Relations between Americans?

[Kovax]

People will tolerate some degree of instability and some degree of inequality, within fairly flexible limits. They grumble, they protest, but it's not enough to cause a fight. When that condition occurs during periods of economic hardship, and people can't get by under the existing conditions, things get tense. When there is no hope of improvement, THEN you have a revolt. People rarely fight while they're well fed, well housed, and properly clothed, with some form of entertainment available to distract them, especially when the outlook for the future seems positive.

Note that the violent protesters are generally the most impoverished elements of the society, or those who have recently arrived and can't fit in. Not only are they hit with issues of inequality or cultural repression, they are poor or rapidly becoming so, and see no light at the end of the tunnel. At that point, violence becomes the only other option they can find.

America has had riots in the past, including violent labor issues in the depression era when things got difficult and people lost hope in a better future. The current economic situation seems to be leading to increased tension, but it's not being taken out against other states so much as toward other elements within the same society, usually in the same area.

Granted, there have been significant differences in lifestyle and attitude from one part of the country to the next, but I suspect that most people would readily identify with people in other states of the same social status, wealth, and living conditions. There are plenty of jokes and snide remarks about residents of other states or regions, but few of them are serious. Urbanites from LA, Chicago, and NYC would probably find themselves more closely attuned than a NYC resident with someone from "upstate" NY living in a rural area, or a Chicago resident with an Illinois farmer. As for violence against others, my suspicion would be that the urbanites would be more prone to random acts of violence because of the psychological effects of "crowding", but the rural dwellers would typically be better armed and willing to use organized violence to defend themselves in an emergency.

 

[benice1234]

In two of them were the US involved. And in another one as part of the British Empire.

In none of them were we involved on our own accord

 

[Mder1]

In none of them were we involved on our own accord

So a wizard appeared and declared the war for you?

 

[benice1234]

So a wizard appeared and declared the war for you?

Well as a colony we had no choice. In the world wars we were attacked first.

 

[Mder1]

Well as a colony we had no choice. In the world wars we were attacked first.

As were many European nations.

 

[yerm]

Well as a colony we had no choice. In the world wars we were attacked first.

Let's not be silly here. The 7 years war we were absolutely involved and of our own accord; the "British" trying to drive the French out of what's now Pennsylvania was one of the starting points leading to that war. What is now the USA I would probably put 2nd after Prussia in starting that one. In WWII we were involved before we joined and we were very far from the only one surprise attacked; not much different than most of the Allies. In WWI we weren't even attacked, Wilson arguably had quite more choice in involvement than most European leaders. I'd also argue 1812 was us involving ourselves in Napoleon's antics.

That leaves... 2 wars before our time and Crimea.

 

[benice1234]

As were many European nations.

I guess so.

Let's not be silly here. The 7 years war we were absolutely involved and of our own accord; the "British" trying to drive the French out of what's now Pennsylvania was one of the starting points leading to that war. What is now the USA I would probably put 2nd after Prussia in starting that one. In WWII we were involved before we joined and we were very far from the only one surprise attacked; not much different than most of the Allies. In WWI we weren't even attacked, Wilson arguably had quite more choice in involvement than most European leaders. I'd also argue 1812 was us involving ourselves in Napoleon's antics.

That leaves... 2 wars before our time and Crimea.

Fair, but in WW1 we were attacked. Not as spectacularly as Pearl Harbor, but repetitive, small attacks.
1812 didn't really have anything to do with Napoleon. I mean, sure, the war probably wouldn't have been declared if Britain weren't busy in Europe, but it was purely between the US and UK.

 

[yerm]

Fair, but in WW1 we were attacked. Not as spectacularly as Pearl Harbor, but repetitive, small attacks.
1812 didn't really have anything to do with Napoleon. I mean, sure, the war probably wouldn't have been declared if Britain weren't busy in Europe, but it was purely between the US and UK.

Germany ordered attacks against shipping inside a designated war zone. The USA was provoked into WWI but was not forced. 1812 was provoked by British actions resulting from decisions made in the war against Napoleon. The USA would not have gone to war against Britain there if not for the Napoleonic wars just as much as we wouldn't have fought Germany in 1917 if not for the European war in that case. In both situations we responded to hostility against our shipping that resulted when Europeans were fighting each other.

 

[benice1234]

Germany ordered attacks against shipping inside a designated war zone. The USA was provoked into WWI but was not forced. 1812 was provoked by British actions resulting from decisions made in the war against Napoleon. The USA would not have gone to war against Britain there if not for the Napoleonic wars just as much as we wouldn't have fought Germany in 1917 if not for the European war in that case. In both situations we responded to hostility against our shipping that resulted when Europeans were fighting each other.

There were many causes of 1812. One, naval impressment, which you could argue had to do with Napoleon. But their funding of native militias in a direct attempt to hamper our growth westward, had nothing to do with Europe

 

[Solfall]

People will tolerate some degree of instability and some degree of inequality, within fairly flexible limits. They grumble, they protest, but it's not enough to cause a fight. When that condition occurs during periods of economic hardship, and people can't get by under the existing conditions, things get tense. When there is no hope of improvement, THEN you have a revolt. People rarely fight while they're well fed, well housed, and properly clothed, with some form of entertainment available to distract them, especially when the outlook for the future seems positive.

Note that the violent protesters are generally the most impoverished elements of the society, or those who have recently arrived and can't fit in. Not only are they hit with issues of inequality or cultural repression, they are poor or rapidly becoming so, and see no light at the end of the tunnel. At that point, violence becomes the only other option they can find.

America has had riots in the past, including violent labor issues in the depression era when things got difficult and people lost hope in a better future. The current economic situation seems to be leading to increased tension, but it's not being taken out against other states so much as toward other elements within the same society, usually in the same area.

Granted, there have been significant differences in lifestyle and attitude from one part of the country to the next, but I suspect that most people would readily identify with people in other states of the same social status, wealth, and living conditions. There are plenty of jokes and snide remarks about residents of other states or regions, but few of them are serious. Urbanites from LA, Chicago, and NYC would probably find themselves more closely attuned than a NYC resident with someone from "upstate" NY living in a rural area, or a Chicago resident with an Illinois farmer. As for violence against others, my suspicion would be that the urbanites would be more prone to random acts of violence because of the psychological effects of "crowding", but the rural dwellers would typically be better armed and willing to use organized violence to defend themselves in an emergency.

Great expansion on my earlier pondering. With an in debt look at the US.

 

[Kovax]

Great expansion on my earlier pondering. With an in debt look at the US.

Thanks, although you probably want an "in depth" look; an "in debt" look means you can't afford to pay for it. Probably the spell checker doing its usual message encryption routine.

 

[Solfall]

I knew there was something fishy with my spelling.

 

[Henry IX]

The key difference between Americans and Western Europeans in terms of violence is the tendency for Americans to be more likely to resort to personal violence whilst the Europeans are more likely to use institutional violence. As such I would be far more likely to die from an individual's actions in the U.S. but more likely to be killed in a war or by my own government in Europe (averages taken over the last century or so).

In Eastern Europe the situation is different - see Yugoslavia for a conflict with significant and sustained personal violence between groups who speak virtually the same language and have a nearly identical culture. Even the religious divide is not as clear cut as many claim - I have friends and neighbours including orthodox Bosnians (NOT Bosnian Serbs), Catholic Serbs and Orthodox Slovenians. None the less this region saw some of the worst violence in late 20th century outside of central Africa.

The causes of violence are very complex and most attempts to explain them have failed or only given partial answers. Some key factors that are generally found in most conflicts include: perceived unfairness (far more important than inequality per se), perceived threat, in-group permission to use violence and perceived difference. When all of these are present violence is virtually guaranteed.

An example of this is Syria where the favouritism of the Assad regime towards certain religio-ethnic groups such as the Alawites produces a feeling of unfairness, the brutal violence of the government and the genocidal actions of some factions creates a fight-or-die situation, the neo-fascist ideology of Ba'athist parties legitimises violence and the numerous religious divides makes out-group identifications easy. Until some or all of these factors are addressed it is unlikely that the conflict will stop.

 

[Jorsalfar]

Texas can't legally secede... maybe. Then again, the USA would have a diplomatic issue if Texas held a convincing referendum on the matter.

I doubt they would have much diplomatic issues to deal with. Texas would, if secession is unconstitutional (which I think the Alaskan Supreme court ruled a few years ago), have no right to hold a referendum on the matter anyway. They would probably have a PR problem to deal with though.

 

[krieger11b]

The US also nothing in place for national referendums, that would make things interesting. I like how Switzerland has referendums everything there is a debate to spend significant amounts of money.

Not that you would not end up with some really dumb ones, California has it's own, we call them propositions, which can go as far as changing the states own constitution with a simple majority vote.

 

[hagagaga]

North America was the rough, inhospitable frontier for a long time (and in terms of climate, we remain inhospitable compared to Europe). That has stained Europe's perception of us. While we were once a more violent place than Europe outside of military conflicts, we are actually no more violent than the typical European country, possibly less violent.

In terms of large-scale government-sanctioned violence, I would point to the fact that although ethnic cleansing of native Americans did occur after the United States became independent and slavery was practiced as well, some of what European imperialists did could easily be considered worse. I would point to the Congo Free State as an example of this. Furthermore, ethnic cleansing hasn't been an official policy in over a century, compared to Europe, where not only was ethnic cleansing practiced on multiple occasions in the Twentieth Century, but something worse as well: genocide.

If you're going to look at recent police use of force incidents here in the US, you might want to read about the Troubles (not that the other side was any better) or look at the London Metropolitan Police Department's reputation through the 1970's. Also, the reputation of certain police organizations in France and Italy.

The United States never had fascism. The cultural anti-authority tendency in the US is one of the most effective deterrents to violence.

 

[Solfall]

I wouldn't hold too hard onto the no fascism card. There were fascist and Nazi friendlies in the US just like everywhere else.

 

[hagagaga]

I'm not going to deny that, but unlike Germany, Italy, and Spain, they never became a mainstream movement.

 

[olm]

US is far larger and more diverse then an average European country. Only Russian Empire/USSR were really comparable.

 

[Director]

The US is geographically large, politically and ethnically diverse and (relative to Western Europe) thinly populated. The states of the old Southern Confederacy (11 of 50 states today) are as large in area as all of Western Europe from Portugal to Poland.

And while we do have a history of, um, rambunctious political and social movements we also for many years were the only major republican democracy in the world - the first in modern times to have peaceful transitions of power and still one of the few to never have had a military government or coup.

Given the social and cultural divides between (say) a lawyer in Manhattan and a cattle-rancher in Montana it is remarkable that the country functions at all; probably too much to hope for that the various groups should not have frictions.