I'm just curious. In this little scenario he painted
quote:He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong
Where exactly do I fit in? Would I be one of those in the "poor central states"??? (Heck - I think I'll move to Texas! Their own independence! Yah!) LOL
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
While I would never say never with these kinds of things, I believe without a significant crisis that would "divide" the nation on ethnic rather then ideological grounds (which I consider more likely) is unlikely but not impossible.
IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine Arizona would dissolve into significant racial warfare, wind up as a military state at best or abandoned state at worst if previously mentioned racial strife destroyed the infrastructure (which would be the quickest way to get rid of the now minority Caucasian population).
Honestly, if something like this ever did happen, I would probably find my way back to my family's land in North Texas. A doomsday scenario like this would finally justify the latent state pride that almost every Texan seems to have, and people from so many other states can't even seem to fathom. It would be a significant strength to defer or diffuse any serious pogroms like Arizona is on the border of facing right now.
And don't think it would JUST be Texas going it alone... money says that some combination of Oklahoma, New Mexico, maybe Arkansas, and perhaps even Louisiana would go with them (controlling the mouth of the Mississippi would suddenly become a national focus again, and Louisiana wouldn't be able to do it alone).
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this guy just made up some fantasy theory about the united states and assumed a clear an inevitable division on those lines, assuming that racial makeup would be the delineator.
Anyone who thinks that the native americans are in any position to rise again into a multi-state collective knows nothing about native americans. Anyone who sees this theory taking place involving annexation from both sides simply doesn't understand anything about north america.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Wow, this guy just made up some fantasy theory about the united states and assumed a clear an inevitable division on those lines, assuming that racial makeup would be the delineator.
Anyone who thinks that the native americans are in any position to rise again into a multi-state collective knows nothing about native americans. Anyone who sees this theory taking place involving annexation from both sides simply doesn't understand anything about north america.
Slow day at work, so I'll play devil's advocate for grins.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess you live in a state that would be North of the Mason-Dixon Line (Edit: make this north of Tennessee). I wouldn't rule out the fringe possibility of racial divisions in any state south of it in the event the US government went completely belly up. Neither is the least bit likely, but I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.
Everytime I read an article that an illegal immigrant killed a teen by driving while intoxicated, or shoots and kills a Phoenix policemen, I actually start wondering if this time is going to be the final straw. It's almost a palatable amount of... strong words, but hate and intolerance from the public outcry.
And I actually agree that a Native American nation might be a possibility. Any landlocked arid states with minimal natural resources are, to put it bluntly, screwed. No ports, no oil, no minerals is going to make that land just about worthless to most people. And Native Americans have adapted remarkably well to living on 'worthless' land that's presented to them. It wouldn't be a strong (or even cohesive) nation, but what other social / racial / economic group could better take advantage of the landlocked plains high plains between the Rockies and Mississippi, or the desert Southwest? I think the various tribes would expand outside of their current nations, and fill out any voids in the middle of the nation.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Panarin ... has authored several books on information warfare.
I wonder if his "prediction" is really an experiment. Trying to find the effectiveness of insertion point(s) for negative propaganda. I find that more likely than a sincere belief on his part that the US is on the verge of breakup. I think his "prediction" is a deliberate attempt at public demoralization, rather than a serious academic assertion.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the link is from the Drudge Report... Almost any prediction they host is equatable to fertilizer.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think that the US breaking up anytime in the next century is pretty darn unlikely (barring a Jericho like collapse of the government), it is very fun for me to think about what the new map would look like if it did.
Say some authority with the power to enforce it (can't imagine what it would be) told me that I needed to break the US into several different counties (or else!).
Pacifica The west coast, and also Hawaii and the pacific islands. Also gets the Las Vegas part of Nevada.
Newmerica New England and most of the great lakes region.
Southland The south east. Mostly former confederate states.
Texica Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.
Heartland Everything west of the Mississippi that wasn't part of Pacifica or Texica.
Hard choices and explanations:
Alaska - Given to Canada. Was originally going to leave them independant, but since there won't be a Unites States after this break-up, the new nations would need to trade with them as a foreign county anyway. May as well have a shared military with Canada.
Minnesota and Iowa - Originally had them as part of Newmerica, since their politics lean more that way (at least for Minnesota). However, the Mississipi is such a great natural border that I just couldn't leave them there. Plus this way Heartland has access to both major water ways.
Arizona - Not sure they'd appreciate being part of Texica, but I don't think they'd fit nicely into Pacifica either. Could leave Texas as independant and give the other three states to Heartland or Pacifica.
Missouri - Could be given to Southland, Heartland, Newmerica, or could be broken up and split between all three (the next Missouri compromise?). I ended up having them part of Heartland so that the Mississipi stays the border.
Edit2: Didn't like some aspects of my new map, and need to get back to work, so just removing it!
posted
Yeah... I get the strong feeling that this is more Russian propaganda than anything else.
You know, "Go Russia! The USA is about to die, so we get to step in, along with China, to take up a leading role. Joy!"
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I should point out that considering the economic and political state of Russia today with ethnic strife being a real possibility if things go wrong it is not unnatural for them to have some "bias" is that the word? To colour their world view in a way that more fits with them. They see the US as they see Russia not through ideological lens of North vs South Red State vs Blue states but as "China majority here, Indian here, African here, okay so the probably dividing lines are here and here"
IP: Logged |
quote:And I actually agree that a Native American nation might be a possibility. Any landlocked arid states with minimal natural resources are, to put it bluntly, screwed. No ports, no oil, no minerals is going to make that land just about worthless to most people. And Native Americans have adapted remarkably well to living on 'worthless' land that's presented to them. It wouldn't be a strong (or even cohesive) nation, but what other social / racial / economic group could better take advantage of the landlocked plains high plains between the Rockies and Mississippi, or the desert Southwest?[/QB]
The vastly larger populated hegemony of rural white folk who already make a living on vastly larger allocations of that 'worthless' land, of course.
The native americans, though I love them, have not actually adapted well to anything. Few reservations outside of the Navajo Nation are in a shape that lends itself to optimistic appraisal for how well they would handle themselves when the welfare and outside economic assistance dries up.
Most reservations are dependent on industrial land leases, mining and drilling rights exploited by exterior corporations, and gambling. If the nation goes belly-up, they are among those in the worst position to go anywhere.
They are also a very significant cultural and population minority. They would be hard pressed to maintain autonomy of the land that they're currently on, yet this russkie is talking like they're going to take over whole states.
Sorry, not going to happen with present conditions. His theory is based on a complete fantasy conceptualization of the American inner west and the current state of the Tribes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Minnesota and Iowa - Originally had them as part of Newmerica, since their politics lean more that way (at least for Minnesota). However, the Mississipi is such a great natural border that I just couldn't leave them there. Plus this way Heartland has access to both major water ways.
The Mississippi divides Minnesota in half, ends in a curl before you get to Canada, and if used as a border would do some pretty weird things to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously I have seen more plausible breakup maps in Shadowrun books and that's only because magic did it, making the premise more plausible
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IN RUSSIAN NEWS: REJOICE, AMERICAN RUNNING-DOG CAPITALIST LACKEYS TO FAIL AND CATCH ON FIRE SAYS ENTIRELY CREDIBLE SIXTY YEAR OLD USSR APOLOGIST, RUSSIA TO LEAD JUST NEW WORLD AFTER THE DECLINE OF PIG-FILTH WESTERN HEGEMONY COLLAPSE, DOS VEDANYA COMRADES
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Mississippi divides Minnesota in half, ends in a curl before you get to Canada, and if used as a border would do some pretty weird things to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.
Don't think I'm going to let reality get in the way of my map!
*Considers giving Minnesota to Canada out of spite*
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I actually agree that a Native American nation might be a possibility. Any landlocked arid states with minimal natural resources are, to put it bluntly, screwed. No ports, no oil, no minerals is going to make that land just about worthless to most people. And Native Americans have adapted remarkably well to living on 'worthless' land that's presented to them. It wouldn't be a strong (or even cohesive) nation, but what other social / racial / economic group could better take advantage of the landlocked plains high plains between the Rockies and Mississippi, or the desert Southwest?
The vastly larger populated hegemony of rural white folk who already make a living on vastly larger allocations of that 'worthless' land, of course.
The native americans, though I love them, have not actually adapted well to anything. Few reservations outside of the Navajo Nation are in a shape that lends itself to optimistic appraisal for how well they would handle themselves when the welfare and outside economic assistance dries up.
And those rural white folk will continue that lifestyle for more than a generation if, say, gasoline became a precious commodity? No matter how rural white communities, they still rely on cars, electricity, etc. There are some incredibly hardy folk in the plains and mountains, I just don't think they'd have remotely the density to constitute a state. I don't think Native Americans would immediately either, but if you look three generations out, I think they'd be significantly less handicapped by a collapse of infrastructure.
And perhaps it's because most of the Native Americans I know are Navajo, but I seem to have a higher opinion of their current state in general. Some of the larger reservations are an absolute mess, but there are still some smaller tribes that are existing in spite of regulations, without casinos or any more federal assistance than any other city or state receives (I'm thinking Tohono O'odham and Hualapai in addition to the Navajo). I know a few caucasians who live entirely 'off the grid', but for plenty of the tribes out here (casino, mineral or water rights or not), that's a way of life.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on which would be the more backward adaptable culture in the long run.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Mississippi divides Minnesota in half, ends in a curl before you get to Canada, and if used as a border would do some pretty weird things to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.
Don't think I'm going to let reality get in the way of my map!
*Considers giving Minnesota to Canada out of spite*
I don't think most people in northern MN would even notice. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And those rural white folk will continue that lifestyle for more than a generation if, say, gasoline became a precious commodity? No matter how rural white communities, they still rely on cars, electricity, etc.
If we run out of enough oil to maintain agricultural systems, the simple fact of the matter is that people will start dying off en masse, and this includes the indians, as they're every bit as dependent on it as whitey.
They aren't pastoral anymore. They don't live off of their flocks. They eat food that comes from agricultural systems that are dependent on oil and transportation infrastructure. You mention that they live 'off the grid,' but this is only in terms of infrastructure that they lack — power and connection to gravity systems. This is because a lot of the reservations are direly impoverished.
This is NOT a condition that improves their situation or gives them the immediate capacity to expand their hegemony in the event of a drastic national collapse, nor does it give them any sudden immunity to food shortages that would result from collapse. They're still reliant on the system, probably more so than people who live life off the reservations.
If anything, the argument you are trying to make is that they wouldn't fare as bad as rural white (and mexican?) inner-america communities if a number of things start hitting the fan. This is not making the case that they would be in any position to begin dominating the region at all, much less to the extent that they create a new indian nation that spans several states.
Under any circumstances that don't involve a mystery virus that wipes out all or most of the non-reds, the cultural and populous majority gives the advantage to paleface. Import enough people into the region and that's just what happens, kind of like the process that's being accelerated in Tibet.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Thats right, let us keep home state of O'Neill.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:And those rural white folk will continue that lifestyle for more than a generation if, say, gasoline became a precious commodity? No matter how rural white communities, they still rely on cars, electricity, etc.
If we run out of enough oil to maintain agricultural systems, the simple fact of the matter is that people will start dying off en masse, and this includes the indians, as they're every bit as dependent on it as whitey.
They aren't pastoral anymore. They don't live off of their flocks. They eat food that comes from agricultural systems that are dependent on oil and transportation infrastructure. You mention that they live 'off the grid,' but this is only in terms of infrastructure that they lack — power and connection to gravity systems. This is because a lot of the reservations are direly impoverished.
This is NOT a condition that improves their situation or gives them the immediate capacity to expand their hegemony in the event of a drastic national collapse, nor does it give them any sudden immunity to food shortages that would result from collapse. They're still reliant on the system, probably more so than people who live life off the reservations.
If anything, the argument you are trying to make is that they wouldn't fare as bad as rural white (and mexican?) inner-america communities if a number of things start hitting the fan. This is not making the case that they would be in any position to begin dominating the region at all, much less to the extent that they create a new indian nation that spans several states.
Under any circumstances that don't involve a mystery virus that wipes out all or most of the non-reds, the cultural and populous majority gives the advantage to paleface. Import enough people into the region and that's just what happens, kind of like the process that's being accelerated in Tibet.
The number of Han Chinese in tibet has been static for a number of years as the migrant workers there is fluid, people arrive work for a bit then leave. Han China are a minority in Tibet not the other way around. The only way in which this is the opposite is if you consider large tracks of Sichuan, Sinkiang, and other provinces that make up "Greater Tibet" as claimed by the Tibetan Gov't in Exile. Lands that haven't been under direct Tibetan administration for centuries.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm from New Jersey. I have a distinct and separate mentality. However, I have no idea what that means.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, the only thing interesting about the article is the idea that some Russians want (and let's make it quite clear, the "prediction" is less of a prediction and more like wishful thinking) to split up the United States along ethnic and cultural lines, some elements of hoping for ironic schadenfreude there.
That said, its pretty obvious that he's speaking to a domestic audience in Russia, especially when he highlights separation based on the native American population and the Chinese population, both of which form at most roughly 10% of a particular state population even at their most dense.
Blayne/Samprimary: I'd be pretty curious what statistics either of you come up with. Last I checked, there are no systematic counts of the population in Tibet aside from the Chinese censuses and since I doubt Samprimary would accept those for his own reasons, that leaves very little else.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden: Well, the link is from the Drudge Report... Almost any prediction they host is equatable to fertilizer.
Well of course! But that's the whole reason I threw it out there -- to me it is wild theory -- but I hoped it would prompt discussion (which it DID) as to just what are all of your theories of what could happen.
Like Phil's post:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: While I think that the US breaking up anytime in the next century is pretty darn unlikely (barring a Jericho like collapse of the government), it is very fun for me to think about what the new map would look like if it did.
posted
Isn't it imminently more likely that the United States could break up under the strain of greed dominated corruption in Washington, and the pursuit of foreign wars that go unsupported by the majority of taxpayers in more productive regions of the US? I mean, I already find it incredible that the country's biggest tax-base, and biggest industrial contributor, California, is so decidedly anti-war, and yet unquestioningly continues, as a whole, to pay the largest share of our military and defense budget, even as we are perceived as the least likely target of terrorist attacks.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See -- I think that if there were ever to be a split (or civil war type thing) it would have nothing to do with race or ethnic; but it would have everything to do with culture.
When you consider maps like this which show the differences in ideology cleared being drawn between "rural" people versus metro people, it naturally seems like that would be the dividing line -- but those aren't geographic boundaries. So I don't know how that would play out.
Except those who cling to their guns and their religion might have the upper hand in such a war Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of the country splitting like that and Chicago remaining in the same state as the rest of Illinois is kind of silly. Illinois belongs with Iowa, except for the Chicago area.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought there was a science fiction story recently along these lines. Anyone?
Maybe it was just in my head after reading <edit: Language warning in linked article>The Urban Archipelago, an odious little essay on why "urban" (read, progressive) ideology is superior to "rural" (read, conservative) ideology. (I came across it after reading this much more balanced view of the urban/rural divide).
<edit>In fact, I think this quote from the Urban Archipelago essay was the jumping off point for my thinking of the spec fic story:
quote:It's time to state something that we've felt for a long time but have been too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of sanity, liberalism, and compassion--New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and on and on.
posted
The idea of an urban rural divide in a struggle is interesting. One potential model for that sort of war are the warlord and the civil war periods in China when the largely city-based Nationalists pushed the initially city-based Communists out and into the rural areas.
The ensuing struggle between the rural-led Communists with their guerrilla warfare, encirclement of supply lines, and moral propaganda and the city-based nationalists with superior equipment, airlifts, and foreign aid provide some hints at what such a struggle would entail.
The usual caveats apply, population densities are different and the foreign world is different of course. But there are interesting parallels, not that I expect Palin to start rounding up Berkeley students and sending them out to the countryside for a patriotic or "pro-America" education any time soon.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Governor Palin (along with her campaign) was one of the biggest proponents of disgustingly divisive views of American rural v. urban lifestyle and philosophy. At one point, I recall her specifically denigrating the city of San Francisco, along with the west coast generally. Her and McCain's proxies also aggressively punched the language of "the real America," or "the real Georgia," or substitute any area that was conservative leaning. I kept thinking, what the hell kind of President would that make you in four or eight years, or in two months?
I think, perfectly candidly, that a Palin Presidency, at this moment in history, could have been something near a death blow to our unity as a nation. We might have survived it, but then again, I have no confidence, *none* in her belief in this country as it is, rather than what she fancifully believes it should be or "really" is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me clarify, what I mean by that I don't expect to see it soon, is that it is hard to postulate a collapse and breakup of the United States without a very significant collapse of infrastructure and distribution (much greater than even now, after all the US survived its own Great Depression). Since both are fairly unlikely, the scenario we are describing is also unlikely.
That said, such a collapse would necessarily result in a truly massive die-off in both rural and urban areas as Samprimary has noted. Neither side is particularly well adapted to such a breakdown.
However, in the aftermath, it is not hard to imagine either Palin or a similar demagogue, traumatized by such events, blaming the breakdown on the immorality of city-dwellers and rising to power.
This anti-city, anti-education, and anti-"elite" meme has been seen (and thrived) before in pretty different circumstances.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Han China are a minority in Tibet not the other way around.
Where did I call the han chinese a majority in tibet.
quote:The number of Han Chinese in tibet has been static for a number of years
Source this. Directly.
Can you provide something to refute it that isn't from the Dali Lhama, Epoch Times, Falung Gong or anyone affiliated? Yes my source is the Chinese government but since they are the only government to have conducted an official census of tibet in recent memory they are as Mucus says all we can go on, allegations by obviously biased sources such as the Tibetan Government in Exile cannot possibly be considered.
However I DO have another possible source, a series of documentary videos released by the BBC that showed Tibetan culture pretty preserved.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: That said, such a collapse would necessarily result in a truly massive die-off in both rural and urban areas as Samprimary has noted. Neither side is particularly well adapted to such a breakdown.
Well, on the one hand some would say the rural population would be more "able" to weather a huge economic collapse -- although I am not so sure of that anymore. Many rural people are no longer as independent as their forefathers, and many are massively in debt.
Also, there are just the sheer numbers to consider. Rural people are outnumbered by city dwellers tremendously. It would be like fighting all of China. There are just too many city dwellers for the rural population to have any impact.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Let me clarify, what I mean by that I don't expect to see it soon, is that it is hard to postulate a collapse and breakup of the United States without a very significant collapse of infrastructure and distribution (much greater than even now, after all the US survived its own Great Depression). Since both are fairly unlikely, the scenario we are describing is also unlikely.
On a long enough timescale, the decline and breakup or consumption of the US by another entity is not just likely, but a certainty. Living now in Eastern Europe, I've started to think a little more about these certainties and sense of stability Americans like me and you enjoy, and I don't buy into them much anymore.
I was having a conversation with a long-time local who was originally from England. We were talking about CZ and Latvia's relationship with NATO, and the constant fear and cynicism in CZ about a renewed Russian presence in the region. I was wondering why Russia even bothered to invade South Ossetia, when they knew it would just increase tensions. He countered with the point- why after the fall of communism, did the western powers so aggressively seek NATO dominance, to the point of ever considering an application from Georgia in the first place? Why does the western sphere of influence mean good, and the eastern sphere mean bad? Why, indeed, was there tension with Russia at all? After the fall of communism, which was ostensibly the main ideological sticking point between the west and Russia, did we continue to press into the eastern bloc so aggressively? There's no real reason why Russia and Nato should have mutually exclusive aims in the first place- but, so he said, habit had kept the conflict alive.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They totally forgot to mention the new State of Deseret that will form in the Great Basin region.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you provide something to refute it that isn't from the Dali Lhama, Epoch Times, Falung Gong or anyone affiliated? Yes my source is the Chinese government but since they are the only government to have conducted an official census of tibet in recent memory they are as Mucus says all we can go on, allegations by obviously biased sources such as the Tibetan Government in Exile cannot possibly be considered.
Then why didn't you (or couldn't you) source it directly?
And if allegations by obviously biased sources cannot be considered, why are you defaulting to a biased source?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you provide something to refute it that isn't from the Dali Lhama, Epoch Times, Falung Gong or anyone affiliated? Yes my source is the Chinese government but since they are the only government to have conducted an official census of tibet in recent memory they are as Mucus says all we can go on, allegations by obviously biased sources such as the Tibetan Government in Exile cannot possibly be considered.
Then why didn't you (or couldn't you) source it directly?
And if allegations by obviously biased sources cannot be considered, why are you defaulting to a biased source?
I am defaulting to the only officially recognized source.
IP: Logged |
posted
Right. Anyways, I was less objecting to being called an American (since I knew you didn't actually intend it as an insult) but to hint that your particularly broad generalization doesn't really hold in my case.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
