Because you asked.

[i812]

question for i812:
what accounts for the violence of the US civil war? in most cases you cite or Simon does, the divisions are pretty clear: tribes [or factions] are warring over land and resources; differences of religion are also key. invaders and colonizers, likewise get into war with those they are 'pacifying.'

but in the US, both sides are white protestants by and large; the notherners did not wish to grab the southerners' land or rape their women.

I moved this question here with my apology to SeaCat, and with my sympathy for those who feel so threatened and for those who have been so horribly scarred.

Your question cannot be answered with entire libraries, but I will try to give you some insights.

The people who's families have lived in Florida for generations, live in the Northern part. Many, many people fly the Stars and Bars instead of the Stars and Stripes. The Civil War battle of Olustee will be reenacted this weekend near Lake City, Florida. "The South will rise again," is a common slogan. But if you ask them why? They don't have anything resembling a coherent answer. War is so horrible and yet people seem to relish it.

On Cape San Blas there is a place called 'The Old Salt Works'. In the days of the Civil War it provided salt for the Confederate army, so the Union navy sailed into the bay and blew it off of the face of the Earth with their cannons.

Presently at that location there are some rustic houses and cabins for rent, and the only reminder of history is the name. Every year I stay there, and I have a house and a cabin rented for late next week. Each morning I will watch the sunrise over the bay. I will watch the ground seem to move as the masses of fiddler crabs scurry about. I will watch the tremendous variety of seabirds go about their business of living. I will watch the ever changing lighting caused by the sun, and delight in the squalls that sweep across the bay. I will be awestruck by the sheer beauty of the place.

This is all because I was there when Maudoudhi began spewing his poison out of Ichara. I was there when the Taliban emerged. I was there for the proxy war in Afghanistan between the Soviet Union and the United States that killed over a million Afghani, Southern Asian and Middle Eastern men--ultimately resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was there when things were so bad in Russia that the pessimists didn't see how it could possibly get any worse, but the optimists thought they could.

I have seen the naked bodies that lie lined up some mornings in the dust along the pitifully poor roads in the area that is neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan. The killers always take time to mark their dead, and the bodies all have their tongues cut out and shoved up their asses. This is sign for anyone that may be inclined to talk. The bodies also have their penises cut off and shoved in their mouths to indicate that it is the end of their blood line. They will not have any more children. It is where the War on Terror and the War on Drugs inextricably intersect. It is the most dangerous place in the world, and it is where Osama bin Ladin is hiding.

The traditional cause of war is religion, and Islam has declared war on Christianity and Judaism. It is an eleven page declaration of war in writing, and was written by Osama bin Ladin. So far the war has been characterized by border skirmishes. The real killing has not begun, because The United States has chosen to characterize it as a “War on Terror” so that the killing can be limited to a grunt killing another grunt. The problem with that strategy is that it will result in a decades long war. Unless it goes nuclear.

The second leading cause of war is territory. When you mix religion and territory as in Palestine/Israel and Muslim/Jew, it could not be more incendiary.

A major problem with people's understanding of what is occurring is a completely idiotic Western media. A good example is Daniel Pearl. He was a Jew who went looking for terrorists in Karachi. He found them right away. It didn't surprise me that they took his head. It was inevitable. You see taking heads in that part of the world goes back to before Muhammed and even long before Jesus. It is as older than the Bible. There are even shrunken heads. A parochial small minded media is as dangerous as the power hungry that are so rampant in the Federal Government. They are playing politics with you and your children's lives.

One of the things that I wanted to accomplish was to leave this world in better condition than it was when I came to it. I am very afraid that it will not happen for me, but it is not within my power. So I will selfishly go to the State Park on Cape San Blas where there is one of the finest beaches that you can find anywhere in the world. It stretches for miles and miles. I have never been all the way to the end, so this year I have provisioned a backpack and I plan to walk the beach along the Gulf of Mexico until I get to the very tip of the Cape. I will spend the day admiring the spectacular beauty of the water, the sky and the dunes. I will be enchanted by the wildlife, and each evening I will watch the sunset on the Gulf of Mexico while surrounded by people that I love.

I wish that you all could be there.

 

[3113]

but in the US, both sides are white protestants by and large; the notherners did not wish to grab the southerners' land or rape their women.

Actually, it was still over land--or power. One main contention of the Civil was was which states would be slave or free. And if these states were non-slave and "northern" then the North controlled more votes in congress.

We think of red/blue political tribalism in the U.S. as new. But if you read books on the subject, you find very quickly that it goes all the way back to 1776. The battle has always been between agricultural and urban, between states with few people (and, presumably little power in congress) and those with many people and, presumably, a great deal of power in congress.

Religion isn't just about faith in the divine--like all tribalism it's about lifestyle. And people usually want to maintain their particular lifestyle, whether it is an austere puritan lifestyle or one with a big Cathedral with elaborate rituals.

In addition, there is some sort of tribalism in our genetics--something that makes us want to take sides. Now we may presume that we just agree with the reasons (i.e., that they make sense), but we will take sides no matter what. There is usually no rhyme or reason to root for one football team over another. But we take sides and cheer--and once we HAVE taken a side and start cheering for that side, we get deeper and deeper into it. Willing to have battles and riots in the stadium if our side is "wronged" on the field or looses.

We even make up reasons for it. One side is the underdog, so they deserve to win. One side has a good Christian as their star player, so they deserve to win. One side has a cool badass as their star player, so they deserve to win. It's the team that plays for your old school, or the star player is just awesome and everyone worships him. For all these reasons, or even just because one side is wearing our favorite color, we will take a side. We're very into that. We yearn for dualism.

This, by the way, explains modern folk who still cheer on the South even though they don't know why. That is the side they've choosen in the football game, and they've choosen it for mythical reasons rather than real reasons.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, except for the fact that it is better to be good than evil.

However, I find your claim that everyone in Islam wants the death of everyone in the West to be simplistic. Islam is no more monolithic than the West. They consist of myriad cultures with long histories and different motives and perspectives because of this.

To hate all of Islam simply because they are Islamic is just a continuation of one of the most common and destructive ways of human thinking. Reducing other people to a faceless 'them' guarantees that violence will happen. The rules do not apply to 'them'.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

but in the US, both sides are white protestants by and large; the notherners did not wish to grab the southerners' land or rape their women.

Just because the skin is the same color, don't underestimate the cultural difference. People in the middle east all have the same color skin, but they've been killing each other for thousands of years.

There were many different reasons for the civil war. Some people like to focus on slavery and say it was the only reason, but that's cherry picking reasons. Lincoln offered to let slavery stand if the South didn't secede, but the south wanted out and seceded. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation as an act of revenge on the South well after they had declared secession.

Aside from Slavery, here's some of the main reasons for the war:

The South wanted a group of independent states. They wanted States to have the majority of the power. The North wanted a powerful central federal government.

The North was a huge industrial base, and the South was a huge agricultural base. The North controlled most of the money, and the south wanted a bigger share. The south bought industrial goods from the north, and the north bought food and cotton from the south. Industrial goods cost more than food, and the balance of money shifted.

With money comes power. The North exerted this power on the south. They controlled the money markets, and did things to keep the price of southern produced goods low. That's part of the reason why the south was so adamant about slavery. Slave labor was the only way to turn a profit on goods like cotton. If they had to pay regular wages, they'd go broke.

 

[i812]

However, I find your claim that everyone in Islam wants the death of everyone in the West to be simplistic. Islam is no more monolithic than the West. They consist of myriad cultures with long histories and different motives and perspectives because of this.

To hate all of Islam simply because they are Islamic is just a continuation of one of the most common and destructive ways of human thinking. Reducing other people to a faceless 'them' guarantees that violence will happen. The rules do not apply to 'them'.

I am not exactly certain how you concluded this from what I said. I will chalk it up to my ineptitude as a novice writer, and I am depending on you and others at AH to teach me how to accurately convey what I intend to communicate. I think that I have improved, but maybe not.

Although not a Pakistani, I grew up in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I assure you that there is a large radical fundamentalist element of Islam who want the death of everyone who is not a Muslim of their ilk. One of the first things that people will tell you when you accept an invitation to their home is, "Be careful of what you say in front of the servants." I have many friends who have fled to Canada because they fear these radicals: Muslims, Christians, homosexuals and those that simply aren't inclined toward any religion. I have many more childhood friends who still live in Pakistan. This time of year I so miss the kite fighting of Basant, but I am better off in Cape San Blas.

 

[R. Richard]

With money comes power. The North exerted this power on the south. They controlled the money markets, and did things to keep the price of southern produced goods low. That's part of the reason why the south was so adamant about slavery. Slave labor was the only way to turn a profit on goods like cotton. If they had to pay regular wages, they'd go broke.

Let me begin by saying that cotton, back in the mid 1800's was an incredibly profitable crop. If you owned a cotton plantation and had any management skill, you were filthy rich. Yes, you needed slaves, but not really for economic reasons.

If you freed the slaves in the South, you had a lot of Negroes who would have rights. The fact that the Negroes would have rights was the problem. The Negroes would then begin to intermarry with the whites and that was something the South was not able to accept. [I lived in the South a few years back. I would guess that somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the women I saw shopping in the supermarket had mixed race babies.]

If the Negro slaves were freed, they would then begin to compete with the poor Caucasian farmers and would have driven poor Caucasian farmers out of business.

I was house hunting in the Charlestion, SC area and I saw a genuine slave sale contract. A field hand Negro was sold and bought for $750. The sum of $750 was a bit more than a year's wages for a skilled working man back then. It is my understanding that the South told the North, "OK, if you want the Negro slaves freed, buy them from us and free them." The North simply did not have the money to buy said Negro slaves.

President Lincoln was determined to save the union. He is supposed to have said, "If I can keep the union together with slaves, I will do that If I can keep the union together by freeing the slaves, I will do that."

 

[cloudy]

That the civil war was about slavery is an oft-repeated myth.

It wasn't about slavery. Never was. It was about state's rights. Slavery was just one of those state's rights.

Please be a little more precise.

 

[rgraham666]

The traditional cause of war is religion, and Islam has declared war on Christianity and Judaism. It is an eleven page declaration of war in writing, and was written by Osama bin Ladin. So far the war has been characterized by border skirmishes. The real killing has not begun, because The United States has chosen to characterize it as a “War on Terror” so that the killing can be limited to a grunt killing another grunt. The problem with that strategy is that it will result in a decades long war. Unless it goes nuclear.

Did I misinterpret this? Does Bin Laden speak for all of Islam? Do the fundamentalists speak for all of Islam. Will the Shiites (Bin Laden is Sunni) go along with this? Will the Ahmadis? The Sufis?

I strongly disagree with your statement that wars are chiefly caused by religion. The Persians and Greeks could have cared less about their respective religions. The Romans and the Carthaginians weren't fighting over religion. Both World Wars and the Cold War had nothing to do with religion.

I'm still not clear on what your point is. Other than people are horrible to one another.

I knew that.

 

[i812]

That the civil war was about slavery is an oft-repeated myth.

It wasn't about slavery. Never was. It was about state's rights. Slavery was just one of those state's rights.

Please be a little more precise.

I find it so interesting that Notherners call it the Civil War and Southerners call it the War Between the States.

 

[i812]

Did I misinterpret this? Does Bin Laden speak for all of Islam? Do the fundamentalists speak for all of Islam. Will the Shiites (Bin Laden is Sunni) go along with this? Will the Ahmadis? The Sufis?

Bin Laden wishes to speak for all Islam. Muslims that do not believe in his brand of Islam are in mortal danger as well. If you have Muslim friends that trust you, they will tell you that this is true. Islam has allowed this cancer to grow because of fear of these fundamentalists and a concept of "Muslim Brotherhood." The United States funded a good deal of all of this in order to get Muslims to kill the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Actually, there is no such thing as a Shiite. That is like calling you a Canadianite and is a only a convention of the Western media. They are Shia. The few other denominations of Muslims are miniscule campared to the huge majority of Sunnis and the large group of Shias, and are peripheral.

The Sunnis and the Shias have been at war with each other ever since the Sunnis killed Hussein on the tenth of Muharram. In Pakistan, it often take the Pakistan Army to keep them apart on that day. I cannot imagine that they will ever go along with each other.

I strongly disagree with your statement that wars are chiefly caused by religion. The Persians and Greeks could have cared less about their respective religions. The Romans and the Carthaginians weren't fighting over religion. Both World Wars and the Cold War had nothing to do with religion.

Many, if not most of the historians would disagree with you about religion not being the traditional cause of war. There are songs such as Onward Christian Soldiers and the Battle Hymn of the Republic that have very interesting words. Every army goes forward with "God on our side." You might want to read the Iliad again.

The Cold War was only cold in the West. It could have not been any hotter in Afghanistan, and it spawned the fundamentalist schools. For many years the people of Southern Asia told me, "This will come to you." They were right.

I'm still not clear on what your point is. Other than people are horrible to one another.

I pulled this from SeaCat's thread because there was a side discussion going with Pure about 'man's inhumanity to man'. I should have been more clear about that, but you got the point exactly.[/QUOTE]

 

[rgraham666]

I can no more accept Bin Laden speaking for all Muslims than I can James Robison or Pat Robertson speaking for all Christians.

I suspect a Shiite might differ, and strongly, with your observation that there is no such thing as a Shiite.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your fear of Islam. Nor do I think the Islamists such as Bin Laden form more than a small percentage of Muslims. To fear all of Islam because some are fools and worse would be as bad as fearing all Americans because some are fools and worse.

I'll finish by posting my favourite aphorism. "What you resist, you become."

 

[i812]

I can no more accept Bin Laden speaking for all Muslims than I can James Robison or Pat Robertson speaking for all Christians.

I said that Bin Laden wishes to speak for all Islam. This has much to do with why he was banished from Saudi Arabia. If Bin Laden wins you will accept it, or you will die by the sword. You see he believes that Islam is spread by the sword.

I suspect a Shiite might differ, and strongly, with your observation that there is no such thing as a Shiite.

Maybe we disagree on this because I grew up speaking other languages than English.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your fear of Islam. Nor do I think the Islamists such as Bin Laden form more than a small percentage of Muslims. To fear all of Islam because some are fools and worse would be as bad as fearing all Americans because some are fools and worse.

I don't fear Islam. I grew up in an Islamic country. However, it is not a small percentage of Muslims that want the make the world the "the one true religion." It is about 600,000,000 of the approximately 2 billion Muslims.

It may be of interest that the reason that there are so many countries ending in 'istan' is because it is a Farsi suffix for 'place of' or 'land of'. That is why if you go to Afghanistan, you will find Afghans. Tajikistan is Tajiks, and so forth. Pakistan is different in that 'Pak' is a Farsi prefix for 'pure' or 'holy'. Pakistan is therefore the land of the pure and was established in 1947 by the British to be a pure Muslim ideology. I am not a Pakistani, but I grew up in "the land of the pure." A year later the British established a State that was to be a pure Jewish ideology--Israel.

If I had been alive before 1933 I would have told you that these prefixes and suffixes were Persian. You see the Persians wanted the name of their country changed to what they called it themselves--Iran. They also wanted the name of their language changed from Persian to what they called it themselves--Farsi. So the maps were changed from what the West had named them. Nothing else changed but the names.[/QUOTE]

 

[cloudy]

I find it so interesting that Notherners call it the Civil War and Southerners call it the War Between the States.

Not so. We call it the War of Northern Aggression - which it was.

 

[rgraham666]

Threadjacking and about to start a flame war. I'm feeling suicidal.

I don't think the Confederacy would have lasted even if it had won the war.. Their insistence on states rights would have doomed it.

The first time the Confederacy did something unpopular with particular states, those states would have shouted 'States rights' and left the Confederacy. Why should they stay? They've already fought a war and won it on the principle that they can't be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

I suspect this trend would even have extended to states themselves breaking up. You can't get your own way all the time.

So, in my opinion, The South would have ended up like Yugoslavia, or perhaps Austria after WWI. A lot of much smaller, poorer and weaker nations.

I'm getting the glimmerings of a story here.

OK, folks. Flame on!

 

[i812]

Threadjacking and about to start a flame war. I'm feeling suicidal.

I don't think the Confederacy would have lasted even if it had won the war.. Their insistence on states rights would have doomed it.

The first time the Confederacy did something unpopular with particular states, those states would have shouted 'States rights' and left the Confederacy. Why should they stay? They've already fought a war and won it on the principle that they can't be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

I suspect this trend would even have extended to states themselves breaking up. You can't get your own way all the time.

So, in my opinion, The South would have ended up like Yugoslavia, or perhaps Austria after WWI. A lot of much smaller, poorer and weaker nations.

I'm getting the glimmerings of a story here.

OK, folks. Flame on!

I find that very persuasive.

Would you be kind enough to find me a place to live in Canada, in case your effort to start a war down here succeeds?