Another Civil War?

[Mister Silver]

If there's another civil war, can Trump be the new Jefferson Davis?

 

[gnomon]

That's a zero with icing & sprinkles.

Dear God there is some reason here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dear God there is some reason here.

Doesn't happen often.
I try to avoid it.

 

[gnomon]

Doesn't happen often.
I try to avoid it.

True wisdom.

I will waltz out of this thread.

But I prefer chocolate filled. With the chocolate glaze.

 

[Revoltingest]

True wisdom.

I will waltz out of this thread.

But I prefer chocolate filled. With the chocolate glaze.

Here you go.....

 

[gnomon]

Here you go.....

Can't quite quote the Homer.........

But that's a good glaze.............

 

[gnomon]

**** it........

I don't won't to ruin feelings.....

I'll take my doughnut and run on this thread.

Nice glaze.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is becoming more and more clear to me -- as a Canadian -- that the divisions in the United States are becoming starker. Worse, you're now at a point where the leadership of the nation is making zero effort to bring bitter differences together, but rather to fan the flames of those differences. And I don't believe the departure Bannon will greatly diminish that, since Trump himself has a long history of exactly that sort of language.

So here's my question: given that:

• everybody in the United States these days seems angry about something, and
• everybody in the United States these days seems divided primarily by their racial, religious and sociological differences, and
• (most importantly) everybody in the United States these days has a gun

How do you rate the probability of another civil war?

It seems to me you watch too much cable news.

 

[idav]

It is becoming more and more clear to me -- as a Canadian -- that the divisions in the United States are becoming starker. Worse, you're now at a point where the leadership of the nation is making zero effort to bring bitter differences together, but rather to fan the flames of those differences. And I don't believe the departure Bannon will greatly diminish that, since Trump himself has a long history of exactly that sort of language.

So here's my question: given that:

• everybody in the United States these days seems angry about something, and
• everybody in the United States these days seems divided primarily by their racial, religious and sociological differences, and
• (most importantly) everybody in the United States these days has a gun

How do you rate the probability of another civil war?

What would be more likely is garnering enough support for a constitution rewrite, which they need a majority of states to implement.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/the-koch-brothers-want-to-rewrite-the-constitution-they-may-succeed/

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems to me you watch too much cable news.

Actually, I watch hardly any television at all. However, I do spend considerable time reading newspapers, studying history, studying human nature, and so on. And that has led me to understand how difficult it is to predict the outcomes of human behaviours. In post #20 I used the establishment of Christianity over the Roman World in the 4th century -- which everybody and his dog would have proclaimed a ridiculous idea just before it happened. The Christians were a tiny, universally reviled sect, fewer even than the Jews in the empire. Yet it happened.

Here's another example -- a few hundred Spanish Conquistadors conquered millions of Aztecs in the 16th century. Looked at from the point of view of anybody alive at the time, it would have seemed an absolutely ludicrous notion that it could happen. Until it did.

One lesson I have learned, and learned deeply (and you're not going to like it): we humans, as "social animals" are easily led, easily swayed and duped. Strong, or charismatic, leaders can convince large numbers of us to do the most absurd things. In large part, this is because we have an internal, visceral reaction against straying from the herd. Yet those very "strong or charismatic leaders" are doing exactly that -- they're straying from the herd, and then getting the herd to follow.

And we all too often do. Read history.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And we all too often do. Read history.

With your claims, while America certainly is divided, not everyone is angry (though most are certainly unhappy with the current state of the State), and most certainly not everyone owns a gun. Rather, a handful of individuals own so many guns that it really ups the amount of "average guns per person" statistic. Take those extreme outliers out of the equation, and we'd have a much clearer picture on who owns guns in America and how many.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

With your claims, while America certainly is divided, not everyone is angry (though most are certainly unhappy with the current state of the State), and most certainly not everyone owns a gun. Rather, a handful of individuals own so many guns that it really ups the amount of "average guns per person" statistic. Take those extreme outliers out of the equation, and we'd have a much clearer picture on who owns guns in America and how many.

But you are not seeing something else -- for which I am largely responsible, because I have deliberately not said it -- and it has to do largely with this idea of "most people." In every era of human history, everywhere we've ever lived, the great majority of people have not been concerned with all these "great matters of state." Most of us are concerned with getting enough food to go on, making sure the kids are okay, trying not to get into lethal feuds with the neighbours, and basically just trying to live.

Human history is not written by "most people." Human history is written by a very few people who find one way or another to live off the endeavours of "most people," and then try to shape the world for their own advantage. Religious leaders do that (they live off us through the collection plate or equivalent). Political leaders do that (they live off us through their emoluments, which they get whether they're supposed to or not).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But you are not seeing something else -- for which I am largely responsible, because I have deliberately not said it -- and it has to do largely with this idea of "most people." In every era of human history, everywhere we've ever lived, the great majority of people have not been concerned with all these "great matters of state." Most of us are concerned with getting enough food to go on, making sure the kids are okay, trying not to get into lethal feuds with the neighbours, and basically just trying to live.

Human history is not written by "most people." Human history is written by a very few people who find one way or another to live off the endeavours of "most people," and then try to shape the world for their own advantage. Religious leaders do that (they live off us through the collection plate or equivalent). Political leaders do that (they live off us through their emoluments, which they get whether they're supposed to or not).

I don't argue those points, but when it's coming along with points that are heavily distorted, things don't match up. And with the current state of affairs in America, I don't see another civil war anytime soon. We still have a middle class, our hungry are still powerless, and we have an attitude that is rather reluctant to change anything (seriously, the "change" people wanted still came from the Dem and Rep party, with third parties, as usual, getting hardly anything worth mentioning).
I don't doubt for a second that America is in decline, and history will remember this period, along with the past several decades and the foreseeable future, as the Rise and Fall of the American Empire. And much like Rome, I don't think we'll have too many internal wars, but we'll be plagued with wars with foreigners and spreading the military too large and too thin (as we have been for some time now).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't argue those points, but when it's coming along with points that are heavily distorted, things don't match up. And with the current state of affairs in America, I don't see another civil war anytime soon. We still have a middle class, our hungry are still powerless, and we have an attitude that is rather reluctant to change anything (seriously, the "change" people wanted still came from the Dem and Rep party, with third parties, as usual, getting hardly anything worth mentioning).

As I recall, that would not be an inapt description of France, before their rather well-known revolution.

I don't doubt for a second that America is in decline, and history will remember this period, along with the past several decades and the foreseeable future, as the Rise and Fall of the American Empire. And much like Rome, I don't think we'll have too many internal wars, but we'll be plagued with wars with foreigners and spreading the military too large and too thin (as we have been for some time now).

Well, that doesn't bode any better for you future (and mine, as your northern neighbour) than a revolution does, in my opinion.