[Studlock]

Cause, on 04 December 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Gothos, on 04 December 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Terez, on 04 December 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Sombra, on 04 December 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

The more I read about the USA situation the more depressed I get. You guys are a seriously fucked up fractured-and-barely-holding-together-with-chewing-gum-and-sticky-tape society.

Every time I read a comment like this from a non-American I am reminded of carnivores with the scent of blood. Not to imply anything or neo-Godwin the thread, but I see that kind of comment on Al Jazeera more than anywhere else. We get it; the rest of the world can't wait for the empire to fall. Many of us can't wait either, but as a country I think we are probably more resilient than we get credit for. Don't be so anxious to count us out.

In my opinion, we're reaching a sort of tipping point in the information age where millions of very ignorant people will have more difficulty staying that way. This is my opinion because I was one of those people. Not to imply that I don't still have more ignorances than I know what to do with, but there was a post in this thread not too long ago, now deleted, which rather demonstrated the point. It will take a little time, but it will happen.

I'll say I'd rather the empire didn't fall. I'd rather power would shift back to the lower echelons of society, not the famed 1% that currently holds it by the curlies. And I'd rather you don't implode because then that bunch of psychos east of here will have a brand new playground.

Russia, the middle east? So many possible psychos

Did the Middle East become a united country when I wasn't looking? Iran joined with IS, joined with Israel, joined with Saudi Arabia, joined with Afghanistan? Like some kind of cartoonish Hydra-type evil alliance?

Personally I'd be much more afraid of the states that emerged out the former USA than any external enemies. Their's clearly a lot of political will to make visible minorities, women, queerfolk, and other non-white straight men into second, third class citizens. The South and Texas in particular would be horrendous. The Midwest wouldn't be great either.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 04 December 2014 - 01:18 PM

[Gothos]

Cause, on 04 December 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Gothos, on 04 December 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Terez, on 04 December 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Sombra, on 04 December 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

The more I read about the USA situation the more depressed I get. You guys are a seriously fucked up fractured-and-barely-holding-together-with-chewing-gum-and-sticky-tape society.

Every time I read a comment like this from a non-American I am reminded of carnivores with the scent of blood. Not to imply anything or neo-Godwin the thread, but I see that kind of comment on Al Jazeera more than anywhere else. We get it; the rest of the world can't wait for the empire to fall. Many of us can't wait either, but as a country I think we are probably more resilient than we get credit for. Don't be so anxious to count us out.

In my opinion, we're reaching a sort of tipping point in the information age where millions of very ignorant people will have more difficulty staying that way. This is my opinion because I was one of those people. Not to imply that I don't still have more ignorances than I know what to do with, but there was a post in this thread not too long ago, now deleted, which rather demonstrated the point. It will take a little time, but it will happen.

I'll say I'd rather the empire didn't fall. I'd rather power would shift back to the lower echelons of society, not the famed 1% that currently holds it by the curlies. And I'd rather you don't implode because then that bunch of psychos east of here will have a brand new playground.

Russia, the middle east? So many possible psychos

Excuse me, but the "middle east" isn't much of a threat to anyone but themselves at the end of the day. So yeah, Muscovy.
If you stop poking "the middle east", they'll eventually bugger off. Muscovites in the absence of any opposition would just push harder.

[Cause]

I was genuinely asking who you meant. There is a ton of awkward political situations/political groups/political ideologies to the east of Poland and none of them seem like a real threat to start doing bad things in North America. I could have include China amongst many others.

@Studlock- Stop being a child. The middle east a geographical area located at the confluence of Africa, Asia and Europe (I trust you know these regions). It includes all the countries you mentioned and many more. Though you did so facetiously its mention made you think of ISIS, Israel and Iran so how was its use inappropriate?

[Terez]

It's not that they will do bad things in America. It's that they will do bad things in Europe in the absence of American power. Not that our power has done much to hold Putin back recently. Maybe a little. There's a thread for that discussion.

[Studlock]

Cause, on 04 December 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

I was genuinely asking who you meant. There is a ton of awkward political situations/political groups/political ideologies to the east of Poland and none of them seem like a real threat to start doing bad things in North America. I could have include China amongst many others.

@Studlock- Stop being a child. The middle east a geographical area located at the confluence of Africa, Asia and Europe (I trust you know these regions). It includes all the countries you mentioned and many more. Though you did so facetiously its mention made you think of ISIS, Israel and Iran so how was its use inappropriate?

Because you generalized a whole bunch of opposing political and ideological states and groups into the 'Middle East' (say Israel, ISIS, and Iran), and then followed it up with the super helpful, 'so many possible psychos' which in turned paints every state or group within the Middle East as 'psychos'. The Middle East has never been a useful geopolitical term, I doubt it ever will be because everyone means something different when they say it. I apologize that I was terse, it's a pet peeve of mine, the generalization of geopolitical areas based solely on outside interaction with that area (Africa seeing the worst of this).

@Terez, if America did fall apart, which I doubt think will really happen, some of the newly formed states would immediately become the most powerful in the world. The East Coast for instance would still probably be a military superpower capable of waging war with Russia if need be. Kind like how the Eastern Roman Empire still held on to much power after the collapse of the Western half.

That being I said I hope it doesn't come to that, the collapse of USA would create a massive humanitarian crisis, specifically in area's of high levels of poverty. I sincerely hope these latest rounds of protests (and I mean the general protests that surround the police shootings) bring upon some kind of reform, be that reform the training and hiring of police officers, or the reform in how fatal shootings are handled when they involve a police officer. Hopefully both.

[QuickTidal]

Since it's related to insane police misconduct: How does the Eric Garner result happen? How does a case that has NONE of the legal gray areas that the Ferguson case does...happen and the cop gets off. There is video. We watch him do what he does. The coroner calls it a homicide. And yet the guy gets off. What the everloving fuck is going on in this world?

[QuickTidal]

Studlock, on 04 December 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

Kind like how the Eastern Roman Empire still held on to much power after the collapse of the Western half.

History sidebar: I don't know that this is an apt analogy. The Eastern Roman Empire only existed as long as it did after the fact because of the walls of Byzantium/Constantinople which were too thick to siege. They were literally assaulted from all sides for all the rest of its years...and this included a changing of the Emperor on an almost yearly to bi-yearly basis a lot of the time. And they certainly would never reach the offensive legionary power that Imperial Rome had when it was united. Byzantine armies were handed their asses more often than not when they went out into the field, only surviving because the walls of their capitol were so thick when they retreated. At best they held onto a politically high-minded power and educational power...but were no longer a severe military one or a threat.

[Studlock]

QuickTidal, on 04 December 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

Studlock, on 04 December 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

Kind like how the Eastern Roman Empire still held on to much power after the collapse of the Western half.

History sidebar: I don't know that this is an apt analogy. The Eastern Roman Empire only existed as long as it did after the fact because of the walls of Byzantium/Constantinople which were too thick to siege. They were literally assaulted from all sides for all the rest of its years...and this included a changing of the Emperor on an almost yearly to bi-yearly basis a lot of the time. And they certainly would never reach the offensive legionary power that Imperial Rome had when it was united. Byzantine armies were handed their asses more often than not when they went out into the field, only surviving because the walls of their capitol were so thick when they retreated. At best they held onto a politically high-minded power and educational power...but were no longer a severe military one or a threat.

This is way of topic but you would have to look at the era, it did last a 1000 years after the fall of Rome after all, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say it only lasted because the strong walls of it city. Under the rule of Justinian I reconquered many former holdings (Belisarius was a hell of military commander), and had pretty good military outings until around the 11th century, and between the 7th century and the 11th century I think we could consider the Eastern Romans a military powerhouse. There problem was that constant war on their Eastern border, be that the Caliphate, or Ottomans, or even the Persians before that. That and the constant struggle of succession which I don't think would effect the Eastern seaboard of the former USA as bad. That being said all analogies break down, at the Roman Empire wasn't the greatest military forces at the time it collapsed, and if the USA fell tomorrow, it would fall as the most powerful military force that every existed, and a large part of that would be tied up in the East. (nerdsidenote: make belief future-history is fun.)

[QuickTidal]

Studlock, on 04 December 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 04 December 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

Studlock, on 04 December 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

Kind like how the Eastern Roman Empire still held on to much power after the collapse of the Western half.

History sidebar: I don't know that this is an apt analogy. The Eastern Roman Empire only existed as long as it did after the fact because of the walls of Byzantium/Constantinople which were too thick to siege. They were literally assaulted from all sides for all the rest of its years...and this included a changing of the Emperor on an almost yearly to bi-yearly basis a lot of the time. And they certainly would never reach the offensive legionary power that Imperial Rome had when it was united. Byzantine armies were handed their asses more often than not when they went out into the field, only surviving because the walls of their capitol were so thick when they retreated. At best they held onto a politically high-minded power and educational power...but were no longer a severe military one or a threat.

This is way of topic but you would have to look at the era, it did last a 1000 years after the fall of Rome after all, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say it only lasted because the strong walls of it city. Under the rule of Justinian I reconquered many former holdings (Belisarius was a hell of military commander), and had pretty good military outings until around the 11th century, and between the 7th century and the 11th century I think we could consider the Eastern Romans a military powerhouse. There problem was that constant war on their Eastern border, be that the Caliphate, or Ottomans, or even the Persians before that. That and the constant struggle of succession which I don't think would effect the Eastern seaboard of the former USA as bad. That being said all analogies break down, at the Roman Empire wasn't the greatest military forces at the time it collapsed, and if the USA fell tomorrow, it would fall as the most powerful military force that every existed, and a large part of that would be tied up in the East. (nerdsidenote: make belief future-history is fun.)

Having recently read two books about Byzantium and the topic, I really don't think they were a threat like you implied that the US states might be after a fall. That's all I was pointing out. And yes, NerdHistory way off topic!

[Studlock]

No, probably not, but I think it's the best comparison looking at Western History.

Back on topic, I was watching some video of the protest in New York, and the chant "I can't breath" absolutely broke my heart. Not only was it Eric Garner last words, I think it sums up what living as a African American must be: suffocating, always watching, always weary. I honestly hope that this ends peacefully but I really doubt. Rare is the peaceful transaction of power (which I believe is the only way this situation is fixed, award more power to African Americans as a society and government).

[HiddenOne]

How would you accomplish that, Studlock?

[Nicodimas]

Quote

award more power to African Americans as a society and government

Wait. How does this occur? Give them their own Representation in Government? Or give them their own Nations <like Native American's have> ? Curious here.

[amphibian]

Ta-Nehisi Coates's thought was to give African Americans reparations. http://www.theatlant...rations/361631/

It's mostly a rhetorical device, but it does get one seriously thinking about how badly the groups and systems Americans have put into place have treated minorities in the US for 350+ years.

[Nicodimas]

@ Ampibibian

Reparations haven't worked out that well. Currently, I believe to my knowledge the Native American's walked away from the table in 70's and never accepted the money granted for the Dawes Act/Reorganization. Though it's been awhile since I looked at this information.

History wise have any countries been good at assembling minorities? Obviously, America was supposed to be the big melting pot and in some ways its worked and others mentioned before show the very nature of the beast that is Federal Power. Probably why I would like the states to be granted more..etc

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 04 December 2014 - 09:31 PM

[amphibian]

Nicodimas, on 04 December 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

Reparations haven't worked out that well. Currently, I believe to my knowledge the Native American's walked away from the table in 70's and never accepted the money granted for the Dawes Act/Reorganization. Though it's been awhile since I looked at this information.

If you read the TNC piece on reparations (long, I know), he goes into where and when reparations have been paid. The Israeli GDP tripled after Germany started paying it reparations post-WWII. There's other examples stretching from fairly recent history all the way back to the development of weregild and similar concepts.

The Japanese-Americans nearly got reparations a few times over the last 30 years for their WWII internment.

Native Americans really do deserve reparations for the looting of their lands, their graves, their families and their abysmal treatment at the hands of white settlers/US gov't/army. I'm not informed on the 1970s era negotiations/issues, but I'll take a look at them soon.

There actually is something to be said for reparations and the acceptance of them as a nation that starts a healing process. Yes, the post-WWI reparations didn't work out so well, but that may have been a unique feature of 1) way too much being paid to unfriendly jerk gov'ts 2) a German national non-acceptance of the reason for paying reparations in the first place.

[Terez]

Again, we will begin to see real change when the demographics shift, particularly in the Old Confederacy where most of those descended from slaves still live. That will happen relatively soon, perhaps in a decade. The South has always had outsize political power, and it has always been white power. The increase in the Latino population is helping to shift the balance.

[HiddenOne]

Who is supposed to come up with the funding for the reparations?

[EmperorMagus]

HiddenOne, on 04 December 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

Who is supposed to come up with the funding for the reparations?

The US government has 17 trillion in debt, a couple of billions more won't hurt anyone.

But, to be serious, that piece was really good because it explained to me how people in the US act the way they do in the face of injustice, as in a lot of them don't believe any injustice is happening.

[Nicodimas]

HiddenOne, on 04 December 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

Who is supposed to come up with the funding for the reparations?

I think we can safely say, money is no longer a concern..we just will print it!! Seems to be working well, what could go wrong?

[Nicodimas]

emperormagus, on 04 December 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

as in a lot of them don't believe any injustice is happening.

Apathy. The whole it could always be worse, like this or this. I would much rather be in camp of it could be SO much better this our future, our world..lets make it the way Science Fiction books believe it could be. Not the Dystopian books obviously.