Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Mines’s definition of a civil war is large-scale violence
that includes a rejection of traditional political authority
and requires the National Guard to deal with it.
By that definition the U.S. has experienced civil war, episodically, for a significant part of it's existence.Another American civil war that isn't just brief and minor discretionary intervention by the Nat'l Guard (as in the LA riots or Katrina)–which is an awfully poor definition of civil war–but rather is more like 1861-1865, would significantly impact domestic quality of life. In fact, I'd wager the American middle-ground between the small regional events it's experienced in recent history and total chaos is small, if it exists at all.
Which is probably what will keep it from happening, so long as most people are reasonably prosperous, which is likely to be the case, assuming it deals gracefully with the rapidly dwindling lower middle class and the rapid consolidation of production (a non-trivial assumption).
It's true that the standard has been met more than just in the 1860s, but it has not been met “for a significant part of [the US's] existence.”
* 1914 Ludlow Massacres: National Guard trained
machine guns on a tent city with women and children
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
* 1979 Greensboro Massacre: National Guard deployed after
shootout between Communist Workers' Party and Ku Klux Kklan.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre
* 1970 Kent State Shootings
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
* Great Railroad Strike of 1877: National Guard deployments
across the country.
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877
* 1892 Homestead Massacre: National Guard deployed after
Pinkertons shoot on strikers.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike
* 1894 Pullman Strike: Nationwide strike. National Guard
shoots into crowd of civilians in Illinois.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
* 1903-1904 Colorado Labor Wars: National Guard one of
several antagonists in violent dispute between miners and
mine owners.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars
* 1957 Little Rock, Arkansas: National Guard deployed by
Arkansas Governor to _prevent_ black students from entering
school.
I could go on and on. And that's just famous instances where the National Guard showed up. Many times they were deliberately and even maliciously _not_ deployed. I'm also ignoring the decades before and after the Civil War where there was all kinds of unrest, as well as the post-Revolutionary period, such as the famous 1791 Whiskey Rebellion.To reiterate, those examples weren't isolated incidents; just a sample of some of the more notorious ones. And they each reflected deep, widespread discontent and resentment among significant portions of the population and across extended periods of time.
Let's not split hairs, here. Not only is it ridiculous to equivocate these situations with civil war, but the re-definition itself seems utterly oblivious to the tumultuous political history of the United States.
The United States was founded by a group of enlightened but very privileged individuals. The ruling class has throughout the years more often than not fit the same mold, punctuated by periodic populist movements (liberal and conservative), but always in the presence of considerable social and political tensions that beget explosive and often violent protest. To a large degree it's been the privilege of the ruling class--their ability to weather these upheavals and retain their grasp of the power structures--that has kept this country from descending into civil war all but once in our history. Another significant aspect is how incredibly conservative Americans have always been. Even during some of our most violent periods, like the Civil War and the 50 years of labor struggles centered around the turn of the 20th century (basically, everything from 1820 to 1920), even the most progressive and liberal elements of American society (abolitionists, labor movements) during our most violent periods were on-the-whole conspicuously conservative relative to their international counterparts. This has helped keep the privileged in power, as well as throttled the spread of radical social movements, left and right. But it's also been by it's nature more tolerant of discrimination and bigotry. The vast majority of Americans have _always_ at least nominally expressed support for lofty, idealistic political notions about liberty and equality, but we're resistant at incorporating those ideals into our social, political, and legal culture; and we have an incredible ability to deny the existence of real harm to groups of people, which I guess is a manifestation of our cognitive dissonance.
If you read accounts of industrial workers during the labor movement, for example, you hear the same tortured calculus you hear today about, say, the Black Lives Matter movement--people agree in principle with the social movements goals (equality, justice, etc) but think that the particular groups pursuing them are too radical, exaggerate the immediate harms, and antagonize conservative elements. So, for example, when National Guard troops machine gun down striking workers, people might point to the bombings of railroads by Irish mineworkers in Appalachia to create a narrative which diminishes culpability for atrocities all around, throwing up their hands and embracing a sentiment that blames "too much change, too fast". Sound familiar?
None of the discord we see today is new or even remotely unprecedented. The 21st century so far seems to be somewhat regressive compared to the end of the 20th century, but at worst it has been a regression to the mean. Things would have to get _much_ worse before they could rightly be considered to have even crossed our historical arc.
Don't underestimate our ability to whitewash the past. Conservatives seem more prone to do this than liberals, especially given how passionately many on the left remember and re-contextualize past sins. But IMO the difference is minor compared to how strongly everybody exhibits a bias to whitewash history, perceiving new turbulence as unprecedented. People _like_ doomsday prophecies. When we look at our own lived experiences we invariably have a more positive outlook; but we assume the rest of the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. I suppose this predilection might serve a purpose. If something doesn't immediately seem threatening, perhaps the only way we can engage ourselves is if we exaggerate a coming peril, directly or indirectly discounting the severity of past problems. I dunno. In any event, it's a powerful and pervasive bias.
> Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?
which is much less provocative than the HN title which is
> Experts think there is a 35% chance of an another American Civil War
The former specifically mentions "kind", suggesting we are talking about something very different than the past civil war. The latter implies 35% of repeating the past one.
* Lack of opportunity (especially for the poor)
* Conflation of race (looks) and subculture with general oppression of the population rooted in the economic divide.
* Targeting portions of the population in a self re-enforcing feedback loop of further isolation and lost opportunity.
* Lack of civic planning and political leadership towards ends that improve the outcome for as many as possible as much as possible.
* Lack of a clear goal or set of goals to work towards globally, let alone locally.
The most obvious global projects for improving everyone's experience are:
* Ending hunger (surplus of food)
* Increasing available (useful) energy to improve quality of life.
* Science fiction projects in space could be a good use of productivity.
* * Robots mining the asteroid belt.
* * Orbital elevators and a ring around the planet. (Useful as a platform for communications, energy transmission, and solar arrays.)
It sounds like they took the average and called that the consensus, while in reality, the experts couldn't disagree more.
This last point is fairly obvious to anyone with common sense, and may people - also on HN - object to increasingly divisive reporting, often aiming at clicks rather than the truth. An yet, most media outlets keep doing it, always finding someone else to blame.
Psychohistory?
While that's true enough, I wouldn't expect that to make it short. It might cause the rapid defeat of one faction, but once the genie of naked political violence is out of the bottle I seriously doubt it could be put back in its place so easily.
the last speedrun was 38 minutes. I wonder how much faster we can go!