So I'm reading about india at the moment, and about the leadup to partition. As late as 1945, Jinnah and Nehru were on board with the idea of a federal state; but when Gandhi intervened to oppose it, the state exploded violently. Neighbors drowning neighbors, hacking up old men who sold fruit in the market, and in some parts of India thinks collapsed completely.
You see the same things time and time again; Czechoslovakia in 1938, Poland in 1919-1921, etc. Yet a few years before, even if things weren't perfect, the communities got along well enough.
So in areas where intercommunal violence has broken off, where they significantly worse than places where it hadn't, or is it just an association with a general breakdown of law and order?
Put another way, could someone see American whites and blacks going at it in a general collapse of civil order? In the 1960s? Or is the breakout of intercommunal violence mean there wasn't a civil society to begin with, and that state is always on the knife edge?
You see the same things time and time again; Czechoslovakia in 1938, Poland in 1919-1921, etc. Yet a few years before, even if things weren't perfect, the communities got along well enough.
So in areas where intercommunal violence has broken off, where they significantly worse than places where it hadn't, or is it just an association with a general breakdown of law and order?
Put another way, could someone see American whites and blacks going at it in a general collapse of civil order? In the 1960s? Or is the breakout of intercommunal violence mean there wasn't a civil society to begin with, and that state is always on the knife edge?