucks Blood Bowl™? If Florida went to the South and Texas to the North in the most complex land-and-population grab in American history?
Better Off without Em is a deliberately provocative book whose insight, humor, fierce and fearless politics, and sheer nerve will spark a national debate that is perhaps long overdue.
More:
http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781451616651
onenote
(45,990 posts)100-150 years if a long long time. In 1850 you could probably find folks who thought the country would be split in two by 2000. It was tried. Didn't work out.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
SnohoDem
(1,036 posts)Thinking shorter term, say 10 -25 years, I really don't see it happening without some huge resource issues being the biggest deciding factor - something like some region is doing so much better than the rest of the country that the citizens of that area put aside other political differences and band together to protect themselves from the 'outsiders'.
Demographics will take care of some of it. The country is slowly growing more diverse, not less. We live all over and have family all over and regional identities are probably less strong than they were in the mid 1800s.
As has been pointed out, although we see regional divides, they're not as definitive as they look at first glance.
Given the pervasiveness of the surveillance and security state of America, some region being able to plan and execute an armed rebellion looks almost impossible.
I do see the likelihood of very serious civil unrest over the next 10 -25 years if we don't make some major changes. If enough people fall out of the middle class, and become desperate enough, we could see some real trouble. Think French Revolution more than American Civil War. Global warming, if it continues to worsen as fast as it looks like it might, would put additional pressure on the population as crops fail and certain areas become dustbowls and people move from those areas to others, looking for work and food.
Thanks for the OP. It prompted me to re-read 'Ecotopia' for the first time in about 35 years.