Should the USA be balkanized?

[Art Vandelay]

Which country is less diverse than the US?

By any conceivable definition of the word "diverse", off the top of my head I can think of Japan and Australia.

[Askold]

Which country is less diverse than the US?

By any conceivable definition of the word "diverse", off the top of my head I can think of Japan and Australia.

Well Australia is mostly populated by the descendants of immigrants so it still is diverse, especially since the place already had the aboriginals. It might be a bit less "diverse" than USA but it is certainly not nowhere near homogenous. Finland would probably count.

Since no one else has put this in yet:

[Art Vandelay]

Well Australia is mostly populated by the descendants of immigrants so it still is diverse, especially since the place already had the aboriginals. It might be a bit less "diverse" than USA but it is certainly not nowhere near homogenous. Finland would probably count.

Australia is over 90% White and there are no pure aborigines left, so as former colonies go it's not particularly diverse. Not saying it's less diverse than Finland, but it certainly doesn't have sizeable Black and Latino populations like the US. Hell, the only ethnic minority over here of any noteworthy size are Asians.

[Lt. Fred]

I'll give you Japan as the exception proving the rule. My point is that, by the measure we were using here (major difference of political opinion based in part on geographical region), diversity is something all political systems deal with.

[TenfoldMaquette]

I'll agree that the USA is a big fucking country and we have too many dipshits pulling in opposing directions - some with genuinely divergent needs, some just doing it for the lulz - for progress to be anything other than stunted and painful. Some of our states are bigger than some European nations, ffs. We're huge.

I'm just not sure which way to go - carve up the country into more manageable portions or clot it all into one central hive-core and hope for the best. Preferentially, I'd rather we just get all of our ducks in a row and stop tooling around already, but I have realistic expectations of how that'd work - like I said, too many people with too many divergent opinions all think they know what's best for everyone else and, moreover, don't want their neighbor's rules to apply to them and vice-versa. Maybe we'd do better to just carve it up, but I also know too many people would be terrified of what this would do to the nation on a worldwide power/resource scale, so...idk.

[Cataclysm]

Centralisation would be a whole lot easier with less diversity 

Simply remove certain responsibilities from state governments and instead have the federal government handle them. It's certainly a lot easier than carving up the US.

Which will piss off a lot of people though. As I stated, state representatives and senators do what their people tell them to, both in the state and in Washington, so they're probable not going to let this happen soon or as fast as it needs. Although they probably wouldn't agree with this plan either.

If Texas and/or Dixieland want to be the posterboys for historical revisionism, I say let them. They aren't in my country yet, and I think different countries would have different ways of addressing education. America shouldn't have to police the world, and I say it shouldn't police itself now.

I'm not talking about policing the world, just being the world superpower and being allied to my own country. As for morons in the south, well I would say that no, when morons want to be morons, you don't simply humour them, you correct them. The fact that it's on such a large scale is if anything cause for more rather than less concern, considering the damage that can be done by empowering wilfully ignorant dumbfucks.
[/quote]

Well look on the bright side, instead of having 1 somewhat good country allied to you, you'll have 2 or 3 great countries. By cutting them off, they will be happy and will stop affecting the rest of this country.

Furthermore it is hard to centralise such a large population.

In this day and age of instant communication and bloody fast transport, it's easily doable.

[/quote]

Only if people want to participate. And we don't have high speed rails yet.

[QueenofHearts]

Reminds me of an article I read almost 8 years ago (ironically in the same myspace group that brought me here). The article is called Lets ditch Dixie and makes the case for northern seccession. For the general breakdown, the South is a giant burden on the US, paying little in taxes relative to the amount of investment and welfare it receives from the federal government. The article also examines the effect this would have on federal elections, giving liberals a huge majority in Congress and ensuring that the Southern Bloc doesn't pick another Dubya. Its a pretty interesting and not horribly long article.

Being from Virginia, I don't know how I feel about this

[Podkayne]

Didn't they try this sort of thing before in the 1860s?

[QueenofHearts]

Didn't they try this sort of thing before in the 1860s?

No, no. This isn't Southern seccession, this is Northern seccession. I.E. The north is "ditchin" Dixie because of the South's ass-backwards views and education making it a drain on Federal resources while controlling the national discourse. Again, I don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, I could just move north (and enjoy single-payer healthcare, LGBT-rights, and better schooling), but on the other hand, I believe the South would re-instate slavery over time and certainly many aspects of Jim Crowe as early as tomorrow. I just figured since it fit with the thread I'd throw that article out.

[Yla]

Reminds me of an article I read almost 8 years ago (ironically in the same myspace group that brought me here). The article is called Lets ditch Dixie and makes the case for northern seccession. For the general breakdown, the South is a giant burden on the US, paying little in taxes relative to the amount of investment and welfare it receives from the federal government. The article also examines the effect this would have on federal elections, giving liberals a huge majority in Congress and ensuring that the Southern Bloc doesn't pick another Dubya. Its a pretty interesting and not horribly long article.

Reminds me of Italia and Belgium.

[Old Viking]

What about Secaucus, New Jersey, huh?  What about that?

[Osama bin Bambi]

Which country is less diverse than the US?

By any conceivable definition of the word "diverse", off the top of my head I can think of Japan and Australia.

Well Australia is mostly populated by the descendants of immigrants so it still is diverse, especially since the place already had the aboriginals. It might be a bit less "diverse" than USA but it is certainly not nowhere near homogenous. Finland would probably count.

Since no one else has put this in yet:

Stealing that pic.

I'll be in Fagistan if anyone needs me

[banjaxed]

What about Secaucus, New Jersey, huh?  What about that?

What about them? They decided to live in the middle of a big swamp, only because of the trains and the closeness to New York without the prices. If they did break away the would create a bigger hassle for themselves.

[Her3tiK]

First off, let me say that, as a CA resident, I am all for being part of a nation that does not involve the South, Midwest, or Texas. My first inclination is to welcome this idea, even if the thought of having to keep Arizona as part of the same nation is a little distasteful.

My second thought is this: what's to stop Dixieland from trying to invade one of their new neighbors? As has already been mentioned, they're backwards enough in some places that reinstating Jim Crow laws could very well happen. Seeing as the same people who would propose this tend to be the worst Jesus Freaks, what's to stop them from making some "holy" crusade against their neighbors? It seems to me that, as tempting as this kind of divide is for completely selfish reasons, I have a hard time seeing this NOT devolving into war once some nut declares himself the prophet and decides them no-good yanks need to have their ass kicked. Even though Dixie probably wouldn't succeed, I doubt many people really want to see the Mason-Dixon light up with muzzle flashes again.

Though it might be amusing to kick their ass at the Alamo. Again.

[D Laurier]

First off, let me say that, as a CA resident, I am all for being part of a nation that does not involve the South, Midwest, or Texas. My first inclination is to welcome this idea, even if the thought of having to keep Arizona as part of the same nation is a little distasteful.

My second thought is this: what's to stop Dixieland from trying to invade one of their new neighbors? As has already been mentioned, they're backwards enough in some places that reinstating Jim Crow laws could very well happen. Seeing as the same people who would propose this tend to be the worst Jesus Freaks, what's to stop them from making some "holy" crusade against their neighbors? It seems to me that, as tempting as this kind of divide is for completely selfish reasons, I have a hard time seeing this NOT devolving into war once some nut declares himself the prophet and decides them no-good yanks need to have their ass kicked. Even though Dixie probably wouldn't succeed, I doubt many people really want to see the Mason-Dixon light up with muzzle flashes again.

Though it might be amusing to kick their ass at the Alamo. Again.

You could send in the Canadians.
Our tiny and outdated army is capable of properly maintaining our 1970s era equipment. Their illiterate sisterfuckers will be armed with overpriced clubs.