Support NeoGAF

[OrangeGrayBlue]

The issue is that you don't quite understand the stated issue (cultural feet-dragging) isn't really a Mason-Dixon Line issue, at least not anymore thanks to the homogenization of conservatism post-Reagan. And by offering a potential solution -- letting the confederate states secede -- you show that you neither understand the current political culture nor the very real and devastating impact their removal from the union would have on basically every phase of American life. It's not just "ok bye we don't have to listen to you anymore," it's everything from the economic powerhouses of Georgia, Texas, and Florida, to the importance of Gulf access, control of the Atlantic, spheres of influence in central and South America, and endless other issues that come from splitting up the most powerful superpower in the history of the world.

No, you can't offer to split that superpower up because a bunch of conservatives are holding back social change. That anyone responded with a reasonable explanation why it couldn't work is a credit to them.

You don't need to separate differing ideologies entirely to push national politics in one direction or another. If just Texas were to become its own country, for instance, that would cause a massive shift in terms of how politicians campaign on a national level and what is considered electable. We'll see that regardless when Texas (and Georgia) goes blue and the GOP has to restructure their platform as a result.


You're right, though, that I didn't initially consider the implications in terms of the US maintaining status as a world power, but that's something I admitted as early as post #54.

 

[MC Safety]

This thread is almost almost as bad as that "Why don't we just nuke the middle east?" thread.

It's far worse, because this is an ignorant American posting about the country in which he lives and showing absolutely no insight into or understanding of American history, culture, politics, and economics.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

It's far worse, because this is an ignorant American posting about the country in which he lives and showing absolutely no insight into or understanding of American history, culture, politics, and economics.

Damn.

 

[PantherLotus]

Fwiw I think it's an interesting thought exercise and one which fuels an entire industry of alternate history fiction. I've said something like the OP a number of times, I just get reminded that 'the south' is everywhere now fairly often. Dude's not stupid.

 

[akira28]

Damn.

its ok. I enjoyed your thought experiment, but for reasons of my own...
I don't think you're an idiot. But really the reason we don't let the South go is because it would make them happy. So it will never ever ever happen. Ever. Till Death Do We Part.

or until i get that time machine, go back in time and have Columbus torn limb from limb.

 

[LOLDSFAN]

Uhhh no? California has the largest number of bases out of any other state, not to mention the largest base in the country IE Camp Pendleton.

Is that by population or actual area?

He's wrong on both.

Fort Bragg (located in North Caronlia) is the largest base in America by both population and area.

163,000 acres/52,000 active duty compared to 125,547/33,000.

Also 4 out of 5 of the biggest bases are all in the South (Bragg, Campbell, Hood, Benning).

 

[Arcia]

But really the reason we don't let the South go is because it would make them happy. So it will never ever ever happen. Ever. Till Death Do We Part.

I know you are probably joking, but a lot of people need to know that secession would not make the South happy. Only a small minority in the South wants the South to secede. And most of them are racist white people.

People in the North like to forget that a lot of the South's population is made up of minorities, especially Black and Latino people. I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain why they would prefer the US government over one run by rich white racists.

Honestly, it always makes me wonder when people start threads like this if they realize that by saying they want to remove the South from the US that they are essentially discarding a large portion of this country's Black and Latino population.

 

[akira28]

when we say The South, we're only ever talking about the white people.

(really, we aren't expecting them, their former slaves, and current descended immigrant populations to "rise again")

and if there was ever a succession, they would have a hell of a time capturing Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi.

 

[mre]

when we say The South, we're only ever talking about the white people.

(really, we aren't expecting them, their former slaves, and current descended immigrant populations to "rise again")

and if there was ever a succession, they would have a hell of a time capturing Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi.

What the fuck is this shit?

 

[cajunator]

you have angered the Fozz

 

[Beelzebufo]

Why would that be a good idea? It's terrible for national security, is bad for trade, and would just be bad for everyone. It's like the worst idea.

 

[FOOTE]

Because it'd massively reduce America's power and international stature? Because the vast majority of Americans living in the South don't want to secede? Because the South is increasingly economically important?

This should have ended the thread.

 

[Cotton McKnight]

OP, the money says no, it would never happen. There is not enough division between the two halves in this ever globalizing world. You would have a better chance if the US annexed Mexico or Canada, or something ridiculous like that. (in my opinion)

 

[FriedConsole]

Blue states can make a good portion of their own laws in this federalist country. They aren't exactly far left zones.

Both ideological sides know they don't want absolute power because they know their extreme ideas don't work. They just want to talk that way so crazies keep giving them money.

Why are red states only now legalizing gay marriage? If you look throughout history on social issues red states are 10-15 years behind. Why should blue states be all high and mighty and being 15 years ahead. And yes gay marriage will be legal in red states in 10 years.

 

[akira28]

What the fuck is this shit?

speak your piece, bear.

 

[Diablos]

It's a nice scenario but would be ridiculously hard to orchestrate. The US would have to literally be at war with itself again for that to happen, and the end result would be messy and likely wouldn't resemble what people in threads like this fantasize about.

Emerging demographics and a change in ideology will kill the Southern GOP once and for all, but it's going to take another 20-25 years to finalize that. That's your "secession". It sucks that we have to sit through it as young people, but it will happen.

 

[Slayven]

I go where the Sweet Tea flows

 

[Samurai G0SU]

^_^

 

[ErasureAcer]

Several northern states are doing the same slick.

Very few. You can't argue with the facts. The South is sucking off the Feds and then have the audacity to complain about the redistribution of wealth.

 

[benjipwns]

Very few. You can't argue with the facts. The South is sucking off the Feds and then have the audacity to complain about the redistribution of wealth.

Why is this a problem? Don't the more progressive states want to redistribute wealth to the poor?

Isn't this the same as bashing welfare recipients for having the audacity to complain about anything?

 

[cajunator]

Very few. You can't argue with the facts. The South is sucking off the Feds and then have the audacity to complain about the redistribution of wealth.

These maps and data do not actually explain what the money being given to each state is used for. Some of it is for maintenance of bases and parks, Army Corps projects necessary to function (in Louisiana, Port Fourchon is massively important to the US for example) and other federal related things. The only portion of Louisiana that is really dependent on the govt is the northeastern part which is one of the most poverty stricken areas of the nation. Southern Louisiana has an excellent economy and a quickly growing middle class, so Im pretty sure its not very dependent on govt subsidies to exist. The cost of maintaining the multi billion dollar infrastructure of Three Rivers and the levee and flood protection systems likely weighs heavily in our case.

 

[akira28]

Why is this a problem? Don't the more progressive states want to redistribute wealth to the poor?

Isn't this the same as bashing welfare recipients for having the audacity to complain about anything?

what does progressivism have to do with it?
the poor are all over and the aid isn't going to everyone that needs it. A lot of it disappears into economcally depressed sinkholes for badly managed maintenance when what these communities need are revitalization and jobs.

you'll notice there are plenty of conservatives and moderates to block the progressives in those states. Lots of them picked up new Republicans this last election.

 

[benjipwns]

what does progressivism have to do with it?
the poor are all over and the aid isn't going to everyone that needs it. A lot of it disappears into economcally depressed sinkholes for badly managed maintenance when what these communities need are revitalization and jobs.

Detroit's not in the South.

And there's a lot of poverty in the South too. So what's the problem with redistributing wealth slightly more to the South from the rich in places like Delaware, Wall Street, San Francisco, etc. Isn't that the point?

 

[akira28]

Detroit's not in the South.

Detroit's being saved? Looked like they already wrote it off to me.

Detroit might be one of the places that would get some love once we finally send Florida crashing into the sea.

 

[Arcia]

Why is this a problem? Don't the more progressive states want to redistribute wealth to the poor?

Isn't this the same as bashing welfare recipients for having the audacity to complain about anything?

Yeah, I hate when people make this argument. I think they should realize that bashing the South for taking more government welfare than Northern states is bashing the poor. And going back to my previous post, a large portion of the South's population is Black and Latino. You know, those minorities that have historically been discriminated against and kept from attaining higher incomes?

People saying the South should be expelled from the USA because the South needs more help financially may not know it, but they are making an argument that is classist and racist. "Gosh, wouldn't life be so much easier for us well off Northerners if those poors down South were gone?" Bleh!

 

[Jenov]

I'd reckon that the closet racists in the north would love to dump the Hispanic and African flavored states, and blame it on the evil white southerners.

OP secretly wants to just whiten the north, confirmed:

 

[Makai]

These maps and data do not actually explain what the money being given to each state is used for. Some of it is for maintenance of bases and parks, Army Corps projects necessary to function (in Louisiana, Port Fourchon is massively important to the US for example) and other federal related things. The only portion of Louisiana that is really dependent on the govt is the northeastern part which is one of the most poverty stricken areas of the nation. Southern Louisiana has an excellent economy and a quickly growing middle class, so Im pretty sure its not very dependent on govt subsidies to exist. The cost of maintaining the multi billion dollar infrastructure of Three Rivers and the levee and flood protection systems likely weighs heavily in our case.

Uh...so? Is money flowing into the state or not?

 

[akira28]

Yeah, I hate when people make this argument. I think they should realize that bashing the South for taking more government welfare than Northern states is bashing the poor.

South doesnt mind keeping them poor is the point.
Southern formula hasn't changed much since the 19th century, dog.

Keep em poor, uneducated, keep them out of politics, keep them tied to whatever commerce the prosperous 10% can think up, and they have their own little southern kingdom.

 

[benjipwns]

South doesnt mind keeping them poor is the point.

And aren't national redistributive measures and programs supposed to get around that and send more to the poor states?

 

[cajunator]

Uh...so? Is money flowing into the state or not?

Yes, money flows into every state from the government. Some states are more expensive to run. Some ports are expensive to protect. This isnt the fault of the people who live in that state. It shouldnt even BE a factor in people making fun of the south is what Im saying. This is necessary expenditure. People in southern states are paying into taxes same as everybody else. There is absolutely no difference here.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Why is this a problem? Don't the more progressive states want to redistribute wealth to the poor?

Isn't this the same as bashing welfare recipients for having the audacity to complain about anything?

Hey, we're a country. Let's support everyone here. The thing is these conservative Southern states hate wealth distribution but here is the evidence they're taking it. I'd have no problem with the North supporting the South if the South weren't bitching about the very thing that they say they're against. If you don't want the money the Feds give you because you're against wealth redistribution ...send it back. This was made to the bigger point that while the South does contribute to the American economy the North and West would be just fine without the South siphoning off dollars that could be put right back to where it originated from. The North essentially would be stronger from that point of view without the South. Of course on the whole the nation is stronger with the South being a part of it. How to quantify that in so many ways would take forever to say. I'm not arguing we get rid of the South...merely stating that the North is better in every single way including paying for the shit the South say they're against.

 

[akira28]

And aren't national redistributive measures and programs supposed to get around that and send more to the poor states?

maybe if the system wasn't ginned from the get go. Remember, we're handing money over to these regional barons and trusting them to do whats right for their people. And then they do their best to block anything that looks like social welfare, pouring most of their efforts into commerce. be it propping up bad business, encouraging irresponsibility to come to their region for local incentives, or deregulating what was already in place so they can shave a nickle and tell the feds to butt out.

 

[Arcia]

South doesnt mind keeping them poor is the point.
Southern formula hasn't changed much since the 19th century, dog.

Keep em poor, uneducated, keep them out of politics, keep them tied to whatever commerce the prosperous 10% can think up, and they have their own little southern kingdom.

And your point is? This if anything proves my point, that the South should NOT secede. These disadvantaged groups need more protection, not less. I was just showing why people ignorantly wanting secession because they want to bash the South are doing so from a place of naive privilege.

 

[Jenov]

South doesnt mind keeping them poor is the point.

Yah, cause the South is really just full of backwards evil white, racist hicks doing all they can to keep the black people poor, while all the good whites up North don't have any problems with their minority populations, lol. Such simplistic us vs them thinking again.

Institutional problems with racism and poverty with minorities are a nationwide problem, not just a white people doing it in the South thing. It's just more apparent in the South because there are much, much larger populations of minorities there.

 

[Makai]

Yes, money flows into every state from the government. Some states are more expensive to run. Some ports are expensive to protect. This isnt the fault of the people who live in that state. It shouldnt even BE a factor in people making fun of the south is what Im saying. This is necessary expenditure. People in southern states are paying into taxes same as everybody else. There is absolutely no difference here.

Welfare spending is also a necessary expenditure.

 

[The Incarnation]

Why not become British territory again? We'd love you long time.

 

[akira28]

Yah, cause the South is really just full of backwards evil white, racist hicks doing all they can to keep the black people poor, while all the good whites up North don't have any problems with their minority populations, lol. Such simplistic us vs them thinking again.

Institutional problems with racism and poverty with minorities are a nationwide problem, not just a white people doing it in the South thing. It's just more apparent in the South because there are much, much larger populations of minorities there.

so then take my argument reductio ad absurdum because it's all about evil whites versus the blacks.

 

[cajunator]

Im sure there are a tiny handful of states that are reliant on welfare programs, but it isnt this one.

 

[Jenov]

so then take my argument reductio ad absurdum because it's all about evil whites versus the blacks.

Southern formula hasn't changed much since the 19th century, dog.

Keep em poor, uneducated, keep them out of politics, keep them tied to whatever commerce the prosperous 10% can think up, and they have their own little southern kingdom

Uh, isn't that exactly what you said? Basically that the South (and not the North) is some evil caricature attempting to upkeep a racist kingdom.

 

[Makai]

Im sure there are a tiny handful of states that are reliant on welfare programs, but it isnt this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

Louisiana is the second poorest state, dude.

 

[akira28]

Uh, isn't that exactly what you said? Basically that the South (and not the North) is some evil caricature attempting to upkeep a racist kingdom.

no. I was referring to the historical/cultural differences between southern pastorialism and northern industrialism. differences that the South has built an identity around that is defended and idealized to this day. based upon facts, not 'racist caricatures' i should add.

 

[Jenov]

no. I was referring to the historical/cultural differences between southern pastorialism and northern industrialism. differences that the South has built an identity around that is defended to this day. based upon facts, not 'racist caricatures' i should add.

And yet more blacks are moving down South now instead of North.

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2014/03/24/black-migration-is-now-from-north-to-south.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25south.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0316/Why-African-Americans-are-moving-back-to-the-South

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Migration

The New Great Migration is the demographic change from 1965 to the present, which is a reversal of the previous 35-year trend of black migration within the United States. Since 1965, deindustrialization of cities in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States, growth of jobs in the "New South" with lower costs of living, family and kinship ties, and improving racial relations have all acted to attract African Americans to the Southern United States in substantial numbers.

 

[jett]

Didn't you people go through a civil war once already over this shit?

 

[cajunator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

Louisiana is the second poorest state, dude.

Only the top half is.
Ill give you the top half.

The bottom half is completely different.
Problem is that Louisiana is essentially two states, one economic powerhouse and one in poverty. My city is one of the few in the country with the foresight to build a fiber optic gigabit network and there are billions of dollars worth of privately funded infrastructure being built around here for natural gas, medical facilities, tech companies and other industries. This is NOT a poor area by any stretch of the imagination. Now I will grant you that the top half needs a lot of help and the problem there is that those cities are basically tied more to Texas and Arkansas. They are that different. They are not tied economically to the rest of the state and literally could be in a different state entirely and it wouldnt matter much at all. Its basically like the middle of Pennsylvania compared to Philly and Pittsburgh.

 

[akira28]

And yet more blacks are moving down South now instead of North.

and? they're going to do it themselves. they're not relying on anyone but their own industry and community. They're going down to start their own companies and buy property and often reclaim the heritage that was left behind. has nothing to do with southern infrastructure suddenly changing to support them(because it hasn't). The large minority communities are what they're trying to participate in and raise up.

dont see it really supporting your argument

 

[Makai]

Only the top half is.
Ill give you the top half.

The bottom half is completely different.
Problem is that Louisiana is essentially two states, one economic powerhouse and one in poverty. My city is one of the few in the country with the foresight to build a fiber optic gigabit network and there are billions of dollars worth of privately funded infrastructure being built around here for natural gas, medical facilities, tech companies and other industries. This is NOT a poor area by any stretch of the imagination. Now I will grant you that the top half needs a lot of help and the problem there is that those cities are basically tied more to Texas and Arkansas. They are that different. They are not tied economically to the rest of the state and literally could be in a different state entirely and it wouldnt matter much at all. Its basically like the middle of Pennsylvania compared to Philly and Pittsburgh.

Look, you can't just discount half of your state. There are rich and poor areas in every state. A lot of the poor areas are concentrated in the South, which is the point you were originally contradicting. If the South secedes, those areas are only going to get poorer.

 

[Arcia]

and? they're going to do it themselves. they're not relying on anyone but their own industry and community. They're going down to start their own companies and buy property and often reclaim the heritage that was left behind. has nothing to do with southern infrastructure suddenly changing to support them. The large minority communities are what they're trying to participate in and raise up.

dont see it really supporting your argument

Are you not aware that gentrification is what is pushing Blacks to move South? They are moving South because the housing there is cheaper compared to the historically Black neighborhoods that they previously lived in, but got taken over by white people. White people came in, raised the cost of living in those areas, and the poorer Black population was unable to adapt (especially in a country that discriminates against them economically, yes EVEN IN THE NORTH *gasp*). The North is just as discriminatory, just in a more silent and insidious way.

 

[Jenov]

and? they're going to do it themselves. they're not relying on anyone but their own industry and community. They're going down to start their own companies and buy property and often reclaim the heritage that was left behind. has nothing to do with southern infrastructure suddenly changing to support them. The large minority communities are what they're trying to participate in and raise up.

dont see it really supporting your argument

So your assertion is that the South hasn't changed much at all from its civil war era roots and it secretly wants to upkeep a 'southern kingdom'. I show you links that black people actually see better opportunities and changes in racial relations down South, and thus causing more migration there, but your only refute is that they're doing well in spite of all the southern racists and their evil formulas. Got it.

 

[akira28]

Are you not aware that gentrification is what is pushing Blacks to move South? They are moving South because the housing there is cheaper compared to the historically Black neighborhoods that they previously lived in, but got taken over by white people. White people came in, raised the cost of living in those areas, and the poorer Black population was unable to adapt (especially in a country that discriminates against them economically, yes EVEN IN THE NORTH *gasp*). The North is just as discriminatory, just in a more silent and insidious way.

gentrification is happening down south too. and the argument wasn't defending the north, btw. *gasp* You're connecting the two, and they may even be related, but even if gentrification is a push, it isn't necessarily a push down south. It tends to be a push to suburban regions in the same locale, because relocating completely to the South usually comes with some purpose, to capitalize on the benefits of doing so. Not just because your rent has increased so you're going to move 800 miles away to Alabama for reasons.

Got it.

I am somehow not surprised that this is what you "got". You have links, I have family moving south. I know their motivations, and it isn't because "the south has changed". It's because they have changed and have decided to go do well despite all of the southern racist polities and inculcated attitudes.

 

[cajunator]

Look, you can't just discount half of your state. There are rich and poor areas in every state. A lot of the poor areas are concentrated in the South, which is the point you were originally contradicting. If the South secedes, those areas are only going to get poorer.

Only because the north prices them out.
I mean seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Like the north is some kind of utopia or something. I wouldnt live there with that kind of attitude if you paid me millions of dollars.
The only exception would be Southern Maryland in St Mary's country where it is also heavily catholic and has a lot of amish people. That felt very comfortable.