Civil War: How the US Can Avoid Another - TLDR News
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 фев 2022
- Sign up for a CuriosityStream subscription and also get a FREE Nebula subscription (the streaming platform built by creators): CuriosityStream.com/TLDRus
The US is going through a difficult time politically (shocker) and as such, some are suggesting the country's headed toward civil war. In this video, we discuss if that's actually true and what countries can do to avoid civil unrest.
Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
The criterias are extremely poor, and clearly only taking into account the ethnic Civil Wars. They completely ignore the ideological Civil Wars, like the Russian and the Spanish ones, which are *much* more relevant in the case of US.
actually, if you dig deeper in the Russian or Spanish civil wars, you would find that they were very ethnical-based. Just notice who were leading commies in Russia (poles, jews, latvians, caucasians) and notice the strong regional difference in the Franko\Republican support (with Barcelona and Basks being pro-republican, and so on...). So yeah, basically all civil wars are ethnical
egional and they are just using "political divisions" as camouflage.
@@vladyslavfediukov1591 And to compliment on what you just said, something most people don't know is that, amongst catalans, there were feudalists, fascists, carlists and liberals that fought alongside communists and anarchists in the republican side, just because of national sentiment (that being catalan). In fact, a party: Estat Català, was going to receive support from Mussolini before Hitler decided to support Franco. The Spanish civil war was moreso ethnic than ideological
The closest thing the US could get is a “Years of Lead” like in Italy during the 70s but even that just seems unrealistic
True, but it always seems unrealistic.
@@eliasaguilar8580 I actually thought about this a lot, and I agree. Year of Lead or the Troubles are being pushed by media, but researching a bit deeper, you learn that it's highly unlikely to be of limited scope if it happens. Both of these were themselves quite different, and evolved from _very_ particular situations. America of today is not mid 20th century Italy nor Northern Ireland.
Personally I think that people talking of "Years of Lead" type scenario are probably in the back of the mind aware that something bad is gonna happen, but can't outright deny it, so they rationalize it.
"It can't happen here". That's what the people from my country believed until guns started firing. And even then, they did not believe it, until they actually had to.
If things continue rolling like this, dark times are ahead.
We already had a "Years of Lead." It was the civil rights movement.
@@eliasaguilar8580
Why do you think there will be no middle ground?
It could be like the Irish troubles. My fear is that young men who feel emasculated by "woke" ideology could start a far-right dicatorship in backlash. Take Madison Cawthorn, who believes that we should "raise young men to be monsters" (you know, instead of to be good men).
despite how polarized the us seems these days, it is important to see just how truly polarize the us was back in the day. And I am not just talking about the civil war. Reconstruction, Industrialization, and many other periods drove the us to the extreme, which really makes today's polarization like child play. That being said, what is concerning is the increasingly polarizing view between the "people" and the media, and the lack of trust with the government institutions.
They ended reconstruction too soon, enabling the systemic racism to be passed down and rear its ugly head again. We need to go zero tolerance IMHO.
@@Exiled.New.Yorker Welp, the republicans are more like forced to end the reconstruction, otherwise, the southern democrat will dominate the government and things could get uglier.
@@Exiled.New.Yorker Reconstruction was military occupation, and military occupation cannot last forever. You could maybe have extended Reconstruction by 5 more years, but not much more than that. The South is still the region of the US with the largest black population, so any overly harsh treatment of the south would have had unforeseen negative consequences for the former slaves.
@@darkfool2000 what they should have done was declare the South a territory
@@Nimish204 That's just a bad idea. The South was less populous than the north, but it wasn't so sparsely populated that treating it as an occupied territory it would be cheap in terms of economic and political capital. No, the end result of that decision would be a more isolationist USA which spends most of its efforts occupying the south for decades, and maybe the USA never gets involved in WW1. Who knows how that world would have turned out?
I saw an interview with her and I understood that she doesnt claim that civil war always happens when these signs are present, but that they indicates, that a civil war is more probable. She examined many civil wars in other countries and looked for common features. Than she looked in the USA and checked the signs. And the results were worrying. It is not a prediction, but more a warning.
I read the book those signs are extremely cherry picked to the point it just a propaganda piece. The best factors to determine if we are heading to a civil war, are a fractured political elite and a succesion crisis. The US oligarchs and political elites are not that divided, but they do a good job pretending that they are. There have been claims of false elections from both sides, but they are there just to gain votes, democratic succession crisis always have military coups involve. It won't be a succesion crisis until the military steps in, since claims must be enforced.
For example the US civil war had a fracture elite been the slave owners oligarchs and the pro-union politicians. The succesion crisis was a result of the states military claiming the federal government had no legitimacy to enforce is authority over them. The federal government now had to enforce their claim over the CSA.
I think a cool video to follow this up would be the effect on a us civil war around the world.
yea, Ukraine and many other countries would fall basically over night.
That is an interesting question.
Would the EU be forced into the “western superpower” role? Collapse under the weight of that responsibility?
Would China just bowl over Taiwan or would Japan work with other Asian Partners to stop them?
@@davidnotonstinnett I would be very surprised to see south korea, japan, and taiwan last more than a year.
Oh yes! :D
The entire planet changes
I read a piece some time ago that talked about this idea of a 2nd civil war and the person (can't remember who) argued that if such a thing were to occur, it would be very unlikely to take the form of armed conflict beyond perhaps the odd skirmish here and there.
Instead, the author says, it's more likely to take the form of certain areas, whole states or even entire regions more or less withdrawing from the union, ceasing to recognize federal authority and beginning to function as de facto breakaway regions.
There is some merit to this theory since it could be argued that this process has to some extent, already begun with the refusal of each side to accept the other's election legitimacy. Other indicators might be the full and open politicization of the supreme court and the way some states have basically ignored national mandates or recommendations around COVID.
None of these on their own is all that critical but when taken together, they point to a worrying trend. Still, I'm inclined to believe the author's contention of little to no armed conflict since no conservative is likely to lift a finger on behalf of San Francisco or Chicago any more than a Brooklyn hipster is likely to overextend himself for Oklahoma or Utah.
I also think it would be different than many other conflicts however I find the idea there would be very little violence a bit doe-eyed. I’d imagine something a bit more like the Troubles… low intensity guerrilla operations probably focused in certain resource rich areas. Bc if there’s money and weakened rule of law, there will be fighting over it, in my opinion. So I think more than the odd skirmish or two there will be zones of occasion gun fire and shelling + “terrorist like attacks” (will depend whose side your on) , etc. But far from full fledged military action, wide spread bombing, etc.
@@baum7275 Yeah, I think that's a good point. The point the author I was referencing was making, I think, was that the conflict would not take the form of a "war" as we've come to know the meaning of the word with fully formed and massed military formations led by generals and so on.
"already begun with the refusal of each side to accept the other's election legitimacy."
I know one the Republican party line is still that the 2020 election was rigged, but I'm unaware of a Democratic counterexample? Closest thing I can think of is pointing out how the electoral system is broken, allowing for minority rule?
I agree, and I feel like most of the conflict would end up happening between federal troops and state troops, and even then, people at the time wouldn’t see it as a civil war, more a state government mandated riot. Federal troops would be sent it, order restored, and probably some federally appointed government to oversee the state until its ready for an election.
@@TanaisNL ikr, the democratic is in no way innocent, but I’m tired of people painting the Democratic Party as if it is the same as the Republicans only on the left. It is not. The republicans are the ones stirring the misinformation and hate. Democrats are more or less the same as they were in the 90’s, but the Republican Party has become nothing more than a populist, extremist regime, comparable in their tactics of intimidation and discrimination to the early Nazi party.
Living in ethiopia i can confirm that everything on the list is correct and does cause a civil war.i hope it ends soon
A second US civil war would look more like the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s or the Russian Civil war... not like this
Maybe more like Rwanda, or Syria. All out civil implosion, start with two factions, sudently you have more than 10.
Oh hell yes kaiserreich lore in real life boys
@@eliasaguilar8580 PSA forever!
Bro Used The Kaiserreich usa map in the thumbnail
It's sort of hard to take a "democratic rating" system seriously when somehow, the rater says that the US wasn't democratic between 1797 and 1800, but somehow was democratic all during slavery and Jim Crow. How is minority rule democratic?
First time experiencing a democrats hypocrisy and chery picked data arguments?
Yeah that book was just fear mongering propaganda. The political divide in america is more with the people and the elites. While the people that supports the elites exist they are nothing but a small overepresented extremely young minority, not enough to start a civil war.
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 He's British. All of TLDR is British. It is literally impossible for them to be democrats.
@@canadi-eh9395 does not mean they cant be biased
Democracy it's really a fancy word that we shouldn't use, because this isn't one (take for example how laws don't reflect the opinions of the majority, nobody wants pay raise for politicians but they give it themselves anyway
Watching this post-Roe like “I need to revisit that one”
Thank you British man for judging america with your book review
Especially since the UK is looking just as polarized (Scotland, NI and Wales)
TLDR; orange man still bad.
I honestly doubt the Civil war here in the US is likely. I'm a moderate Demarcate here in NC and drive all over the state from here in Raleigh to almost Virginia to Wilmington and sometimes cross in SC. Media really has divided us into fighting amongst ourselves but when you sit down and talk with people we pretty much want the same things apart from extremes. The USA Democracy is built on compromise so generally know one ends up being 100% happy with any 1 outcome, but pushes us forward over time. I think the world forgets that sometimes and we also struggle with needing to remember to be ok with it. Mainly I think people need to just stay out of other people businesses including topics like firearms and ProLife/ProChoice. If you don't like it then fine. Not other peoples right to take another right away from someone just cause you "don't like it".
yes, we have 50 states lets try 50 different things, and everyone should learn to be okay that the 49 other states have rules that we don't like.
yea, this seems to be primarily a issue of the media and political control of social platforms. Both are being used to attack the opposition and supress the opposition at the same time. Mostly this appears to happen one way, but there are also platforms and media that operate the other way too.
The problem is that you can't be neutral on key moral issues. It's not that someone likes or doesn't like abortion, it's that they either think of it as a fundamental human right that must be protected, or the deliberate and wilful murder of innocent children. With a topic of such importance, the other side CANNOT be tolerated, because that's either the toleration of people trampling on women's rights or tolerating the wholesale slaughter of babies, depending on which side you're on. To use another example, I'm willing to bet that if one of the states was enacting pogroms against Jews, then you most certainly wouldn't sit by and tell people that they simply shouldn't interfere and shouldn't have the right to stop said state from having its Jew-purges if they want them. It's just that for other people, abortion and gun rights are as deadly serious as the example I gave above.
@@socialenigma4476 I was always taught if the separatists lose its a civil war, if they win its a revolution. How would you differentiate them?
@@CantusTropus My perspective on the question of abortion isn't that binary at all. I have my views, and I understand others have theirs. Whatever the law, I'll try to follow it and do my best in general. Point is I'm perfectly capable of tolerating both perspectives on it, since I believe it is possible for a good person to reach either conclusion.
Uh, this isn't a thing. The U.S isn't remotely considering this. I mean ya, a small population in some states want this but like 90% don't want this. It's also not legally possible and not militarily possible. You can't disconnect the states at this point, everything is connected and dependent on each other. Only those who are ignorant want this. The first war started when the powerful and rich in the south wanted it. The rich already control 90% of the U.S. There is no reason for them to cost themselves so much.
I don’t get your point, I can’t really think of times when the overwhelming majority of the population wanted a civil war. Pretty sure the last USA civil war happened because they wanted to leave the union and not because they wanted a war.
Oh sweet summer child.
Best compromises are made without having only 2 parties to vote for. I don't see USA as an actual democratic country. Yes in principle USA is democratic but not in the better "republican democracy" way. (By republican I mean the *actual meaning of the word, not the USA party...* RES PUBLICA - THING PUBLIC => public thing => WE, the populus, solve the issues, not 2 parties)
@@maxdavis7722 War never happens because people want war. War happens because the powerful want what comes with the war. My point is the powerful don't gain from a civil war. Oh, and the civil war started because northerners were getting more anti-slavery, when the south saw this they decided that their industry would eventually reach a tipping point and they did start losing power in the federal government. So they all left the federal government and decided they would fight for their interests. It wasn't just hating black people, they, unlike the north, would have to sacrifice a massive part of their margins. I.e the powerful didn't want to lose power.
Today is different, people have vastly different beliefs while the powerful rule regardless.
@@k_tess Why comment something belittling if you don't actually have any to say?
The US are in a phase like the late Roman republic. Divisive factionalism, individuals valuing personal power over anything else, an increasing acceptance of violence as a political means. In the end, civil war might break out if one faction can cling to power despite not having enough support within the population, via unconstitutional means, gaming the system or changing the rules in their favour. If the other faction gets the feeling that it can not win in a constitutional way no matter how successful they are with voters, this might be the trigger.
If that’s the case I’m not sure Mexico and Canada would be ready or able to deal with the mass numbers of people trying to flee a conflict. If it goes long enough they actually will settle refugees in other countries
Good Analogy: who's the new Cesar? Trump? what a downgrade!
@@aldrinspeck2724 no trump is El Demente’
People have been saying that a civil war will happen since the 1950s.
Why are Americans so obsessed with the Roman republic
In Canada and the US conservatives are reaching out to immigrant communities because they often do have conservative views. But they keep undermining that because the most hard line of them want things that won't fly with the general electorate. That leads to the loss of hope and vulnerability to demagogues you talked about.
I think many on the right don't hate immigrants, but simply want to welcome them at the door (as opposed to letting them come in illegally).
@@jwil4286 Exactly.
@@jwil4286 I agree. I also think the Right generally welcome migrants of educated professionals and skilled workers. but oppose to refugees who are less self-reliant and rely more on social welfares.
@@Ernest0220 True, that is what Trump tried to do. He tried to invite in more immigrants who would support themselves and not be on welfare, but alexandria ocasio communista called it racist of course.
lol we don't care about Canada. You wish. Haha!
Polity scores are generally more favourable than other democracy rankings. The EDI has considered America a flawed democracy since 2016. Freedom House is more positive, but it is 90% funded by the US government so 🤷♂️.
The everyday American is feeling squeezed by to extreme views. And those extreme views are taking control of more and more things. And FYI there may officially be only 2 parties but each party has a few factions in each party.
Kinda, it’s weird
And there's a whole lot of people who would gladly see both parties sent to the dustbins of history if they could.
@@ryangutierrez775 an example is liberals and progressives are in the democratic party but separate groups within the party. And the Republicans have had tones of extreme and moderate groups circle through too. There's rules in place that make it easier to claim membership in a larger polical party than creating a new one or small group like the green movement.
Big tent politics with lots of factions is what happens when you have a system of single winner constituencies. The US needs proportional electoral reform for consensus politics !
We should point out that this is only one woman’s, who is self admittedly left leaning, opinion. Correct or not
I mean she is definitly not a fan of republicans that's for sure so you're probibly right
Yeah, I can't take this video seriously for that reason. First point to be made: It was Republicans' fault. lmao okay
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 It is the political systems fault. 2 parties just can't represent hundreds of people.
This sounds a bit like fearmongering, to be honest...
Yeah, we shouldn't expect the worst possible outcomes
It’s trying to get the regular people to fight with each other when it’s the very people in power who are our enemies. Very few if any politicians actually care for the people. That’s why the want us to fight so we don’t notice they’re taking away from all of us.
@@firemonkey0291 100%
Well, she's not the only one who came to such a conclusion. Lots of studies show when nationalism rises, wars follow. It isn't set in stone or something you have to actively think about. But there is truth to it. Nationalism creates division, it's only natural in the end.
@@simmerke1111 That's a major oversimplification, the reality isn't as one-dimensional as this. Nationalism is merely one of many factors that may or may not lead to international conflict
I think it all boils down to the loss of "the art of the compromise"
People don't know how to take a loss for a later win. Or anything like that.
Best compromises are made without having only 2 parties to vote for. Some actual representation of the population. Not "good and bad" side mindset but an actual parliament of parties discussing issues and doing decisions as sensically/rationally as possible.
I think it would be easier to compromise when there is more then just two parties
@@doodles4funo569 And it is easier but too many parties can also be a problem, just look at EU right now. It's not truly many parties but many countries but in principle it works similar. We can't even decide weather or not to sanction Russia just because some (3) countries have "economical reasons" to do so. I thought EU is about human rights and prosperity with cooperation?!
I am Czech btw
@@theghostkillz8921 I think that more about other countries acting autonomously instead of different political parties that have different views
@@theghostkillz8921 yea and don’t worry the us can’t decide on what to do ether it’s a really complicated situation on one hand if we go to war we could start a nuclear apocalypse on the other hand if we sanction them we’d be damaging our selves as well. The best option is diplomacy and that won’t work because Russia will only agree to it on their terms.
While analyzing political system in the US, it would be helpful to google term "plutocracy", too. :P
xD
And kleptocracy but I think most people understand that term
And Oligarchy
I believe that America today start to resemble an organic state.
So every country on earth as well then right?
She sounds like a MSNBC guest host tbh
Making social media more responsible for what it distributes would probably help reduce polarization.
And who would set the terms of these responsibilities?
The Dems? Or the Reps?
Maybe the government?
Better the corporations owning these SM platforms.
no god no, it will only make the echo chambers solidify
@@silenciothequiet3471 At least doing the minimum to fight disinformation would likely help to de radicalise and make the average more moderate in its outlook in key sections.
There are a lot of issues which can easily be disproven by neutral parties, and probably shouldnt be given a platform due to the likelihood in leading towards societal issues.
Its pretty insane atm someone can say something implying racial segregation due to supremacy, and when called an idiot apparently the person challenging such beliefs is the one moderated against.
Making mainstream media more responsible for what it distributes would probably help reduce polarization.
I disagree. Internet is a big and free place. We have access to all sorts of sources (left wing, center or right wing) with all sorts of background (state owned, oligarch owned or independent). If you wanted to, you can easily check and compare different sources, listen to what the other side has to say, then reach a critical and objective understanding of any issue.
But the problem is, a lot of people simply don't want that. People want to hear what they like to hear. People want to be told that they are always right. People love feeling this euphoria of their own moral superiority.
Social media aren't responsible what we choose to watch. We are responsible.
Great video!
I will say this, while Barbara F. Walter sounds *very* biased (notice how she seems to lay all the blame on the Republicans?) she does point out a lot of the things I have been saying for years that can be summarised as this: That the US is a divided nation where people doesn’t view the people on the other side of the political spectrum as their fellow countrymen but instead as “the enemy.”
Add the fact that people feel abandoned by their government, feel like they have no real power to actually influence anything in their country and the ever widening gap between the upper and lower classes (with a very clear attitude that the rules for the lower classes doesn’t apply to the upper classes, when was the last time you saw someone rich and powerful go to jail for anything?) and you got very, very dangerous combination of anger, hopelessness and suspicion. Hell, a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum seems to believe that the only way to “fix America” is to actually have a new civil war and “deal with the problem, permanently.” The problem, naturally, being the other side of the political spectrum.
Now I’m not an American, I’ll just admit that right now. But I’ll say this, I have always wanted to go to America and see some of the famous sights like Grand Canyon, the Zion National Park and the Rocky Mountains (I’ve never been much for cities, alright?). But as things are right now? I would *never* go to the US because right now it feels like it’s a gunpowder barrel just waiting for a spark to ignite it.
Hi, hey, American here. Yeah, thing is? It IS all the fault of the Republicans. Have a nice day!
All the blame is on republicans. They are literal white supremacist extremists
American here. People certainly disagree vehemently about political issues here for sure, but the media makes things seem 1000 times worse than it actually is. I'd say in 99.9999% of the country, you'd be in absolutely no danger of political violence, and usually when there is political violence there's plenty of signs ahead of time that maybe you should go somewhere else before things hit the fan. I don't live in a great part of my city at the moment, but even sketchy neighborhoods aren't that dangerous if you follow some common sense - don't get involved in drugs, don't wander about or go out at night if you don't have to and stick to well-lit bigger roads if you do, keep anything valuable you might have out of sight, etc. The vast majority of Americans on both sides are actually very friendly (save for the far fringes, but there actually aren't that many of those as their allocated airtime would have you think) as long as you don't bring up politics, or if they do bring up views you disagree with just don't engage, nod politely and change the subject.
Long story short, don't let the media scare you away from visiting. And those more rural areas, the national parks and mountains you want to see, you're infinitely more likely to get killed by wildlife than any political movement; most of the political violence is concentrated in a handful of problem cities when it does happen on the odd occasion and it's beyond misleading of the media to pretend those handful of cities accurately represent the whole country.
@@OhioCentralModeler I don't know how you can think that after Jan Sixth. Once things hit a certain level of control for the republicans...well, you know what the knight of the long knives was in Germany, yeah? That. But worse.
I am an american, and I can confirm that for a lot of people on the left, we no longer see people on the right as anyone we can deal with in good faith. They have lied, cheated and tried to literally steal an election through an attempted violent coup. The current supreme court has decided that women have no rights (if you don't have rights to your body, that's the source to all other rights), based on appointments to the supreme court stolen through dishonest manipulation, appointing extreme members base on a senate representing far below the majority.
Democrats have only lost the majority in one election since 2000, and yet of the 22 years, only 10 have been under a democratic president. The anger is real, the hope is dwindling, and people are arming.
Social media has been both Democratizing and anti Democratizing from the use of it. But the control of Social Media to supress The speech of those who you disagree with is far more anti Democratizing than not.
we need a electoral reform to get rid of the toxic two party system. We need a proportional electoral system. the two party system has devided this country and made politics more and more polarized
Agreed
More than 2 parties and they just don't serve monies interests of the upper class trash? I'm down for that. Otherwise we'll need civil war and/or anarchy to get it and enforce it. Punish the upper class trash to do so and all that? I'm also down to fight for freedom and justice coming back on track to this country for real, honestly.
Call it the NASCAR system.
videos like this make it hard for anyone to take you as a serious news group
Wow even tldr is Desperate for the sweet alarmists views. Also no us not divided enough for a civil war and democrats and republicans arguing with each other in a public space isn't evidence of division.
Well USA could become next level democracy, a (scary ghost sounds) a... *repubulic*
republic => res publica => public thing => we, the populus, decide. Not 2 parties which don't actually represent our view as a nation.
But I guess you're American and you don't like the idea of implementing something (scary ghost sounds, thunder strike) EUROPEAN.
@@theghostkillz8921 US is already a republic
@@everett1584 Short answer:
Well if you can represent all hundreds of milions of people with a president and instable parliament than you think yourself. But USA doesn't represent the people.
Longer answer + arguements:
Oh so you can vote for 20 parties and, realistically, 8 of them are most popular/in power and there's no party that gets over 40%? Ah yes USA is the true definition of an actual republic.
Good joke man.
Tell me USA is a republic when you can decide on how to, for example, regulate firearms cause your laws are as ridiculous as your political polarity of only 2 parties.
And don't get words *democratic* and *republic* mixed up. Democracy is a country in which you vote for a party (so theoretically even North Korea is a democracy). I'd definitely not call USA a republic also more like a presidential democracy, oh wait it is one! What a shocker! USA is just too far away from actually representing the people.
@@theghostkillz8921 I think you should attend a Political Science 101 class instead of internet arguing. I mean, seriously, you are wrong with your definition of democracy. I don't care what you call it, you are wrong to scholars and other people with significantly more credentials than you or I.
@@theghostkillz8921 i support a parliamentary democracy and formation of coalition where all the radical ideas are ignored and all the centrist ideas are realised is definitely a good. I don't understand how we can implement such a system cause it's politically impossible and not in a politician's self interest to implement such a system.
I believe bc the US is unique it’s next civil war would also be unique. I could imagine intense domestic conflict perhaps closer to the Troubles than to full on civil war in intensity.
@@eliasaguilar8580 see i think they’d deff be some wikipedia articles after about the _______ massacre, definitely some atrocities, but i kinda doubt they would be so widespread. In my opinion you can really tell the difference in tension say between working class more rural communities + suburbs of some major cities and say well-to-do bedroom communities of smaller cities. So I think you’d have a situation of some Americans going about life mostly unaffected and other Americans in conflict zones witnessing war crimes
Civil wars usually have a scale problem, and a psychological limitation. One, people don't just choose out of nothing to get out of their houses and fight their neighboors, two, even if they do, having only machetes and a few guns can only take some thousands of soldiers going on.
The US war culture, to justify everlasting wars makes their population different, they are trigerred, if someone in power labels a share of population as terrorist you have almost instantaneously millions who would take arms against their neighboors.
And unlikely anywhere else.... the US has more guns per capita than any war front on Earth, almost 40% of civillians are weaponized.
As an american, I expect something like that. The divisions aren't across neat lines like they were in the civil war. Basically every city is blue, liberal, economically growing and cosmopolitan. Nearly all rural areas are right wing, racist as hell, theocratic, have no real economic future and deeply xenophobic. This is going to play out as bombings, school shootings (already the case), and racists shooting up black, hispanic and asian churches/religious centers.
@@soulcatcher521 also an american here, something to note is cities arent entirely blue, and the left does not align with liberals. Cities could end up like meat grinders with the urban (either hierarchical or disorganized) right wing people fighting the liberals and left, the non-radicalized liberals trying to attack both sides, and the left trying to set up autonomous zones and fight the other two. To say the least, it will probably be gruesome sadly, and with how much liberals are anti-gun, their only safety will be if the state aligns with liberalism and provides police (that didnt defect to alt right) to help them.
@@soulcatcher521 rural American here and you actually don’t see much racism in rural communities. Especially in comparison to the outright race violence that you see in cities. While it’s true HISTORICALLY that racism flourished in rural areas the reality is it also takes far less time to eliminate it than it does in cities. Mostly for practical reasons. Hard to justify having racially segregated bathrooms when it costs twice as much to maintain them off an already tight budget for example. Theocratic is also an iffy statement as that would require a unified religious view which just doesn’t happen, for example there are 5 churches in my hometown each for a different denomination and the census never put our population over 1200 people of which only about 5-600 actually consider themselves religious. As for xenophobic that really depends on how you define xenophobic. We are naturally distrusting of outsiders (and with people like you looking down on us can you really blame us?) But once someone moves into our community permanently they are treated as social equals irregardless their origins.
Here's my best case scenario after this video. With the EU tied up with just barely keeping Russia in check, if the US collapses then China will have free reign in the Asia Pacific unless a unified Canada/AusNz/Japan can keep them in check also. But long term, with the cultural and geographical distance it would be hard to keep a unified front.
Canada Australia New Zealand and Japan can't keep Japan in check because none of these countries have nukes
@@kurtpunchesthings2411 You're right, let's add India to the mix then for a more unstable coalition and the remnants of the US navy loyal to the Federal Government fleeing to Japan as a temporary stop gap.
Basically western style democracy would be fucked and as much as I hate to say it, we need those Americans
* free rein
China only cares about having regaining all the lost land of the Qing dynasty, so unless a Prime Minister like Margret Thatcher comes around to point this out they will continue to make these moves. They actually aren’t a threat to the West like so many are led to believe.
Yeah, I don’t agree with a lot of trump’s policies but claiming that he is pursuing white nationalist polices is a stretch.
SHE'S JUST A DEMOCRAT WHO'S ANNOYED WITH TRUMP AN-
Ahh, I seewhatyadidthere! Knee jerk reactions are easy. I get those too, since I think of myself on the right but never a Trumpist or a conservative. Patience can be a virtue. So is self-reflection, which could help prevent civil war if we can only remember what we really need out of life and how we can get it.
True
i love tldr talks as they are very balanced on both ends
There's more to a Democracy than voting. It also has to do with the power of social activism to induce change, the strength of the private sector, and the ability of people to easily unelect incumbents. The US scores well in those areas I feel. Of course the US is still a Democracy.
In conclusion: A civil war is unlikely, but the US has huge problems. It's all very similar to the Republic in Star Wars Episode 1 to 3.
But way less cool :(
... but USA isn't a republic at all. 2 parties don't represent hundreds of milions of people, more than (made up but rational number, look at other republics) 5 parties will do that job a lot better.
Maybe no civil war but only 2 party system brings severe stability problems imho.
@@theghostkillz8921 a republic ≠a democracy and your comment proves it
@@thatrandomguyontheinternet2477 Yes that was the point of my comment.
Have to disagree on South America, you are separating the military from civilian issues to make the claim that continent is the most peaceful at a time when more civilians are acting like their issues are militarized.
Would love to see this applied to México.
The U.S isn’t going to have a civil war. Our political landscape is frustrating but when shit hits the fan we are pretty good about rallying together as a people. It’ll all be okay.
Ok I pride myself on being fairly reasonable and central in my beliefs but this was extremely biased towards one side.
You mean you don't think republicans are theocratic fascists? 🤪
They could have at least brought out a conspiracy book attacking the other side
That was a click bate thumbnail.
An important thing to note rather than just focusing on is loss of status or factionalism happening what is more important is the perception of it happening. Do groups believe it is happening regardless of the facts can also effect it.
Americans live such comfortable lives today compared to 1860 that I don't think that anyone would risk their lives for a civil war. People in the 1860s didn't have food deliveries, Netflix, or Amazon.
@@eliasaguilar8580 more accurately the people who own Europe won't let it happen because it would get in the way of profits
I think a right wing coup (not a civil war) is more likely, as right wingers seem more likely to risk their lives than leftists. I say this as a leftist btw.
@@kurtpunchesthings2411 You mean the aristocrats because a lot of them are still millionaires and billionaires.
I highly doubt it. Plus this books just sounds like she's banking off the Trump hate. And I'm not even a Trump supporter.
She's an average MSNBC guest
It 100% is. The only people actually jockeying for a revolution are on the left. Take away the January 6th riot and what has the right done to push the country closer to civil war?
Right wing folks are not the revolutionaries. Left wing folks are.
But, never mind. Don't mind me.
@@roberteischen4170 left wingers are not willing to fight in a civil war, there are not enough militant left wing groups. While there are plenty on the right.
This sounds like the author looked at the current situation in the US and worked backwards to formulate a list of things that would make it look like they're on the brink of civil war. I don't think this list would really apply to most other civil wars, it's just a list of problems that specifically apply to America.
She might aswell have written that a love of Cheeseburgers, pickup trucks, and the NFL are CONDITONS that precede civil wars since this list doesn't seem very UNIVERSAL to me and is just made to portray the USA as a nation on the brink of a Civil War so that the author can profit from those fears.
Also I couldn't find a reliable Ranking of the United States on the polity scale and the one on Wikipedia ranks us as a full democracy
As far as I know, she did it in the opposite way. She looked at the civil wars in other states and looked for common features. Than she looked in the USA and checked the signs. But she doesnt claim that civil war always happen when these signs are present, but that they indicates, that a civil war is more probable. I saw an interview wuth her, where she explained it.
Well, that was cheery.
It was nonsense.
Maybe Im just tired but I couldnt follow this one. I think I need a tldr for this tldr.
This map looks like it’s from Kaiserriech
That map on the thumbnail looks a lot like the Kaiserreich US civil war map, but with Texas added. If that was intentional, nice one.
Kaiserreich Thumbnail :P
Kaiserredux
Clearly Charles Curtis is the only one who can save us.
*"world's greatest democracy"*
Every time I hear this, I just think of North Korea or the Soviet Union trying to convince their people that their country is the best.
Nobody asked.
I share my wisdom freely.
You're welcome
Well we aint a democracy. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!
North korea is the best
Politicians : Hmm these borders are too equal it is Gerrymandering time
Remember from Star Wars the clone wars, both sides of the galactic civil war were being controlled by the same man.
Yeah except star wars is a work of fiction.
the Galactic Civil War was the original trilogy. the Clone Wars is when both sides were controlled by the same man
...as part of a very convoluted long-term plan, which would be ludicrously difficult to engineer in reality. The 'commission secret army of clones from mysterious planet' bit in particular would present problems.
Yes just like the Democrat and Republican parties are controlled by shall we say a very small group of people
Hmm kind of like Rupert Murdoch lol
Long time no see Jack
I believe that fouling a basketball player who’s terrible at shooting free throws should be called the ‘hack a Shaq’ defense, even in reference to Wilt Chamberlain. I guess thanks for overlooking the other anocracy years the US saw during Jim Crow.
Talk about a clickbait headline TLDR you are better than this!
The US has NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY. We are a Republic. Why is this SO hard to understand?
Almost Every time anyone comes up with a US civil war it just doesn’t make sense with the sides and such
1797-1800 is John Adams's administration, the second president.
You can't fool me, you stole that map from kaiserriech
If that happens I'll be volunteering the medic or auxiliary police officer auxiliary firefighter
The issue with this is that the US isn’t very geographically divided.
This is spread out over the third largest country by land are and a population of 300+ million people. So….unless people move to concentrate political power then you are looking more at an insurgency than a civil war.
Civil war could then proceed if the national government falls to the insurgency, then look for left -wing groups to break away.
My personal opinion is that the US is on the way to Balkanizing. Whether through a scenario like I outlined above or by more peaceful means, but it will happen. We have too many people over too big an area for a federal system like ours to function.
Yes, it is geographically divided.
You are aware that 20+% lives West of the West coast mountain ranges, and that 40+% lives east of the East coast mountain ranges, Right?
60% of the total US population lives on either the west or east coasts of the Nation.
That is VERY geographically divided.
Lmao is that a kaiserreich us civil war map?
Support for Republicans did not rise among minorities. Support for Trump conservatives rose among minorities.
Trump made record breaking gains in minority camps it's funny that in 2020 there was only one group of people he lost support in % share white men ...... guy made gains in women and minorities but lost in white men that's really surprising
Yeah. You’re right. I am one of them (A minority switched to Republican Party because of Trump).
tbh, I actually don’t like Trump personality or behaviour, but I like his stances, programs, and movement (effectively ousting the establishment warmonger Neo-Con Republicans like McCain, Cheney and Bush).
This deserves a follow up…
NGL this civil war map looks like kaiserreich
All we need now is a new Huey Long
Can you repeat this for Canada?
Yet again a great video, very informative as usual
The fact that America is usually considered a Democracy amazes me.
It’s got only 2 political parties that receive any representation, and they’re both economically right-wing and both authoritarian. Social issues is the only real divide.
Gerrymandering and the electoral college mean that the people who get the most votes often lose (especially in state legislatures)🤪. It's literally not a democracy and was never designed to be (look at the power the senate and supreme court have vs normal systems).
@@catmonarchist8920 not simply just the majority can often loose due to the control of the minority, but an overwhelming number of seats can be acquired even if a simple majority is in control.
Like in parliamentary systems where multiple parties basically almost always morph into two opposing sides. It's the same thing with extra steps, along with the illusion that more people are being represented.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 no it isn’t, and if you think that you don’t understand.
Take the UK for an example, it’s still awful as a system, but when you’re conservative and not happy with them, you vote for the LiberalDemocrats, the party can get away with a lot less because there are other options.
And just because there are 2 opposing sides doesn’t mean it’s the same. Each of the parties have more sway, this can give specific views more emphasis, this can allow for say, a socially right wing and economically left party, within a coalition of whatever.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 The illusion of choice is better than no choice. Two party systems is just a single party system with extra steps. A multi-party system is an actual dual party system.
How interesting that this ‘video’ is on the USA. Turn the lens on Russia? The Loss of status certainly fits.
Increasing acceptance of extremism, defined as use of violence for political purposes, is also important in this calculus. Letting people use violence and terror to achieve political goals is how you end up becoming an authoritarian state like Fascist Italy or Afghanistan currently.
Someone's been playing Kaiserreich
The US seemingly needs a labour party organised by workers. it would take the balance away from the oversized left and right and give a real voice to the large amount of centrists that vote based on what they feel about what is being said right before elections. would also drive opposing votes in historically safe seats that are usually run unopposed.
They have a Labour Party, but they don’t have a big enough base because no one cares for them.
@@KRYMauL rip. Labour parties are way big in other countries.
@@jonathanodude6660 The US thinks labour is Communist.
@@KRYMauL unfortunate. they will continue to complain about poor working conditions and wages until the mindset is fixed.
@@jonathanodude6660 It’s mainly because its dual party system makes things more divided than necessary.
brhu the thumbnail was literally kaiserich usa second civil war
January 6, yeah. Then I feel no hope that we will avoid a War between each other.
If the US enters a civil War am going back to Mexico
Please take me with you
We should have supported the Empire in the 1860s...
Any chance such a civil war would be similar to the Spanish one?
Viva La Catalunya
If a civil war broke out, which side would inherited the title of United States of America?
None. North East would merge with Canada bringing along Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan and Illinois. Probably do a trade deal to let the interstate 90-80 through Indiana as a free trade zone and open borders 30 miles south of the freeway. Canada changes it’s name and be comes the North American union provincial and states and parliament system with multi parties of democrats New Democrat liberal Green Party plus over 200 million in populace. Yeah we want half the military
Technically, the US has never been a Democracy, but a Republic. And with congress and most recent presidents ignoring the public and sitting in their seats for decade after decade, the US has lost key elements of that Republican model for some time.
a republic is a democracy bro...
@@Commodore22345 yes it is bro.
Average republican dumbo thinking that republic = republican so America must be a republic because how could their home country be commie democrat!!?!!?
@@PossessedPotatoBird A Republic is type of *representative* democracy. Peer democracy only works when a leader is lazy and doesn’t want to lead.
Democracy: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or INDIRECTLY THROUGH A SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION usually involving periodically held free elections"
Billionaires will never let regional separation. Would affect their profits. If they could make more money from it, they would manipulate politics to dismantle the nation
They would probably side with the region that gave them more money via military industrial complex.
The first American Civil War was triggered by secession crisis which the obvious reason for it was slavery. Anyhow in order for a Civil War in America to actually start it would have to start with a secession crisis and of course the federal governments refusal to withdraw troops since “it technically is still federal territory even the when states seceded” since it’s now considered federal territory instead of a semi autonomous region. “ remember states are created when they are annexed by the federal government so technically states still retain territorial status even when they try to form a new country.
But, if it’s Civil War the start it would be pretty quick that the president would have responded “ since the president could just issue a proclamation ass why I asked that the federal statue that allow the president to raise troops still exist and are attempting to start a Civil War would be act of rebellion and you know that the president has the power to put that down.
Won't happen
I feel like this channel predicts the opposite of whatever happens in the world.
correct.
How might war come about? Trying to stop the secession of a state? Degradation of social order by the lack of policing crime? Forcible disarmament of citizens? How would this develop into a war rather than a disintegration?
Colombia lives in civil war but the whole world decide don't look
Well this aged well
The quality of democracy in the us is pretty bad, you can't vote on the primaries if you are not registered with that party and policies popular with voters pretty much don't pass.
Primary policy varies by state. In some states they hold open primaries for anyone to choose.
@@cstrutherskgs In my state, I have to register as Republican, even though I'm pretty liberal. Republican representatives redrew district lines about 20 years ago and recently redrew them again stating that if the districts reverted to how they used to be Republicans would lose a majority of their seats. The only hope Democrats have in the face of such egregious gerrymandering is harm reduction. It's sad.
@@revenancesmith3819 Lol, oh please, save the pathetic pity talk, Democrat gerrymandering in New York, California, etc is atrocious.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 I'm sorry you're dealing with gerrymandering yourself. Gerrymandering isn't OK, and just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I think that Democrats deserve a pass. I think that many Americans accept gerrymandering if they are the majority party. I mean, my Republican friends don't seem to think it's a big deal and it's even difficult for them to see things from my perspective. I get a lot of "vote them out if you think things are unfair" which is ridiculous because we wouldn't be having the conversation in the first place if that was possible.
Could you do some live streams of major events.
What a stupid idea.
Maybe it’s a good thing. Nothing last forever.
Costa Rica and Panama can be added to the peaceful part of America, even if they're not part of South America.
Avoid? I think that’s what America needs
The US used to have a solution for such factionalism. The over-federalization of America is largely a post-Civil War concept. Each state was very much considered a sovereign nation, you were first a Vermonter or a Texan before an American. States are much more effective (when they don't elect braindead ideologues) at creating policy that suits the needs of their local population. I think returning to a model that weakens the federal government and empowers states to be more independent is the most peaceful solution that doesn't have to necessarily devolve into ethnostates
The future is not federal. We have national problems that require comprehensive national solutions. Just like we have global problems that require comprehensive global solutions where everyone does there bit domestically to address global issues.
The book is just too biased
TLDR needs to contact me so I can explain this to them. They just don't understand the USA and its differences within different regions. There are so many incorrect assumptions in this video. Heck, I could discuss with them each one if they would like. Too subjective and not objective.
One thing I'm unclear about is how a civil war would realistically occur geographically - the last one had clear North South boundaries due to the Southern states usage of and profiting off of slavery. But here, population counts show democratic voters all about the US congregated mostly around large cities, with Republicans basically everywhere else. There doesn't seem to be any clear lines. Even very blue states have large swaths of red (Oregon for instance) and very Red states have large pockets of blue (Texas).
The US is not divided by area, while we call states "red" or blue. however the difference is basically a few percentage points. The fact is NATO would not allow the US government fall to a civil war and who ever has the military leadership will be in power and stay in power.
I mean she bascily just discibed the US and the Americain colonies though out their enitre history... But oddly failed to discribe the Civil War the war fought between "white" men for "white" men with minorities fighting on both sides voluntarily or forced by the draft that started in that war. However the only point that stands is the over all argument of tensions and back sliding caused the Civil war it did but like I said between what we would call white men today worring about loss of terrtory to other white men... Which by the way white back then only meant English, French and German every one esle like Irish, Scotish, itailan, Chinesse, Black etc was an opressed minoitie by both sides. But both sides let them get credit by giving them indipendtne/segated units like the scots-Irish for fought for the CSA and the Scots who fought for the USA. Point is the book is very biased against the US as a whole as anyone watching congress like videos or streams of it can see it still works just fine even after the terrorist attack. The only issue is it's polorised but even then not everyone is voting just one side 100% of the time and the people who are just look like bad guys.
History doesn't just... Happen. So if there is a civil war it has to have a spark somewhere. And so, we have time to save the country
Abortion?