Civil War

[skirtboy]

Do you think that, as a nation, the US is closer to or further away from the possibility of a second civil war as opposed to twenty years ago? Many divisive issues have been repeatedly raised, civil rights are being strained in ways that haven't been seen since the first civil war, and support for the government is at the lowest since the mid 1970's. On the other hand, several divisive issues have been either put to rest or buried for a considerable length of time. The debate over gun rights has been buried for the forseeable future, race relations have been improving steadily after the post 9/11 deciline in said relations, and it has become extremely difficult to impose significant degrees of restrictions on the flow of information, as there are so many new ways to communicate.

Thoughts?

 

[Incognitus]

Don't won't be a "civil war", per se. There will be break-away "Anti-American terrorist cells run by the New (White) Al Qaeda". Whether or not they *are*... well... obviously that remains to be seen.

 

[So fist]

Thoughts?

The central question of this thread is dumb, but nonetheless I'll leave it open.  I'm guessing your citation low government support in twenty years is a reference to the Bush's approval ratings, but approval ratings are not tantamount to public loyalty to the government.  As established by longstanding tradition president's aren't permanent.  The other fallacy of approval ratings are that they somehow measure effectiveness as a president.  Which is also silly.  All it tells you is how popular the man was at that given point in time.  Harry S. Truman was our least popular president, but many historians would put him as an extremely important figure in the post WWII era.  And many would say that his leadership lead to a lot of good things for America and its position as a global power. 

Second your assumption that somehow the government hasn't been autocratic about civil liberties and freedoms since the civil war smacks of ignorance.  During world war II the government basically controlled the media.  They went so far as to censor the letters to and from soldiers on the front.  The media knew nothing of what was going on except what the government allowed them to know.  That is an unequivocal fact of the matter.  And Generally they went on for the ride because by and large the moguls bought that we were fighting the greatest evil of the century.  The government also used its resources to promote massive propaganda campaigns to promote involvement in war industries, enlistment, resource rationing, and anti-spying campaigns.  The latter in particular encouraged people to NOT talk about the war in public and of course to report any suspicious activity.

All these facts alone make WWII era USA more repressive than War On Terror USA and I haven't even included the fact that WWII USA involved itself in the largest forced incarceration and internment of people based on ethnicity since the Trail of Tears.  People of asian descent were rounded up en masse and forced to live in concentration camps to keep the US safe from them.  It is perhaps the grossest single act of tyranny this nation has visited on citizens and resident aliens in this country. 

But whatever.  I mean people receiving calls from people on terror watch lists are being listened in on by the government!  Despicable!  I want to talk to the Shoe Bomber in private please, thanks.  Its laughable to compare the two eras.  They were doing it in WWII.  Its just that the media couldn't comment on it.  Which is why the memories are fonder.

So civil war?  Only in the minds of the people at stormfront praying for race war and che idolizing weathermen wannabees of the left.

 

[Venetia]

People of asian descent were rounded up en masse and forced to live in concentration camps to keep the US safe from them.  It is perhaps the grossest single act of tyranny this nation has visited on citizens and resident aliens in this country.

Well aside from slavery >_>

... wow, between the native americans, black people, asians, (and, currently, the mexicans), ... :/

 

[So fist]

Slavery isn't post civil war.  Though the black codes of post reconstruction era pre jim crow segregation came close to institutionalized internment.

Plus you can't forcibly intern things you legally own.  Your just putting it away so to speak. ^^

 

[Incognitus]

Plus you can't forcibly intern things you legally own.  Your just putting it away so to speak. ^^

Woah! NICE LOOPHOLE! :D

This is the Symposium, not nfg. Please try to maintain at least a little professionalism and respect? ~gratheo

He does respect me. A little tongue in cheek is fine now and then.  ~The Great Terror

Ah, my apologies then. ~gratheo

What, my go? Is this thing on? *ahem* You should be so lucky Sophist. ~Incognitus

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

There can't be a civil war nowadays.
First off we live comfortable lives as a majority.  Even our struggling poor - like myself, have mostly comfortable lives compared to what our level would be elsewhere.  We have information everywhere, and have become apathetic on it, it's not as easy to tell someone "this is what we're doing, and it's going to completely change your lives in a hugely dramatic way that could ruin many of you" in today's age.

Which essentially is what made a lot of people fight the first civil war.
Free labor vs. paid labor.  It's what got many to go around demanding a succession, and then sprouting propaganda to get the less learned (such as average every day folk in the day) to take up arms.  Pure racism excluded, the majority of people in power who supported separation and then war baring defense were those who would lose the most.

What massive life changes are we making today?
You can't smoke in California bars or in New York bars?  The price of gas?  The price of dairy?  Removing transfats or whatever from fast food chains?  Going to war?  Ahh, there ya go - going to war.

Here's the thing.  No one screaming bloody murder about a war with a heart on their sleeve is going to start a war.  A mob mentality might erupt - that's easy, but starting a war is very difficult.  A panic could spread and a peaceful protest can shift, a riot can break - but the closest you'll get to a civil war is the LA Riots and the Harlem black out when people looted and went after police.

Our intelligence isn't wholly fed to us anymore.  The simple fact that anyone can go on the internet and look up any skewed theme they want gives way too much freedom to allow the former centuries control, where things could be hidden away and blackfolded so no one would hear.  We have kids who are 13 years old going around and blogging about local industrial waste practices, and they nearly as equally informed as those signing off on it.  Citing laws, requirements, loopholes, etc.

Every war we've had in the "modern times" from Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War etc, we had at least a touch of sympathetic and unaligned information left of center to the government.  We had people say "NO!" out loud, and nothing happened.  The babyboomers, hippies, beatniks, discotech veterans of the dance floor, whoever you wanna blame one of them grew up and changed things, I'm not sure when it happened it seemed to go so smoothly it doesn't really matter to find a focal point.  Free speech practically became just that, somewhere along the line, and it still stands for the majority of us.

Our world is so much smaller.  We don't have to go trooping across hills as far and as well as we once had to, a lot has changed.  Small towns have disappeared from some places entirely, and in other places where you would know everyone you really still only know half.  A neighborhood could have different ranks of social and economical ranges, as opposed to the rich guy and his friends plus everyone else who'll feed of them.

Best of all, and here's the killer for a civil war... we're not oppressed enough.  We aren't being hurt.  Our liberties and freedoms may be swindled away bit by bit, it may be wholly ignored in circumstance - but we, the everyday people who won't be making newlines or protesting the possibilities of what could happen, well, it's not affecting us one bit.  I've never been affected at all by any lose of freedom, or any radical idea.

I'm not going to say if these ideologies, either side of the whole losing freedom deal, is true or not or give my opinion - but even if it's as bad as either side says it is, it hasn't affected me one bit.  And I'm certainly not going to risk getting shot over it.

 

[xayoz306]

Random thoughts and points in terms of a civil war:

The concept of a Civil War is one that has been bandied around for a while, but the main concern would be the infringement of the federal government on the rights of the individual states (That is the main cause of the first Civil War).

Now, with the situations where a state voted for a specific nominee for president, but the election was won by a nother person (i.e. the 2000 election), there is a possibility of the imposition of the will of certain states being imposed on the remainder of the country. In this situation, you would see a much more fractious split of the country than what you did back in 1861, as there are numerous regional identities and causes held by the various nations.

Having an informed public is not something that will prevent a war, but rather, is a cause of revolutions (see French Revolution; Marxist Revolutions, etc...). And the trampling of rights doesn't necssarily create that opression. The mentality of the general populace is one of "meh, I can gripe, but what's gonna happen".

Of course, with the lack of oratory in this day and age, you will never see one single person who can capture an entire audience with his words. The power of words, written and spoken, have been the key cause of nearly every revolution/civil war.

 

[___]

I would not doubt if fundamentalist groups, who are feeling increasingly marginalized by the more pluralistic majority, turn to civil disobedience and eventually "terrorism" on a larger scale in the next several decades. The problem with these groups is that their anger is highly individualistic; they cannot hope to find common ground sufficient to form a cohesive force, take and hold territory and form a government. It's hard to imagine ELF, ALF, fundamentalist Christian groups (who don't even get along with eachother), neo-fascist/neo-nazi, muslim, anarchist, and various other anti-government splinters banding together long enough to agree on what exactly to attack, let alone form a full-fledged rebellion. The rest of us are calm and rational enough to agree to disagree on many points and have enough faith in the political process that we don't need to try to overthrow it.

The idea of a strict cultural divide between conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, christians and non-christians, or whatever else you like is entirely fallacious anyway. Republican and Democrat leaders, behind their rhetoric, agree on more points than they disagree, and they all go to the same country clubs and attend the same dinner parties when they're not slinging mud at eachother in public fora. Overthrowing the government is not even a thought in their mind.

Nut-job televangelists like Pat Robertson would probably have the audacity to call Christians to rebellion if they got fed up enough, though right now they're happy to settle for claiming responsibility for natural disasters via divine authority. The problem is that the conceit that they actually speak for the majority of Christians in our country, or have enough influence over them to incite rebellion, is laughable at best. The truth is that they're cranky, wealthy old men who have less influence as individuals than Oprah, but reach a different demographic. Other religious groups just don't have the volume to start a rebellion.

As for ethnic divides, the idea of an ethnic revolution in this country is tough to even entertain. I'm not sure I want to try to discuss it.

 

[Incognitus]

Nut-job televangelists like Pat Robertson would probably have the audacity to call Christians to rebellion if they got fed up enough, though right now they're happy to settle for claiming responsibility for natural disasters via divine authority.

Nah. Robertson is very much an establishment businessman marketing a product. The idea he'd call for a Christian rebellion is absurd. Same with Hagee.

 

[___]

In today's climate I agree. I can picture a world where regulatory law and social disgust would make their business difficult enough and their product unmarketable enough that they'd attempt to incite civil unrest as a means of creating political pressure for a more favorable environment. They already use their influence to constantly spread disinformation and avoid legal repercussions for some of their less-savory activities; Pat Robertson alone has avoided several legal entanglements through political pressure (it's hard to get reelected in the bible belt if you accuse and prosecute people like Pat Robertson of some of the frankly disgusting things they've allegedly done) and used his influence in the media to suppress coverage.