Mikhail Gorbachev wrote:
What history are they teaching in schools these days?
Nothing related to the OP or the poster (child) that got kicked for a week. The problem is this stuff is NOT taught in schools but on the internet, religious/political gatherings and even at annual, well attended conventions around the world.
Over and above the coming “decline-and-fall” of the United States you also have the UFO/NOW/Alien/Lizard/Illuminate/Mason/Elite/Satanic conspiracy to destroy the world and enslave mankind that has been going around since “Urgosh” told “Glumbash” that the reason he couldn’t catch an antelope was because someone put a curse on him.
Seriously you have people who spend billions of dollars per year to SUPPORT trying to prove the Earth is flat, that vaccines cause autism, or that we have to choose between science and religion and a good part of that money goes to providing ‘free’ educations to anyone who will listen and believe. And then part of it goes to funding campaigns aimed at forcing schools to “teach the controversy” or providing ‘equal access to alternate theories” which flip flop back and forth.
Given that teachers have to walk a very fine line between what they know and what they can actually teach, (my example is I’m in a state where as a volunteer educator at a Nature Preserve I can teach that micro-evolution has been observed but if asked about macro-evolution I have to decline to answer and change the subject. Heck about 8 or so years ago I couldn’t even call it “evolution” at all but had to say “adaption”, no “Global Warming” I had to point to “Climate Change” AND had to say the subject was controversial) I’m not surprised that some are frustrated.
But I find it rarer that those who teach history are as restricted as say a biology teacher. Unfortunately I doubt it’s as rare today as about 10 years ago given the politically and religiously charged nature of the basic conflict. While it hasn’t gotten to the levels of the South or the Nazi’s having ‘won’ their conflicts revisionism, apologetics, and outright false claims have taken on a “legitimate” life of their own and reinforcement by peer groups, political and religious leaders and the availability of professional looking internet media has done a great deal to not only confuse the issue but cause even bigger rifts along already existing stress lines.
Now as I’ve pointed out before American’s dearly love to find faults with and disagree with other American’s and given enough time to stew it could be likely we can eventually split apart. Arguably we’ve been on the brink of doing so several times in the past, but even when the split actually came the reconciliation was surprisingly rapid in the worlds eyes. The oft used mantra of “we’re better together than apart” is applicable but there are still those who would rather see the whole thing smashed to pieces for their own gain.
As for the OP’s list of new ‘nations’ I can only post a better map of how the US and Canada “breakup” culturally:
https://earthlymission.com/the-11-nations-of-the-us/
Note this does not take into account the geographical issues as well but only cultural and demographic. (For example it doesn’t show how “Greater Appalachia” is broken up into several distinct regions due to terrain and natural features which would likely cause parts to be split off into various other areas)
California Republic- California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington
While I’ve no doubt some part of California will try and call itself a “Republic” I suspect this is more based on a political map such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_s...ile:116th_United_States_Congress_Senators.svg
But still misleading. Outside the urban zones shown in the “Left Coast” map cited above the majority rural areas have little in common and little love for those same urban areas and would much rather NOT be “Californian”. Northern California, Washington and Oregon would likely gravitate towards each other and in normally proposed to be “Cascadia”. Nevada lies on the other side of the Rockies and is difficult to integrate or support due to that placement hence it would likely either be part of the “Far West” or South West nations. If Hawaii joins anyone it is likely based in California or Cascadia and one could argue some of the Pacific territories would likely do so as well. Guam and other outward Pacific islands will likely seek a closer ally and easier trade and relations partner. The Philippians or Micronesia I’d think
Rocky Mountain Federation – Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Montana
First of all Utah will become “Deseret” as they’ve been itching to do since the late 1870s but more to the point most of Southern Idaho, Northern Arizona and New Mexico would fold in as would parts of Wyoming and Montana though not a great deal. Colorado is again physically separated by a range of high mountains and it is unlikely they’d be willing to share power with “Deseret”. Further it won’t take long for the ‘lesser’ areas, (Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming and Montana) to come to the conclusion they won’t be getting ‘equal’ representation due to population versus land size in any “Federation” which will be highly unstable. That’s death for a Federation which requires cooperation and representation and the alternative of a Confederation will likely to unworkable.
Republic of Texas – Texas, Puerto Rico, Guam
Have the echo the rest here as I don’t see any Atlantic or Pacific territory for Texas. It’s culturally and socially integrated with the Deep South despite allusions to independence it’s not really been a success as it and frankly they’ would rather be a big fish in a pond of minnows rather than a fish in its own pond. I’d suggest it would either turn west to dominate New Mexico and Arizona and push up into Oklahoma towards Kansas and east towards Arkansas and Louisiana. Arguably a case could be made towards Texas acting as the catalyst and seed for “Deep South” nation encompassing much of the Deep South since Texas could economically and likely militarily dominate the rest of the states combined. Frankly Louisiana makes sense as it would wrap up the Mississippi with New Orleans and it’s infrastructure and economy whereas Oklahoma and most of Arkansas and parts of Missouri would be pretty easy to integrate economically and culturally. Mississippi the state is going to be a drag economically on whatever nation it’s a part of as it’s the least developed and lowest income state.
Which brings me to:
Confederate States of America- Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Kentucky
While It’s popular to assume that the OLD CSA would cling to the title if given the chance in reality the old CSA and the Confederacy around which it was organized, (and I use the term VERY loosely) have enough baggage and evidence of inherent flaws significant enough to lead to its failure that it is unlikely to be used again. In fact the Deep South has gone out of its way to, while displaying such “symbols” of the CSA as the battle flag and resurgences in “authentic” Confederate music, disassociate its current ‘culture’ from the “bad” side of the Old South. And that includes the legacy of the Confederate government and governance system along with slavery and other flaws.
So it is highly unlikely they would adopt a ‘Confederation’ structure and would instead lean towards a modified Federal or “Republican” system. Not to say they won’t still try to ‘appeal’ to the fans of the Old South but CSA if used will much more likely stand for Christian States of America or Conservative States of America rather than Confederate. Demographics and other changes suggest a number of Old South states would not be as interested in joining a new Deep South nation either. Plus you’ve lumped some very questionable states into the mix such as Kentucky which has geographic and terrain, as well as cultural issues with participating in such a new nation, Kentucky has more interests in areas east, west, and north than the south. Oklahoma as already mentioned will tend to go where Texas does rather than align with the Deep South and at this point in history even Virginia, Maryland and most of both North and South Carolina have more in common east and north an towards the south. Considering as I noted above that Texas would likely seek a dominant role in an such Deep South nation it would offer little for any of those states to join a nation where they will always be the inferior and lesser members. Similarly while Florida identifies as “Deep South” it actually has more in common with the South EAST than the South West but it could be seen along with Alabama, Georgia as a possible counter-weight to having Texas in the mix. If Texas does not seek to move east though there’s really little of interest east of Alabama till you get to New Orleans and if Texas as an independent nation is looking in that direction nothing short of direct military action will stop them and being honest It’s not likely those states could actually stop such a move.
Really as a more plausible move I can see Florida, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolina's, maybe both Virginia's and parts of Tennessee and Kentucky coalescing into a Southern Atlantic nation but it’s questionable if it could stay stable given the terrain and cultural differences between the main segments.
As for the rest well the North East or Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware can be mutually self-supporting and stay together but really you can extend that south and west pretty easily into the north and mid-west.
Which actually brings me right back around to the main fact that breaking up the US is hard to do since we actually DO gain so much from being a single nation despite our differences. Once you’re into the 1900’s the American gestalt is pretty much set and there is little chance of any external factor overcoming that unity. As bad as things seem today in truth the majority of the population are in fact satisfied with how things are and have no interest in lowering either their standards of living or their security on a vague promise of things being ‘better’ in a more divided nation. History and evidence suggest such a promise isn’t very likely to come about and despite everything mentioned the US is doing pretty well and our differences have little chance in spilling into violence as that would take too much effort.
Randy