Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

[Dr. Trainwreck]

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.

Before going down that route, you should consider this: ebonics have developed as a distinct dialect when blacks in America were distinct as well. If somebody is black and talks in ebonics because of his community's history, what then? Should he speak in the way you deem acceptable, so he's not a thug by the mental associations going on in your head? Any black American who wants to speak AAVE should be able to do so without any social stigma. This isn't easy when so many thugs claim ebonics as their own, but guess what? It gets even harder when society in general just "accepts" that, and leaves the black dialect (among other things) in the hands of criminals and gangbangers to let them decide who is properly black and who isn't.

[Metahive]

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.

Before going down that route, you should consider this: ebonics have developed as a distinct dialect when blacks in America were distinct as well. If somebody is black and talks in ebonics because of his community's history, what then? Should he speak in the way you deem acceptable, so he's not a thug by the mental associations going on in your head? Any black American who wants to speak AAVE should be able to do so without any social stigma. This isn't easy when so many thugs claim ebonics as their own, but guess what? It gets even harder when society in general just "accepts" that, and leaves the black dialect (among other things) in the hands of criminals and gangbangers to let them decide who is properly black and who isn't.

The main language I use is German. In the eyes of much of the world this already makes me some sort of stuck up Nazi despite being ethnically east-asian. Yeah, I know what you're talking about, but for me that serves as a motivator to speak foreign languages accent-free, not to make my german accent even more blatantly obvious out of some sense of pride. Guess I'm with the good Count Dracula* on this one.

I said it above already, but my main point of contention is that AAVE isn't as completely distinct from English as Saxtonite makes it out to be.

Blacks in general speak their own distinct LANGUAGE.

Saxtonite uses this as one of the justifications for a separate homeland. I simply disagree. It's a distinct dialect, but not a completely separate language. It could be that he's using language not in the strict linguistic sense, but then again, what sense would it make otherwise?


*In the Novel, Dracula wishes to speak English perfectly because he doesn't want to be easily recognized as a foreigner

[Losonti Tokash]

Dude, then why don't you actually say those things instead of immediately jumping to insult people?

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of black separatism. But I can understand it and treat them seriously, because they have a legitimate perspective on the issue. Which, of course, they would still have even if I didn't recognize it.

As for AAVE being distinct enough from "standard" English, that's more tricky than you'd think. Language divisions can be pretty arbitrary, and there's strong arguments in favor of it being a creole and not a dialect. Also, requiring a standardized written form of a language to be considered "real" is pretty ethnocentric and not really a legitimate standard. That's not a personal attack or comment on your worth as a person, so please don't take offense to it.

I am not saying stop fighting racism, I am not saying that they should only define themselves on not being white (though that was enough for whites to define them by), I am not saying ethnic groups should all isolate themselves from each other.

[Metahive]

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of black separatism. But I can understand it and treat them seriously, because they have a legitimate perspective on the issue. Which, of course, they would still have even if I didn't recognize it.

I think black separatism will only service to reinforce the role of black Americans as a disenfranchised minority.

As for AAVE being distinct enough from "standard" English, that's more tricky than you'd think. Language divisions can be pretty arbitrary, and there's strong arguments in favor of it being a creole and not a dialect. Also, requiring a standardized written form of a language to be considered "real" is pretty ethnocentric and not really a legitimate standard. That's not a personal attack or comment on your worth as a person, so please don't take offense to it.

You misunderstand my point. It's not that I don't consider AAVE to be "real", it's that if it should become the official language of a hypothetical black homeland then there are certain requirements of it, and a standardized written form is just the first. Since Saxtonite thinks AAVE are one of the main reason for ethnic separatism, I feel that some hurdles need to be cleared first. Just being able to talk in such a thick accent as to be unintelligible to non-speakers as he put forward I do not consider sufficient. Bavarian or Low Saxonian German can become just as unintelligible, and the latter even has the distinction of having more relationship to anglo-saxon than the rest of the german dialects, but it still isn't counted as a different language from high German.

I am not saying stop fighting racism, I am not saying that they should only define themselves on not being white (though that was enough for whites to define them by), I am not saying ethnic groups should all isolate themselves from each other.

Yes, but that's because those whites saw them basically as non-human. When the Japanese conquered Korea they likewise tried to turn Koreans into a slave-race and eradicate all forms of korean identity, down to forcing japanese names on people and outlawing the Korean language. Yes, contrary to what you think, I'm actually quite familiar with these issues. While the bad that Japan did to Korea should not be minimized or forgotten, building an identity around this I consider to be harmful, since it's basically internalizing shame and resentment which is never a good thing.

[Saxtonite]

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...

Well, this would be the 'core' of a black state/the preexisting black nation

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?

Of ethnic politics in multiethnic states, and ethnic autonomy. So yes. Being able to speak your own language and governments promoting your language is that. Certainly better than in the US where it's considered 'bad' to speak Ebonics and it's totally wrong to talk about how blacks are a distinct nation. I dunno how badly he ran roughshod over Eastern European nations if the non-Soviet Republics could keep their own currency and sovereignty largely.....

Also,1991, really? You think this had nothing to do with the state breaking down and losing the power to hold onto its possessions?

Most people voted to preserve the USSR, even when the economy was going to shit. Given what happened after it, I don't blame them

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?

Yet they could still speak Polish, Czech, etc and had nominal independence. Seems like a lot more than the state of the black person in the US who can't even have his own fucking language spoken officially in government. You know, how one U.S. state changed their official language to 'standard' (read: WHITE) English? The Black people have been separated by multiple states who have historically oppressed them in the name of their own 'sovereignty'. Fucking Appalachian WHITES get their own federal district, and what does the black man get?

Hell, remember Chechnya where Russia cracked down pretty hard on the ethnic separatists?

Russia =/= USSR

Are you fucking trolling by now?

no

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.

Baltic Germans kicked out the indigenous communists. You know, the same Baltic Germans who were middlemen minority/dominant in the Baltc and ran roughshod and committed all sorts of atrocities there? Please tell me how popular aid from Germany was in the Baltics as opposed to stronger indigenous Bolshevik groups.

It's really irrelevant of what you think he was writing about when in action he was all but in favor of ethnic separatism.

Which is why he allowed different ethnic groups to speak their own languages and worked to promote ethnic minority politicians into the republic and federal soviet governments. What was white america doing to the black man during that time period? Oh wait, they counted the black people for politicial purposes but underrepresented them

Also, it held together because of barbaric brutality and ultra-violence on behalf of the russian majority.

Which is why the NKVD was originally 1/3rd Jewish? Which is why Stalin was ethnic Georgian and had a clique of others from the Caucauses? Which is why Ukraine VOTED to form the USSR with Russia, Belarus and Central Asia? Remember those leftists who formd the USSR came from disparate origin points, a lot of them were former anarchists and agrarianists.

Why do you think it fell apart quickly once the iron grip of the state loosened in 1991

Because of various things such as Russian ethnic anxieties vis-a-vis the other Soviet Republics, a Oil Peak in the USSR, reactionary elements among the Soviet officer corps which scared the other Republics away (August Coup), etc.

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.

Works well enough for the Irish. They defined themselves as Irish against English and later British Imperialism. It's a damn proud heritage to talk about your resistance to oppressors and resist over and over again.

I guess you think Martin Luther King Jr. was a vile race traitor for trying to overcome this sort of separation, huh?

I believe he was a reformist who did not do much for the social aspects of the development of black people as a nation. I believe he was a sexist (he admitted such when younger in birmingham) and that he unnecessarily sought a peaceful manner of solving differences when peace and non-violence often strengthens the power of the state vis-a-vis dissidents.

However, he did admit the Vietnamese had a right to defend themselves against American imperialism and some other pretty revolutionary things. I honest prefer Malcolm X, minus his annoying religious/social conservative slant. The closest thing could be the Black Panthers, but even they had annoying tendencies about themselves too.

Ebonics, AKA Thug speak is the official "black" language, huh?

It should. Actually Ebonics predates urban slang. I Would like to reform Ebonics to Africanize it and put more of a 'distance' between Ebonics and White American English as a linguistic project and as a show of distinctness of black america.

Newsflash, that ain't anymore the truth than "Kanak-Sprak" being the official language of German Turks.

Im sure Ebonics had hundreds of more years of precedent than "Kanak Speak".

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"?

I dunno, ask Sun Yat-Sen. As that was a lot of his sentiment/arguments in the early 20th century to "Expel the Manchu Barbarians."

Same for the Irish.

Several groups of Ulster protestants in the past identified as Irish before they did as British, before the formation of the "Prod" ethno-religious identity. It happened around the time of the Union of 1707.

You know, Chinese and Manchu as well as Irish and English are all distinct languages and not just ghetto dialects of another.

You could argue Mandarin is a bunch of 'ghetto dialects' which are mutually unintelligible.

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

It's a nation in existence though

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

States collapse and decline and just because autonomism will not be popular in the US now doesn't mean it won't become as such later. So black america could be more than a giant ghetto.....give most of the black majority areas of the US south are rural areas.....

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

The past does not always dictate the future.

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.

There are still white southerners who romantice the confederacy and talk about their cultural distinctiveness. If you think people from oppressed ethnic groups will simply say they have no right of sovereignty, well I have to say nigga please.

Why not try reality for a change?

The reality of blacks in the US being a nation of 40 million people with distinct history, culture, etc who deserve a discussion on if they should form their own state?

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?

Yes, Ethno-religious groups such as Amish and Mormons deserve nation-state or autonomous territories. To be fair, rump Louisiana was supposed to provide such for the French speakers but due to various decisions the state was Anglicized too much, especially post-civil war.

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).

I accept that. I also accept that Southern Idaho should be transferred to Utah due to its' Mormon population, Illinois should be split, etc.

[Saxtonite]

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.

Yay, imperialism!

Please provide a better AFRICAN language to speak for the black man which is easy to learn and 'natural' to learn. And note I said AFRICAN, not EUROPEAN. Or even EAST ASIAN

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.

Ebonics originates in West Africa, as shown by Geeche grammar and vocabulary.

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"?

That's how nationalism works, brah. The Germans in Silesia defined themselves as Not Polish or Czech, the Polish defined themselves as not German or Russian, etc.

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.

Ethnic groups have the right to determine what is a language and dialect in their own regards.

The first thing I'd ask for to convince me of the opposite is to ask "Is there a standardized written form of it?"

Basque did not have a standardized format until relatively recently. LOL, are they not a nation now?

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?

Apparently it is

Second from left: "Thank you god I am not Moskali" - "thank you god I am not a Russian." This is a Ukrainian nationalist shirt.

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.

How is 'not being white' racism?

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

Because you're an immigrant and not a descendant of oppressed slaves with no choice in the matter.

should not only be brought back but accentuated to boot

Whites can live in such a state after a consolidation period of time. If there is no risk of reconquest by a rump white american state, the preexisting white population can even continue to live in black majority areas and vote in it as citizens. Only the black man would be in charge of his own affairs with no requirement to share a state with foreigners with baggage/bad blood. Depending on the development, they can reopen immigration and movement of people, as long as the state is explicitly black & immigrants are Africanized to some manner or another (intermarriage, adoption of Ebonics as a language, etc)

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.

Note I am not saying 'black man' in a sexist definition, just common term for 'black person'.

[Rogue 9]

Whites can live in such a state after a consolidation period of time. If there is no risk of reconquest by a rump white american state, the preexisting white population can even continue to live in black majority areas and vote in it as citizens. Only the black man would be in charge of his own affairs with no requirement to share a state with foreigners with baggage/bad blood. Depending on the development, they can reopen immigration and movement of people, as long as the state is explicitly black & immigrants are Africanized to some manner or another (intermarriage, adoption of Ebonics as a language, etc)

Ask Israel how that's working out sometime.

[Saxtonite]

Ask Israel how that's working out sometime.

It seems to be working pretty well, currently given Israel still exists and the Jewish birthrate is still higher than that of the Arab birthrate in Israel proper...

And a better analogy would be the Baltics. Only those descended from the interwar repblics or those who registered in the independence movement to re-register before independence were consiered citizens. Actually, some ethnic russians became citizens vountarily.

[Rogue 9]

Ask Israel how that's working out sometime.

It seems to be working pretty well, given Israel still exists and the Jewish birthrate is still higher than that of the Arab birthrate in Israel proper...

And they have bombs in the streets on a regular basis and rockets spammed at them every single day. Israel continues to exist because of U.S. military aid and extreme militarization of the state. Now imagine if the hostile entity was the United States and not a bunch of disunified Palestinians kept permanently incapable of raising a conventional military.

[Simon_Jester]

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"

Since the issue of African-American Vernacular English ties into the issues I was speaking of, and I have a reasonable amount of immersion in it (see my comments to Saxtonite about my own workplace), I'd like to remark:

AAVE is perfectly viable as a language. It has a few formulations that can be tricky when trying to talk about things like mathematics,* but it's functional. The problem is, separately from the tendency to speak AAVE, many African-Americans have low socioeconomic status. Which results in trouble applying the patterns of thought and behavior associated with education, because they lack that education, not because of any deficiency in their language.

*Certain AAVE speakers will often say "all X are not Y" when they mean "not all X are Y." They know the difference perfectly well when it's pointed out to them, they just don't say it that way. It's a bit exasperating for a math teacher, but harmless.

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?

My real criticisms of it have to do with impracticality, and with how it often diverges from the stated wishes of large numbers of black people.

If the massive exodus of blacks to the northern cities during the Machine Age had never happened, and if desegregation had never happened, Saxtonite's case would be a lot more practical- because blacks would be much more concentrated geographically. Conversely, if those trends had proceeded to completion instead of getting stuck halfway, Saxtonite probably wouldn't even bother making the case in the first place; he wouldn't see the need.

---

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.

The Irish could also define themselves as living in Ireland, to continue with your example. Irish separatism persisted and triumphed because the Irish had a geographical identity, not just a cultural one.

You argue that half of all blacks live in an area you'd like to see as a "black homeland." The problem is that the other half of all blacks do not live in this particular Bantustan, and feel no personal connection to it as the Irish did to Ireland or the Han did to China. Moreover, the area in question is impoverished and struggles to provide acceptable educations and jobs for the current residents, let alone a massive wave of emigration.

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.

Well, I'll be very open about it: I think creating an American Bantustan and trying to get all the African-Americans to rush there is a terrible idea.

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...

I happen to teach high school there, so I'm not disputing this- but the fundamental question you need to ask is whether the tendency of blacks to form their own neighborhoods (even when rich and free to move about) extends to forming their own country. And what the demographics of such a country would look like, and whether it would flourish.

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).

The question is whether ethnic consciousness translates into a nation-state. It doesn't always do that, nor is it always practical for it to try.

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.

Such a period of time is unlikely to support mass migrations of blacks into the rural farm belt of the southern states...

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.

Blacks had lived in the Bantustans for millenia; they were still blatantly artificial.

As a country, the Republic of Blackbeltia or whatever you want to call it is artificial. It lacks infrastructure designed to ease transportation through its borders- as opposed to infrastructure that makes it easy to move through the area into cities and regions outside of itself. It lacks its own industries and patterns of economic development designed to support itself. It is thoroughly dependent on other parts of a larger nation for many needed goods- and for that matter on subsidies by the government of that nation, like most rural parts of America.

The further you fling it on its own resources and cram it full of immigrants, the worse off it will be.

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.

The Bantustans were in a real sense an attempt to move the Boers into their own state... it's just that this state made up the majority of South Africa's landmass and held most of its cities and resources, with the black population being herded into huge, impoverished, quasi-independent ghettoes.

And that's what I think this would become- a huge impoverished ghetto writ large.

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.

The US worked rather hard to secure free navigation of the Mississippi basin, and is very unlikely to give this up.

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.

The ones in DC sure wouldn't move to central Alabama or South Carolina to join a new Bantustan, I'll say that...

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.

Maybe you should find out what proportion of the black intelligentsia and entrepreneur classes would be willing to move to help build up Blackbeltia. After all, you're kind of assuming that this will happen automatically, and that's a big assumption.

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.

My concern is whether or not justice can be done in a segregated courtroom, and under whose jurisdiction interracial crimes would fall. This is why I'm talking about rules of evidence, witnesses being expected to remember and identify their testimony, and so on.

The one time I had anything to do with a trial, for example, it involved a Hispanic defendant and an African-American plaintiff. Whose courtroom should that go into?

Ebonics, AKA Thug speak is the official "black" language, huh?

It should. Actually Ebonics predates urban slang. I Would like to reform Ebonics to Africanize it and put more of a 'distance' between Ebonics and White American English as a linguistic project and as a show of distinctness of black america.

I don't think that's a smart move for several reasons. One is that "Africanized" language is not very meaningful as there are a LOT of African languages. It's like trying to "Europeanize" a dialect of Chinese. Which European language are we talking about, English, German, Gaelic, Latin, Finnish, Proto-Indo-European, or Basque?

Another is that even if you try to segregate them into their own country, the success of blacks in North America will have a huge amount to do with their ability to engage in successful business and cultural exchanges with the other ethnicities surrounding them. Deliberately making it harder for your children to talk to foreigners is rarely a good plan for making them successful.

If you view yourself as a would-be founder of an African-American state (in the geographic sense of 'America,' not the political), you must take upon your shoulders the responsibilities of a nation-builder. One of those is to act in ways that will ensure prosperity for your people, and give them a foundation to build on in areas other than pure cultural pride. The world is full of the wreckage of peoples who had a lot of pride and not much else... and ultimately lost their pride, too, for obvious reasons.

States collapse and decline and just because autonomism will not be popular in the US now doesn't mean it won't become as such later. So black america could be more than a giant ghetto.....give most of the black majority areas of the US south are rural areas...

Free your mind, Saxtonite. Taking poor people and sticking them in a rural enclosure with economic and political forces can be ghetto-creation too, just as much as sticking them in an urban enclosure with economic force. It's just a ghetto with a lower population density, hunting rifles instead of Saturday Night Specials, trailers instead of apartments, and crystal meth instead of crack.

Hell, some rural white communities are already like that.

[Grumman]

Please provide a better AFRICAN language to speak for the black man which is easy to learn and 'natural' to learn. And note I said AFRICAN, not EUROPEAN. Or even EAST ASIAN

Why does it have to be an African language? English isn't good enough for you, just because the man has dark skin?

Quit being such a fucking racist.

[Saxtonite]

Why does it have to be an African language?

Because we are African?

English isn't good enough for you, just because the man has dark skin?

(white) English is not good enough for me because my ancestors were forced to adopt it. Speaking it as a second/foreign language is totally ok though. Same for Japanese, Russian, Mandarin, etc etc.

Quit being such a fucking racist.

Wanting to speak your own indigenous language and decolonize oneself is racism now?

And they have bombs in the streets on a regular basis and rockets spammed at them every single day. Israel continues to exist because of U.S. military aid and extreme militarization of the state. Now imagine if the hostile entity was the United States and not a bunch of disunified Palestinians kept permanently incapable of raising a conventional military.

Well if you're assuming this was formed in violence, the ethnic cleansing would solve the problem of moving the black population from northern cities and elsewhere to the black 'homeland' given the population transfer would largely solve the viability of such a state and expand its' borders significantly. Also, the US would not be as unified to stop the formation, and may not even exist if enough disorder is happening to cause a black state's formation. The black population of the south might be fighting white southrons who identify with a neo-confederate state as opposed to unified white america, and local white southron militias and whatever remnants of the military which are available and not fighting 'yankees' or whatever would not be the same as the unified American Empire.

And with the dissolution of American state power, the blacks can easily acquire or steal nuclear weapons, or make dirty bombs form radioactive nuclides if things became nasty enough that you'd be desperate enough to nuke Atlanta/D.C/New Orleans/Tuskegee to deny it from white forces besieging it. (There -were- black scientists who worked on the Manhattan project, as well as later nuclear programs, so the knowledge would not disappear).

And if you're nuking your own positions/cities under siege, MAD would not come into effect necessarily. And, given you're invoking such a nasty ethnic conflict as Israel-Palestine, threatening MAD could be enough to hold off the American invaders.

If the US was able to reconquer an autonomous black state (and so such -without- the nastiness of mass ethnic cleansing and usage of nuclear weapons), the sheer existence of such a state and the fact that enough national counciousness would rise to the top would show that the federal government/white america would be forced to acknowledge the cultural distinctness of black people as an ethnic group. It would make the surrender/reconquest of Black America 'easier' to swallow for the black. Actually, even I would be happy with such a short-lived state and reconquest, a secession and war of independence, existence as a sovereign state for years, and reabsorption into the union with caveats for cultural autonomy. Or again, it could be a voluntary union of black dominanted states into a reconstituted 'American Union'.

If black people decide to be 'americans' again via a honest referendum, they -can- do so.

You argue that half of all blacks live in an area you'd like to see as a "black homeland." The problem is that the other half of all blacks do not live in this particular Bantustan, and feel no personal connection to it as the Irish did to Ireland or the Han did to China.

Black nationalist intellectual thought also grew up in northern cities as well. Remember many of the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, etc grew up in northern cities. Just because they do not live in such a black homeland does not mean they magically are unnationalist or would be not supportive if the option was shown as possible.

The black population of many northern cities is declining due to reemigration of many blacks to the "New South" due to the improved conditions for many blacks there. And many blacks in northern cities still have friends and family who live there and still even in current area move back and forth, so there would still be a cultural connection between blacks in the north and in the south.

Also, there are many Kurds, in Iranian and, Turkish cities FAR from Kurdistan. But there still are separatist impulses - for example.

Moreover, the area in question is impoverished and struggles to provide acceptable educations and jobs for the current residents, let alone a massive wave of emigration.

Why is there black immigration back to the South now? Even despite the economic issues, there still is a black emigration back to the south. Yes, it is limited to a few cities in a lot of cases I admit.

And again, I mentioned earlier cultural autonomy is an option as well. Designate several new states from the black majority regions of the US for the development of black people in the black belt. There are intermediate options which can be used as a staging point on referendum of independence, or reunification.

Well, I'll be very open about it: I think creating an American Bantustan and trying to get all the African-Americans to rush there is a terrible idea.

Ok.

I happen to teach high school there, so I'm not disputing this- but the fundamental question you need to ask is whether the tendency of blacks to form their own neighborhoods (even when rich and free to move about) extends to forming their own country. And what the demographics of such a country would look like, and whether it would flourish.

Correct. At least discussing this in the mainstream media would allow an open discussion on this, its viability, possible plans, etc. That and the discussions on referendums, etc. And again, it is more of forming your own sovereign state. The black nation already exists. Should the nation have its own state. Why so, or why not. The black population did not really have a good chance to discuss this, they were constantly jostled around and influenced by the white population in many cases.

The question is whether ethnic consciousness translates into a nation-state. It doesn't always do that, nor is it always practical for it to try.

There can be federations of countries and I did not deny such.

Such a period of time is unlikely to support mass migrations of blacks into the rural farm belt of the southern states...

India and Pakistan exchanged a lot of their population in the context of their wars/splitting. It wasn't pretty, but it is -possible-.

And even if the half of the population is removed and never able to reunite with their southern brethren, 20 million people is still enough to create a sustainable nation.

As a country, the Republic of Blackbeltia or whatever you want to call it is artificial. It lacks infrastructure designed to ease transportation through its borders- as opposed to infrastructure that makes it easy to move through the area into cities and regions outside of itself.

They can commander the preexisting interstate, local road and highway system. You could also argue the same thing for Kurdistan. Is that an 'artificial' country? Baluchistan? Soviet Central Asia was also similarly underdeveloped.

The state would probably be called 'Republik of New Afrika' or 'Republic of Songhai'

It lacks its own industries and patterns of economic development designed to support itself.

Birmingham's industrial base would end up within the black nation, which is not a lot, but it is a start.

It is thoroughly dependent on other parts of a larger nation for many needed goods- and for that matter on subsidies by the government of that nation, like most rural parts of America.

The further you fling it on its own resources and cram it full of immigrants, the worse off it will be.

There would have to be a transition period.

The US worked rather hard to secure free navigation of the Mississippi basin, and is very unlikely to give this up.

If there is a position that a black country would be formed, the US probably could not do too much on being able to resist losing full control of the Mississippi. There might not even be a US for that period of time.

The ones in DC sure wouldn't move to central Alabama or South Carolina to join a new Bantustan, I'll say that...

they might not have to

Maybe you should find out what proportion of the black intelligentsia and entrepreneur classes would be willing to move to help build up Blackbeltia. After all, you're kind of assuming that this will happen automatically, and that's a big assumption.

That is true, but I would a say many would, because they ALREADY are doing such in terms of HBCUs, as the development of Atlanta for black media/business/etc, etc. I know it is not exactly as much as would provide a viable state, but it is something.

Also, historically other Diasporas have helped their 'homeland' when things happened, sometimes straight to their deaths (The Khmer Rouge told Cambodians abroad to return to Cambodia and help develop the contry, and many of the intellectuals got hacked to death while getting off the planes). Why would the black population be different? Even Irish Americans multiple generation from the famine sent money and support to the IRA during the 'Troubles', and there was a unit of Armenians who were raised in the US and second/third generatio who returned to Armenia during Nagorno-Kabarakh War.

My concern is whether or not justice can be done in a segregated courtroom, and under whose jurisdiction interracial crimes would fall. This is why I'm talking about rules of evidence, witnesses being expected to remember and identify their testimony, and so on.

The one time I had anything to do with a trial, for example, it involved a Hispanic defendant and an African-American plaintiff. Whose courtroom should that go into?

Such cases wold go into integrated courtrooms. Civil or criminal courts with people of one ethnic group have the option for being tried in the court system or law for such groups if they wish. Civil law cases in the US allow Rabbinic and Sharia law to be used, so it won't be much different.

I don't think that's a smart move for several reasons. One is that "Africanized" language is not very meaningful as there are a LOT of African languages. It's like trying to "Europeanize" a dialect of Chinese. Which European language are we talking about, English, German, Gaelic, Latin, Finnish, Proto-Indo-European, or Basque?

As in Ebonics will incorporate more language and grammar from Yoruba, Hausa, Fulani languages from West Africa where the black population originated from. There would also be loanwords from Swahili where appropriate (preferably well known Swahili words). This language engineering would take place over a period of 5-20 years depending on the progress made.

Another is that even if you try to segregate them into their own country, the success of blacks in North America will have a huge amount to do with their ability to engage in successful business and cultural exchanges with the other ethnicities surrounding them. Deliberately making it harder for your children to talk to foreigners is rarely a good plan for making them successful.

You can speak and learn multiple languages. After all, Europeans and Africans speak multiple languages for the purposes of Trade. Swahili developed AS a Trade language after all.

If you view yourself as a would-be founder of an African-American state (in the geographic sense of 'America,' not the political), you must take upon your shoulders the responsibilities of a nation-builder. One of those is to act in ways that will ensure prosperity for your people, and give them a foundation to build on in areas other than pure cultural pride. The world is full of the wreckage of peoples who had a lot of pride and not much else... and ultimately lost their pride, too, for obvious reasons.

Correct.

I do not consider myself a leader or founder of much actually. There are other people who are involved in political organizations who would probably be better at this. I would be ok with writing......concepts and ideas, especially as I would likely piss off most of the other nationalists or be in 'cloud cuckoo land' for at least some of them (i.e. the 'i can africanize immigrants' might annoy some 'purists' or whatnot, etc.)

Free your mind, Saxtonite. Taking poor people and sticking them in a rural enclosure with economic and political forces can be ghetto-creation too, just as much as sticking them in an urban enclosure with economic force. It's just a ghetto with a lower population density, hunting rifles instead of Saturday Night Specials, trailers instead of apartments, and crystal meth instead of crack.

Hell, some rural white communities are already like that.

LOL.

I was thinking this would -not- be a forced population transfer but something organic actually, and of course you can still talk to foreigners, travel, etc. There would still be cultural exchange programs and academic ones.

[Metahive]

Saxtonite, what do you think about Afro-Americans emigrating to an actual african country? The chances of the US government ceding any sort of viable territory just for the purpose of housing a sovereign black state are practically nil, so if you're so concerned about ethnic homogeneity and pride yourself on African heritage down to accepting only African languages, why not take this obvious route? Could it be because most nations in Africa are not very comfortable to live in and the roots to them after 200+ years of separation are very tenuous?
The US have always been a crucible for people of many nations and ethnicities, so why not try and strengthen this aspect of the US instead of going for even more radical segregation? There are people of my own minority here in Germany who wish to retreat to Little Korea, and I consider that to be a defeatist attitude. My goal is to be the better German, not to be an uprooted Korean.

[Metahive]

Just saw this:

India and Pakistan exchanged a lot of their population in the context of their wars/splitting. It wasn't pretty, but it is -possible-.

India and Pakistan have also been at each other's throats for most of their separate existence.

As in Ebonics will incorporate more language and grammar from Yoruba, Hausa, Fulani languages from West Africa where the black population originated from. There would also be loanwords from Swahili where appropriate (preferably well known Swahili words).

You know, saying "we as a minority share this certain dialect and therefore it stands for our cultural identity" is one thing, something I could even semi-respect. But wishing to mess it up by arbitrarily mixing several different languages into it just for the sake of being different (yet "authentic" I presume) has you going off into la-la land again.

That's STUPID!

[Rogue 9]

Why does it have to be an African language?

Because we are African?

Really? You're from Africa? As in you personally, not five generations of ancestry removed? Even if that's actually the case for you, it isn't for the vast majority of black people living in North America. I don't insist on speaking German or Gaelic just because my various great great ancestors came over on the boat from Germany and Ireland, and evidently you don't insist I should (or that other Caucasians should speak their various ancestral languages in general, or the descendants of Asian immigrants their various ancestral languages, and so forth), so what makes this not purely about race?

[Jub]

Saxtonite, if you want a Black African nation several already exist, just in Africa. Instead of salivating over a vast black revolution why not advocated reintegration with the nations people's ancestors were taken from? Even the education of an inner city youth would be helpful in some of the less developed areas and such a mass migration would bring with it a brain trust to rebuild your actual ancestral homeland. I'd even support you if you wanted the US gov't to pay to ship you and your stuff over there and reimburse you for any land owned.

[Saxtonite]

India and Pakistan have also been at each other's throats for most of their separate existence.

Yeah

You know, saying "we as a minority share this certain dialect and therefore it stands for our cultural identity" is one thing, something I could even semi-respect. But wishing to mess it up by arbitrarily mixing several different languages into it just for the sake of being different (yet "authentic" I presume) has you going off into la-la land again.

That's STUPID!

But Esperanto and Interlingua is ok because white people think it will generate unity?

Saxtonite, what do you think about Afro-Americans emigrating to an actual african country?

It seem to have been rooted in paternalist and internalized colonialist attitudes as shown by Liberia. The black nationalists of such an era were amazingly internalizing of christianity and "western civilization's" virtues. So even if such a state was founded, would it legitimately be 'African?'

The chances of the US government ceding any sort of viable territory just for the purpose of housing a sovereign black state are practically nil, so if you're so concerned about ethnic homogeneity and pride yourself on African heritage down to accepting only African languages, why not take this obvious route?

Because the ethnogenesis took in the United States, the African slaves were from different Tribes when taken from their land.

Could it be because most nations in Africa are not very comfortable to live in and the roots to them after 200+ years of separation are very tenuous?

The black population built a significant portion of the US economy. A significant amount of the money of for example the south was tied up in BLACK SLAVES. Wall Street used to be a slave auction block, and the white house was built by black slaves. The black population of the US south has known that as home.

More of the black population has been in the US for longer than the white population. Most of the white americans came as immigrants after the civil war. And those before, a lot of them came AFTER the main thrust of black slaves entered the US. AND the black population has more native american ancestry than the white population. Why should we leave?

The US have always been a crucible for people of many nations and ethnicities

The US has also been built on land theft and genocide, so meh. Even White Americans fought SEVERAL wars of independence from the federal government. Whites in Ohio and Michigan fought border wars over the delineation of the Ohio/Michigan border. Mormons fought a war for YEARS against the central government around the same time period of the civil war. If even white americans often have different identities and are allowed to do so (Utah Mormons have their own STATE and significant control of surrounding states), why can't blacks have one?

why not try and strengthen this aspect of the US instead of going for even more radical segregation?

We never had a CHOICE to become 'americans' for one thing. We were FORCIBLY Americanized. My ancestors did not have a choice on if they wanted to learn English. They wee FORCED to.

'He [White Americans] didn't say, "Black man, black woman, come on over and help me build America". He said, "Nigger, get down in the bottom of that boat and I'm taking you over there to help me build America" ' - Malcolm X

"We did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on US" - Malcolm X

There are people of my own minority here in Germany who wish to retreat to Little Korea, and I consider that to be a defeatist attitude. My goal is to be the better German, not to be an uprooted Korean.

Well you're an immigrant. Immigrants have historically been anti-separtism, i.e. German Texans being loyal to the union and the immigrants in Quebec voting against independence, etc. They immigrated to go to a country and weren't affected by the historical baggage which the founding ethnic groups had.

[Saxtonite]

Saxtonite, if you want a Black African nation several already exist, just in Africa.

The ethnogenesis of my people did not occur in Africa though. We were different ethnic groups in Africa

Instead of salivating over a vast black revolution why not advocated reintegration with the nations people's ancestors were taken from?

Because we are a different ethnic group now. The Igbo fought a war of independence from the Hausa-Fulani in the Biafran war. I don't think a bunch of black Zionists coming in to steal land from the native blacks and talking about a messianic impulse will be better.

Even the education of an inner city youth would be helpful in some of the less developed areas and such a mass migration would bring with it a brain trust to rebuild your actual ancestral homeland. I'd even support you if you wanted the US gov't to pay to ship you and your stuff over there and reimburse you for any land owned.

More of us were here before the white americans. Why should we leave?

Really? You're from Africa? As in you personally, not five generations of ancestry removed?

multiple generations removed.

I don't insist on speaking German or Gaelic just because my various great great ancestors came over on the boat from Germany and Ireland, and evidently you don't insist I should (or that other Caucasians should speak their various ancestral languages in general, or the descendants of Asian immigrants their various ancestral languages, and so forth),

I don't insist so because I am not Irish or German. Actually, I find the cultural suppression of Germans from WWI to be a bad thing. If Irish in Ireland wish to promote Gaelic, they have the right to. They are as a matter of fact, the Republic of Ireland promotes Gaelic. So do the Scottish parliament. they feel historically oppressed and want to preserve their language.

so what makes this not purely about race?

Because there are blacks who largely look east asian, or european, etc. And blacks in the US are a different ethnic group than the various ethnic groups in africa. haitians are a different ethnic group too, but they are unashamedly black africans.

[Jub]

Saxtonite, if you want a Black African nation several already exist, just in Africa.

The ethnogenesis of my people did not occur in Africa though. We were different ethnic groups in Africa.

Then why bother picking an African language out of a hat and using that as the basis to build AAVE on top of? That language has about as much to do with most blacks now as the African cultures do.

Instead of salivating over a vast black revolution why not advocated reintegration with the nations people's ancestors were taken from?

Because we are a different ethnic group now. The Igbo fought a war of independence from the Hausa-Fulani in the Biafran war. I don't think a bunch of black Zionists coming in to steal land from the native blacks and talking about a messianic impulse will be better.

Then why not continue that evolution and choose integration instead of holding a grudge? Why advocate a race war against a bunch of people that aren't hurting you except by existing in a system that hurts you by default; a system that the average person is as much trapped in as you are?

Even the education of an inner city youth would be helpful in some of the less developed areas and such a mass migration would bring with it a brain trust to rebuild your actual ancestral homeland. I'd even support you if you wanted the US gov't to pay to ship you and your stuff over there and reimburse you for any land owned.

More of us were here before the white americans. Why should we leave?

How about because you clearly don't seem to want to be here? Frankly I'm not American and I'd much rather see you leave than cause a revolt that will simply increase hatred towards blacks. The world is moving towards integration so what do you gain by trying to make your race stand out negatively to the eyes of the rest of the world?

[Saxtonite]

Then why bother picking an African language out of a hat and using that as the basis to build AAVE on top of? That language has about as much to do with most blacks now as the African cultures do.

Well for one, i am using SEVERAL African languages because the creole language the black slaves was formed just like that. I don't know the exact form of how the language formed. Do you? We're getting back to basics of ethnogenesis. And helping to make it stick. And besides, countries do such before.

I would be ok with reconstructing Geeche and syncreticizing the speech with mainland Ebonics, they both developed in the US, so they are not specifically African languages there.

Then why not continue that evolution and choose integration instead of holding a grudge?

We evolved as a SEPARATE nation from white america, we did not evolve in an INTEGRATED manner. The history shows as such. Are you saying 300 years of distinct national, political, cultural and linguistic development should be sacrificed?

Why advocate a race war against a bunch of people that aren't hurting you except by existing in a system that hurts you by default; a system that the average person is as much trapped in as you are?

I advocate a referendum on independence simply, The other people mentioned how the civil war prevents it from happening, etc, so i talked about the feasibility of such a war of independence. I didn't know the civil war prevented a honest discussion on the falsehood of an 'american nation' and the reality that the US is a plurinational (Which is different than multicultural) superstate.

How about because you clearly don't seem to want to be here?

I want to be on this land. I want a right to a state for myself. I do not consider myself white, I am black. Therefore black people collectively need a different path for their development than white people.

Frankly I'm not American and I'd much rather see you leave than cause a revolt that will simply increase hatred towards blacks. The world is moving towards integration so what do you gain by trying to make your race stand out negatively to the eyes of the rest of the world?

The same thing the Kurdish and Baluch achieve by resisting imperialism. The right of self-determination for all people. Are you saying the Kurdish race stands out negatively by wanting independence from Iraq, Iran and Turkey? Where should they go to? Please, people sympathize with the Kurdish cause of independence even though they do so at the barrel of a gun. People sympathize with the Palestinian struggle of independence even when they use suicide bombs. People sympathized with the Zionist Jews even then they killed British soldiers and expelled Arabs.

How can you talk about economic 'integration' when 20 years ago one of the largest multiethnic states simply collapsed, and the right of self-determination and cultural autonomy is becoming enshrined even within emerging superstates. Europeans are integrating.....yet Europeans STILL want independence. Catalonia and Scotland, for example would like to be independent from Spain and Britain respectively, but STILL want to be EU members. There can be a sharing of unions and whatnot, but in a voluntarily manner and not ONLY with sharing a state with ethnic groups you have a bad history with.

Do you tell people in a shitty relationship/marriage to just stay together? Why do you say ethnic groups should share a state instead?

You talk about economic and political integration.....I already said the black state would apply to membership with the UN and preferably allow open movement of people and goods.

How is that anti-integration? It's integration into the global economy in a manner which will not screw black america over.

EDIT: -and- you come from a region which has a separatist and regionalist movement (Cascadia) yourself. Would Cascadian independence negatively affect the look of Cascadians abroad?

[Terralthra]

India and Pakistan have also been at each other's throats for most of their separate existence.

Yeah

Yeah...and? Deliberately creating a set of sovereign nations that are likely to engage in race war is ok with you?

You know, saying "we as a minority share this certain dialect and therefore it stands for our cultural identity" is one thing, something I could even semi-respect. But wishing to mess it up by arbitrarily mixing several different languages into it just for the sake of being different (yet "authentic" I presume) has you going off into la-la land again.

That's STUPID!

But Esperanto and Interlingua is ok because white people think it will generate unity?

No one with any credibility is seriously proposing using Esperanto or Interlingua as a first language nor as an official language of any sovereign nation. Neither are even secondary or auxiliary official languages of any such, in fact.

[Terralthra]

Then why bother picking an African language out of a hat and using that as the basis to build AAVE on top of? That language has about as much to do with most blacks now as the African cultures do.

Well for one, i am using SEVERAL African languages because the creole language the black slaves was formed just like that. I don't know the exact form of how the language formed. Do you? We're getting back to basics of ethnogenesis. And helping to make it stick. And besides, countries do such before.

I have read a fair amount of study of just that. Evidence points towards AAVE being a creole of various British regional dialects which enslaved blacks heard while working near indentured British servants. Evidence for significant West African language input is minimal, consisting mainly of assimilated vocabulary. cf. "The voice of the ancestors: New evidence on 19th century precursors to 20th century AAVE", Sutcliffe & McWhorton.

For bona fides, I present my BA in English Language & Discourse and an MA in English Composition, with study during my BA on the development and social practices of AAVE under Dr. Charles deBose.

[Saxtonite]

Yeah...and? Deliberately creating a set of sovereign nations that are likely to engage in race war is ok with you?

No, but how would independent black states AUTOMATICALLY start butchering each other? When Czechs and Slovaks separated there was no mass bloodbath because there was an open conversation as such. The USSR collapsed largely peacefully, though the aftermath and before tensions had some violence.

How would a sovereign black state automatically have the desire to butcher the whites, and why would the whites suddenly have a desire to butcher the blacks. Given I mentioned a REFERENDUM and open discussion on independence, the referendum can easily be anti-independence. Would Scots have a desire to en masse massacre any English in Scotland due to discussions of independence?

Given I mentioned preferably being a member of the UN, and free movements of people and goods after stabilization, and cultural exchange programs where would the sudden race war come from?

[Jub]

Then why bother picking an African language out of a hat and using that as the basis to build AAVE on top of? That language has about as much to do with most blacks now as the African cultures do.

Well for one, i am using SEVERAL African languages because the creole language the black slaves was formed just like that. I don't know the exact form of how the language formed. Do you? We're getting back to basics of ethnogenesis. And helping to make it stick. And besides, countries do such before.

I would be ok with reconstructing Geeche and syncreticizing the speech with mainland Ebonics, they both developed in the US, so they are not specifically African languages there.

What's the point? You're going to spend time and money on a vanity project like creating a new language for a state that will have bigger worries. You're like a hot topic goth who wants to be different for the sake of it without understanding how it effects the way people will treat you.

Then why not continue that evolution and choose integration instead of holding a grudge?

We evolved as a SEPARATE nation from white america, we did not evolve in an INTEGRATED manner. The history shows as such. Are you saying 300 years of distinct national, political, cultural and linguistic development should be sacrificed?

Why should we enshrine the old and value such history? I could care less if the Dutch nation my grandparents came from changes or decides to integrate with Belgium or some such, why should you care if your culture changes as society as a whole does?

Why advocate a race war against a bunch of people that aren't hurting you except by existing in a system that hurts you by default; a system that the average person is as much trapped in as you are?

I advocate a referendum on independence simply, The other people mentioned how the civil war prevents it from happening, etc, so i talked about the feasibility of such a war of independence. I didn't know the civil war prevented a honest discussion on the falsehood of an 'american nation' and the reality that the US is a plurinational (Which is different than multicultural) superstate.

Have your vote, but remember every white living in the effected area will get a vote as will every place that will lose a ton of population to such a move. You'll lose and then those that supported it will stamp their feet and get bitchy that it failed. This will cause undo friction and in spite of your worst case nuke steal scenario the black nation will get curb stomped by the non-black majority of the US.

How about because you clearly don't seem to want to be here?

I want to be on this land. I want a right to a state for myself. I do not consider myself white, I am black. Therefore black people collectively need a different path for their development than white people.

For the sake of argument what if I didn't consider myself Canadian? I was born here but I'd be happier in the Netherlands but seeing as I don't share a language or culture with them because of where I was born I just want money and special treatment instead. This sounds like what you're saying.

Frankly I'm not American and I'd much rather see you leave than cause a revolt that will simply increase hatred towards blacks. The world is moving towards integration so what do you gain by trying to make your race stand out negatively to the eyes of the rest of the world?

The same thing the Kurdish and Baluch achieve by resisting imperialism. The right of self-determination for all people. Are you saying the Kurdish race stands out negatively by wanting independence from Iraq, Iran and Turkey? Where should they go to? Please, people sympathize with the Kurdish cause of independence even though they do so at the barrel of a gun. People sympathize with the Palestinian struggle of independence even when they use suicide bombs. People sympathized with the Zionist Jews even then they killed British soldiers and expelled Arabs.

How can you talk about economic 'integration' when 20 years ago one of the largest multiethnic states simply collapsed, and the right of self-determination and cultural autonomy is becoming enshrined even within emerging superstates. Europeans are integrating.....yet Europeans STILL want independence. Catalonia and Scotland, for example would like to be independent from Spain and Britain respectively, but STILL want to be EU members. There can be a sharing of unions and whatnot, but in a voluntarily manner and not ONLY with sharing a state with ethnic groups you have a bad history with.

Do you tell people in a shitty relationship/marriage to just stay together? Why do you say ethnic groups should share a state instead?

You talk about economic and political integration.....I already said the black state would apply to membership with the UN and preferably allow open movement of people and goods.

How is that anti-integration? It's integration into the global economy in a manner which will not screw black america over.

EDIT: -and- you come from a region which has a separatist and regionalist movement (Cascadia) yourself. Would Cascadian independence negatively affect the look of Cascadians abroad?

The Kurds got gassed in recent memory, in 300 years do you think people outside of the area will much care about that?

The fall of the USSR happened for complex reasons that you seem to be ignoring because it doesn't fit your story.

The Irish, Scottish, and Catalonian's all have a regional tie that goes well beyond the 300 years that blacks have in America and they also have a homeland already. Your homeland calls for blacks to up root and move to it in spite of their being little outside reason to do so. This is a little different than what happened with Israel and the Jewish people and your plan will go over with the rest of the US about as well as that has within the region.

Yeah...and? Deliberately creating a set of sovereign nations that are likely to engage in race war is ok with you?

No, but how would independent black states AUTOMATICALLY start butchering each other? When Czechs and Slovaks separated there was no mass bloodbath because there was an open conversation as such. The USSR collapsed largely peacefully, though the aftermath and before tensions had some violence.

How would a sovereign black state automatically have the desire to butcher the whites, and why would the whites suddenly have a desire to butcher the blacks. Given I mentioned a REFERENDUM and open discussion on independence, the referendum can easily be anti-independence. Would Scots have a desire to en masse massacre any English in Scotland due to discussions of independence?

Given I mentioned preferably being a member of the UN, and free movements of people and goods after stabilization, and cultural exchange programs where would the sudden race war come from?

What happens when you lose the referendum in spectacular fashion? Unlike Quebec you don't have the regional power to get special treatment or you'd already be leaning on that. Do you accept defeat or do you keep wasting our time by trying again as fast as the law allows? Or do you try something more drastic? What about your white neighbor who'd have his life changed how might he react especially if he's already on the fence about blacks?

[hunter5]

Seriously as thrilling as this discussion on an independent American black nation or whatever is being talk about is what the hell does it have to do with the Zimmerman trial?