Questions for loomer

[Darth Yan]

I'm only asking in this single post because he insisted on this being public. So here goes. A while back we argued on decolonization. My heart wasn't really in it so my arguments were kinda crap. So I'm asking these questions and asking loomer to give single responses to each one IN DETAIL. This is the only post I'm doing it in.

1.) You said peacekeeping would be needed to enforce order amongst the various native states.....well who would do the peacekeeping? Would all the new nations form an organization to keep the peace a la the UN or league of nations? If so what if certain nations didn't join or didn't want to cooperate? What if the tribes disagreed on how to proceed? Who would provide the manpower? Would certain nations wield more power over others like the G8 security council does with the UN?)

2.) When the USA is dissolved how are all the military assets going to be distributed? Do you really think that some nations aren't going to underhandedly try to take more of the weapons than are allotted? Do you REALLY think that even if negotiations occur there won't be attempts to circumvent them?

3.) What of all the self mutilation in coming of age rituals? What of the misogyny in certain areas of native culture? What of the raids? What if Native Nations WANT to reintroduce those customs despite them being stupid? Yes cultures evolve but old habits have a tendency of rearing their ugly head

4.) You never did explain why native nations wouldn't impose voting restrictions to insure that the non native american majority wouldn't be able to override what the native american voters wanted (that precise conundrum is why Palestinians are denied right to return in Israel, and why Apartheid South Africa denied Blacks the right to vote; because if the vast ethnic majority got the power than the minority would be swamped. In native american run nations it would be literally no different. And before you give me that "oh they'll all embrace native values". There are good elements to native american cultures....and there are native cultural values that are just plain terrible. The difficulties of keeping tribal languages alive was also raised multiple times, as well as the fact that they have a tendency to vanish because most natives just don't care enough to learn them.

All in all it feels like you're relying on a "noble savage" view of Native Americans

[loomer]

Before I begin, I require the following undertakings from you:

1. You will actually address arguments made to you.
2. You will concede points where you are unable to defend them.
3. You will refrain from arguments to a generic 'human nature' unless willing to defend why that human nature is universal, unchangeable, and absolute.
4. You will use quote properly rather than expecting me to wade through poorly itemized responses.
5. Where a question of fact is raised, you will address it honestly and not attempt to dissemble or equivocate your way around it.

I don't ordinarily feel a need to establish these basic ground rules, but you've proven yourself to have difficulty with all of the above before and I don't especially feel like wasting my time if you're not going to engage properly. I'd also like to request that others keep their posting to a minimum, as Yan has a fear that I'll just have him dogpiled by 'my friends'.

[Darth Yan]

Alright.

[J]

Might I suggest ritual combat in The Coliseum?

[Darth Yan]

Possibly. I'm able to answer them here but I'm not really into a long drawn out debate

[Darth Yan]

I actually remembered another question. I said back in the first defat that "dissolving the country is not the only way."

Loomer's response was

Certainly, but it is the way we seek. I don't think I've ever said it is in fact the only way - I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate where I have.

If that's the case....why? Why does the US HAVE to be dissolved for there to be justice?

[loomer]

1.) You said peacekeeping would be needed to enforce order amongst the various native states.....well who would do the peacekeeping? Would all the new nations form an organization to keep the peace a la the UN or league of nations? If so what if certain nations didn't join or didn't want to cooperate? What if the tribes disagreed on how to proceed? Who would provide the manpower? Would certain nations wield more power over others like the G8 security council does with the UN?)

You seem to want me to engage in some kind of detailed speculation, which is frankly silly - but I'll indulge you. I would suggest, for the present purpose, that you cease using the word 'tribes' to describe the new states that would form. A tribe is a specific model and unit of government and identity, not a catch-all term for an Indigenous state or nation, and what we are presuming is this: Multi-ethnic cosmopolitan Indigenized democratic states formed along traditional borders and with the redistribution of assets, either purely those held by the prior State, or all those held above a certain threshold of individual security-of-living by private citizens, after a sufficient period of cultural reform and negotiation to ensure a peaceable transition. While it is conceivable that some of these States might adopt the traditional 'tribal' models of government, it is not certain or absolute.

Our first scenario is one in which the existing US ceases but is replaced by a new US drafted along the boundaries and borders of the traditional owners and nations. In this case, there is no particular need for peacekeeping efforts that cannot be handled domestically within the neo-US unless it proves to be a failed state.

In the alternative - the dissolution of the US into States constituted along negotiated, democratically established borders of demarcation constituted along those between the previously existing Indigenous nations, I would propose that peacekeeping be a joint effort between regional assemblies of the new nations and the UN. This ensures both the presence of those with cultural familiarity (preferably drawn from areas without a stake in whatever conflict is being policed) and those without, which is vital to any good peacekeeping effort by allowing both sensitivity to local factors and insulation from them.

I also submit that yes, there ought to be an organization of some kind between the new States, whether permanent or as a transitional matter to ensure a just and equitable transition from the extant US into the new States and to settle disputes arising from that matter. The precise details are impossible to prescribe ahead of time, but presumably such an organization would be concerned with matters of currency, transnational infrastructure and economic policy, and legal recipricocity. Joint military defence may also be a factor, but is a more debateable area of involvement. The manpower for this organization would be provided by its member states, and I see no reason to presume a Security Council-like arrangement of permanent national domination. Incidentally, the G8 is not the Security Council or vice versa - they are distinct organizations. Please refrain from making basic errors of fact like that.

If the newly formed/restored States disagree, well, that's the nature of international diplomacy and democracy. There is always the potential for national disagreement, and there are always the remedies available to any other nation - soft pressure, sanctions, hard pressure, and military action. We might of course debate whether these would be acceptable in any given circumstance or are acceptable at all, but I believe that is a seperate issue entirely unless an argument will be made that the new/restored Indigenous States should be denied the same rights under international law enjoyed by other States.

2.) When the USA is dissolved how are all the military assets going to be distributed?

Again, you seem to want me to indulge in what amounts to idle speculation. But very well - under the first scenario, no real redistribution is necessary. Under the second, that would be a matter for the democratically elected transitional body to determine, but I would suggest that the appropriate principle are proportionate distribution with exceptions based on areas of special risk - e.g. very low population states with very high value resources. Obviously certain assets are too costly (and pointless) for relatively small nations to maintain, in which case they may need to be scrapped, sold, or maintained collectively as part of whatever regional assemblies emerge. The issue of nuclear disarmament, of course, is more complex still - I submit that disarmament is a necessary component of the process unless all new states are to be nuclear-armed.

Do you really think that some nations aren't going to underhandedly try to take more of the weapons than are allotted? Do you REALLY think that even if negotiations occur there won't be attempts to circumvent them?

No, and I don't believe I've made any comment to suggest otherwise. I also believe, however, that the process of negotiation is a sufficient basis to proceed on, as we rely on it for almost every other process of interaction between States. During the initial transfer we could, of course, posit some kind of organized independent body of observers charged with ensuring that there are no such circumventions, that the transfer of arms and material is accurately accounted for, and that it does not enable vultures to descend to flood the international arms market. We might even posit that as a specific role for the original US's military - it's final duty before dissolving into national/regional organizations - if we had sufficient faith in those institutions.

3.) What of all the self mutilation in coming of age rituals?

What of them? I personally maintain a small sense of disgust towards bodily mutilation of children for ritual purposes (for instance, I would - if I were sufficiently placed by mass election - probably ban circumcision both male and female of anyone under the age of 18, religious or not - but that is because of my own personal morality), but if a man or woman wishes to do so, on what grounds should we prohibit them? I submit that we may make a case where said mutilation is permanently injurious or imposed from without rather than within on the basis that no person ought to be forced to severely injure themselves, but this is a seperate issue to the existence of the customs.

Please, explain why we should be overly concerned about events of consensual self-harm, and where the boundaries lie. If I choose to go and have my body extensively scarified to mark my manhood, should this be treated differently? Why or why not?

What of the misogyny in certain areas of native culture?

I believe I addressed that in the thread, but I will repeat myself here. There are elements of Indigenous cultures that I disagree with. I do not, however, feel that these areas - with very rare exceptions - justify the imposition of my morality by force. If change is necessary, then change will have to come from within, not without, to be meaningful and lasting. Fortunately, last time I looked, there are a great deal of Indigenous feminist theorists and advocates working towards exactly that: Change from within.

Are you of contrary opinion? Do you believe that misogyny justifies the forceful imposition of belief structures onto other cultures? If so, where do you draw the line?

What of the raids?

Are there any Indigenous communities seeking to reintroduce this custom? If so, please provide evidence.

What if Native Nations WANT to reintroduce those customs despite them being stupid?

Then they can be put to a democratic vote, the same as any other proposal to amend the law. We might, of course, require a more stringent circumstance for or outright ban any such reform that would intrude on a fundamental human or collective right, perhaps as enshrined in the constitutions of the new/restored States.

I note that you label them stupid. Please, explain why they are so without assuming that the project of the Enlightenment is automatically correct.

Yes cultures evolve but old habits have a tendency of rearing their ugly head

Certainly, but why should this be an obstacle to restoring Indigenous sovereignty? I don't see too many people suggesting we strip Norway of its capacity for self-governance on the basis that it has a long history of misogyny, violence, religious extremism, and slavery. If you wish to make the argument that the prior existence of distasteful cultural practices is sufficient grounds to deny sovereignty and self-rule, I'm curious to see how you formulate it.

4.) You never did explain why native nations wouldn't impose voting restrictions to insure that the non native american majority wouldn't be able to override what the native american voters wanted... And before you give me that "oh they'll all embrace native values".

I believe I did, and you simply failed to understand it - indeed, you do so here again. Indigenization is not 'they'll all embrace native values' but rather the process of forging new values out of the current center and the marginalized voices and customs of Indigenous peoples on their own land.

Bluntly, you assume the following:
1. That in these states, which form only after an extended period of negotiation, education, and cultural change and a democratic referendum/analogous process that involves all those directly effected by the change, there will remain an 'us against them' mentality;
2. That the only way to prevent this is to impose voting restrictions on the 'non-native majority';
3. That any attempt to change the 'us against them' model via negotiation, education, and cultural change is invalid.

Please explain why 3 is the case, as it is the core of your argument here: That, for whatever reason, non-Indigenous peoples can never engage in such cultural reform as to be good citizens in cosmopolitan democratic states that they have themselves voted into existence.

The difficulties of keeping tribal languages alive was also raised multiple times, as well as the fact that they have a tendency to vanish because most natives just don't care enough to learn them.

I wonder why it's hard to keep languages that were actively being exterminated for much of the last century and a half alive. I wonder why many Indigenous peoples are unable to muster the will to preserve a dying thing. And I wonder if that process might not be reversed if these languages were state-sponsored in all schools and became official national languages (note, however, this does not require abandoning English - it is possible, indeed common, for states to enjoy multiple official national languages that are taught in schools and used in government business.)

Tell me, do you think there are any special difficulties involved in keeping Indigenous languages alive unrelated to their traditionally marginalized status? Is there any reason, on the basis of the language itself, that we should treat them as a different category from English, Icelandic, Chinese, or Russian? By this I do not mean 'well no shit, they're a different language family entirely', but rather, is there some special feature* or lack thereof that renders these languages unfit for ordinary day to day use and governmental use? Is there some special feature that makes them unsuited to teaching in schools?**

*: To be generous to you, there are examples where this occurs but it is primarily cultural rather than a structural deficit in the language. Some Indigenous communities here in Australia, for instance, have strict mourning protocol that prohibits speaking the name of a dead person. This is not language bound, and so they do not speak that name in English either. This has some significant difficulties when people with common names shared with places, things, and days die - for instance, if a woman named Wednesday dies, the word is not to be said for the appropriate period, and all such references must become oblique -
**: Of course, some of these languages occupy a special position in their cultures as languages open only to men/women/elders/etc either in their entirety or in part, or ritual argot with no other use. These are not the languages I refer to, and have their own analogues in the English-speaking world in the languages taught to various occult initiatic traditions, the use of Latin/etc in some churches/temples/etc, and the various cants and jargons that emerge among professions and networks. Their existence does not, I propose, in any way impede the validity of the parent language on which they are grafted.

All in all it feels like you're relying on a "noble savage" view of Native Americans

On the contrary. I do not - and have never - denied that there are aspects of Native American cultures that I find repugnant, distasteful, and just plain baffling, or that there are real issues and problems within Native American communities unrelated to (albeit worsened by) colonial opppression and dispossession. I make no assumption of any kind of untouched innocence to the Native American mind - nor do I deny that these were civilized peoples who, by virtue of that status, cannot be noble savages by definition. It is purely and simply an erroneous assumption on your part. I would suggest that in fact there is the precise opposite in play, as I view Native Americans - and indeed, all Indigenous peoples - as people much like any other, with good and bad elements of culture and practice, good and bad individuals, and historic civilizations worthy of the label.

You seem to have come to this conclusion by my perceived failure to meditate upon the elements of those cultures and their histories that I, or perhaps more accurately you, find repugnant. But I again ask you: If we are to disqualify people from their own sovereignty on that basis, why not the Norwegians? Why not the English? The Belgians - especially the Belgians? The other element that seems to have given you this idea is that I feel it is possible to, collectively, deconstruct and demolish the colonial legacy that creates the 'us vs them' mindset, and that if this possibility is achieved, it will be possible to live in relative peace between ethnic and cultural groups within cosmopolitan nations. This, again, requires no special spirit or 'untouched naturalness' of Indigenous peoples - it requires only hard work and faith in humanity's ability to try and be better, and is as reliant on the desire of settlers to be what they would consider 'good people' as it is on Indigenous peoples.

If you still feel I rely on the 'noble savage' archetype, please, do explain and demonstrate how.

I actually remembered another question. I said back in the first defat that "dissolving the country is not the only way."

Loomer's response was

Certainly, but it is the way we seek. I don't think I've ever said it is in fact the only way - I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate where I have.

If that's the case....why? Why does the US HAVE to be dissolved for there to be justice?

Simply, it doesn't. But the same arguments that apply to the extreme of dissolution apply to non-dissolution, and sometimes a shocking and striking statement is a useful tool for breaking down ideological commitments and exposing them to daylight. This is also why I find your desire for me to engage in idle speculation so silly - you've taken what is ultimately a rhetorical tool and demanded I engage in fiction writing and worldbuilding.

[Darth Yan]

1.) You said peacekeeping would be needed to enforce order amongst the various native states.....well who would do the peacekeeping? Would all the new nations form an organization to keep the peace a la the UN or league of nations? If so what if certain nations didn't join or didn't want to cooperate? What if the tribes disagreed on how to proceed? Who would provide the manpower? Would certain nations wield more power over others like the G8 security council does with the UN?)

You seem to want me to engage in some kind of detailed speculation, which is frankly silly - but I'll indulge you. I would suggest, for the present purpose, that you cease using the word 'tribes' to describe the new states that would form. A tribe is a specific model and unit of government and identity, not a catch-all term for an Indigenous state or nation, and what we are presuming is this: Multi-ethnic cosmopolitan Indigenized democratic states formed along traditional borders and with the redistribution of assets, either purely those held by the prior State, or all those held above a certain threshold of individual security-of-living by private citizens, after a sufficient period of cultural reform and negotiation to ensure a peaceable transition. While it is conceivable that some of these States might adopt the traditional 'tribal' models of government, it is not certain or absolute.

Our first scenario is one in which the existing US ceases but is replaced by a new US drafted along the boundaries and borders of the traditional owners and nations. In this case, there is no particular need for peacekeeping efforts that cannot be handled domestically within the neo-US unless it proves to be a failed state.

In the alternative - the dissolution of the US into States constituted along negotiated, democratically established borders of demarcation constituted along those between the previously existing Indigenous nations, I would propose that peacekeeping be a joint effort between regional assemblies of the new nations and the UN. This ensures both the presence of those with cultural familiarity (preferably drawn from areas without a stake in whatever conflict is being policed) and those without, which is vital to any good peacekeeping effort by allowing both sensitivity to local factors and insulation from them.

I also submit that yes, there ought to be an organization of some kind between the new States, whether permanent or as a transitional matter to ensure a just and equitable transition from the extant US into the new States and to settle disputes arising from that matter. The precise details are impossible to prescribe ahead of time, but presumably such an organization would be concerned with matters of currency, transnational infrastructure and economic policy, and legal recipricocity. Joint military defence may also be a factor, but is a more debateable area of involvement. The manpower for this organization would be provided by its member states, and I see no reason to presume a Security Council-like arrangement of permanent national domination. Incidentally, the G8 is not the Security Council or vice versa - they are distinct organizations. Please refrain from making basic errors of fact like that.

If the newly formed/restored States disagree, well, that's the nature of international diplomacy and democracy. There is always the potential for national disagreement, and there are always the remedies available to any other nation - soft pressure, sanctions, hard pressure, and military action. We might of course debate whether these would be acceptable in any given circumstance or are acceptable at all, but I believe that is a seperate issue entirely unless an argument will be made that the new/restored Indigenous States should be denied the same rights under international law enjoyed by other States.

2.) When the USA is dissolved how are all the military assets going to be distributed?

Again, you seem to want me to indulge in what amounts to idle speculation. But very well - under the first scenario, no real redistribution is necessary. Under the second, that would be a matter for the democratically elected transitional body to determine, but I would suggest that the appropriate principle are proportionate distribution with exceptions based on areas of special risk - e.g. very low population states with very high value resources. Obviously certain assets are too costly (and pointless) for relatively small nations to maintain, in which case they may need to be scrapped, sold, or maintained collectively as part of whatever regional assemblies emerge. The issue of nuclear disarmament, of course, is more complex still - I submit that disarmament is a necessary component of the process unless all new states are to be nuclear-armed.

Do you really think that some nations aren't going to underhandedly try to take more of the weapons than are allotted? Do you REALLY think that even if negotiations occur there won't be attempts to circumvent them?

No, and I don't believe I've made any comment to suggest otherwise. I also believe, however, that the process of negotiation is a sufficient basis to proceed on, as we rely on it for almost every other process of interaction between States. During the initial transfer we could, of course, posit some kind of organized independent body of observers charged with ensuring that there are no such circumventions, that the transfer of arms and material is accurately accounted for, and that it does not enable vultures to descend to flood the international arms market. We might even posit that as a specific role for the original US's military - it's final duty before dissolving into national/regional organizations - if we had sufficient faith in those institutions.

3.) What of all the self mutilation in coming of age rituals?

What of them? I personally maintain a small sense of disgust towards bodily mutilation of children for ritual purposes (for instance, I would - if I were sufficiently placed by mass election - probably ban circumcision both male and female of anyone under the age of 18, religious or not - but that is because of my own personal morality), but if a man or woman wishes to do so, on what grounds should we prohibit them? I submit that we may make a case where said mutilation is permanently injurious or imposed from without rather than within on the basis that no person ought to be forced to severely injure themselves, but this is a seperate issue to the existence of the customs.

Please, explain why we should be overly concerned about events of consensual self-harm, and where the boundaries lie. If I choose to go and have my body extensively scarified to mark my manhood, should this be treated differently? Why or why not?

What of the misogyny in certain areas of native culture?

I believe I addressed that in the thread, but I will repeat myself here. There are elements of Indigenous cultures that I disagree with. I do not, however, feel that these areas - with very rare exceptions - justify the imposition of my morality by force. If change is necessary, then change will have to come from within, not without, to be meaningful and lasting. Fortunately, last time I looked, there are a great deal of Indigenous feminist theorists and advocates working towards exactly that: Change from within.

Are you of contrary opinion? Do you believe that misogyny justifies the forceful imposition of belief structures onto other cultures? If so, where do you draw the line?

What of the raids?

Are there any Indigenous communities seeking to reintroduce this custom? If so, please provide evidence.

What if Native Nations WANT to reintroduce those customs despite them being stupid?

Then they can be put to a democratic vote, the same as any other proposal to amend the law. We might, of course, require a more stringent circumstance for or outright ban any such reform that would intrude on a fundamental human or collective right, perhaps as enshrined in the constitutions of the new/restored States.

I note that you label them stupid. Please, explain why they are so without assuming that the project of the Enlightenment is automatically correct.

Yes cultures evolve but old habits have a tendency of rearing their ugly head

Certainly, but why should this be an obstacle to restoring Indigenous sovereignty? I don't see too many people suggesting we strip Norway of its capacity for self-governance on the basis that it has a long history of misogyny, violence, religious extremism, and slavery. If you wish to make the argument that the prior existence of distasteful cultural practices is sufficient grounds to deny sovereignty and self-rule, I'm curious to see how you formulate it.

4.) You never did explain why native nations wouldn't impose voting restrictions to insure that the non native american majority wouldn't be able to override what the native american voters wanted... And before you give me that "oh they'll all embrace native values".

I believe I did, and you simply failed to understand it - indeed, you do so here again. Indigenization is not 'they'll all embrace native values' but rather the process of forging new values out of the current center and the marginalized voices and customs of Indigenous peoples on their own land.

Bluntly, you assume the following:
1. That in these states, which form only after an extended period of negotiation, education, and cultural change and a democratic referendum/analogous process that involves all those directly effected by the change, there will remain an 'us against them' mentality;
2. That the only way to prevent this is to impose voting restrictions on the 'non-native majority';
3. That any attempt to change the 'us against them' model via negotiation, education, and cultural change is invalid.

Please explain why 3 is the case, as it is the core of your argument here: That, for whatever reason, non-Indigenous peoples can never engage in such cultural reform as to be good citizens in cosmopolitan democratic states that they have themselves voted into existence.

The difficulties of keeping tribal languages alive was also raised multiple times, as well as the fact that they have a tendency to vanish because most natives just don't care enough to learn them.

I wonder why it's hard to keep languages that were actively being exterminated for much of the last century and a half alive. I wonder why many Indigenous peoples are unable to muster the will to preserve a dying thing. And I wonder if that process might not be reversed if these languages were state-sponsored in all schools and became official national languages (note, however, this does not require abandoning English - it is possible, indeed common, for states to enjoy multiple official national languages that are taught in schools and used in government business.)

Tell me, do you think there are any special difficulties involved in keeping Indigenous languages alive unrelated to their traditionally marginalized status? Is there any reason, on the basis of the language itself, that we should treat them as a different category from English, Icelandic, Chinese, or Russian? By this I do not mean 'well no shit, they're a different language family entirely', but rather, is there some special feature* or lack thereof that renders these languages unfit for ordinary day to day use and governmental use? Is there some special feature that makes them unsuited to teaching in schools?**

*: To be generous to you, there are examples where this occurs but it is primarily cultural rather than a structural deficit in the language. Some Indigenous communities here in Australia, for instance, have strict mourning protocol that prohibits speaking the name of a dead person. This is not language bound, and so they do not speak that name in English either. This has some significant difficulties when people with common names shared with places, things, and days die - for instance, if a woman named Wednesday dies, the word is not to be said for the appropriate period, and all such references must become oblique -
**: Of course, some of these languages occupy a special position in their cultures as languages open only to men/women/elders/etc either in their entirety or in part, or ritual argot with no other use. These are not the languages I refer to, and have their own analogues in the English-speaking world in the languages taught to various occult initiatic traditions, the use of Latin/etc in some churches/temples/etc, and the various cants and jargons that emerge among professions and networks. Their existence does not, I propose, in any way impede the validity of the parent language on which they are grafted.

All in all it feels like you're relying on a "noble savage" view of Native Americans

On the contrary. I do not - and have never - denied that there are aspects of Native American cultures that I find repugnant, distasteful, and just plain baffling, or that there are real issues and problems within Native American communities unrelated to (albeit worsened by) colonial opppression and dispossession. I make no assumption of any kind of untouched innocence to the Native American mind - nor do I deny that these were civilized peoples who, by virtue of that status, cannot be noble savages by definition. It is purely and simply an erroneous assumption on your part. I would suggest that in fact there is the precise opposite in play, as I view Native Americans - and indeed, all Indigenous peoples - as people much like any other, with good and bad elements of culture and practice, good and bad individuals, and historic civilizations worthy of the label.

You seem to have come to this conclusion by my perceived failure to meditate upon the elements of those cultures and their histories that I, or perhaps more accurately you, find repugnant. But I again ask you: If we are to disqualify people from their own sovereignty on that basis, why not the Norwegians? Why not the English? The Belgians - especially the Belgians? The other element that seems to have given you this idea is that I feel it is possible to, collectively, deconstruct and demolish the colonial legacy that creates the 'us vs them' mindset, and that if this possibility is achieved, it will be possible to live in relative peace between ethnic and cultural groups within cosmopolitan nations. This, again, requires no special spirit or 'untouched naturalness' of Indigenous peoples - it requires only hard work and faith in humanity's ability to try and be better, and is as reliant on the desire of settlers to be what they would consider 'good people' as it is on Indigenous peoples.

If you still feel I rely on the 'noble savage' archetype, please, do explain and demonstrate how.

I actually remembered another question. I said back in the first defat that "dissolving the country is not the only way."

Loomer's response was

Certainly, but it is the way we seek. I don't think I've ever said it is in fact the only way - I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate where I have.

If that's the case....why? Why does the US HAVE to be dissolved for there to be justice?

Simply, it doesn't. But the same arguments that apply to the extreme of dissolution apply to non-dissolution, and sometimes a shocking and striking statement is a useful tool for breaking down ideological commitments and exposing them to daylight. This is also why I find your desire for me to engage in idle speculation so silly - you've taken what is ultimately a rhetorical tool and demanded I engage in fiction writing and worldbuilding.

Simply, it doesn't. But the same arguments that apply to the extreme of dissolution apply to non-dissolution, and sometimes a shocking and striking statement is a useful tool for breaking down ideological commitments and exposing them to daylight. This is also why I find your desire for me to engage in idle speculation so silly - you've taken what is ultimately a rhetorical tool and demanded I engage in fiction writing and worldbuilding.
[/quote]

Thank you for your answers. I mean that sincerely and I wasn't asking for idle speculation. I really did feel those were pertinent questions for potential decolonization. You gave well argued answers that actually did address a lot of my concerns very well and you showed that I did misjudge you when I called you naive. So I do apologize for all those times I called you "Idiot" in previous debates

I'll list my overarching issues and than say my final piece.

One overarching issue for me is that at this stage of the game Native Americans are 0.7% of the entire United States population. If you're counting a single race that's 2,932,248. If you're counting mined race or a combination of races it's 2,288,331. The combined total of all that (5,220,579) adds up to 1.6% of the entire US population. Even if one were to divide based on old tribal boundaries the overwhelming majority of the citizens in those nations are going to be non-native Americans. Any minority THAT small being in charge of a vast bulk of other groups....it scares me. It's scary when it's a White minority rule over black people (South Africa, White Haiti, Zimbabwe back when it was Rhodesia), when it's a Jewish minority rule over arabs (Israel) etc. Even if steps are taken that shit kinda scares me.

Another issue regards border disputes breaking out. The balkan conflicts of the 90s showed that when tensions are buried by foreign powers then the removal of the foreign power can easily cause things to explode (see the Balkan wars of the 90s). Groups like the Hopi and Navajo had been warring for centuries. THAT much bad blood doesn't go away over night. When you get into the fact that the Sioux took land from the Pawnee and that the Seminole stole THEIR land and it opens a WHOLE lotta bad bad possibilities. Will it happen? Not necessarily but it is a possibility.

Finally there's the tribal customs stuff. Some of those customs involved shit like slavery, torturing prisoners of war, and mutilation for adultery. Take the slavery example. You talk about letting people vote on it and you made fair points about how imposing morality rarely works. But if the Haida and Tlingit tribes vote that they want slavery by a huge majority.....what then? Would it be justified if they enslaved non Haida and Tlingit?

I'll admit that when laid out this way in this format your arguments did come off as far more reasoned. Maybe it's entirely unfair of me but I have a hard time imagining the world you imagine actually being achievable. I have faith in humanity but also feel that we're really good at being evil and there are enough bad people to fuck it up for everyone else. I'm not trying to disparage your dream and who knows. Maybe it will be achieved.

That's all I'm really going to say. You made your peace and I realize that I was overly harsh in our previous interactions. I just do not think that it will be possible to implement and on a gut level reaction I DO love my country. The idea of it being broken up is a hard one for me to get behind even if it is for good reasons.

With communism it's rather the same. If it COULD Work it would be a good state of government. Thing is every attempt at putting communism into practice in the 20th century has failed miserably and with that many failures it's kinda hard to be optimistic.

But anyway....good luck with your goals. Who knows. Maybe you'll actually succeed.

[loomer]

Thank you for your answers. I mean that sincerely and I wasn't asking for idle speculation. I really did feel those were pertinent questions for potential decolonization. You gave well argued answers that actually did address a lot of my concerns very well and you showed that I did misjudge you when I called you naive. So I do apologize for all those times I called you "Idiot" in previous debates

I'll list my overarching issues and than say my final piece.

I believe I made my participation conditional on you using quotes properly and addressing the questions I ask. Until such a time as you follow through on your commitment to the undertakings you made, I will not be offering a further response.

Edit:
Before you cry about evasion, let me explain it simply.

When you make an argument, you expect others to read it, reply to it, and treat it with a basic level of respect. I in turn expect the same, and to ensure that that was the case, I asked you to undertake that you would do so at the beginning of this renewed debate. If you are unwilling to actually do so - to treat my arguments with the same respect you expect me to treat yours - why should I further engage with you? I asked you several direct questions and asked you for evidence on a point, and you have failed to engage with those requests.

Further, when I ask you to use quote correctly, it is because the correct use - the one you see above in my post, where each relevant point is seperated and replied to - creates the proper structure for an informed but informal debate. It enables clarity on precisely what part of a post a response is intended to, if it isn't a general one, and in doing so, it helps to ensure a meeting of the minds and a proper, rational dialogue. It's not some trivial technicality, but rather, a fundamental way of structuring the exchange of information to improve its utility.

[Darth Yan]

Thank you for your answers. I mean that sincerely and I wasn't asking for idle speculation. I really did feel those were pertinent questions for potential decolonization. You gave well argued answers that actually did address a lot of my concerns very well and you showed that I did misjudge you when I called you naive. So I do apologize for all those times I called you "Idiot" in previous debates

I'll list my overarching issues and than say my final piece.

I believe I made my participation conditional on you using quotes properly and addressing the questions I ask. Until such a time as you follow through on your commitment to the undertakings you made, I will not be offering a further response.

Edit:
Before you cry about evasion, let me explain it simply.

When you make an argument, you expect others to read it, reply to it, and treat it with a basic level of respect. I in turn expect the same, and to ensure that that was the case, I asked you to undertake that you would do so at the beginning of this renewed debate. If you are unwilling to actually do so - to treat my arguments with the same respect you expect me to treat yours - why should I further engage with you? I asked you several direct questions and asked you for evidence on a point, and you have failed to engage with those requests.

Further, when I ask you to use quote correctly, it is because the correct use - the one you see above in my post, where each relevant point is seperated and replied to - creates the proper structure for an informed but informal debate. It enables clarity on precisely what part of a post a response is intended to, if it isn't a general one, and in doing so, it helps to ensure a meeting of the minds and a proper, rational dialogue. It's not some trivial technicality, but rather, a fundamental way of structuring the exchange of information to improve its utility.

Uh...I was kinda bowing out with that last one. Hence why I didn't break things up. You made your points well and I realized that in the end it comes down to a matter of opinion of what we believe to be possible or not. I gave general summaries more to give a final general explanation. I even apologized for the insults I threw your way previously and respectfully wished you well. I'm not throwing a hissy fit, I just felt that your answers were satisfactory and wanted to concede honorably.

So I do think that was a little uncalled for.

[loomer]

The thing is, Yan, that your 'bowing out' involved multiple arguments. It wasn't simply a concession - it was an attempt to raise further arguments and dispute several extant ones, and one that demonstrates a continuing inability to grasp the purpose of the decolonial project. So no - it's not uncalled for, and when you make a closing that is in fact an attempt to insert (if, indeed, you intend it to be a final piece) arguments that will not be contested, you will get slapped for it.

[Darth Yan]

I wasn't trying to insert arguments. I was trying to give a final summation of why I felt a certain way, if only to clear the air. Maybe you don't believe me but no. I was NOT trying to keep the debate going so much as give a final explanation of why I felt things were a certain way. Disagree or not I was just stating why I felt a certain way.

That said I do understand why you interpreted it that way. I do tend to feel a need to get the last word in even when I'm leaving and even when others are telling me to just leave it.

So all things said....I concede. Simple as that. We're never going to fully agree on the subject and it's no use arguing about it.

[loomer]

I accept your concession and acknowledge the intent it was given with, and in that spirit will refrain from further commentary.