Except that the issue here in the UK is between religious culture and cultural customs and the current 'conflict' is currently between whites with respect to economics. Now I accept that in the US it may be different but it seems to me(could be wrong) that the conflict there has pretty much been because a certain type of the white male will never accept a black male as a 'real' American. Also bear in mind that in the UK 8 out of 10 of us are white so there is no real mixed society, just the rich white shitting on the poor white and using whatever minority that's around at the time to divert that fact, same old same old - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSk-VKOTgQY
(although the original lyrics are a touch cruder
) Raygunomics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBmNqXC-s
This view reminds me of a Chinese saying (from the I-Ching which I remember you once mentioned reading?): 'Looking through a crack in the door'. Looking through a crack one has a limited and partial view (I think the Hexagram was Contemplation, No. 20). The core of the conflict, if you were to ask me, would be defined fairly strictly in the fact that the US was and began as an Anglo-Saxon nation. All its institituions, its history, its mental and spiritual development, its structure --- everything --- is in essence a product of the Anglo-Saxon mind.
In my understanding, it is the Civil War which brought extreme change to those united states and through the terrible effect of a civil war. The costs were extreme in a social sense, and in many other senses. I see it as having set in motion enmities which do not come to an end. At least in some senses, which have to be carefully and judiciously described to avoid inaccurate statements, the manifestation of populism now, with President Trump and the bizarre, incomprehensible, even mysterious and murky tumult one notices, has links to this enmity and divisiveness which is part-and-parcel.
What sort of a nation is the US? What was it? What will it now become? To understand these issues and questions is not easy. But one must, IMO, understand postwar demographics and specifically the 1965 immigration laws which were *imposed* as it were during the civil rights years. These allowed for a radical shift in the demographic make-up. So, when once the population was 90% white and 10% black, now the nation is 68% white and declining with a far larger group of mixed or non-whites. This came about through conscious decision, and behind the decisions there is a political and social philosophy that can be discovered, understood, and talked about.
From a certain perspective the present is the only moment available to alter or to shift these trends. In any case, the present conflict is 'somatic' and also 'psychological' in that it has to do with the 'soul' of the country. In a blended society the 'soul' becomes a blended soul. But there is a will --- we have a hard time deciding if it is good or bad --- which desires to resist 'blending' and 'multicultural assimilation'. The conflicts are here, and it is very hard to talk about them because speech is controlled through 'politically correct' mental regimes.
To understand the US somewhat better, IMO, one has to understand a certain regional mind-set difference. On one end there is the Yankee northerner out of New England with a certain kind of mind and sense of self; and on the other a somewhat older (in the sense of more original) more southern centered (Virginia for example, where cam Washington and Jefferson) sort of person. In my view it is the Northerner who now dominates the arena. It is hard to speak about but the classic Social Justice Warrior of the American variety represents this northern type and attitude. And this 'type' is a type that emerged victorious after the Civil War and which brought an end to an older type.
There is a debate or a conflict in jurisprudence between a doctrine of Living Constitution interpretation and Originialism. Those that hold to Originalism are always conservative and they seek to interpret and apply the Constitution as it was written, based on the ideas and conventions of the men who wrote it. The Living Constitutionalists believe that it must be interpreted as a 'living' document and that the job of a jurisprudentialist (judge, lawyer) is to 'interpret' it into the present. Obviously, this will tend to produce rather radical departures, and these departurues are the radical doctrines which have fundamentally altered the social structure of the United States. The original vision of the Founders was of state-regions which oversaw their own affairs and lived according to their values. Naturally conservative, as people are generally speaking naturally conservative. Judicial activism, an urban movement, and also a Federal influence, determines that it can modify culture and regional habit with 'activist' edicts because, of course, it knows better and operates from an 'enlightened' perspective.
In essence, in my opinion, the conservative turn both in the US and world-wide --- strange, confusing, mysterious, problematic --- has roots in a resistance to a top-down imposition of value and represents common people asserting their own sense of value.
Dear Moderator. I noticed that you simply erased a thread that I began. With no explanation. No notification. It was a good thread and a very good topic. A necessary topic. I do not think you have very much of a philosophical mind, and I have to admit I doubt very much your sense of ethics and honor, but I would ask you to consider what are the ramifications of the chilling of speech. This is a particularly acute problem today, for obvious reasons. It seems to me that in a philosophical environment, and among philosophers who are not, really, mere crypto-idiots and hacks, that this should be understood. I am aware that no discourse, no explanation, no appeal will move you, and yet I felt it important to say this
Did you? How sweet.
I however thought your judgement in error and think you full of shit about your 'ethics' and 'morals' so I deleted your post.