Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

[Saxtonite]

It would be wonderful if this sparked a wider conversation on the failure of modern Blacks to instill a love of words, literacy, and knowledge in our young, and greater still, the failure to encourage and teach our children how to maneuver outside of their everyday reality. This used to not only be a matter of practicality, but of progress, and safety. We appear to no longer give this proper weight, let alone thought.

Heh. Weird, as given "Educated" blacks were often used as intermediaries during segregation era, I would argue the emphasis on lliteracy has not 'degenerated' from the past. The culture seems to have been more similar then the Cosby-ites like to say/talk about

Ebony, a history-making Black publication, could have penned a thought-provoking piece about how far we have fallen from this cultural norm, how we must return to it, and how we can begin again.

Oh please. When my grandmother was younger I doubt she would have been magically been able to 'bridge the cultural gap' or whatever.

This excuse is not only lousy, but lazy. Some critics of Rachel Jeantel may have come from the bottom, some may come from a middle class background, while others may even be upper class. But here is what we all have in common: Parents (single and otherwise) who made sure that no matter how down and fly we were at home, we knew how to interact, engage, and compete outside of the home. This is a necessary component in finding success for any person of any background or race. Knowing this was one way to ensure you did not stay at the bottom, and you were not limited in your opportunities.

No, the backlash to her attacks is a rejection of ASSIMILATIONIST viewpoints. There is a DIFFERENCE between being able to "Speak white" and ONLY speaking 'white'. AFAIK 80% of Black America can speak between Ebonics and White English easily or does to some extent. Given the author apparently ONLY spoke white american english according to her earlier paragraphs, she seems to promote the ASSIMILATIONIST viewpoint, either due to "how she was raised" or some other reason.

And again, I would like to point out that the bolded part is heavily based in post-integration environment. During Segregation eras and the development of parallel black economies in the US, these pressures were WEAKER.

My mother would say, “You can talk like that here, but don’t you embarrass me outside the house.” I took this seriously, and so did many of my peers, but no longer. Now when young people tank themselves, instead of honestly looking at the reasons and the whys, we blame the critics.

Should a Ukrainian be prejudiced against for monholingually speaking Ukrainian in a Russian-majority area? Even if Ukrainians have spoken their LANGUAGE for just as long as Russians have? Yes, when you say speaking your native tongue is EMBARASSING, yes there will be a backlash. Other countries have had worse tensions from a Language conflict after all.

But in my mind, mastering the King’s English is no more a betrayal of one’s roots than choosing a mode of transportation to get you to a destination. The point in either case is access.” [emphasis mine]

Let’s take that a step further: It’s not only about access in terms of career and life opportunities, but when you are required to enter into arenas outside of your normal realm, you have a foundation to draw upon and you stand firm, instead of wrecking what little credibility you could have had.

Doesn't mean they won't have a nasty feeling from doing so (see: people in former USSR who would pretend not to understand Russian due to nationalist reasons even if they -could- understand it)

[Crown]

<snip>

I'm sorry, I'm not too familiar with this whole 'speak white' thing that seems to be an issue near and dear to your heart, could you outline your position independent to the reply you just posted which seemed to have some RANDOM capitalised words and came off as shrill?

Ta.

[Saxtonite]

<snip>

I'm sorry, I'm not too familiar with this whole 'speak white' thing that seems to be an issue near and dear to your heart, could you outline your position independent to the reply you just posted which seemed to have some RANDOM capitalised words and came off as shrill?

Ta.

My position is that the modern United States is a superstate which incorporates several ethnic groups/nations. The black population, 40 million in total is such a founding nation/race (it has the defining characteristics of a nation according to Stalin for example), as blacks were in the US from before its' own existence. Therefore, the black nation deserves its sovereignty or at least cultural autonomy and rights. Therefore, the black population should not unnecessarily accomodate foreign (i.e. white) interests, however they can and it is good etiquette to be able to understand the language white americans speak. I.e. interpreters/translators as an option in courts or whatnot.

In the context of Trayvon Martin case, it would be advantageous to code-switch to white american english. Oh and listening to her video, she is pretty legible (of course, I am being biased here. I could understand Ebonics due to growing up in such an environment. You might not.) If she wanted to be illegible, she would have spoke VERY thick Ebonics and the white americans would have required a translator (and yes, people -do- switch into such cant in order to make foreigners ignorant). She speaks Haitian Creole as well, and AFAIK that is even more distanced from (Parisian) French as White American (Northern) English is from African American Vernacular English. France's annoying centralization of language programs making that 'gap' worse as well.

EDIT: In interesting news, the 'Southrons' who used to live there would speak closer to how she would "naturally" speak in English before the influence of northerners in South Florida. I wonder if there would be such a reaction if the speaker was a white southerner.

[Metahive]

Am I the only one who perceives the post above as some sort of bizarre satire (appealing to Stalin, really?) of black separatism?

Also, dude, everyone talking very thickly in a local accent can be unintelligible, this isn't something reserved for ebonics. Ever heard someone going full-cajun on ya'?

[Terralthra]

<snip>

I'm sorry, I'm not too familiar with this whole 'speak white' thing that seems to be an issue near and dear to your heart, could you outline your position independent to the reply you just posted which seemed to have some RANDOM capitalised words and came off as shrill?

Ta.

My position is that the modern United States is a superstate which incorporates several ethnic groups/nations. The black population, 40 million in total is such a founding nation/race (it has the defining characteristics of a nation according to Stalin for example), as blacks were in the US from before its' own existence. Therefore, the black nation deserves its sovereignty or at least cultural autonomy and rights. Therefore, the black population should not unnecessarily accomodate foreign (i.e. white) interests, however they can and it is good etiquette to be able to understand the language white americans speak. I.e. interpreters/translators as an option in courts or whatnot.

In the context of Trayvon Martin case, it would be advantageous to code-switch to white american english. Oh and listening to her video, she is pretty legible (of course, I am being biased here. I could understand Ebonics due to growing up in such an environment. You might not.) If she wanted to be illegible, she would have spoke VERY thick Ebonics and the white americans would have required a translator (and yes, people -do- switch into such cant in order to make foreigners ignorant). She speaks Haitian Creole as well, and AFAIK that is even more distanced from (Parisian) French as White American (Northern) English is from African American Vernacular English. France's annoying centralization of language programs making that 'gap' worse as well.

EDIT: In interesting news, the 'Southrons' who used to live there would speak closer to how she would "naturally" speak in English before the influence of northerners in South Florida. I wonder if there would be such a reaction if the speaker was a white southerner.

Is your intent really to argue that nationality should be inextricably tied to race? Can you justify this without resorting to socially-constructed race essentialism?

[Metahive]

Everything he wrote on the matter is pure and unadulterated race essentialism that would make every fin de siècle racial "theorist" like Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels proud. Question, Saxtonite, do you support measures of "racial hygiene" like making miscegnation a taboo?

[Simon_Jester]

My position is that the modern United States is a superstate which incorporates several ethnic groups/nations. The black population, 40 million in total is such a founding nation/race (it has the defining characteristics of a nation according to Stalin for example), as blacks were in the US from before its' own existence. Therefore, the black nation deserves its sovereignty or at least cultural autonomy and rights. Therefore, the black population should not unnecessarily accomodate foreign (i.e. white) interests, however they can and it is good etiquette to be able to understand the language white americans speak. I.e. interpreters/translators as an option in courts or whatnot.

There are a few problems with this.

1) There are a lot of blacks who aren't going to be comfortable with the idea of being given their own 'autonomous' cultural Bantustan, let alone a political Bantustan.

2) If we actually incorporated this idea of translators, and had "Ebonics-to-English" translators, I'd bet money that many African-Americans in court would see it as a degrading and condescending offer, with responses of the nature of "what, do you think we're too ignorant to speak for ourselves?" And they'd have a point, because...

3) Much of the problem comes not from any defining characteristic of "black culture," but one of socioeconomic status. A person like Jeantel might well have trouble expressing herself clearly and consistently in any language or dialect, including the one she's spoken from birth.

It is not her African-American vernacular grammar that makes it difficult for Jeantel to make herself understood- this vernacular is simply not THAT different from the Queen's English. It is not the color of Jeantel's skin that makes it hard for her to stick to a consistent story on a witness stand. Nor is it some kind of African-American tradition that makes Jeantel unable to read a handwritten document which supposedly represents her own words.

If Florida had properly addressed education in low-income communities, then Jeantel wouldn't have had such a problem adequately presenting her case in court. She might have chosen to come across as incoherent, unreliable, and hard to understand. But she wouldn't have been (apparently) forced to do so against her will by her own background.

In the context of Trayvon Martin case, it would be advantageous to code-switch to white american english. Oh and listening to her video, she is pretty legible (of course, I am being biased here. I could understand Ebonics due to growing up in such an environment. You might not.) If she wanted to be illegible, she would have spoke VERY thick Ebonics and the white americans would have required a translator (and yes, people -do- switch into such cant in order to make foreigners ignorant).

If she wasn't trying to be incomprehensible, and some of the people in her audience nevertheless failed to understand her, then something has gone wrong somewhere along the way.

[Thanas]

Saxtonite, are your for real?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I see no reason to dispute his position in legitimate African-American intellectualism. Black nationalism exists, is a fact, and has plenty of arguments for it.

[Saxtonite]

Am I the only one who perceives the post above as some sort of bizarre satire (appealing to Stalin, really?) of black separatism?

Stalin wrote a good detailed definition of a nation. A black communist named Harry Haywood used Stalinist ethnic theories (the same theories used to create ethnic republics in USSR) to show how black people in the USA are a distinct nation with their own bourgoeise, academia, industry, etc - even if it was retarded by white american imperialism.

Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, and the Republic of New Afrika group built upon that concept with their claims on the black majority regions of the US south for a black homeland. I believe some other nationalists also talked about such

Also, dude, everyone talking very thickly in a local accent can be unintelligible, this isn't something reserved for ebonics. Ever heard someone going full-cajun on ya'?

Correct. Louisiana Cajuns are a distinct ethnic group as well. But there is more of an issue with Ebonics speakers.

Is your intent really to argue that nationality should be inextricably tied to race? Can you justify this without resorting to socially-constructed race essentialism?

You can just as easily talk about blacks in the southern US as an ETHNIC group as opposed to a RACIAL group. As I assure you, for example the Gullah people in South Carolina are distinct as an ETHNIC group than white Appalachians.

Everything he wrote on the matter is pure and unadulterated race essentialism that would make every fin de siècle racial "theorist" like Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels proud.

Saying blacks are a distinct nation in the US is racial essentialism?

Question, Saxtonite, do you support measures of "racial hygiene" like making miscegnation a taboo?

No. I have "been" with multiracial people in relationships, as well as white americans. I would be a blatant hypocrite like......uh, a LOT of people historically re. that.

(personal ancedote: my barber's father.....was a black panther before marrying white women. that sort of thing. and yes, I know the Black Panthers are not racist, but you get the point.)

1) There are a lot of blacks who aren't going to be comfortable with the idea of being given their own 'autonomous' cultural Bantustan, let alone a political Bantustan.

And there are a lot of blacks who would. 83% support supporting black owned businesses, 83% say self reliance economically is a good idea, 73% say blacks should control the economy, and 70% say an AFRICAN language should be learned

And besides, there was never a referendum on whether black people in the US want to or should be "American". The Quebecois had their referendums on independence and sovereignty. The Scottish will have their referendum. The Catalans are working on their referendum. Why can't black people in the US have any referendum on sovereignty and self-determination. After all, they -did- go to the UN over this subject several times.

The Integration push of 1950s-60s was for EQUAL ACCESS TO RESOURCES. It was not necessarily for the social benefits, and given Integration destroyed or was equally unhandled in a lot of cases, you can emphasize that the emphasis on equal resources has not been noticed in the modern day. If the white southerners were equal while preserving the segregationist system, the backlash would not be so bad. There was good and bad which accompanied integration. The 'bad' part could be a 'shearing off' of black areas into more classist actions/behaviors.

2) If we actually incorporated this idea of translators, and had "Ebonics-to-English" translators, I'd bet money that many African-Americans in cohaurt would see it as a degrading and condescending offer, with responses of the nature of "what, do you think we're too ignorant to speak for ourselves?" And they'd have a point, because...

Others could enjoy it or consider it a good thing themselves. It depends. Point out to them other countries have similar processes for other ethnic groups, and that they are a nation themselves. But there was not much of a discussion on this, and a lot of it emphasizes the assimilationist viewpoint.

3) Much of the problem comes not from any defining characteristic of "black culture," but one of socioeconomic status. A person like Jeantel might well have trouble expressing herself clearly and consistently in any language or dialect, including the one she's spoken from birth.

She was raised speaking Haitian Creole, so I am not sure.

It is not her African-American vernacular grammar that makes it difficult for Jeantel to make herself understood- this vernacular is simply not THAT different from the Queen's English. It is not the color of Jeantel's skin that makes it hard for her to stick to a consistent story on a witness stand. Nor is it some kind of African-American tradition that makes Jeantel unable to read a handwritten document which supposedly represents her own words.

Hmmm. I wonder how things would transpire if the courtroom was all blacks who undrstood her better though. Regarding the cursive, wasn't that transcribed by a friend?

If she wasn't trying to be incomprehensible, and some of the people in her audience nevertheless failed to understand her, then something has gone wrong somewhere along the way.

ok

Saxtonite, are your for real?

Yes.

[Simon_Jester]

Am I the only one who perceives the post above as some sort of bizarre satire (appealing to Stalin, really?) of black separatism?

Stalin wrote a good detailed definition of a nation. A black communist named Harry Haywood used Stalinist ethnic theories (the same theories used to create ethnic republics in USSR) to show how black people in the USA are a distinct nation with their own bourgoeise, academia, industry, etc - even if it was retarded by white american imperialism.

And what, pray tell, was that definition? And did it survive segregation?

I mean, if you look at the African-American community of that time, segregation very much tended to force blacks to recreate all the same organs found in white society, but in miniature: there were black universities because blacks could not attend white universities, there were black-operated companies because white companies would not deal equitably with blacks, and so on.

You may be operating on an obsolete set of facts.

Is your intent really to argue that nationality should be inextricably tied to race? Can you justify this without resorting to socially-constructed race essentialism?

You can just as easily talk about blacks in the southern US as an ETHNIC group as opposed to a RACIAL group. As I assure you, for example the Gullah people in South Carolina are distinct as an ETHNIC group than white Appalachians.

Yes, but the Harlemese are quite distinct from the Gullahs, so trying to herd them both into the same Bantustan homeland isn't necessarily smart.

1) There are a lot of blacks who aren't going to be comfortable with the idea of being given their own 'autonomous' cultural Bantustan, let alone a political Bantustan.

And there are a lot of blacks who would. 83% support supporting black owned businesses, 83% say self reliance economically is a good idea, 73% say blacks should control the economy, and 70% say an AFRICAN language should be learned

The first two are independent of separatism and have nothing to do with it. I think black-owned businesses are a good thing, because I think that anything which brings more success and opportunity into the African-American community until there is enough to go around throughout that community, is a good thing.

I think economic self-reliance is an impossible pipe dream in the modern era for anyone: the United States as a whole is not self-reliant economically; how could any splinter of it become self-reliant?

Indeed, I would argue that trying to create self-reliance through separatism is a losing game, because economic prosperity comes about through mutual support. Creating a little artificial country and moving all the black people into it isn't going to solve the problem, any more than it did with the Bantustans- which in turn became heavily dependent on the South African government's transfer payments, and served only as a vehicle to further disenfranchise and disadvantage the black population of the country.

And besides, there was never a referendum on whether black people in the US want to or should be "American". The Quebecois had their referendums on independence and sovereignty. The Scottish will have their referendum. The Catalans are working on their referendum. Why can't black people in the US have any referendum on sovereignty and self-determination. After all, they -did- go to the UN over this subject several times.

I am not opposed- but I question how viable the separatist movement will be, especially if the most prosperous and successful African-Americans are the ones who have the least interest in it. As you note, integration tended to 'strip away' the academic and economic elite of black communities, who proceeded to intermingle with whites of comparable class, rather than blacks of comparable race.

What happens if the grandchildren of those elites don't want to move back in with the grandchildren of the people they left? How does that impact the viability of a separate American Bantustan?

2) If we actually incorporated this idea of translators, and had "Ebonics-to-English" translators, I'd bet money that many African-Americans in cohaurt would see it as a degrading and condescending offer, with responses of the nature of "what, do you think we're too ignorant to speak for ourselves?" And they'd have a point, because...

Others could enjoy it or consider it a good thing themselves. It depends. Point out to them other countries have similar processes for other ethnic groups, and that they are a nation themselves. But there was not much of a discussion on this, and a lot of it emphasizes the assimilationist viewpoint.

Some would want it, others would not; I'm personally curious about what the statistics are. Can you show me that survey?

3) Much of the problem comes not from any defining characteristic of "black culture," but one of socioeconomic status. A person like Jeantel might well have trouble expressing herself clearly and consistently in any language or dialect, including the one she's spoken from birth.

She was raised speaking Haitian Creole, so I am not sure.

I'm not sure either. If she can make herself clearly and consistently understood in Haitian Creole, then the issue is not one of education and I am more supportive of the desire for a translator from that language/dialect.

It is not her African-American vernacular grammar that makes it difficult for Jeantel to make herself understood- this vernacular is simply not THAT different from the Queen's English. It is not the color of Jeantel's skin that makes it hard for her to stick to a consistent story on a witness stand. Nor is it some kind of African-American tradition that makes Jeantel unable to read a handwritten document which supposedly represents her own words.

Hmmm. I wonder how things would transpire if the courtroom was all blacks who undrstood her better though.

Is it reasonable to ask that all crimes committed against blacks be tried in black-only courtrooms? Should we expect that in these black-only courtrooms, black witnesses are not expected to be able to remember or identify their own testimony? What other rules of evidence are to be waived?

If so, should we also rule that a crime committed against whites be tried in white-only courtrooms? With similarly loose rules of evidence to apply when a nonwhite is accused of a crime against a white? Because that sounds like a recipe for disastrous miscarriages of justice. It sure was the last time this country tried it.

Regarding the cursive, wasn't that transcribed by a friend?

I have no idea. But it's perfectly decent handwriting, and better than most; it's not exactly unreasonable to expect a woman to be able to read her own court deposition. Not when it's written in good handwriting.

Her alleged inability to do so casts doubt on the accuracy of the testimony- and I'd be just as uncomfortable with that if she were white or blue. A witness who can't look at their own testimony and say "yes, that is what I said" is a less valuable witness.

If she wasn't trying to be incomprehensible, and some of the people in her audience nevertheless failed to understand her, then something has gone wrong somewhere along the way.

ok

And that's my point: Jeantel didn't have a problem because she was black. She had a problem because she could not make herself understood. And because she claimed to be unable to read her own testimony. And because she contradicted herself.

These are things that should ALWAYS be a problem for a witness in a trial, no matter what color or race or ethnicity the witness represents.

[Metahive]

Stalin[...]

Stalin's regime cracked down on minorities within the USSR that showed any signs of separatism and tried very hard to assimilate whole nations into his communist superstate (just ask the Baltics). I find it utterly laughable to treat him as an authority of ethnic separatism when he's always acted as its polar opposite. Heck, he gave this shit even to his very own ethnicity starting from when he protected the later Stalingrad from getting conquered by Georgian separatists!

Saying blacks are a distinct nation in the US is racial essentialism?

Blacks aren't any more a distinct "nation" than New Yorkers or Californians are. I would even argue they're less. So yes, you're actually all going by race alone.

You talk about a "black homeland". I think all the white racists would be very happy if they could create such a construct and herd all the nation's blacks into it. It would become just like the native reservations, a giant ghetto or do you think the US would be stupid enough to create a homeland that'd be able to sustain itself? After what they went through in 1861-1865? No. Fucking. Deal. Get your head out of the clouds.

I'D also argue that blacks who wish this to become reality are a minority.

[Ziggy Stardust]

And there are a lot of blacks who would. 83% support supporting black owned businesses, 83% say self reliance economically is a good idea, 73% say blacks should control the economy, and 70% say an AFRICAN language should be learned

Did you actually read the paper? Because it seems to me you are seriously misrepresenting its results. In fact, saying that "73% say blacks should control the economy" is just an outright fabrication.

Read page 242. Emphases mine (for brevity's sake I have snipped parts out ... I made an effort not to snip anything relevant out, but feel free to check the paper and correct me if I am wrong):

The more practical or realistic aspects of black nationalism win greater support. For instance, a large percentage of African Americans support the notion that blacks should shop in black stores where possible (84.0 percent), blacks should rely on themselves (83.3 percent), blacks should control the economy in their communities (73.9 percent), black children should study an African language (70.7 percent), and blacks should control the government in their communities (68.3 percent). About half of the support for these items comes from individuals who are intensely supportive. Less widely endorsed are the ideas of all black male schools (62.2 percent), participation in black-only organizations (56.5 percent), and blacks form their own political party (50.1 percent). <snip>

Least supported are the ideas that African Americans should always vote for a black candidate (26.5 percent) and that blacks should form their own nation (14.0 percent). <snip> This is consistent with the research by Marx (1967) and Gurin, Hatchett, and Jackson (1989). Marx, who found that 20 percent would support a separate black nation in 1964, suggests that "most respondents regarded a negro nation not only as politically unfeasible but as undesirable."

Further, from that same paper ...

Our results suggest that social identity and black nationalism are not statistically interchangeable. We have argued already that social identity and black nationalism are not interchangeable conceptually. It is not difficult to imagine an individual possessing a strong black social identity and who considers racial integration, legal remedies, and working within existing institutions, as opposed to a separatist ideology, as the best course to achieving racial equality.

Despite a high level of support for nationalism in the abstract, assimilation and the desire to affect change through existing laws and institutions have been the dominant and safest strategies for African American enfranchisement.

[Saxtonite]

Stalin's regime cracked down on minorities within the USSR that showed any signs of separatism

yet weirdly enough, under him the Soviet constitution was modified to allow the righ to secession of all republics. You can argue about how 'realistic' it was intended to be, but it clearly worked well as sorn by 1991.

and tried very hard to assimilate whole nations into his communist superstate (just ask the Baltics).

The Baltics were at times pretty pro-Soviet (i.e. Latvian Riflemen). And in the end, no one is perfect.

I find it utterly laughable to treat him as an authority of ethnic separatism when he's always acted as its polar opposite.

He was an ethnic minority himself who had personal knowledge of "double counciousness" (to use DuBois's term) and also wrote a significant amount on nationality and ethnicity, so he knew a lot about such concepts. He was also the chairman of nationalities in the USSR and formulated the entire program. And a federation of different nations/republics held together as better than what happened before and after it. Arguably the USSR helped to foment national counciousness faster among various ethnic groups (i.e. Azeris and Kazaks)

Heck, he gave this shit even to his very own ethnicity starting from when he protected the later Stalingrad from getting conquered by Georgian separatists!

huh? I know there was a interesting anti-soviet feeling among Georgians even while Stalin was alive, and the destalinization protests in Georgia had an interesting mix of good feelings towards Stalin and ethnic nationalism (protests with one thing shifting into other manners).

Blacks aren't any more a distinct "nation" than New Yorkers or Californians are. I would even argue they're less.

Really? Blacks in the US have a similar national genesis. Blacks in the US have similar naming conventions. Blacks in the US have their own churches, colleges/universities, cuisines etc. Blacks have displayed a national counciousness throughout their existence in the US. Blacks in general speak their own distinct LANGUAGE.

Black identity has often developed in response to WHITE Identity. They identify as black, in response to whiteness. This is how nationalism works, Irish helped to define themselves by not being English, Han as Not being Manchu, etc.

So yes, you're actually all going by race alone.

There are blacks who are hard to tell apart from whites, but still are black. There are blacks who are partially puerto rican, CHINESE, etc etc. So how it is only racial if they are also Chinese or (Mestizo) Puerto Rican?

You talk about a "black homeland". I think all the white racists would be very happy if they could create such a construct and herd all the nation's blacks into it.

Half of the black population lives in the US south and a significant portion of such live in a continous territory known as the "Black Belt". There ALREADY is a black homeland in existence, and it is already forming/changing its' own social aspects (i.e. taking over Atlanta for black owned businesses etc.)

It would become just like the native reservations, a giant ghetto or do you think the US would be stupid enough to create a homeland that'd be able to sustain itself? After what they went through in 1861-1865? No. Fucking. Deal. Get your head out of the clouds.

The Soviet Union suffered a long war of 4 years which helped to foment a sense of national unity yet it still fell apart due to various reasons. The United Kingdom went through a lot of trials as a unified state yet there still are centrifigual tensions.

The supreme court ruling of 'Texas vs White' was pretty much a retroactive legal justification for suppression of the Confederate States of America and can be reinterpreted in the future. And at least discussing the idea that blacks are a distinct nation will be doing something to remember that not everyone wants to be "American" and remembers their roots/ancestries which were suppressed.

I'D also argue that blacks who wish this to become reality are a minority.

The support goes up and down depending on era. But having a discussion on this will help to allow this to be done in the open on the advantages and disadvantages of independence for black america.

Did you actually read the paper? Because it seems to me you are seriously misrepresenting its results. In fact, saying that "73% say blacks should control the economy" is just an outright fabrication.

yes I read it before. The " In fact, saying that "73% say blacks should control the economy" is just an outright fabrication." is in page 243, that is how they phrase the graph.

Read page 242. Emphases mine (for brevity's sake I have snipped parts out ... I made an effort not to snip anything relevant out, but feel free to check the paper and correct me if I am wrong):

also:

Marx, who found that 20 percent would support a separate black nation in 1964, suggests that "most respondents regarded a negro nation not only as politically unfeasible but as undesirable."

Remember they believed that integration would be massive good for all and there would be no bad effects from such. That is why those people felt as such.

ok. However, regarding pag 251:

Despite a high level of support for nationalism in the abstract, assimilation and the desire to affect change through existing laws and institutions have been the dominant and safest strategies for African American enfranchisement.

A lot of bourgoeise derive their power from the status quo. Of course they would be more likely to be unionist. It's like a lot of the Scottish in London apparently. Also, interestingly Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America says that the richer individuals could be shown as more nationalist. However, the very rich tend to be nouveau riche and still remember certain aspects of their past. I think Korea during Japanese rule was similar as well, the upper classes being Japanized more readily.

I mean, if you look at the African-American community of that time, segregation very much tended to force blacks to recreate all the same organs found in white society, but in miniature: there were black universities because blacks could not attend white universities, there were black-operated companies because white companies would not deal equitably with blacks, and so on.

You may be operating on an obsolete set of facts.

Why are there still historically black colleges and universities? A good portion of a lot of people who go there can afford to go to predominantly white institutions. Whatever jokes you may make about Morehouse, it does still attract those who can arguably go to "better" white colleges. Even in the era of integration, why do they still exist? And white americans -can- go to such HBCUs but most do not even think of it, even when affirmative action incentives them to do such.

Why are there still neighborhoods which are predominantly black, and RICH? Why is PG Country predominately black, but very upper class. The growth in PG county is post-integration, and Maryland was not like Virginia in racial segregation, but the rich blacks formed their own enclaves. Pill Hill in Chicago was originally formed by white doctors, but has been replaced by black professional class.

If the facts are obsolete, there would not still be separate black pageants, restaurants (many of which are NEW and post-segregation), media/radio stations, and even 'scenes' in the anime and goth scene (i found it interesting that there is one Chicago area anime club which is all black/formed of blacks, noticed it in hindsight).

If the facts are obsolete black people would not refer to each other as 'brother' and 'sister' reflecting ethnic and national conciousness.

Yes, but the Harlemese are quite distinct from the Gullahs, so trying to herd them both into the same Bantustan homeland isn't necessarily smart.

T

They still consider themselves to be blacks. Whites will still call them Niggers. They syill call themselves Niggas. A black from Harlem will recognize a Geeche as a co-ethnic readily, and will be able to understand each other largely.

After all, many Kashubians, Silesians, etc still consider themselves 'Polish' after all yet there is internal distinctness.

The first two are independent of separatism and have nothing to do with it.

Business and economic autonomy is a sign of self-determination. If you are not a distinct nation, there is not a need for group economics to promote the industry of your people. If you are not a distinct ethnic group, there is no problem with trading with other people, and not a need for such economic protectionism. So yes, it is pretty much a sense of nationalism or ethnic solidarity which suggests such is a good idea.

I think economic self-reliance is an impossible pipe dream in the modern era for anyone: the United States as a whole is not self-reliant economically; how could any splinter of it become self-reliant?

Well, independent nations still trade with each other, and to be honest such a separatism would likely (currently) happen in a era of reduced state power (i.e. oil peak), meaning few people would be able to trade and would probably be FORCED to relocalize. But that is one possible speculation.

Indeed, I would argue that trying to create self-reliance through separatism is a losing game, because economic prosperity comes about through mutual support. Creating a little artificial country and moving all the black people into it isn't going to solve the problem,

Nearly every country trades with each other. Many countries form political and economic unions with each other for movement of people and goods. An independent black state would not be walled off DPRK. Such a state would still be a member of the U.N. for example. And I would not say claiming a significant portion of the US south would be a 'little artificial country', especially given blacks have lived in that area for CENTURIES.

any more than it did with the Bantustans- which in turn became heavily dependent on the South African government's transfer payments, and served only as a vehicle to further disenfranchise and disadvantage the black population of the country.

Different example (blacks as majority in SA for one. I would argue moving the Boers to their own state would be better, like those AWB people.) This would be a case more like the Kurds wanting their historical lands to be independent. And sch a state likely would have access to the Mississippi river, and there could easily be a treaty of co-ownership of the Mississippi River for trade purposes.

What happens if the grandchildren of those elites don't want to move back in with the grandchildren of the people they left? How does that impact the viability of a separate American Bantustan?

It is negatively effected but there is enough intellectual class remaining which has ethnic counciousness to rebuild an indigenous intellectual/politicial base. After all, this is 40 million people. Most of the black colleges would be in this state, for example. As would a lot of the black media. I doubt the people in Atlanta, New Orleans or (at an extreme example) Washington D.C. would exactly leave.

Some would want it, others would not; I'm personally curious about what the statistics are. Can you show me that survey?

I do not have any studies I know of re. that. Most stuff I have reals with grammar and vocabulary of Ebonics and -some- political ramification of such.

I'm not sure either. If she can make herself clearly and consistently understood in Haitian Creole, then the issue is not one of education and I am more supportive of the desire for a translator from that language/dialect.

Ok

Is it reasonable to ask that all crimes committed against blacks be tried in black-only courtrooms? Should we expect that in these black-only courtrooms, black witnesses are not expected to be able to remember or identify their own testimony? What other rules of evidence are to be waived?

If so, should we also rule that a crime committed against whites be tried in white-only courtrooms? With similarly loose rules of evidence to apply when a nonwhite is accused of a crime against a white? Because that sounds like a recipe for disastrous miscarriages of justice. It sure was the last time this country tried it.

Yeah I do see disadvantages to such a thing. There are also advantages to some aspects of such a system. For example, no awkwardness like this if in cases with all black people, black lawyers etc were here.

I have no idea. But it's perfectly decent handwriting, and better than most; it's not exactly unreasonable to expect a woman to be able to read her own court deposition. Not when it's written in good handwriting.

Her alleged inability to do so casts doubt on the accuracy of the testimony- and I'd be just as uncomfortable with that if she were white or blue. A witness who can't look at their own testimony and say "yes, that is what I said" is a less valuable witness.

Ok.

These are things that should ALWAYS be a problem for a witness in a trial, no matter what color or race or ethnicity the witness represents.

ok

[Terralthra]

Did you actually read the paper? Because it seems to me you are seriously misrepresenting its results. In fact, saying that "73% say blacks should control the economy" is just an outright fabrication.

You missed the most important part, Ziggy. Who did the paper survey? Specifically blacks who lived in communities which are >50% black. Talk about a sample bias...

[Metahive]

et weirdly enough, under him the Soviet constitution was modified to allow the righ to secession of all republics. You can argue about how 'realistic' it was intended to be, but it clearly worked well as sorn by 1991.

That's utterly laughable. Stalin, the guy who ran roughshod over the right of self-determination of many a eastern-european nation gets touted as a champion of ethnic separatism by you?
Also,1991, really? You think this had nothing to do with the state breaking down and losing the power to hold onto its possessions? Also, remember the Brezhnev doctrine in which the USSR gave itself the right to violently keep even non-soviet republics within its sphere of influence? Hell, remember Chechnya where Russia cracked down pretty hard on the ethnic separatists?

Are you fucking trolling by now?

The Baltics were at times pretty pro-Soviet (i.e. Latvian Riflemen). And in the end, no one is perfect.

How about you crack open a history book Mr.Know Nothing Know It All? Many countries had small elements that were pro-communist, doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority was pretty hostile towards USSR imperialism.

He was an ethnic minority himself who had personal knowledge of "double counciousness" (to use DuBois's term) and also wrote a significant amount on nationality and ethnicity, so he knew a lot about such concepts. He was also the chairman of nationalities in the USSR and formulated the entire program. And a federation of different nations/republics held together as better than what happened before and after it. Arguably the USSR helped to foment national counciousness faster among various ethnic groups (i.e. Azeris and Kazaks)

It's really irrelevant of what you think he was writing about when in action he was all but in favor of ethnic separatism. Also, it held together because of barbaric brutality and ultra-violence on behalf of the russian majority. Why do you think it fell apart quickly once the iron grip of the state loosened in 1991...o right, you think because this is just as Stalin intended. Get out of that topsy-turvy alternate reality you live in.

Really? Blacks in the US have a similar national genesis. Blacks in the US have similar naming conventions. Blacks in the US have their own churches, colleges/universities, cuisines etc. Blacks have displayed a national counciousness throughout their existence in the US.

Which, you know, is a result of centuries of institutional racism and segregation on behalf of the white majority. Yeah, definitely a proud heritage to cling onto. I guess you think Martin Luther King Jr. was a vile race traitor for trying to overcome this sort of separation, huh?

Blacks in general speak their own distinct LANGUAGE.

Ebonics, AKA Thug speak is the official "black" language, huh? Newsflash, that ain't anymore the truth than "Kanak-Sprak" being the official language of German Turks.

Black identity has often developed in response to WHITE Identity. They identify as black, in response to whiteness. This is how nationalism works, Irish helped to define themselves by not being English, Han as Not being Manchu, etc.

Han Chinese identify themselves as Han Chinese and can look back on a long, long period, at least thousands of years, of cultural continuity. How fucking dare you to define them as merely being "not Manchu"? Same for the Irish. You know, Chinese and Manchu as well as Irish and English are all distinct languages and not just ghetto dialects of another.

Half of the black population lives in the US south and a significant portion of such live in a continous territory known as the "Black Belt". There ALREADY is a black homeland in existence, and it is already forming/changing its' own social aspects (i.e. taking over Atlanta for black owned businesses etc.)

That's a far cry from "sovereign black nation" and you know it.

The Soviet Union suffered a long war of 4 years which helped to foment a sense of national unity yet it still fell apart due to various reasons. The United Kingdom went through a lot of trials as a unified state yet there still are centrifigual tensions.

How's that relevant to "Black America will be a giant ghetto"?

The supreme court ruling of 'Texas vs White' was pretty much a retroactive legal justification for suppression of the Confederate States of America and can be reinterpreted in the future. And at least discussing the idea that blacks are a distinct nation will be doing something to remember that not everyone wants to be "American" and remembers their roots/ancestries which were suppressed.

How's that relevant to "Black America will be a giant ghetto"?

Also, secessionism died in 1865 for good by the power of rifle and cannon barrels. If you think that has any chance of reverting in the foreseeable future I'll have to chalk it up to you still living in Topsy Turvy Fantasy land.

Why not try reality for a change?

[Gandalf]

I see no reason to dispute his position in legitimate African-American intellectualism. Black nationalism exists, is a fact, and has plenty of arguments for it.

When I first looked at black nationalism, what I found interesting was how many parallels can be drawn between it and the American revolution. Black people had what, two centuries of taxation without representation?

[Ultonius]

Really? Blacks in the US have a similar national genesis. Blacks in the US have similar naming conventions. Blacks in the US have their own churches, colleges/universities, cuisines etc. Blacks have displayed a national counciousness throughout their existence in the US. Blacks in general speak their own distinct LANGUAGE.

Half of the black population lives in the US south and a significant portion of such live in a continous territory known as the "Black Belt". There ALREADY is a black homeland in existence, and it is already forming/changing its' own social aspects (i.e. taking over Atlanta for black owned businesses etc.)

By that logic, couldn't you argue that ethnic groups such as the Amish, or Cajuns, deserve their own nation-states, or at least semi-autonomous territories? Although they are far fewer in number than African-Americans, there are more Amish in America than there are people in American Samoa, or Guam, or the US Virgin islands, and the Cajun population is even bigger. The Cajuns could have southern Louisiana, and the Amish southern Pennsylvania (except the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh Metropolitan Areas).

[Metahive]

Hah, if you put black separatists and the Founding Fathers into the same boat I'm not even sure who would sully whom, considering that the motives of the former weren't actually as pure as popular history depicts it.

[Losonti Tokash]

I'm pretty impressed at just how quickly Metahive descended into racist dog whistles, cultural supremacism, and ethnic stereotypes. Keep up the good work, Saxtonite. I appreciate the perspective you're bringing to the thread.

[Metahive]

I'm pretty impressed at just how quickly Metahive descended into racist dog whistles, cultural supremacism, and ethnic stereotypes. Keep up the good work, Saxtonite. I appreciate the perspective you're bringing to the thread.

I demand that you actually support these accusations ON THE SPOT or back off and apologize, shithead!

[Losonti Tokash]

My mistake, then. I'm sure that your consistent references to ghettos, "thug language," and implication that blacks lack a proud heritage were all completely innocent and devoid of prejudice.

[Metahive]

I'm sure that your consistent references to ghettos

My point is that a black homeland of US soil can only become a ghetto because the US government will not allow it to become anything beyond that without there being a major and most probably violent struggle first. My reference to the native reservations, which are also just big ethnic ghettoes, should have tipped you off.

"thug language,"

I freely admit that I dislike Ebonics and consider them thuggish and therefore a poor choice to turn into an "official" language for black Americans. O yeah, and Ebonics not being really some sort of distinct language from English at all but an urban dialect, unlike what your hero Saxtonite proclaims.

and implication that blacks lack a proud heritage

Saxtonite, the guy who you praised unquestioningly, was the guy who said that "black" identity is simply created out of a desire to be "not white", so who's saying that blacks lack a proud heritage? Here, his words:

Black identity has often developed in response to WHITE Identity. They identify as black, in response to whiteness. This is how nationalism works, Irish helped to define themselves by not being English, Han as Not being Manchu, etc.

Aside from being totally wrong when applied to the Han and the Irish,does it look like "proud heritage" to simply define one's own ethnic identity as being "not X"?

I do not support states that are built around the notion of ethnic, religious and/or national exclusiveness. For me Saxtonite is saying that segregation was a good idea and should not only be brought back but accentuated to boot by concentrating all blacks in a single location where a rigid "black" cultural homogeneity is to be enforced as well. I don't consider that a good idea.

[Losonti Tokash]

I would just love to hear why AAVE is inferior to any other dialect. Or why you think it's sooooo crazy that a large part of what created American black culture was their non-whiteness. Protip: this being a major facet of black culture is not necessarily a choice by blacks. I'll leave the heavy lifting to Saxtonite since he's clearly more immersed in black culture than I am, but try to take a step outside of your narrow personal experience and stop pretending that you know some kind of objective truth about a culture you're not even part of.

Edit: "not some just ghetto dialects"

[Metahive]

I would just love to hear why AAVE is inferior to any other dialect.

That's a misrepresentation. I argue that it is a mere dialect, not something so distinct from English as to count as its own language. The first thing I'd ask for to convince me of the opposite is to ask "Is there a standardized written form of it?".

I personally find Ebonics to be aesthetically unpleasing, but that's just my personal taste and there are more languages and dialects that I judge the same.

Or why you think it's sooooo crazy that a large part of what created American black culture was their non-whiteness.

I turn the question back to you and ask you what's so prideful about an identiy that boils down to "not X". Are you proud that you're "not-[whatever ethnicity you happen to share your country with]"? Is that enough to build an identity around?

Protip: this being a major facet of black culture is not necessarily a choice by blacks.

So black Americans should not only stop opposing racism, they should revel in it since it supposedly reinforces the building of their identity? Because, bro', that's what it sounds like to me.

I'll leave the heavy lifting to Saxtonite since he's clearly more immersed in black culture than I am, but try to take a step outside of your narrow personal experience and stop pretending that you know some kind of objective truth about a culture you're not even part of.

And what do you know about my culture? I myself am a member of a non-white minority in a majorly white country. That's why I find it offensive when someone openly proposes that people like me should only associate with fellow ethnics and retreat into an ethnically pure corner of the country and eschew contact with "non-ethnics".

I'm for integration and desegregationas opposed to ethnic atomization. Why am I wrong for that?