6 ms·
I think the idea that we are in a unique time of civil strife is a myth. From the actual Civil War, to the militant labor movement, to the first red scare, to
by badRNG 5y ago
I think the idea that we are in a unique time of civil strife is a myth.
From the actual Civil War, to the militant labor movement, to the first red scare, to McCarthyism and the Civil Rights Movement, to the anti-Vietnam war movement, American civil life has been defined by conflict.
Maybe social media allows conflict to be persistently on the top of people's minds. While in previous years one may have enjoyed the privilege of conflict not following you home, following you on vacation, and following you to the toilet.
The barricades aren't in the street, they're in your Facebook groups or Twitter threads, and they need to be persistently manned in order to ensure territory isn't lost to the other side.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- karaterobot 5y agoBut internet flame wars and real civil wars are not equivalent. Yes, there's always been some level of civil strife in America, just as there has in every country, at every moment in history. People argue, often angrily. But, it's not until there is actual, physical violence that it becomes a civil war. The question is, are we close to an organized faction taking up arms against the state? Anything short of that is interesting in its own way, sociologically and culturally, but it is not a civil war.
- notacoward 5y ago> American civil life has been defined by conflict. How many times has the Capitol been stormed? How many times has it been possible for a party representing a clear minority of citizens (however defined) to gain or hold on to power via gerrymandering, rejection of votes, or state-legislative nullification of results? When, in the past, has it been possible and to a large extent legal for corporations and hostile foreign powers to influence our elections in a significant way? At least some things that are happening now are unprecedented (even if we disagree on the exact set). Also, please note that the authors have actually studied what other changes act as precursors to civil war throughout the world. Perhaps we shouldn't put our own intuition above that, without at least considering the evidence they present.
- areyousure 5y ago> How many times has the Capitol been stormed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_and_dangerous_incidents_at_the_United_States_Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_and_danger...
- notacoward 5y agoSo, not many. I didn't use "stormed" by accident. It means an armed group forcing their way past defenders into contested territory. A lone crazy doesn't count. An internal altercation doesn't count. Those are violent, but not storming, and AFAICT the last incident of that was 1814. Thanks for proving my point about how exceptional January 6 was.
- pseudo0 5y agoNone of the people who entered the Capitol were armed, at least according to the charges brought by prosecutors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_in_the_2021_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_in_the_2021_U...), and the only person shot that day was a rioter. I don't blame you for having misconceptions though, legacy media coverage of this topic has been absolutely abysmal.
- notacoward 5y agoNone of them had firearms you mean. The claim that they weren't armed is a transparent lie. There is a lot of video showing them carrying and using weapons of various sorts.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> None of them had firearms you mean At least one person is charged with both having a firearm at the riot and disorderly conduct in Capitol building, so even that is wrong.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
- drewcoo 5y agoI think the Business Plot was closer to civil war than any of those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot