NationStates

Theberstan wrote:

Sepulcrisur wrote:If you ask me, I think the United States should be divided into separate regions. I don’t mean that each state has to be its own independent country, what I’m saying is that each region should contain around 8 - 10 states. However, the United States doesn’t necessarily need to be abolished just because of its racism and dark past. Nevertheless, I support the idea of the United States being divided.

... do you are have stupid...

Dividing the US into 50 states is stupid. 8-10 is less stupid.

No country is perfect. America has a right to exist. The United States shouldn't be abolished simply because of its dark past, else almost every country would cease to exist, including mine. America is the world's best hope of holding off the unrelenting tide of Russian fascists, Chinese communists, and radical Islamists. It remains a beacon of freedom and hope to billions of people around the world with admirers from Israel, Britain, India, and Hong Kong. The world would be in far worse shape if America didn't exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1qsoVLIJyY

No. If the Election starts a Civil war we'll probably have a name change to the Conservative States of America.

The Nover Thura wrote:A new country with no dark history, no racist founders, and a constitution that guarantee freedom and equality for all.

You can't dissociate from your past.
The past eventually always catchs up to the ones who ignore it.

Rather, learn from the past, treasure what of value was there, don't repeat what in hindsight were mistakes, build up, and move on.

If what you meant was to have some discontinuity, to move to some different direction, as much as that would change many things, that could also be done without trashing everything.

Just as an example, look at France, how many times they have changed over, they are currently into their Fifth Republic.
After the regimes of: Absolute monarchy (Ancien Régime), First Republic, First Empire, Constitutional monarchy, Second Republic, Second Empire, Third Republic, Fragmentation during the Second World War, Fourth Republic.
Then, France loves to flip their own shit over, some political regimes didn't last long, that may be an extreme example, but other nations did have their own different phases too.

Abolishment and/or partition of the US is a total pipe dream, but since we're talking about it, I think it's pretty clear at this point that America in 2020, while one polity, is more than one "nation." The track record for polities with increasingly divergent nations is pretty poor. Unfortunately the track record for attempts at partition may be even worse.

You can tell I'm very optimistic for our future.

The Nover Thura wrote:

Albrenia wrote:Abolished in favour of what, though?

A new nation without dark history and racism. No racist first president and no oppressive constitution.

That’s impossible to obtain as what we think of as not racist future generations will probably classify as racist

The Nover Thura wrote:

Kiu Ghesik wrote:It is removed. The lines were preserved for posterity, the amendments supersede the text in the Constitution's function.

Okay. But what about the founding fathers. They were racist and owned slaves. They did horrible things and people worship them. Would it be better is if America was made new with founders that are not racist?

Who really cares, probably every country in Europe was founded by a dude who didn't think Black people and White people were equal.

Christian Confederation wrote:No. If the Election starts a Civil war we'll probably have a name change to the Conservative States of America.

Yes who’ll win? The people with AR-15s or the people who cannot decide what bathroom to use?

The Nover Thura wrote:

Empirical Switzerland wrote:Tell me a country from at least 200 years ago that wasn't founded by racists?

Liberia?

Very much so. The American born blacks where racist towards those who where born in Africa

La xinga wrote:

The Nover Thura wrote:
Okay. But what about the founding fathers. They were racist and owned slaves. They did horrible things and people worship them. Would it be better is if America was made new with founders that are not racist?

Who really cares, probably every country in Europe was founded by a dude who didn't think Black people and White people were equal.

AND, the cost, the companies needing to change everything, the time needed to change legal documents and, oh, for us to not have racist founding fathers.

Come on.

La xinga wrote:

La xinga wrote:Who really cares, probably every country in Europe was founded by a dude who didn't think Black people and White people were equal.

AND, the cost, the companies needing to change everything, the time needed to change legal documents and, oh, for us to not have racist founding fathers.

Come on.

Perhaps the worst political consequence of the 21st century is that people today have decided to judge people from 250 years ago by the values of today, when such values did not exist 250 years ago.

Rodez wrote:

La xinga wrote:AND, the cost, the companies needing to change everything, the time needed to change legal documents and, oh, for us to not have racist founding fathers.

Come on.

Perhaps the worst political consequence of the 21st century is that people today have decided to judge people from 250 years ago by the values of today, when such values did not exist 250 years ago.

Yeah, maybe.

Rodez wrote:

La xinga wrote:AND, the cost, the companies needing to change everything, the time needed to change legal documents and, oh, for us to not have racist founding fathers.

Come on.

Perhaps the worst political consequence of the 21st century is that people today have decided to judge people from 250 years ago by the values of today, when such values did not exist 250 years ago.

Indeed. Context is often lost in favour of identity politics.

abolish america, establish benevolent dictatorship. because that a l w a y s works. nevermind that americans want to keep america. we know it's not perfect, but we're actively trying to make it better, because we care about our country. erasing the past is impractical and impossible, as well as just being plain wrong.

Corestonia wrote:

Albrenia wrote:Abolished in favour of what, though?

idk, balkanisation probably mainly consisting of native reclamation of the continent

Sounds like ethno nationalism to me.

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:abolish america, establish benevolent dictatorship. because that a l w a y s works. nevermind that americans want to keep america. we know it's not perfect, but we're actively trying to make it better, because we care about our country. erasing the past is impractical and impossible, as well as just being plain wrong.

I actually mostly agree with you here. Don't know what you mean by the first post tho.

Countries in general are a bit silly, really.

La xinga wrote:

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:abolish america, establish benevolent dictatorship. because that a l w a y s works. nevermind that americans want to keep america. we know it's not perfect, but we're actively trying to make it better, because we care about our country. erasing the past is impractical and impossible, as well as just being plain wrong.

I actually mostly agree with you here. Don't know what you mean by the first post tho.

odd that we agree, but agreement is cool. what first post? the "abolish america, establish benevolent dictatorship." part? that was just a joke. benevolent dictatorship is an oxymoron where as anyone who really thinks we should abolish america is an oxygenated moron.

Rodez wrote:

La xinga wrote:AND, the cost, the companies needing to change everything, the time needed to change legal documents and, oh, for us to not have racist founding fathers.

Come on.

Perhaps the worst political consequence of the 21st century is that people today have decided to judge people from 250 years ago by the values of today, when such values did not exist 250 years ago.

Oh please, humans have always judged past humans by the values of the then present day humans, Americans doing so from now to back then is perfectly well in line with that (and it's not like we have any other values to judge them by anyways).

Lord Dominator wrote:

Rodez wrote:Perhaps the worst political consequence of the 21st century is that people today have decided to judge people from 250 years ago by the values of today, when such values did not exist 250 years ago.

Oh please, humans have always judged past humans by the values of the then present day humans, Americans doing so from now to back then is perfectly well in line with that (and it's not like we have any other values to judge them by anyways).

correct, right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of time period.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Rodez wrote:Perhaps the worst political consequence of the 21st century is that people today have decided to judge people from 250 years ago by the values of today, when such values did not exist 250 years ago.

Oh please, humans have always judged past humans by the values of the then present day humans.

And we shouldn't.

La xinga wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Oh please, humans have always judged past humans by the values of the then present day humans.

And we shouldn't.

so slavery was fine then, but not now?

Y'all should read the Independent States of America.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Albionist Great Britain wrote:
The First Nation populations would need to tax people for the fewer kids they have and to have fertility rates completely un-inline with the developed world in order to gain any significant numbers to even comprehend that, and that definitely would never be enough to ever be a majority with some genocide going on. Disregarding the fact it’ll likely lead to inbreeding or further mixing with other ethnicities to the point the actual ethnicities no longer exist. If not the latter then you’re going to need dictatorships and ethnic cleansing to ‘reclaim’ land, and that’s usually no bueno in the developed world.

How about a treaty, granting Native Americans freehold title of all the land. They can then charge rent (as specified in the treaty) and order residents off any part of it they choose. But they can't re-lease that land at higher rates, nor claim ownership of any buildings, dams etc there. They need to actually live there, at some specified minimum density.

Apart from Native Americans claiming some particularly valuable land because it has a nice view, I can't see it going too far wrong. Claims wouldn't expand much faster than Native American population, and if there are too many US Americans for the space remaining, a century or two from now, let that be a problem for the future.

I... suppose that’s a method, yes. I would support a revitalisation of First Nation cultures and identities, and a boom to the First Nation population, so if such a policy were to be implemented I would theoretically support it, but that’s for another topic. In current circumstances, abolishing the USA (whilst itself unthinkable) in favour of independent First Nation is plainly laughable.

La xinga wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Oh please, humans have always judged past humans by the values of the then present day humans.

And we shouldn't.

Agreed. As odd as it might seem to others, our modern standards are much different than standards from the 1850's. It doesn't make it okay by any means, but it's the past, not the present.