If anything’s going to change, however, it begins with holding an open and honest conversation about the real impact the Civil Rights movement ended up having.
I do t usually comment but this was really thoughtful even courageous article. We’ve actually had examples of semi segregation think Gary Indiana, Washington DC, Detroit Michigan, Atlanta GA etc
The first three I listed have turned out so well but it’s taboo or ‘racist’ to notice and ask why
Your ethnic enclave idea sounds like a domestic version of Liberia. I suspect it would work about as well. A Liberia on our doorstep would amount to our own Gaza Strip.
The problems with the Civil Rights Act are deeper; it conflicts with the inalienable right of association (or non-association). This core problem -- the law now requires Americans to regularly come into contact with others that they find abhorrent -- metastasizes and feeds all the others. That's true whether you're black, white, or brown. I understand the intentions were good and perhaps even needed, but this is a major imposition on a basic human right. We're now reaping the consequences of trying to go against tribal human nature for 60+ years.
If you haven't read Age of Entitlement by Caldwell, you should. The book is all about the downstream effects of this conflict. We're living under 2 Constitutions: 1789 and 1964. One of these will fall because they can not coexist.
Another book that's really good, although only tangentially related to civil rights, is Tribe by Sebastian Junger. He analyzes ways of managing tribalism in large, complex societies. Best quote of the book (paraphrase): "A nation is just a really big foxhole. If you doubt this, you've likely never been in a foxhole."
A domestic Liberia is exactly what it'd be and yes, it'd be our own Gaza. We'd probably end up at war with it.
The best way to look at the Civil Rights Act: it was a necessary corrective, but that correction has now run it's course. There's really nothing more for the Civil Rights regime to accomplish and is now doing far more harm than good. It's going to be tremendous sales pitch trying to convince Americans it's time to roll back the Civil Rights Act, but it starts there.
A society like ours can only survive long term by either conquering the world or constantly fighting wars. It's not Japan, who can thrive despite it's economy being stagnant for over 30 years and demographically regressing. I don't want either, but if I had to choose, if America's survival came down to it, I'd pick the war. But who'd we fight?
That's a perspective I've never heard you articulate that way before, the idea that our society must either be a global hegemon or die trying. Do you mean America, Western Civilization in general?
I've mentioned before that I believe the Rome comparison is civilizationally correct but temporally off -- it's not AD 476 but 50 BC, and what's coming over the hill isn't a barbarian horde but Caesar's army. What our Caesar will look like, I don't know, but he's coming. So I'm not sure I disagree with you.
I've been encouraging a multipolar world for a while now; it sounds like you think we will never be satisfied in such a world though.
America already is an empire in feature, if not function. A society this diverse will have a very difficult time forging nationhood. I'm a bit more optimistic than say Nicole Williams is, and the outcome of the election feeds that optimism. However, the only pathway to nationhood is to follow the dictates of Samuel Huntington, which involves America very consciously adopting Anglo-Protestantism as its core culture. But to do so would require a complete dismantling of nearly every tenant of Americanism since the mid-20th century, namely the "proposition nation." That's a tall order.
Ironically, China is an example of how you can forge nationhood in a massive population made up of dozens of different ethnic groups. The problem is that China is over 90% Han, a single ethnicity. If America was over 90% White, or at least Euro-origin, maybe it could be done. But other aspects of our society would still make it tough.
Aside from that, the only alternative is what every other empire has done to hold it together: expand, expand, and expand until we can't. I don't want America to become an empire; it's not worth the expense, the beneficiaries are few, plus we don't even have the demographics for it. We need to be ready to send lots of young men through the meat grinder to be able to maintain empire. Following Erik Prince into battle today will result in a major demographic crisis 20 years from now.
A multipolar world is inevitable. I think the U.S. should pursue regional (Western Hemisphere) hegemony, but it ought to do so through off-shoring and soft power. Use our air and naval might to impose order. There's no need to put boots on the ground.
The "complete dismantling of nearly every tenant of Americanism since the mid-20th century"...
"If America was over 90% White, or at least Euro-origin"...
The last time we had what you're describing (and what China has created) was between 1945-1965, and we were 90% white.
Once you alter your ethnic makeup to the degree we have, you either keep expanding until you conquer everyone or you implode in a race war. I see your point.
In a normal world, anyone threatening and harassing people in a public area would quickly get an ass-whupping. After being subject to an ass-beating a few times, even the dumbest asshole would make the connection between their behavior and the beat-down. Most would then stop the threatening, idiotic behavior that resulted in getting their ass kicked. It's called a,
I was making the same point about policing and how we need to get back to the good old days when the scumbags hit their head on the door frame of the police car or fall down the stairs in the station. The world has some bad people, no way around it, and they need to be dealt with according to the way they act.
We're spending thousands of dollars in police officers and court costs to prosecute someone for a 20 second, 3rd degree assault who, if convicted, will end up back on the street in 48 hours. This is kind of like Israel intercepting $400 drones using $1M missiles -- it can't work long term.
Our court system just wasn't made for this level of disorder. This is part of what John Adams meant by, "our Constitution is for a moral and religious people and wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
Public, court justice can't solve this. Private, instant justice can. But things will have to get MUCH worse before most people can accept that solution.
Ironically, the progressive will take your argument as reason to abolish law enforcement and instead use that money and "invest" in the criminal, whatever the hell that means.
There's a reason why we just don't try some ideas. It's because we already know what the outcome is.
In other countries, if two guys get into a fight, the police stand aside, unless things get really out of hand. If you appeal to the police, they basically tell you, "Don't get into fights." It's really only in America, the Anglosphere in general, that appealing to police over interpersonal conflicts is an accepted way of resolving differences.
If the progressives want to defund the police, we not only have to accept greater violence, we also need to quit expecting the police to intervene every time someone raises their voice.
I do t usually comment but this was really thoughtful even courageous article. We’ve actually had examples of semi segregation think Gary Indiana, Washington DC, Detroit Michigan, Atlanta GA etc
The first three I listed have turned out so well but it’s taboo or ‘racist’ to notice and ask why
The Civil Rights movement needs to be questioned. Every other aspect of our history is fair game. Why not Civil Rights?
Your ethnic enclave idea sounds like a domestic version of Liberia. I suspect it would work about as well. A Liberia on our doorstep would amount to our own Gaza Strip.
The problems with the Civil Rights Act are deeper; it conflicts with the inalienable right of association (or non-association). This core problem -- the law now requires Americans to regularly come into contact with others that they find abhorrent -- metastasizes and feeds all the others. That's true whether you're black, white, or brown. I understand the intentions were good and perhaps even needed, but this is a major imposition on a basic human right. We're now reaping the consequences of trying to go against tribal human nature for 60+ years.
If you haven't read Age of Entitlement by Caldwell, you should. The book is all about the downstream effects of this conflict. We're living under 2 Constitutions: 1789 and 1964. One of these will fall because they can not coexist.
Another book that's really good, although only tangentially related to civil rights, is Tribe by Sebastian Junger. He analyzes ways of managing tribalism in large, complex societies. Best quote of the book (paraphrase): "A nation is just a really big foxhole. If you doubt this, you've likely never been in a foxhole."
A domestic Liberia is exactly what it'd be and yes, it'd be our own Gaza. We'd probably end up at war with it.
The best way to look at the Civil Rights Act: it was a necessary corrective, but that correction has now run it's course. There's really nothing more for the Civil Rights regime to accomplish and is now doing far more harm than good. It's going to be tremendous sales pitch trying to convince Americans it's time to roll back the Civil Rights Act, but it starts there.
A society like ours can only survive long term by either conquering the world or constantly fighting wars. It's not Japan, who can thrive despite it's economy being stagnant for over 30 years and demographically regressing. I don't want either, but if I had to choose, if America's survival came down to it, I'd pick the war. But who'd we fight?
That's a perspective I've never heard you articulate that way before, the idea that our society must either be a global hegemon or die trying. Do you mean America, Western Civilization in general?
I've mentioned before that I believe the Rome comparison is civilizationally correct but temporally off -- it's not AD 476 but 50 BC, and what's coming over the hill isn't a barbarian horde but Caesar's army. What our Caesar will look like, I don't know, but he's coming. So I'm not sure I disagree with you.
I've been encouraging a multipolar world for a while now; it sounds like you think we will never be satisfied in such a world though.
America already is an empire in feature, if not function. A society this diverse will have a very difficult time forging nationhood. I'm a bit more optimistic than say Nicole Williams is, and the outcome of the election feeds that optimism. However, the only pathway to nationhood is to follow the dictates of Samuel Huntington, which involves America very consciously adopting Anglo-Protestantism as its core culture. But to do so would require a complete dismantling of nearly every tenant of Americanism since the mid-20th century, namely the "proposition nation." That's a tall order.
Ironically, China is an example of how you can forge nationhood in a massive population made up of dozens of different ethnic groups. The problem is that China is over 90% Han, a single ethnicity. If America was over 90% White, or at least Euro-origin, maybe it could be done. But other aspects of our society would still make it tough.
Aside from that, the only alternative is what every other empire has done to hold it together: expand, expand, and expand until we can't. I don't want America to become an empire; it's not worth the expense, the beneficiaries are few, plus we don't even have the demographics for it. We need to be ready to send lots of young men through the meat grinder to be able to maintain empire. Following Erik Prince into battle today will result in a major demographic crisis 20 years from now.
A multipolar world is inevitable. I think the U.S. should pursue regional (Western Hemisphere) hegemony, but it ought to do so through off-shoring and soft power. Use our air and naval might to impose order. There's no need to put boots on the ground.
The "complete dismantling of nearly every tenant of Americanism since the mid-20th century"...
"If America was over 90% White, or at least Euro-origin"...
The last time we had what you're describing (and what China has created) was between 1945-1965, and we were 90% white.
Once you alter your ethnic makeup to the degree we have, you either keep expanding until you conquer everyone or you implode in a race war. I see your point.
In a normal world, anyone threatening and harassing people in a public area would quickly get an ass-whupping. After being subject to an ass-beating a few times, even the dumbest asshole would make the connection between their behavior and the beat-down. Most would then stop the threatening, idiotic behavior that resulted in getting their ass kicked. It's called a,
" feedback loop."
I was making the same point about policing and how we need to get back to the good old days when the scumbags hit their head on the door frame of the police car or fall down the stairs in the station. The world has some bad people, no way around it, and they need to be dealt with according to the way they act.
We're spending thousands of dollars in police officers and court costs to prosecute someone for a 20 second, 3rd degree assault who, if convicted, will end up back on the street in 48 hours. This is kind of like Israel intercepting $400 drones using $1M missiles -- it can't work long term.
Our court system just wasn't made for this level of disorder. This is part of what John Adams meant by, "our Constitution is for a moral and religious people and wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
Public, court justice can't solve this. Private, instant justice can. But things will have to get MUCH worse before most people can accept that solution.
Ironically, the progressive will take your argument as reason to abolish law enforcement and instead use that money and "invest" in the criminal, whatever the hell that means.
There's a reason why we just don't try some ideas. It's because we already know what the outcome is.
In other countries, if two guys get into a fight, the police stand aside, unless things get really out of hand. If you appeal to the police, they basically tell you, "Don't get into fights." It's really only in America, the Anglosphere in general, that appealing to police over interpersonal conflicts is an accepted way of resolving differences.
If the progressives want to defund the police, we not only have to accept greater violence, we also need to quit expecting the police to intervene every time someone raises their voice.