BF2S Forums Civil War Fall Out: National Identity versus State/Local Identity

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset.  The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.

It's the very reason nationalism works so well. Give the people a common enemy and they stop worrying about all the things that makes them different and instead rally around all that makes them the same.

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

because when they made the country, they thought putting that line in the doctrine but decided against.  if the majority of its citizens are unhappy about the federal government, they could move (which is what you are doing correct?)... I mean thats the same argument states rights love to say when it supports their argument "you dont like whites only water fountains, move to california then" no?

Well, true.  I am moving eventually.  Although I would say that the "whites only" argument is invalid because of civil rights.  I realize that historically, states' rights advocates have been the ones to defy civil rights legislation handed down from the feds, but I think we've evolved as a society to understand that some things should be universal in their implementation.

A valid argument in favor of secession would be something more economic in nature.  Let's say Vermont decided to pool enough money to pay the feds for all of the property it owns there and to pay a reasonable concession to them for the sections of interstates that cross Vermont.

Their reasoning for secession would be one that they felt like the rest of the country was taking more from them than they were getting back in benefits.  That's a valid rationale for secession in my opinion.

Civil rights are the sort of thing that should be respected and enforced regardless of being part of the union or not.

filing suit in a court of law has a much higher likelihood of being successful than secession does.

True...  I'm not saying secession is an easy thing to do, nor should it be.  I know that sounds contradictory to some of my earlier statements, but I'm not saying that I was against the Civil War.  The more I study that period, the more it seems that war was inevitable at that point.

I just feel that something should be in place to make secession a valid option (though a difficult one).

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset.  The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.

Human nature tbh.

Think of it as a priority of identities.  Few people have static beliefs in identity that transcend all situations.  The same is true for morality.

For example, most people say they are against murder, but if someone kills one of their loved ones, they often support the death penalty for the culprit.

even now I cant believe so many people support the indefinite detentions of hajis without them having any kind of ability to challenge in court.  its beyond the slippery slope, its just fucking dirty.

SenorToenails wrote:

Well, there was that whole ethnic cleansing thing going on there...that kind of changes things, don't you think?

Only to a degree...  The principle is actually somewhat similar to what could happen here.

Given current demographic trends, there may come a time when a state like Arizona is over 50% Latino -- mostly from Mexico.  If ethnic tensions continue to rise there, a Latino majority might have the urge to declare secession from the U.S. because of feeling like they are being abused and misrepresented by the federal government.

This situation wouldn't be that different from when ethnic Albanians did this exact thing with Kosovo.  Obviously, we haven't killed a bunch of Mexican immigrants in an all-out war, but it doesn't take a war to encourage secession.

SenorToenails wrote:

Of course, there is a situation where I might agree that Vermont should leave the union--and that is only after attempts to solve their grievances within the framework of government that exists today.  Try to change it, introduce bills, amendments, use the process to get what you want.  And if the state were unjustly ignored, then I could understand wanting to leave the union.

I can agree with that.  I'm not saying secession should be a first resort.

ruisleipa wrote:

goddamn burnzz and 11 you're the worst trolls ever just stfu and get on with the thread.

It's an interesting question, and especially for us Euros cos we don't have anywhere near the state-level affiliation you guys sometimes feel in the US. I guess the EU as it is now is vaguely similar if you consider euro countries to be state equivalents. I'd have to say I feel almost zero affiliation towards the EU as a political construct.

you obviously haven't talked with people from bavaria

Turquoise wrote:

Only to a degree...  The principle is actually somewhat similar to what could happen here.

Given current demographic trends, there may come a time when a state like Arizona is over 50% Latino -- mostly from Mexico.  If ethnic tensions continue to rise there, a Latino majority might have the urge to declare secession from the U.S. because of feeling like they are being abused and misrepresented by the federal government.

This situation wouldn't be that different from when ethnic Albanians did this exact thing with Kosovo.  Obviously, we haven't killed a bunch of Mexican immigrants in an all-out war, but it doesn't take a war to encourage secession.

Not that different?  I disagree there...being misrepresented, yea...but that's a far cry from hunted and murdered indiscriminately. 

Regardless, I see what you're saying and I still don't think attempting to secede would actually accomplish much in that situation.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Only to a degree...  The principle is actually somewhat similar to what could happen here.

Given current demographic trends, there may come a time when a state like Arizona is over 50% Latino -- mostly from Mexico.  If ethnic tensions continue to rise there, a Latino majority might have the urge to declare secession from the U.S. because of feeling like they are being abused and misrepresented by the federal government.

This situation wouldn't be that different from when ethnic Albanians did this exact thing with Kosovo.  Obviously, we haven't killed a bunch of Mexican immigrants in an all-out war, but it doesn't take a war to encourage secession.

Not that different?  I disagree there...being misrepresented, yea...but that's a far cry from hunted and murdered indiscriminately. 

Regardless, I see what you're saying and I still don't think attempting to secede would actually accomplish much in that situation.

Well, there's another side to the situation.  The Albanians moved there en masse.  In a relatively short period of time, they became the majority, and they are considerably different in culture from the Serbs.  It's this rapid immigration and difference in culture that helped lead to the war in the first place.  I'm not saying it justified what happened, but it helps to explain why it did.

A much less severe situation is happening at our border.  We have a rapidly immigrating culture into America that is significantly different from "white" culture, so to speak.  Granted, America's history of waves of immigration makes it easier for us to adapt than it was for Serbia, but the conflicts and tension are undeniable.

Anytime you have this clash of cultures via immigration, it's going to result in factionalism.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, there's another side to the situation.  The Albanians moved there en masse.  In a relatively short period of time, they became the majority, and they are considerably different in culture from the Serbs.  It's this rapid immigration and difference in culture that helped lead to the war in the first place.  I'm not saying it justified what happened, but it helps to explain why it did.

A much less severe situation is happening at our border.  We have a rapidly immigrating culture into America that is significantly different from "white" culture, so to speak.  Granted, America's history of waves of immigration makes it easier for us to adapt than it was for Serbia, but the conflicts and tension are undeniable.

Anytime you have this clash of cultures via immigration, it's going to result in factionalism.

I agree to your last statement, but I still don't think Mexican immigration in AZ is akin to what led to the wars in Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia.

Turquoise wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Well, if we could sell off New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida - then 'American' wouldn't need qualification.

As it currently stands, the overinflated sense of entitlement and generally Orwellian nanny-state culture in California, Chicago, and New York makes it embarrassing to claim them as part of the same United States as the rest of us.

Unfortunately, we cannot divest ourselves of irresponsible over-indulgent non-self-sufficient states.  So, in that respect, the US Constitution is a suicide pact.  We have to keep those boat-anchor states, even if they're going to sink the country.

Um...  You do realize that, on average, blue states tend to be more productive than red ones.  Texas is the exception to that rule.

The following is a chart of what each state gets back from the government per every dollar that each puts in.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/299 … 8ffb_o.gif

Now, it is true that some highly productive states are terrible at debt management (like California), but that has less to do with personalities and more to do with ridiculous systems in place (like California's referendum system).

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument All those farm and utilities subsidies are paid for with their own tax money.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-28 14:02:28)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Well, if we could sell off New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida - then 'American' wouldn't need qualification.

As it currently stands, the overinflated sense of entitlement and generally Orwellian nanny-state culture in California, Chicago, and New York makes it embarrassing to claim them as part of the same United States as the rest of us.

Unfortunately, we cannot divest ourselves of irresponsible over-indulgent non-self-sufficient states.  So, in that respect, the US Constitution is a suicide pact.  We have to keep those boat-anchor states, even if they're going to sink the country.

Um...  You do realize that, on average, blue states tend to be more productive than red ones.  Texas is the exception to that rule.

The following is a chart of what each state gets back from the government per every dollar that each puts in.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/299 … 8ffb_o.gif

Now, it is true that some highly productive states are terrible at debt management (like California), but that has less to do with personalities and more to do with ridiculous systems in place (like California's referendum system).

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument All those farm and utilities subsidies are paid for with their own tax money.

lol...  Yeah, I'd really prefer if we got rid of all farm subsidies.  My state is pretty bad about it, but I guess we make up for it with having 6 military bases.

eleven bravo wrote:

rdx, you realize if the states you talked about were no longer part of the union, this country's economic power would probably more closely resemble that of portugal

You say is if the productive people are going to stay in a state that is no longer a State with the support of a national government to be kept afloat. California is already falling to pieces as it is, to think they would be faring better than the rest of us is a fucking joke. The only businesses that wouldn't move out of California would be those tied to the land. At least states like Texas can maintain a relatively large economy without incentivising people and businesses to come to the state with suicidally low taxes and benefits.

jsnipy wrote:

State before country. Especially since VA beats almost everyone your sad shithole states in terms of fiscal soundness.

l2Texas

Mekstizzle wrote:

at the end of the day your states don't have any real history, there's no reason why two entities like for example New York and New Jersey exist apart from being there for the sake of it, I know this is me being ignorant, but hear me out. When you compare it to another federation like India or Russia where the individual states all have unique linguistic/ethnic groups which define the state from another, whereas in the US it's all rather artificial and done for the sake of governing the land mass easily.

If you get what I mean. The US is a young country, relatively speaking. Ethnically and linguistically homogeneous in terms of states and such. There wasn't really much of a reason outside of convenience for having so many states, surely.







canada too


Well actually, not Canada. Quebec exists because of the Frenchies, that's an example of a state within a country making sense.

Just look at the map of the US states, practically squares because they just wanted to divide the land for the sake of it.

This is you being extremely ignorant. You could spend years studying what made the state boundaries what they are, it's one of the most complex topics in U.S. history and even in U.S. schools it is glazed over. Don't open your trap when you aren't even in the vicinity of a clue.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset.  The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.

This has nothing to do with people "favoring state over national identity" people don't even know what state identity is anymore. This is people arguing over cultural ideals that transcend political boundaries. The idea of these people bleeding on a state flag before the Stars and Stripes is hilarious in this day in age, particularly the people on this forum. Sure they might want to take a two by four to some of the pricks on Jersey Shore but it's because they're fucking stupid, that you would mistake this for "the ability for people to move freely through group associations" is humorous.

---

Of course everyone is dog-piling on rdx. It's because they read the list of skills he wrote and realize they don't have half of them. They rely heavily on high-society, and that dependence makes them defend the most obscure skills as valuable and not the luxuries they are. They aren't people in a group, they are a group of "people". Of course they don't appreciate sentiments of self-reliance and self-responsibility, they can't appreciate sentiments of self.

Turquoise wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Well, if we could sell off New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida - then 'American' wouldn't need qualification.

As it currently stands, the overinflated sense of entitlement and generally Orwellian nanny-state culture in California, Chicago, and New York makes it embarrassing to claim them as part of the same United States as the rest of us.

Unfortunately, we cannot divest ourselves of irresponsible over-indulgent non-self-sufficient states.  So, in that respect, the US Constitution is a suicide pact.  We have to keep those boat-anchor states, even if they're going to sink the country.

Um...  You do realize that, on average, blue states tend to be more productive than red ones.  Texas is the exception to that rule.

The following is a chart of what each state gets back from the government per every dollar that each puts in.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/299 … 8ffb_o.gif

Now, it is true that some highly productive states are terrible at debt management (like California), but that has less to do with personalities and more to do with ridiculous systems in place (like California's referendum system).

At least states like Texas can maintain a relatively large economy without incentivising people and businesses to come to the state with suicidally low taxes and benefits.

A state that eventually implodes is not an argument of any sort. If it's not stable, it's irrelevant. Flash in the pan means nothing.

Unless of course you're talking ponzi scheme.