Infamous rivalries---is our society becoming Hatfield/McCoy type rivals?
There is much 'hatred' of the 'other side' that's sorta scary.
Rounding up drumpf voters using our 'Rainbow Warriors' --- and then what?
Tatoo's? Cages? Underground railways for refugees?
Are we to become a nation as described by Sinclair Lewis in "It Can't Happen Here" in a fictional 1935.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here
>"Plot
In 1936 Senator Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic and power-hungry politician, wins the election as President of the United States on a populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness, and promising each citizen $5,000 a year. Portraying himself as a champion of traditional U.S. values, Windrip defeats President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Democratic convention, then easily beats his Republican opponent, Senator Walt Trowbridge, in the November election.
Though having previously foreshadowed some authoritarian measures in order to reorganize the United States government, Windrip rapidly outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps, and trains and arms a paramilitary force called the Minute Men, who terrorize citizens and enforce the policies of Windrip and his "corporatist" regime. One of his first acts as president is to eliminate the influence of the United States Congress, which draws the ire of many citizens as well as the legislators themselves. The Minute Men respond to protests against Windrip's decisions harshly, attacking demonstrators with bayonets. In addition to these actions, Windrip's administration, known as the "Corpo" government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by "Corpo" authorities, usually prominent businessmen or Minute Men officers."<
So I googled 'infamous rivalries' --> http://whatculture.com/history/10-deeply-personal-historical-rivalries
"Humans are social creatures. We have a need to involve others in our lives, to spread ideas and work with our fellow man. Sometimes this social requirement works in our favor – we worked together to get to the moon, and we invented pie! But occasionally our need for social interaction means we come across someone that we wish would just... catch on fire.
There is sometimes a logical origin to a feud. When two people of differing beliefs are in a similar position, it's entirely understandable that they may butt heads. This tends to be why organised sports produces the best rivalries, each side wants to win and by winning can prove their superiority. Outside of sports, though, people have found some ridiculous reasons to battle, both physically and mentally.
Many of the following entries need a lot of historical context to truly understand why these people fought, and unfortunately this context is sometimes lost within the fog of time or hearsay. It's difficult to say who was right and who was wrong - this is subjective - but what is fair to say is that the inevitable feud that followed, although predicated on logic, became something far more venomous as time went on.
There are two sides to every argument and it's up to the judge to decide who wins; in this context, you are the judge.
Three examples from that site:
6. Nikola Tesla Vs. Thomas Edison: The Most Electrifying Men In History
9. Leonardo Da Vinci Vs. Michelangelo: Pain(ts) In Each Other's Side
10. Cato Vs. Caesar: Keep The Rome Fires Burning
Or would becoming separatist/secessionist as described in Callenbach's "Ecotopia Emerging" be a more favorable possibility?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia_Emerging
"But without these alternate visions, we get stuck on dead center.
And we’d better get ready. We need to know where we’d like to go.”
Other than that, what does your "Utopia" look like?
It seems to me we're becoming the haves/havenots. Stuck in the 'NOW'.
= new reply since forum marked as read
