is most American conflict inherently intra-racial

[freepcrusher]

Krazen of course always talks about a "war against whites". But the way I see it, there is more of a "war between the whites". An author by the name of Kevin Phillips wrote something like that in his 1969 book "The Emerging Republican Majority". The theory he wrote is that the so-called ruling class (mostly WASPs and some Jews) largely disliked urban catholics and southern evangelicals, seeing them as uncouth, and that there were various attempts to social engineer them out of existence.

E Michael Jones, who is a fringe traditionalist catholic, has written that urban renewal and other drastic changes in Post World War II cities, were a form of ethnic cleansing as ways to "evict" catholics out of the cities for fear that they were gaining too much power (and was often manifested in reform battles in New York with "Reform" types like Lindsay or LaGuardia against old guard, often catholic, machine hacks).

[patrick1]

No. Just no.

While there may have been some discrimination against the white ethnics, it is absolutly nothing compared to the enslavement and sustained campaign of violence faced by blacks for centuries.

[Sol]

lolno

Any intra-white conflict is massively dwarfed by race in American politics and culture.

And it should be noted most Catholic vs. Protestant strife was before most Catholics were seen as white.

[krazen1211]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom. Such a conflict will exist as long as dangerous authoritarians like Elizabeth Warren are around.

[freepcrusher]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom. Such a conflict will exist as long as dangerous authoritarians like Elizabeth Warren are around.

see this is exactly what I was talking about in krazen. Seems to have a very (small r) reactionary way of thinking and appears to be a neanderthal. People say race is the biggest divide but the subtle theory that Kevin Phillips wrote in his book was that it was really a battle between the elites and middle america.

[TJ in Oregon]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom. Such a conflict will exist as long as dangerous authoritarians like Elizabeth Warren are around.

see this is exactly what I was talking about in krazen. Seems to have a very (small r) reactionary way of thinking and appears to be a neanderthal. People say race is the biggest divide but the subtle theory that Kevin Phillips wrote in his book was that it was really a battle between the elites and middle america.

Close, but no. It's not a battle between the elites and middle America, it's a battle between different types of elites split by demographics, location, and industry.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom. Such a conflict will exist as long as dangerous authoritarians like Elizabeth Warren are around.

see this is exactly what I was talking about in krazen. Seems to have a very (small r) reactionary way of thinking and appears to be a neanderthal. People say race is the biggest divide but the subtle theory that Kevin Phillips wrote in his book was that it was really a battle between the elites and middle america.

Close, but no. It's not a battle between the elites and middle America, it's a battle between different types of elites split by demographics, location, and industry.

You don't think class is a significant factor?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

[patrick1]

Plenty of non Wasps reached great heights well before slavery was even thought to be abolished.  Charles Carroll was Catholic, the founder of the US Navy, John Barry, was an Irish Catholic, the first Speaker a German Lutheran, the 7th President poor white trash with Ulster roots, Alexander Hamilton a bastard from the Caribbean, countless others made great fortunes in industry. Maybe some weren't the invited to all the right clubs but their ascendancy was an outside possibility. Class is and always will be a factor but you simply can't re-frame history like this.

[Person Man]

Plenty of non Wasps reached great heights well before slavery was even thought to be abolished.  Charles Carroll was Catholic, the founder of the US Navy, John Barry, was an Irish Catholic, the first Speaker a German Lutheran, the 7th President poor white trash with Ulster roots, Alexander Hamilton a bastard from the Caribbean, countless others made great fortunes in industry. Maybe some weren't the invited to all the right clubs but their ascendancy was an outside possibility. Class is and always will be a factor but you simply can't re-frame history like this.

But how good is class mobility over particular times in history? Does that factor into ethnic and race relations?

[pbrower2a]

Plenty of non Wasps reached great heights well before slavery was even thought to be abolished.  Charles Carroll was Catholic, the founder of the US Navy, John Barry, was an Irish Catholic, the first Speaker a German Lutheran, the 7th President poor white trash with Ulster roots, Alexander Hamilton a bastard from the Caribbean, countless others made great fortunes in industry. Maybe some weren't the invited to all the right clubs but their ascendancy was an outside possibility. Class is and always will be a factor but you simply can't re-frame history like this.

But how good is class mobility over particular times in history? Does that factor into ethnic and race relations?

Class mobility is high in a frontier society (so long as one is not a slave, which makes a huge difference between the frontier in Michigan and the frontier in Mississippi). There was a huge difference in the 1840s between getting a section of land that was 640 acres of prime farmland and one that was 560 acres of lake and 80 acres of swamp in the land-grab lottery.  That of course is extreme. Texas under Mexican rule wasn't too bad until Santa Ana became a tyrant, which may help the theory.

The Dutch and French Huguenots who formed a bare majority of the population of the Hudson Valley were overwhelmed in sheer numbers -- but assimilated around the time of the American Revolution. The German population of southeastern Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Shenandoah Valley experienced much the same.

Religious bigotry has rarely been a significant factor in large-scale American politics. It has usually imploded quickly as a political influence.     

[muon2]

Political conflict can take on other dimensions than race. I see a divide that splits along urban/suburban/rural lines as much as along race or class. Urban whites are far more aligned with urban minorities than with suburban, let alone rural whites. I think some observers see urban and think race, when the issues are far more complicated.

[courts]

obviously. the right stuff is basically a more pretentious /pol/, but this article on the topic i thought was pretty good:

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/06/17/bulbasaur-on-the-american-caste-system/

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

A sentence with that level of ambiguity is, in a case like this, horribly written by my standards, because while the former possibility for what he meant there is a reasonable albeit in my opinion misguided conservative position, the latter is an absolutely disgusting sentiment and one of the relatively few things on which I expect I'll never even be able to agree to disagree with this particular kind of reactionary. I know that most conservatives don't believe that freedom in the full sense of the word as defined by progressives, or people who subscribe to the idea of 'positive rights' in general, can or should be enjoyed by everyone at once, and I accept that, but I highly doubt that that's how krazen conceptualizes or uses that word.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Just because people vote for the same party doesn't mean that they have the same interests. Conversely, just because people vote for different parties doesn't mean their interests are that different.

Consider American two-party winner-take all politics in that regard...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

A sentence with that level of ambiguity is, in a case like this, horribly written by my standards, because while the former possibility for what he meant there is a reasonable albeit in my opinion misguided conservative position, the latter is an absolutely disgusting sentiment and one of the relatively few things on which I expect I'll never even be able to agree to disagree with this particular kind of reactionary. I know that most conservatives don't believe that freedom in the full sense of the word as defined by progressives, or people who subscribe to the idea of 'positive rights' in general, can or should be enjoyed by everyone at once, and I accept that, but I highly doubt that that's how krazen conceptualizes or uses that word.

Why bring in positive rights?  Even if one thinks of rights only in the negative sense, it is still possible to conceive of them not being universally available by having a government so impotent that government is unable to prevent others from doing to you what you are afraid government will do to you.

[angus]

Political conflict can take on other dimensions than race. I see a divide that splits along urban/suburban/rural lines as much as along race or class. Urban whites are far more aligned with urban minorities than with suburban, let alone rural whites. I think some observers see urban and think race, when the issues are far more complicated.

I've been arguing that point on this forum for ten years.  Well, I usually use the phrase "population density" as the best qualifier for voting patterns, ideology, etc., but I think you are getting to the same kernel.

Be careful, though, the thread says "intra-" not "inter-" racial.  I could be mistaken, but I respectfully submit that you seem to have misread it. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

obviously. the right stuff is basically a more pretentious /pol/, but this article on the topic i thought was pretty good:

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/06/17/bulbasaur-on-the-american-caste-system/

racist bs probably written by a community college dropout who was sustaining ~1.9 GPA.

[muon2]

Political conflict can take on other dimensions than race. I see a divide that splits along urban/suburban/rural lines as much as along race or class. Urban whites are far more aligned with urban minorities than with suburban, let alone rural whites. I think some observers see urban and think race, when the issues are far more complicated.

I've been arguing that point on this forum for ten years.  Well, I usually use the phrase "population density" as the best qualifier for voting patterns, ideology, etc., but I think you are getting to the same kernel.

Be careful, though, the thread says "intra-" not "inter-" racial.  I could be mistaken, but I respectfully submit that you seem to have misread it. 

I did read it correctly, but I was reacting to posts in the thread that suggested that race remained dominant in US politics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An author by the name of Kevin Phillips wrote something like that in his 1969 book "The Emerging Republican Majority".

Obvious troll.

[krazen1211]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

What a interesting theory. The modern progressive subscribes to this standard.

Anakin: "We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem.  Agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and do it."
Padme: "That's exactly what they do, the trouble is that people don't always agree."
Anakin: "Then they should be made to."
Padme: "By whom?  Who's going to make them?"
Anakin: "I don't know.  Someone."
Padme: "You?"
Anakin: "Of course not me!"
Padme: "Then someone...?"
Anakin: "Someone wise."
Padme: "That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me."
Anakin: "Well... if it works..."

I suspect you get freedom in accordance with their definition of freedom. It's very cute.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

What a interesting theory. The modern progressive subscribes to this standard.

Anakin: "We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem.  Agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and do it."
Padme: "That's exactly what they do, the trouble is that people don't always agree."
Anakin: "Then they should be made to."
Padme: "By whom?  Who's going to make them?"
Anakin: "I don't know.  Someone."
Padme: "You?"
Anakin: "Of course not me!"
Padme: "Then someone...?"
Anakin: "Someone wise."
Padme: "That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me."
Anakin: "Well... if it works..."

I suspect you get freedom in accordance with their definition of freedom. It's very cute.

[krazen1211]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

What a interesting theory. The modern progressive subscribes to this standard.

Anakin: "We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem.  Agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and do it."
Padme: "That's exactly what they do, the trouble is that people don't always agree."
Anakin: "Then they should be made to."
Padme: "By whom?  Who's going to make them?"
Anakin: "I don't know.  Someone."
Padme: "You?"
Anakin: "Of course not me!"
Padme: "Then someone...?"
Anakin: "Someone wise."
Padme: "That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me."
Anakin: "Well... if it works..."

I suspect you get freedom in accordance with their definition of freedom. It's very cute.

What a great example of how some liberals want to commandeer the scarce resources of the public treasury to enrich those union parasites. Conflict will naturally result.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

What a interesting theory. The modern progressive subscribes to this standard.

Anakin: "We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem.  Agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and do it."
Padme: "That's exactly what they do, the trouble is that people don't always agree."
Anakin: "Then they should be made to."
Padme: "By whom?  Who's going to make them?"
Anakin: "I don't know.  Someone."
Padme: "You?"
Anakin: "Of course not me!"
Padme: "Then someone...?"
Anakin: "Someone wise."
Padme: "That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me."
Anakin: "Well... if it works..."

I suspect you get freedom in accordance with their definition of freedom. It's very cute.

Have you been speaking with jmfcst off the forum?  He was big on movie quotes express his views, but at least he usually gave ones relevant to the topic at hand.  Besides, Chancellor Palpatine was definitely a reactionary and not a progressive, so not only is your quote irrelevant to the subject of whether freedom is a scarce resource, your commentary on it is completely wrong.