Quote :

"small pox would lead you to believe differently"

How so?

11/25/2008 6:24:39 PM

because the feds can just start another "Blanket Distribution Program" ?

11/25/2008 8:13:29 PM

And that changes what, exactly? I'm not surprised those of living in the Raleigh area might think of Amerindians as history. It's different in other parts of the country. Here in New Mexico, the Amerindian presence feels much stronger. They're not all gone; you see them on the street. The cultural influence appears everywhere. Go north of Albuquerque, and you'll find folks still speaking Amerindian languages.

[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 9:17 PM. Reason : find]

11/25/2008 9:17:09 PM

They are politically insignificant. That's the point.

11/25/2008 9:24:18 PM

I'll grant that they're much more significant culturally than politically. They don't matter at all nationally, sure, but they affect local politics.

11/25/2008 9:27:38 PM

Quote :

"the Federal govt. would put that shit down faster than you can say 'Waco, Texas'. can you say "US Constitution"? you know, that document that describes how every state's National Guard has a Federal mission that supersedes the state mission? And can you say "martial law"? Because that would be the style of federal government that would clamp down on your state's sorry ass as it tried to mobilize a militia of any sort."

exactly where in the Constitution does it say that the state's National Guard mission is superseded by the Federal missions.

11/25/2008 10:11:52 PM

Are independence movements really on the rise in Texas?

11/25/2008 10:55:45 PM

Quote :

"Wow wow wow. Alaska is on lease? WTF!"

11/25/2008 11:18:34 PM

You won't be laughing if Russia actually tries to reclaim Palin's state.

These sorts of things seem funny until they happen.

11/25/2008 11:28:24 PM

I'd laugh at first if they decided to claim alaska... then I'd probably be thinking (like most other Americans) "fuck you, we're keeping it."

11/25/2008 11:30:06 PM

Major disasters often seem ridiculous or at least far-fetched before they happen. William Gibson claims he would have never been able to sell a book including the 9/11 story.

11/25/2008 11:32:41 PM

I lived in new Mexico for a while too, I know there are Native americans around, but even if the country were split up between six or seven groups, the native people would never get their own share.

11/25/2008 11:37:30 PM

If the country ever fell apart, Amerindians hold the advantage of having various semi-autonomous areas already. I suspect that sort of existing organization would be helpful. Unless folks rushed reservations, they'd at least have something.

By census numbers, you're quite right. However, countless Hispanics who don't identify as Native American have Amerindian heritage. If Amerindians and mestizos united, they could easily win a share of our hypothetical ethnically divided US.

[Edited on November 26, 2008 at 12:00 AM. Reason : hypo]

11/25/2008 11:59:52 PM

Quote :

"because the feds can just start another "Blanket Distribution Program" ?"

Contrary to popular belief, Americans never actually gave smallpox-ridden blankets to indians. But I digress.

11/26/2008 12:42:17 AM

Man, the second half of this thread has bought us all kinds of dumb, with most of it thanks to GoldenViper

11/26/2008 12:45:56 AM

Quote :

"He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong."

I actually laughed at this part. What strange reasoning for this being the lines of division.

^^ It's not that far fetched.

Quote :

"According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763: P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine. On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript: P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present. On July 26 Bouquet wrote back: I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed. We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity. "

http://tinyurl.com/3kd7ty

[Edited on November 26, 2008 at 2:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/26/2008 2:01:42 AM

Here's my prediction:

I will be able to purchase his daughter through a main order catalog.

11/26/2008 2:22:08 AM

Quote :

"For the love of god stop saying "succeed""

For the love of God, thank you.

Still wasn't enough to save the thread from GoldenViper's love of Amerindians and mestizos though.

11/26/2008 7:44:10 AM

at least the article didn't mention anything about there being a separate nation for women, because he would have never calmed down.

also, i can't believe the fervent racism that is displayed in those letters.

11/26/2008 9:16:37 AM

Quote :

"Still wasn't enough to save the thread from GoldenViper's love of Amerindians and mestizos though."

What would be?

11/26/2008 4:45:22 PM

Quote :

"It's not that far fetched."

His specific claim was that Americans never did the blanket thing. Your quote referenced a letter from 1763, more than a decade before the Declaration of Independence. I've heard about the British using smallpox blankets from several sources on several occasions, but never Americans.

Not that it matters, because we still did our part once our nation existed to kill most of the rest of the poor bastards.

Quote :

"He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.""

What strikes me as truly bizarre is that nowhere in here does the guy talk about the blacks having their own piece. There are some major chunks of the south where they hold a sizeable majority. In fact, looking at census maps of "the South, with its Hispanics," has very few places with many hispanics and far fewer where they hold any sort of majority.

11/26/2008 5:15:54 PM

if the US collapses, it should be divided up into territories by BCS conference.

11/26/2008 5:25:44 PM

^^ It would make some sense if he meant the Southwest. Either way, it is bizarre to forget about blacks, Americas most famous racial minority.

Note that by population, the idea of Chinese revolution in the Pacific Coast makes even less sense than Amerindian revolution in, say, Oklahoma. Asians as a whole make up only about twelve percent of California's population, and they certainly aren't all Chinese. Washington and Oregon have smaller numbers still.

Perhaps these predictions are intended for a ways down the road?

11/26/2008 6:24:04 PM

or perhaps he's some second-rate Russian professor with less-than-complete understanding of American social and political demographics than he wants to admit, as he's more interested in drumming up excitement and making a name for himself?

11/26/2008 7:00:50 PM

That seems likely, yes.

11/26/2008 7:07:38 PM

Quote :

"raiden: exactly where in the Constitution does it say that the state's National Guard mission is superseded by the Federal missions."

sorry, just saw your post. Obviously the Constitution doesnt speak to "National Guard" by name, but as "the militias of the several states", which are distinct from the "standing forces" of the federal Army and Navy. The United States Code specifies and focuses the intent of the Constitution.


US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States


furthermore,


United States Code, Section 10, Subtitle E, Part I

The reserve components of the armed forces are:
    (1) The Army National Guard of the United States.
    (2) The Army Reserve.
    (3) The Navy Reserve.
    (4) The Marine Corps Reserve.
    (5) The Air National Guard of the United States.
    (6) The Air Force Reserve.
    (7) The Coast Guard Reserve.

and that

The purpose of each reserve component is to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency, and at such other times as the national security may require, to fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more units and persons are needed than are in the regular components.


as well as


United States Code, Section 32, Chapter 1

Whenever Congress determines that more units and organizations are needed for the national security than are in the regular components of the ground and air forces, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States, or such parts of them as are needed, together with such units of other reserve components as are necessary for a balanced force, shall be ordered to active Federal duty and retained as long as so needed

and

If, within a time fixed by the President, a State fails to comply with a requirement of this title, or a regulation prescribed under this title, the National Guard of that State is barred, in whole or in part, as the President may prescribe, from receiving money or any other aid, benefit, or privilege authorized by law.







[Edited on November 26, 2008 at 8:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2008 7:53:38 PM

where's MathFreak when he might actually be useful?

11/26/2008 8:17:44 PM

^ Don't hold your breath. His last post was nearly a year ago.

11/26/2008 9:02:51 PM

Quote :

"if the US collapses, it should be divided up into territories by BCS conference"

Yes, and the President should be selected through the BCS Electoral System.

11/26/2008 10:56:25 PM

Quote :

"where's MathFreak when he might actually be useful?"

I caused him to quit the Soap Box as an unintended side effect of trying to get salisburyboy kicked off. Seriously, he credited me with his quitting. I was sort of proud.

Quote :

"It would make some sense if he meant the Southwest."

If he equates "the south" with "the southwest," he's just demonstrating how little he knows.

Also, what about Utah? If any part of the lower 48 seemed like a logical place to form a country in its own right, it would be them. A pretty well-defined region with a predominant and distinct (to say the least) religio-cultural group with a history of at least somewhat separatist tendencies. And those people are historically both industrious and uniform, both of which would make them far better candidates for independence than such a broad category as "the east coast."

Quote :

"Note that by population, the idea of Chinese revolution in the Pacific Coast makes even less sense than Amerindian revolution in, say, Oklahoma."

They're about on par, I'd say. Chinese populations in particular (and Asian ones in general) have localized enclaves that aren't completely autonomous like some reservations but still stand on their own and tend to be associated with far greater wealth and influence than reservations.

Of course, any discussion about which is more preposterous than the other is in and of itself a waste of time, since both of them are incredibly stupid. The only state where Asians or indigenous populations would even have a fighting chance is Hawaii, and there they'd be fighting each other just as much as they'd be fighting whitey.

And of course, at the end of the day, pretty much everything out of the guy's mouth is stupid because it assumes that America is analogous to the Balkans, which has about a thousand years of ethnic (mixed with religious) conflict that has been thoroughly ingrained in the culture with few prominent figures opposing that system.

11/27/2008 12:19:40 AM

Quote :

"Of course, any discussion about which is more preposterous than the other is in and of itself a waste of time, since both of them are incredibly stupid"

qfmft

11/27/2008 12:55:26 AM

The entire idea that the Pacific Coast is somehow going to magically go to the Chinese is absurd. Certainly there are large Asian populations in the major cities on the West Coast, but you can hardly represent them as some sort of monolithic institution. Out of the Asian population in California for instance, one third is Filipino, one third is Chinese (and this is a mix of Taiwanese and Mainlanders), and the rest is split about evenly between Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, and Indians. Of course, when you add them all up together, they only make up about 10% of all of California's population to begin with. Given that they are numerically overwhelmed by either the white or Hispanics, I don't think there's a risk of a Sino takeover anytime soon (assuming that they can convince the other "Asians" to play along with them).

If California were to break away, I imagine it would probably split into two, a NorCal based around SF and a SoCal based around LA.

11/27/2008 1:34:54 AM

I'd actually be in favor of giving california away to the chinese.

it would be fantastic if we could physically sever the state from the US, and float it on over.

11/27/2008 8:17:01 AM

in a thread chock full of stupid comments, lets go on and add one ^ more.

is it that you perceive the state is full of faggots and Mexicans? because you obviously don't have any idea of the huge impact the California economy has on the US.

11/27/2008 12:29:35 PM

For the near future, any prediction of the US falling apart seems absurd to me. It could theoretically happen, but would take a lot more than the current financial crisis. After all, the union survived the Great Depression. Vast demographic shifts and new technology might do the trick, but those will take a while.

11/27/2008 12:30:02 PM

^ Agreed. It would take an issue that really did break down across state lines like slavery did. While there are plenty of contentious issues right now, I can't think of any that neatly fall along geographical fault lines.

11/27/2008 1:26:36 PM

Quote :

"the Federal govt. would put that shit down faster than you can say 'Waco, Texas'. can you say "US Constitution"? you know, that document that describes how every state's National Guard has a Federal mission that supersedes the state mission? And can you say "martial law"? Because that would be the style of federal government that would clamp down on your state's sorry ass as it tried to mobilize a militia of any sort."

hmmm, funny that you would have the US gov't would put down a militia, given that, iirc, you support gun bans based on the militia portion of the 2nd amendment... I'm just saying... And then you referenced the "US Constitution." good work


by the way, joe, things you quoted have no bearing as to whether the NG's state missions are superseded by federal ones. nice try, though

11/27/2008 5:19:23 PM

I do believe that the power and influence of the United States will experience a marked decline in the near future, however the idea that this country will break up into independent nations, not unlike what happened to the Soviet Union, is about as likely as complete and unending world peace.

11/27/2008 5:31:44 PM

Quote :

"it would be fantastic if we could physically sever the state from the US, and float it on over."

Done. (by 2050) (plate tectonics)

11/27/2008 6:24:24 PM

Quote :

"whether the NG's state missions are superseded by federal ones."

Wait, you don't think that the Federal government has ultimate power over the NGs? The NG is a reserve component of the regular army. NG units were created to supplement the Army (or Air Force) in a time of war. All other missions that they may have, that is their ultimate purpose.

11/27/2008 6:27:15 PM

Quote :

"in a thread chock full of stupid comments, lets go on and add one ^ more. is it that you perceive the state is full of faggots and Mexicans? because you obviously don't have any idea of the huge impact the California economy has on the US."

why so serious?

11/27/2008 8:43:54 PM

^ okay, sorry Bobby



^^^^^

Quote :

"burro: hmmm, funny that you would have the US gov't would put down a militia, given that, iirc, you support gun bans based on the militia portion of the 2nd amendment"

so youre not only an idiot, but a liar too? ive never once indicated a support for gun bans, based on militia portion or otherwise. i think more liberals ought to embrace the 2nd Amendment.

Quote :

"by the way, joe, things you quoted have no bearing as to whether the NG's state missions are superseded by federal ones. nice try, though"

oh yes i did. the fact that you have a diminished capacity for reading comprehension and cant apply basic logic skills, well that's not my problem. I provided relevant Constitution and US Code references. Just because you're handicapped, doesn't require me to waste my time trying to spoon feed you.






[Edited on November 27, 2008 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2008 11:48:32 PM

I'MN NOT READING THE THREAD

BUT HE JUST WANTS HIS FIFTEEN MINUTE PEOPLE.

11/28/2008 1:51:27 AM

joe_schmoe, point of correction.

It is the National Defense Act of 1933 that created the National Guard of the United States, which allowed the federalization of said state militia, and therefore gives each state's National Guard a federal mission.

However, there still is such as thing as a State Defense Force, which is more of a state militia and is under the sole authority of state government. 27 states have these types of militia.

But even then, they can be called up.

10 USC 333 – “Interference with State and Federal law”

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it -

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.


so basically, any way its cut, if there's a insurrection, the fed gov't will lay the smack down, because it has final authority over all federal and state sanctioned militia and armed forces.

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "It is true that the state defense forces 'may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.' 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331-333, which distinguish the 'militia' from the 'armed forces,' and which appear to subject all portions of the 'militia' - organized or not - to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses" Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

11/30/2008 12:37:51 AM

11/30/2008 1:49:02 AM

^^ point of correction, to your point of correction, raiden.

you're confusing the various and sundry guard/militia related Acts over the past 200 years. easy to do: there's been a mess of them.

for one thing, it was called the "National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933" and this just formalized the National Guard as a component of the U.S. Army

so, you're probably referring to the "National Defense Act of 1916", although this just supports my earlier posts, as it declared the various state guards along with the reserves were all part of the national defense, and gave authority to the President to call any and all units up as necessary.

in the end, theres no confusion here. you can quote the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1865 if you like, but the final authority comes down to the US Constitution as it is codifed in the United States Code, which is quite explicit that the federal government, under the President of the United States, has final authority over the various National Guard units.







[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2008 1:52:37 PM

joe, I was referring to the acts that define the guard's federal mission, which you mentioned previously and someone was making a big point of how it wasn't in the USConst but in the USCode that gives the pres the final authority over the guard units (and of the state militia that are independent of the guard).

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but was trying to find the exact language of the code or const. that gave the pres said final authority.

11/30/2008 8:12:47 PM

OMFRELEVANCE!

But anyway, seems like Megaloman had a thread a while ago about America breaking up that made slightly more sense, because he divided it along ideological lines -- Liberals on the west coast, Libertarians in much of the west, Republicans in the south, etc. I hate to say it, but he managed to make more sense than this supposedly educated russian asshat

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:01 AM. Reason : ]

12/1/2008 1:00:06 AM

^ Agreed, though his assignments were still somewhat based on stereotypes and thus dubious.

12/1/2008 1:08:12 AM

Look

We're really all shocked that there's a Russian sober enough to write something.

12/1/2008 12:47:46 PM