Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

[Jub]

A split was asked for a ways back, we're just waiting on a mod to move this.

[Saxtonite]

What's the point?

To remind ourselves (and others) we are black and african, and not white europeans, or some forcibly westernized.....group and to re-africanize ourselves/regain that part of our culture which was stolen from us to some extent or another.

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.

The project can be done before statehood would be formed. Besides, the Basques developed a standardized language UNDER THE FRANCO DICTATORSHIP of all time periods.

Also, I'm not even wearing Tripp Pants now and I'm compared to a mall goth

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?

I care because my culture was stolen from me. Your culture apparently was not stolen from you. If the black population did not have their culture stolen from them there would not be a need to rediscover who they are as they would have VOLUNTARILY assimilated.

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.

Well, you can argue only the black population has a right to vote on independence, as they never had a choice as to emigration to Africa (one white alabama senator who voted for secession before the civil war said it was unfeasible and historically unprecedented) or their own land/sovereignty (after lincoln was killed, the union occupation forces in some cases fought black freedmen with GUNS for their land which was given back to the former white slaveowners.) And that the black population was suppressed after the abortion of reconstruction ended. You can argue the blacks from the end of the civil war to 'redeemer' violence formed a distinct nation with aspects of a state, and only those people's descendants have the right to decide their own affairs due to the sins of the past.

You can also argue that whites may want their own independence, and they should have the righ tot vote for or independence. My point of this is the referendm can be managed in various ways, so it might not -only- be done in that manner. After all, Scotland and Quebec's referenum of independence would only be done by Scots and Quebecois.

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.

Then at the least you gain an addition to your national mythology of fighting and being suppressed and killed for your cause as opposed to passively accepting your status in life. People cannot say that blacks in the US are lazy and would not work to improve themselves if they fought and died for their independence or resorted to terrorist violence. Again, other nations have been 'curbstomped' as you phrased it before, to return later.

Malcolm X and Fred Hampton's deaths was one sort of martyrdom. Nat Turner's Rebellion was another. An attempt at insurgency which is either ineffective (FLQ) somewhat-effective (Red Army Faction) decently effective (IRA/Basque/Peshmerga) or very effective (Shining Path) before being suppressed would be useful for propaganda purposes as well as a national hero/mythology.

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.

If your culture was suppressed, that would be your right. If you were a Cascadian separatist, I would acept that as well

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

If there's media made about such. I don't think many cared about Scotland's Wars of independence until Braveheart came out. We'll see what media is made in the future, whether holographic of whatever about the 'Black War of Liberation' or 'Negro Rebellion' or whatever it is called, if things get that nasty.

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

I mentioned such in past posts.

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.

Catalan nationalism began to grow after Spain losing the war with the United States. Scottish nationalism largely regrew with the collapse of the British Empire. There were proto-nationalist concepts BEFORE then, but the growth is later than you think.

Your homeland calls for blacks to up root and move to it in spite of their being little outside reason to do so.

It can be done WITHOUT such as half the population ALREADY lives there and there is preexisting return of blacks to the south. There is a pull factor to drive blacks back towards the 'new south'

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.

Even though blacks have been there historically for a LONG period of time and never truly 'left'?

EDIT:

What happens when you lose the referendum in spectacular fashion?

Work harder? Try again?

Do you accept defeat or do you keep wasting our time by trying again as fast as the law allows?

The latter?

Or do you try something more drastic?

I wouldn't but some would

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?

uh please rephrase.

[mr friendly guy]

As entertaining as this discussion is about black nationalism, I just like to point out Saxtonite's example of Han distinguishing themselves as not Manchu is a bit of a furphy. Han Chinese identified themselves as such, during wait for it... the Han dynstasy, around 206 BC–220 AD. Manchu's were descended from other Asiatic tribes, most notably the Jurchen, but did not identify themselves as such around the last 16th or early 17th century. Saying the Han identified themselves as "not Manchu" when they considered themselves their own ethnic group way before Manchus even collectively identified themselves as Manchu, is quite simply wrong.

Talk about expelling the Manchu barbarians (which kind of changed quickly in favour of a Chinese national identity of multiple ethnic groups when they realised that traditional Manchu territories were at that time the heartland of Chinese industry), was because the Manchu were a) invaders and b) the Qing government at that time sucked really bad. It had very little to do with Han seeing themselves as not Manchu

[Jub]

To remind ourselves (and others) we are black and african, and not white europeans, or some forcibly westernized.....group and to re-africanize ourselves/regain that part of our culture which was stolen from us to some extent or another.

You can do that without going to extremes, this is wasteful and, at best, wishful thinking.

The project can be done before statehood would be formed. Besides, the Basques developed a standardized language UNDER THE FRANCO DICTATORSHIP of all time periods.

Also, I'm not even wearing Tripp Pants now and I'm compared to a mall goth

Sure, that seems worthwhile, form your own language instead of spending that organization and effort on increasing education for under privileged inner city blacks. How is your plan a net gain over integration in terms of quality of life?

I care because my culture was stolen from me. Your culture apparently was not stolen from you. If the black population did not have their culture stolen from them there would not be a need to rediscover who they are as they would have VOLUNTARILY assimilated.

This seems like holding a grudge and having revenge fantasies about that kid that bullied you in grade school, idol fantasy at best and harmful at worst. I'm not mad at the Spanish and English for fucking over the Dutch empire and creating such enduring phrases as 'going dutch' because that sort of hate is petty and pointless. Cultures are destroyed or die all the time in history, digging in your heels over it doesn't help make anybody's life better except for maybe those at the top.

Well, you can argue only the black population has a right to vote on independence, as they never had a choice as to emigration to Africa (one white alabama senator who voted for secession before the civil war said it was unfeasible and historically unprecedented) or their own land/sovereignty (after lincoln was killed, the union occupation forces in some cases fought black freedmen with GUNS for their land which was given back to the former white slaveowners.) And that the black population was suppressed after the abortion of reconstruction ended. You can argue the blacks from the end of the civil war to 'redeemer' violence formed a distinct nation with aspects of a state, and only those people's descendants have the right to decide their own affairs due to the sins of the past.

You can also argue that whites may want their own independence, and they should have the righ tot vote for or independence. My point of this is the referendm can be managed in various ways, so it might not -only- be done in that manner. After all, Scotland and Quebec's referenum of independence would only be done by Scots and Quebecois.

How is that fair to the people living there now? Why should the sins of the past carry more weight than the lives of people in the present? Everybody effected should get a vote or your actions are as forceful, if less harmful, as those of the people that brough blacks over.

Your idea about the Quebec referendum is also flawed as everybody in the province got to vote. This includes that natives and the anglophones that live in the effected territory. If it was only the Quebecois voting then we'd have a new nation to deal with already.

Then at the least you gain an addition to your national mythology of fighting and being suppressed and killed for your cause as opposed to passively accepting your status in life. People cannot say that blacks in the US are lazy and would not work to improve themselves if they fought and died for their independence or resorted to terrorist violence. Again, other nations have been 'curbstomped' as you phrased it before, to return later.

Malcolm X and Fred Hampton's deaths was one sort of martyrdom. Nat Turner's Rebellion was another. An attempt at insurgency which is either ineffective (FLQ) somewhat-effective (Red Army Faction) decently effective (IRA/Basque/Peshmerga) or very effective (Shining Path) before being suppressed would be useful for propaganda purposes as well as a national hero/mythology.

Wasting everybody's time and money is sure worth it to create some stupid narrative that many blacks won't give two shits about anyway. Plus who the fuck cares about creating black national heroes? Certainly not most blacks or this idea would already have more traction. Frankly you value a racial identity more than you value good lives for people of color and your examples of people to look up to prove it.

If your culture was suppressed, that would be your right. If you were a Cascadian separatist, I would acept that as well.

Why is that the standard to go by? Who cares what happened years ago, pick up, move on, get over it.

If there's media made about such. I don't think many cared about Scotland's Wars of independence until Braveheart came out. We'll see what media is made in the future, whether holographic of whatever about the 'Black War of Liberation' or 'Negro Rebellion' or whatever it is called, if things get that nasty.

Yup and people don't care much anymore and pretty much think the referendum is a bad idea. Just like what I think of your stupid desires.

Catalan nationalism began to grow after Spain losing the war with the United States. Scottish nationalism largely regrew with the collapse of the British Empire. There were proto-nationalist concepts BEFORE then, but the growth is later than you think.

Yet they still have a national identity stretching back beyond that even if it's only been acted on more recently. They also have a distinct region they can point to and say, 'This is ours, we can trace our lines back to this area when the Romans were here' the blacks have no where near that history.

It can be done WITHOUT such as half the population ALREADY lives there and there is preexisting return of blacks to the south. There is a pull factor to drive blacks back towards the 'new south'

Half, that's not even close to all and the migration you claim glacially is slow. What happens if the US choose not to play ball with you and takes their military assets when they leave? What happens if they impose less than favorable tariffs on your nation or refuse to share power and water? What happens when the white teachers, doctors, and business mean decide they want out? How do things keep running when there is a clear racial upper class that doesn't have enough educated people to run the area they'd control?

Even though blacks have been there historically for a LONG period of time and never truly 'left'?

300 years =/= long in the eyes of history. Plus the culture isn't really tied to that specific area anyway.

Work harder? Try again?

Waste more time and money. This is like a court case where one side gets to keep trying until the other side runs out of resources to bother trying and just as unfair and wasteful.

The latter?

Oh fuck you then. You'd waste federal dollars on a stupid pipe dream.

I wouldn't but some would

So you favor a plan with a non-zero chance for violence that stands to improve things little if it doesn't fail hard. Go fuck yourself.

-----

The white guys that are suddenly second class citizens, what happens when they realize who voted to have them fucked over? Do you think they take it laying down especially in the deep south?

[Saxtonite]

You can do that without going to extremes, this is wasteful and, at best, wishful thinking.

Nations have distinct languages. And do you have a better way to given the black man his culture back?

Sure, that seems worthwhile, form your own language instead of spending that organization and effort on increasing education for under privileged inner city blacks. How is your plan a net gain over integration in terms of quality of life?

How are these options mutually exclusive? Oh, and forming your own language which is closer to how you naturally speak could be naturally better for people if they learn faster, better, etc. You knowfor example IQ tests rise and low depending on such variables as language used. I would think learning would be easier for some in such an environment.

This seems like holding a grudge and having revenge fantasies about that kid that bullied you in grade school, idol fantasy at best and harmful at worst.

I guess those people who were lynched and beaten and called nigger consider it harmful about their past oppressions and never wanting to suffer that again. And yes you can argue sovereignty or near sovereignty and self-determination will mean you will never undergo that again, as you control your own affairs and won't end up put in chain gangs or lynched ever again. After all, the Jews claim as such with Israel since many here use Israel as analogy.

I'm not mad at the Spanish and English for fucking over the Dutch empire and creating such enduring phrases as 'going dutch' because that sort of hate is petty and pointless. Cultures are destroyed or die all the time in history, digging in your heels over it doesn't help make anybody's life better except for maybe those at the top.

And other people from other ethnic groups would be angry at things that happened to them long ago. I dunno about you, but wanting to rebuild some semblance of your culture is not focusing on hatred and a grudge. It is solving the problem of a cultural gap by remembering who you are.

And Europeans fucking other Europeans' empires over without denigrating the culture and language of each other (i.e. I am Sure Spain and England did not get all Nazi GeneralPlan Ost on your ancestors) is different then having your culture stolen from you and not having a choice on determining your affairs.

How is that fair to the people living there now?

Well, 1: This is a case of collective rights, not individual rights. The black nation still exists from the past, as does the white southron nation. Those nations have not disappeared since the War of Secession of 1861-65. White Lowland Southerners have STRENGHTENED their ethnic identity since the civil war.

And if you do not accept the argument of collective rights of people, you could argue 2: They profited from the past actions. There are living people from that era after all who would remember the past.

Why should the sins of the past carry more weight than the lives of people in the present? Everybody effected should get a vote or your actions are as forceful, if less harmful, as those of the people that brought blacks over.

Your idea about the Quebec referendum is also flawed as everybody in the province got to vote. This includes that natives and the anglophones that live in the effected territory. If it was only the Quebecois voting then we'd have a new nation to deal with already.

ok.

Wasting everybody's time and money is sure worth it to create some stupid narrative that many blacks won't give two shits about anyway.

Did you just say blaks don't care about the narrative, the history and the struggle of Malcolm X?

Did you say they don't care about the stories and struggle of the Black Panthers
Spoiler

Dude, I fucking read his book in grammar school, dude he was fucking influential in the 1960s and even now. I brought his book recently because it's that food and influential and stuff. You underestimate his influence BADLY, his Autobiography was a fucking MAJOR sell

Plus who the fuck cares about creating black national heroes?

Blacks themselves.

Certainly not most blacks or this idea would already have more traction.

Chris Dorner? Malcolm X? Harriet Tubman? Nat Turner? Fred Hampton?

Frankly you value a racial identity more than you value good lives for people of color and your examples of people to look up to prove it.

Well you have the privilege to say identity and ethnicity does not matter to oppressed people. I am tempted to say.....Check Your Priviledge

What is a good life? Is it a life denuded of your history, language, culture and religion? Is it being destroyed from your roots? Clearly the status quo won't work given the current tendencies and issues. Why should blacks destroy their own culture for white benefit, as the integrationist assimilationist scheme you promote would basically lead to that.

Why is that the standard to go by? Who cares what happened years ago, pick up, move on, get over it.

People who were lynched, raped and called nigger fucking care about what happened to them. People who were told the stories of what those people did to them an what they COULD do to you fucking care. People with LIVING ANCESTORS who had to deal with those people would care. Why shouldn't they? Why should't people who were expelled from their land and had their land stolen, businesses destroyed and villaged burned down care? And no, they would not get over having to share a state with an ethnic group which clearly has no problem fucking them over as shown in the past.

Again, why should they share a state with such people? I wouldn't stay in a shitty relationship with a girl who is a bitch. Why should the black nation stay in a questionable relationship with white america like this is an episode of Axis Powers Hetalia or Scandinavia and the World? Why do you tell us that sharing a state with these people is the only way to improve? Do yo tell other nations to stay with their oppressors?

Yet they still have a national identity stretching back beyond that even if it's only been acted on more recently. They also have a distinct region they can point to and say, 'This is ours, we can trace our lines back to this area when the Romans were here' the blacks have no where near that history.

????

Jamaica is a nation. It has not existed for much longer than the black population in US has. Haiti is a nation. It has not existed much more than black america. You cant just say a certain nation isn't 'real' because it's not long enough/

Half, that's not even close to all and the migration you claim glacially is slow. What happens if the US choose not to play ball with you and takes their military assets when they leave?

you create a militia? Find other weapons to import?

What happens if they impose less than favorable tariffs on your nation or refuse to share power and water?

We have access to the sea & can trade with other countries

What happens when the white teachers, doctors, and business mean decide they want out?

You replace them with black teachers, doctors, bourgoeise. There -are- other black countries and you can promote immigrant from countries of "African ancestry". And when your people are more stable in national character you can even allow non black immigrants to arrive.

300 years =/= long in the eyes of history. Plus the culture isn't really tied to that specific area anyway.

The culture is tied to such area given the lengends changed and morphed specifically in that region. Certain myths and legends would be different if the population was elsewhere. Given the food culture, vocabulary, etc picked up from the natives who lived in the area, yes there is a bit of a specific culture.

Waste more time and money. This is like a court case where one side gets to keep trying until the other side runs out of resources to bother trying and just as unfair and wasteful.

Would you say the same thing about the court rulings on segregation and jim crow from 1870 to 1960s

Oh fuck you then. You'd waste federal dollars on a stupid pipe dream.

It's stupid because you weren't oppressed

So you favor a plan with a non-zero chance for violence that stands to improve things little if it doesn't fail hard. Go fuck yourself.

Suck my dick, bee-otch

The white guys that are suddenly second class citizens, what happens when they realize who voted to have them fucked over? Do you think they take it laying down especially in the deep south?

They might. They might not. They are white southrons. But then again, blacks have had to deal with white southrons for centuries.

I guess it's okay when blacks are fucked over by white people and have to put up with general bullshit like gerrymandering and whatnot. The Force forbids that black people gain control of their affairs and don't have to put up with foreigners in their land who probably STOLE a bit of it.

[Terralthra]

Sure, that seems worthwhile, form your own language instead of spending that organization and effort on increasing education for under privileged inner city blacks. How is your plan a net gain over integration in terms of quality of life?

How are these options mutually exclusive? Oh, and forming your own language which is closer to how you naturally speak could be naturally better for people if they learn faster, better, etc. You knowfor example IQ tests rise and low depending on such variables as language used. I would think learning would be easier for some in such an environment.

"How you naturally speak"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you seriously proposing that millions of people of 10+ generations distance from Africa will somehow speak more naturally and better in a language formed from an amalgam of languages almost none of them have touched in hundreds of years?

[Jub]

Nations have distinct languages. And do you have a better way to given the black man his culture back?

Not all nations have a distinct language, look at all the nations that are just fine speaking English, French, or Spanish. You want this language as a vanity project, nothing more.

How are these options mutually exclusive? Oh, and forming your own language which is closer to how you naturally speak could be naturally better for people if they learn faster, better, etc. You knowfor example IQ tests rise and low depending on such variables as language used. I would think learning would be easier for some in such an environment.

People don't naturally speak anything, so this is straight bullshit. People speak what they're raised with and the same people that would grow up to speak shit English would speak shit Saxtonese, and the people that would grow up to speak good English would speak any other language well if they were born with it. Education is the key, not some made up language vanity project.

I guess those people who were lynched and beaten and called nigger consider it harmful about their past oppressions and never wanting to suffer that again. And yes you can argue sovereignty or near sovereignty and self-determination will mean you will never undergo that again, as you control your own affairs and won't end up put in chain gangs or lynched ever again. After all, the Jews claim as such with Israel since many here use Israel as analogy.

I've forgiven people that beat me up under a system that actively punished me for fighting back. It's not to the same scale but a grudge is a grudge. It's also highly unlikely that the blacks in America would ever be enslaved again because to try and do so would go against social progress or be an attack on the US as a whole.

And other people from other ethnic groups would be angry at things that happened to them long ago. I dunno about you, but wanting to rebuild some semblance of your culture is not focusing on hatred and a grudge. It is solving the problem of a cultural gap by remembering who you are.

And Europeans fucking other Europeans' empires over without denigrating the culture and language of each other (i.e. I am Sure Spain and England did not get all Nazi GeneralPlan Ost on your ancestors) is different then having your culture stolen from you and not having a choice on determining your affairs.

Holding grudges for past and ceased event is stupid regardless of if it was it was a decade ago or a millennium. The fact that you can point to other groups that hold grudges doesn't make it right. Plus you basically want to make up a language and steal land from the most powerful nation on Earth, that goes beyond teaching black history and pride in said history.

Well, 1: This is a case of collective rights, not individual rights. The black nation still exists from the past, as does the white southron nation. Those nations have not disappeared since the War of Secession of 1861-65. White Lowland Southerners have STRENGHTENED their ethnic identity since the civil war.

And if you do not accept the argument of collective rights of people, you could argue 2: They profited from the past actions. There are living people from that era after all who would remember the past.

So you want an eye for an eye and it's okay because you're black and the world dealt your race a shit hand. Fuck you with the horse you rode in on.

Did you just say blaks don't care about the narrative, the history and the struggle of Malcolm X?

Did you say they don't care about the stories and struggle of the Black Panthers

Prove that a majority of blacks would support your crazy scheme without using skewed numbers from biased sources. Go ahead.

Dude, I fucking read his book in grammar school, dude he was fucking influential in the 1960s and even now. I brought his book recently because it's that food and influential and stuff. You underestimate his influence BADLY, his Autobiography was a fucking MAJOR sell

That's great, now prove that you're the norm.

Blacks themselves.

At the cost you're proposing I doubt that.

Chris Dorner? Malcolm X? Harriet Tubman? Nat Turner? Fred Hampton?

Hardly the popular groundswell to get your idea rolling in a serious way. Where are the petitions to have this referendum? Where are the schools teaching his Africanized AAVE? Who else supports this crazy vision you have?

Well you have the privilege to say identity and ethnicity does not matter to oppressed people. I am tempted to say.....Check Your Priviledge

That's great, I like my white male privilege, but not enough to go out and form my own nation by stealing land from others to get it. I might live on land stolen from others, but I didn't cause this and nor would I support doing it again. You of all people should advocate creating a land full of second class citizens of a different skin tone, but your racist ass does anyway.

What is a good life? Is it a life denuded of your history, language, culture and religion? Is it being destroyed from your roots? Clearly the status quo won't work given the current tendencies and issues. Why should blacks destroy their own culture for white benefit, as the integrationist assimilationist scheme you promote would basically lead to that.

A good education, an equal adequate wealth on par with others that aren't your minority, not being looked down on by others. You can keep your culture and have all of these things. Does my being Canadian hurt my Dutch history in anyway? Not one bit, I can go back and look at my history without fucking anybody over and so can you.

People who were lynched, raped and called nigger fucking care about what happened to them. People who were told the stories of what those people did to them an what they COULD do to you fucking care. People with LIVING ANCESTORS who had to deal with those people would care. Why shouldn't they? Why should't people who were expelled from their land and had their land stolen, businesses destroyed and villaged burned down care? And no, they would not get over having to share a state with an ethnic group which clearly has no problem fucking them over as shown in the past.

Again, why should they share a state with such people? I wouldn't stay in a shitty relationship with a girl who is a bitch. Why should the black nation stay in a questionable relationship with white america like this is an episode of Axis Powers Hetalia or Scandinavia and the World? Why do you tell us that sharing a state with these people is the only way to improve? Do yo tell other nations to stay with their oppressors?

That sucks, my Dad had a hole kicked into his head by some assholes and he has brain damage, do you see me trying to hunt them down? No, because that would be stupid. I don't carry a grudge over that and it happened less than a decade ago, let the past go and move the fuck on.

If a relationship goes bad you walk away, you don't kick hr out of her house and move in. You have the freedom to leave, or stay, or try and form your own all black township somewhere. Yo don't have the right to create a nation full of second class citizens over shit that happened hundreds of years ago.

????

Jamaica is a nation. It has not existed for much longer than the black population in US has. Haiti is a nation. It has not existed much more than black america. You cant just say a certain nation isn't 'real' because it's not long enough/

Those are distinct nations with a distinct region that they can call theirs, they're not being competed with for that space by others that were there at least as long (in fact longer because there weren't blacks until whites brought them over). They don't want a nation that other people already work and live in and nor do the Irish, he Scots, or most other minorities because they can look back and say we were here first, not before some people, but first.

you create a militia? Find other weapons to import?

With what money? Do you think the US will hand over state and federal coffers to give you a head start? This isn't like a province moving on that has a government infrastructure and tax base already, the US would hand you nothing and let you starve over this. You would be fucked.

We have access to the sea & can trade with other countries

Ask Cuba how an ocean boarder is working for them...

You replace them with black teachers, doctors, bourgoeise. There -are- other black countries and you can promote immigrant from countries of "African ancestry". And when your people are more stable in national character you can even allow non black immigrants to arrive.

Sure they'll come to no money provisional government land.

The culture is tied to such area given the lengends changed and morphed specifically in that region. Certain myths and legends would be different if the population was elsewhere. Given the food culture, vocabulary, etc picked up from the natives who lived in the area, yes there is a bit of a specific culture.

Yeah, great, there are also others in the same area that can make the same claims and that's the issue. You want to steal land from people because you seem to think that black culture needs lebensraum to prosper.

Would you say the same thing about the court rulings on segregation and jim crow from 1870 to 1960s

No, I'm not a fucking racist. I would say it about the Quebec farce that happens every decade or so though as it never has a chance of working.

It's stupid because you weren't oppressed.

It's stupid because it won't work and has more chance for a negative outcome than a positive one.

Suck my dick, bee-otch

I expected a cracker or honky joke. You disappoint me in so many ways...

They might. They might not. They are white southrons. But then again, blacks have had to deal with white southrons for centuries.

I guess it's okay when blacks are fucked over by white people and have to put up with general bullshit like gerrymandering and whatnot. The Force forbids that black people gain control of their affairs and don't have to put up with foreigners in their land who probably STOLE a bit of it.

You want to go and fuck peoples shit up. I'm not okay with that; just like I'm not okay with what the whites did to the natives or what the slavers did to the blacks. You don't get your turn accept it.

[Metahive]

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?'

Are you telling me for real a black homeland in actual Africa wouldn't be African enough for you?

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

I'm sorry, but after the whopper above it seems to me that "African" really is just some sort of lofty ideal of you with no actual backing reality, so why continue appealing to it?

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.

You mean the economy that went up in flames during the Civil War? There's asking for reparations from people whose families profited off of black slave labor and there's yet more pie-in-the-sky nonsense like this. Do Detroit car assemblers also have the right to their own country since they also at one time contributed greatly to the american economy?

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?

[/quote]
Yeah...no. That sounds like a bunch of historical revisionist hooey to me. The numbers tell me the american south was majorly white even before the Civil War. Also, please don't give me that "I'm fully 1/32nd Cherokee" spiel. Because if you take that as legitimate cause for a black homeland within the US then I'd argue the Natives have a right to an actual homeland (and not an oversized ghetto like today's reservations) first.

[Metahive]

Addendum:

For the record, Saxtonite, I myself am not an immigrant. My parents are, I was born and raised in Germany. So your attempt to paint me as some sort of minority Uncle Tom finds no traction.

[Simon_Jester]

(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.

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

If you want to decolonize yourself, you need to start speaking one language, your co-ethnics on one side another, your co-ethnics on the other side yet a third... the words "Tower of Babel" come to mind.

It's not your desires that strike me as odd, it's your sense of practicality. As I said before, if you want to found a nation you have a duty to be realistic about it that is sacred, you cannot treat it as a pure-minded but impractical revolutionary symbolism.

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.

Very well. Then stop and look up the facts. Tell me what percentage of blacks actually want to live in the American Bantustan. Compare and contrast to the number of people you'd have to displace to create the Bantustan.

Remember that this includes blacks forced to move, including those now living in the South, who just happen to be on the wrong side of the Bantustan's borders. Just as when Pakistan was created as a Muslim homeland within India, huge numbers of Muslims were more or less forced to move across India to reach that homeland, because they were no longer welcome in "India proper."

This is a real problem for dispersed minorities like Indian Muslims, or Middle Eastern Jews, or numerous groups in Eastern Europe. The act of creating such a designated "homeland" for the ethnicity almost automatically makes the ethnicity that gets it less welcome in other countries. And it removes from those other countries the very intelligentsia who would normally speak up for the minority in those countries.

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.

Blacks are moving from certain cities to certain other cities; so are whites. Cities in the South whose economic development was delayed in the mid-20th century have now caught up, while cities in the North that were flourishing in those days are now doing poorly. So people move.

But as they move in, the black populations of those cities are intermingled with large number of whites and literally surrounded by suburbs that contain even larger numbers of whites. What are you supposed to do with a city like Atlanta, forcibly dispossess the 45% of the population that isn't black to make it the capital of Bantustan? Or do you make urban downtown Atlanta a detached annex of Bantustan, not geographically connected to the rest of Bantustan, on the grounds that it is 'traditional black homeland' while the surrounding suburbs are not?

What's the plan?

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.

This particular member of the white population is having so much trouble getting straight answers from a member of the black population who advocates separatism, that he's wondering whether this member of the black population would do a very good job in a discussion with the rest of the black population.

Suppose an African-American lad walks up to you when you're having this conversation about separatism. He asks you a simple question like "so, do we have to move to the suburbs of Atlanta where you kicked out all the white people, because the white people up here in Philadelphia won't want us around anymore?" Are you prepared to answer that question, in a way that lets you confidently say you're not accidentally trying to lead your people into a trap?

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.

It's not that no roads exist, it's that they aren't laid out the way that a country would have built its own roads of its own initiative. You're going to find a lot of places where important roads pass through areas where the majority is definitely white. That forces the new Bantustanis to either dispossess those whites (which can backfire, the Israelis have that problem). Or accept that they can't get from one part of their country to another without passing through a foreign and hostile territory (which stinks, the Palestinians have that problem).

If you can't get from East Blackbeltia to West Blackbeltia without passing through a blob of white-occupied territory in between (I call it... "Deliverance..." ) you have a problem.

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

Who held that opinion poll? What percentage of African-Americans want to live in a "Republik of New Afrika," noting the spelling?

Five bucks says it's less than twenty percent, even in the Black Belt territories you're planning to make the "Republik" from.

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.

In that case, you are engaged in idle fantasizing. Why didn't you tell me earlier?

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

Oh great, now you're planning to forcibly disposses me.

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.

Find the evidence. This is obviously a topic dear to your heart and soul. You have a responsibility to be intelligent and informed about it. If you actually want this to happen, be prepared for it to happen, which means knowing what will happen when it happens.

Find those polls. If you can't find them, figure out a way to make them happen, in an unbiased way. You owe yourself and your people that information, in a clear and accurate form.

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.

This extends to criminal cases?

If you're not careful, some defendant will complain that he didn't get equal protection from a segregated court. Not because it was full of his co-ethnics but because of procedure. For example, because a witness was accepted against him who could not identify her own written testimony, to choose an example from the original topic.

There's more to due process than "trial by people who feeling me."

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.

Good luck implementing that. You are going to run into an awful lot of people asking you what kind of weirdo nonsense words you're trying to teach their children. And they will get a vote, even if you're doing this in your own country, unless you want Bantustan to be a dictatorship.

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, they are stupid and irrelevant ideas that never caught on. People don't like artificial languages, Saxtonite. It doesn't matter whether they're black, white, purple, or green.

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.

Nevertheless, you are creating an artificial barrier to success, and an additional burden, by artificially widening the gap between the language people already speak and the one they need to learn.

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.)

My advice to you is to start thinking like you were planning to found that nation, so that if by some strange stroke of chance it came to exist, you would not be approaching the project in a foolish or ignorant way.

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.

But there will be more walls in place than there would be now, there will be more obstacles than there are now, and trust me you aren't going to make a new country out of this without somebody getting evicted from somewhere at gunpoint. There aren't any laws against moving back and forth between India and Pakistan either- but they've fought several wars, and are suspicious as all hell of each other, because of their history.

And do you think I'm joking about those rural white communities? I'm not. If you think it's funny or ironic, fine, but consider the implications for your ideas.

[Patroklos]

Well, 1: This is a case of collective rights, not individual rights. The black nation still exists from the past, as does the white southron nation. Those nations have not disappeared since the War of Secession of 1861-65. White Lowland Southerners have STRENGHTENED their ethnic identity since the civil war.

This comment made me curious. Where do you live or at least is it in the American Southeast?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'm still confounded by the idea that he thinks the repressive white European America will give the Republik of New Afrika vast swathes of the Southeast coast instead cutting them a country out of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah.

[Simon_Jester]

The extra k's in the spelling really do give the whole scheme an extra touch of impractical fantasy: "look how edgy I am, I spell words wrong to show how independent I am of your conventions!"

That is just... completely useless and hopeless as the founding spirit of a revolutionary new nation-creating movement. Sinn Fein never wasted time deciding the English name of their new country would be the Republik of Eireland or anything like that.

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

I just quoted the paper directly in my last post. That is plainly not what the paper was saying. Nowhere in that paper does it say anything about black control of the economy - only about controlling the local community economy. That is a very important distinction that I am not sure you entirely understand. There is a big difference between a community that is already predominantly black (where these surveys were taken) wanting to control the local businesses, and between some sort of wider black nationalism movement (which the paper you cited offers no support for).

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.

So ...? This is exactly my point. The black community is more in favor of integration than separatism.

Look, you cited that paper as proof that the black community in the US would support a black nationalism movement. However, the paper clearly shows that this is not necessarily the case. This indicates that you either misunderstood the paper, or misrepresented it entirely. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just misunderstood it by reading through it too quickly and not fully synthesizing what it said.

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.

This is a complete non sequitir. The paper was surveying black people in a predominantly black community to gauge the degree of interest they have in various items related to "black nationalism." What do your mutterings about the "bourgoeise" have to do with anything? The paper doesn't even specifically comment on the socioeconomic class of the surveyed people, making this comment especially bizarre on your part.

So, again: the only claim I am interested in is yours that the black community, as a whole, would support "black nationalism" (whatever that term entails). The paper you cited does not support this assertion, as I have shown. Either provide another source, recant your use of that one, or demonstrate why I am wrong in my analysis of the paper.

Why do you call the people surveyed "bourgoeise"? What makes you think that this makes their viewpoint on black nationalism any more or less valid? Why is it that you feel that you can cite the "73% say blacks should control the economy" figure, but dismiss other elements of the same survey?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The extra k's in the spelling really do give the whole scheme an extra touch of impractical fantasy: "look how edgy I am, I spell words wrong to show how independent I am of your conventions!"

That is just... completely useless and hopeless as the founding spirit of a revolutionary new nation-creating movement. Sinn Fein never wasted time deciding the English name of their new country would be the Republik of Eireland or anything like that.

The Irish already had their own land before the British decided to use them as a tutorial on imperialism. They also had a specific language that could be recognized as theirs.

See, this is what bugs me about Saxtonite's theory. Black Americans never were as monolithic as the Irish were. They had different tribes and languages; they certainly were far from unified; what kind of tradition, language and whathaveyou are they gonna draw from? This supposed language of American blacks is a permutation of American English, and their so-called history is a part of America. Everything about African Americans only makes sense in the context of them being part of America. I won't deny the country has been giving them trouble and continues to do so, but as for being separated from the majority, they got shit on Europe's ethnic minorities that actually speak different languages and actually have a history of their own in the land they inhabit.

[Saxtonite]

"How you naturally speak"? What the fuck does that even mean?

Gullah is 'closer' to its' African roots then 'natural' Ebonics. African peoples in the New World Africanized many languages in the New World that they spoke and built different Creole languages. There would not be a historical stigma from speaking something more influenced by their historical oppressors, and that would improve the social standing of the people in question.

They would cleanse themselves from the feeling of speaking "white" and whatever dichotomy that might generate (remember where this thread was split from). And yes, I understand this might simply replace "speaking white" with some weird class way of speaking things, but I do not think that is highly probable.

Are you seriously proposing that millions of people of 10+ generations distance from Africa will somehow speak more naturally and better in a language formed from an amalgam of languages almost none of them have touched in hundreds of years?

Yes, because that amalgram of languages would be closer to the creole that they spoke originally in the new world which was formed basically to allow the slaves to understand each other easier and better. Unless you have a better way for blacks to be black and speak black and remove themselves from the feeling of being dark skinned white people who were completely westernized.

Not all nations have a distinct language, look at all the nations that are just fine speaking English, French, or Spanish.

Many of them are -not- happy just speaking English, French or Spanish. For example, many Nigerians felt shame at their accents and some decided not to trasmit their tribal languages to their children. Part of this is due to other reasons sch as ethnic/tribal tensions in Nigeria (see Biafran War) but there was a legacy of colonialism which lowered the amount of African languages spoken in Nigeria.

In Latin America, many people there are not happy speaking Spanish either. There are still Mayans in Mexico resisting the Mexican government and still wanting to be Mayan after all. The Natives in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador similarly are not necessarily happy speaking Spanish and would prefer their native languages like Quechua.

Hell, people IN Spain and France don't like speaking Spanish or French. Ask the Catalans or Occitans about how they 'wanted' to speak Spanish or French. OR the Basque and Bretons.

You want this language as a vanity project, nothing more.

I guess making Kriol an official language of Haiti was a vanity project too?

People don't naturally speak anything, so this is straight bullshit.

Nations do. And of course, if you want to get into 'straight bullshit' we can make arguments from Jungian psychology and sapir-worth, etc about archetypes and modes of thought being different and reflected by language, but I am trying to stay relatively stable and "realistic" as you say.

Education is the key, not some made up language vanity project.

I said you can speak multiple languages. So you can still speak White American English and be educated to understand foreigners.

I've forgiven people that beat me up under a system that actively punished me for fighting back. It's not to the same scale but a grudge is a grudge. It's also highly unlikely that the blacks in America would ever be enslaved again because to try and do so would go against social progress or be an attack on the US as a whole.

The Jews of Europe were assimilating en masse and identifying as GERMANS, French, Poles, Soviets, etc from the late 1800s to the mid 1930s. Then the Nazis came out and reminded them that they were Jews. The Jews who got put into camps thought they were German themselves. They intermarried with Germans. They adopted German names. They served in the German military.

So don't say it can't happen again. I am sure a Serb in Bosnia never thought Yugoslavia would be plunged into ethnic war in the 1970s when life was good. And I am certainly sure the Japanese in the United States did not think they would be rounded up and put into concentration camps in the 1940s either.

Holding grudges for past and ceased event is stupid regardless of if it was it was a decade ago or a millennium.

It is not a 'ceased' event - we still get gerrymandered in a lot of cases and arguably undercounted in census reports. Being mass incarcerated into the prison-industrial complex and explicitly targeted by drug and gun laws is not ceased event.

Plus you basically want to make up a language

Reconstruct and guide a language back from the past.

and steal land from the most powerful nation on Earth,

I dunno about you, but that land is still largely owned by black people. Not much stealing here. Now, the whites who live in that land stole a bit of that land from the years of 1870-1960s. But I guess that's not supposed to be rectified. Oh, and if we're able to steal land the US won't be as powerful anymore. Declining empires are easier to break away from.

that goes beyond teaching black history and pride in said history.

it's rectification for past injustice. But hey, if you don't want a sovereign state, you can always accept the admission of black majority states in the U.S. south as well as reparations from slavery, jim crow, and having your businessed burned down. After all, there are still living victims of de facto slavery which lasted until WWII in the US South.

So you want an eye for an eye and it's okay because you're black and the world dealt your race a shit hand.

Yes. Other countries get the right to payback. Why doesn't the black man? Why should the victims of having their villages burned down not get recompensation? Why would you tell living survivors who had to put up with whites fucking them overtly to bury the hatchet and just get along.

Fuck you with the horse you rode in on.

Im not a brony, kthx. However, I am sure the living victims of white oppression would be happy hearing that.

Prove that a majority of blacks would support your crazy scheme without using skewed numbers from biased sources. Go ahead.

There was never a referendum on independence

Now, discussing this in the open on the viability of such a referendum would be useful.

That's great, now prove that you're the norm.

Between 1965 and 1977 The Autobiography of Malcolm X sold over six million copies worldwide. article on the popularity of Malcolm X (around the time of Spike Lee's novel.

A poll showed that eighty-four per cent of African-Americans between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four saw Malcolm as “a hero for black Americans today.”

here.

You of all people should advocate creating a land full of second class citizens of a different skin tone,

The Baltics did such because they did not want to be absorbed by Russia. If the black republic is not formed in violence there would not be such a need. In Eastern Europe after WWI Europeans did their best to preserve the right of minorities (i.e. Polish/German treaties) for a period of time because they wanted their ethnic group's rights to be reciprocated. How would this be different for black and white southerners if there is a peaceful separation.

but your racist ass does anyway.

I hung out with a half white/half asian girl at the pride parade sunday. I met a white girl at a carnival-esque place last week. I hung with a white guy a few days ago. Doesn't seem like a uber racist who would go all Ustasha on people.

A good education, an equal adequate wealth on par with others that aren't your minority, not being looked down on by others. You can keep your culture and have all of these things.

I mentioned semi-autonomous areas and new black majority states to be admitted into the current federal union as a possible option which would be a compromise in the past.

If a relationship goes bad you walk away, you don't kick hr out of her house and move in.

What if you have a claim to the house.

You have the freedom to leave, or stay, or try and form your own all black township somewhere. Yo don't have the right to create a nation full of second class citizens over shit that happened hundreds of years ago.

You said the black population can leave and go to Africa if they are oppressed. Why can't the white population leave and move to the rump white american or southron state? After all, blacks are still disproportionately affected by drug laws, etc.

Those are distinct nations with a distinct region that they can call theirs, they're not being competed with for that space by others that were there at least as long (in fact longer because there weren't blacks until whites brought them over).

There were blacks in south florida (Seminole War) before there were whites. There were blacks in the lowlands of the carolinas before there were whites (Lumbees and black allies).

They don't want a nation that other people already work and live in and nor do the Irish, he Scots, or most other minorities because they can look back and say we were here first, not before some people, but first.

Ireland was formed from four conquering tribes who melded into each other. I am pretty sure they were not necessarily there 'first'. And again, the black population is the MAJORITY of the population in a significant portion of the region. What's that about other people being there first?

With what money?

You think black people don't have guns? I said 'militia' for a reason.

Do you think the US will hand over state and federal coffers to give you a head start? This isn't like a province moving on that has a government infrastructure and tax base already, the US would hand you nothing and let you starve over this. You would be fucked.

Well for one thing, we have major cities from the American Empire such at Atlanta and New Orleans which are full of blacks. We have pretty much all of our universities in this state. Are you saying the central government will cart out each and every brick from black universities and move each skyscraper out? Move all the roads away? Demolish each courthouse?

I doubt Puerto Rican independence would end up like that

Ask Cuba how an ocean boarder is working for them...

Well they're not being invaded and maintain a decent standard-of-living and if the oil peak is as bad as some say, they have a pretty good head start.

Sure they'll come to no money provisional government land.

There's motherfuckers going into warzones like South Sudan - "Cowboy Capitalists" or whatnot. There's a , I would say a former American territory which declares independence would be much safer than that.

I expected a cracker or honky joke. You disappoint me in so many ways...

Would you like the term "peckerwood" then?

You want to go and fuck peoples shit up.

Independence with a political union is fucking shit up? Again, I am willing to accept a semi-autonomous region or several black majority U.S. states as specified in the past.

Are you telling me for real a black homeland in actual Africa wouldn't be African enough for you?

It can be African enough. It might not. Again the colonization/emigration people in the 1800s were pretty much patriachial individuals who internalized European culture. A country being pretty much Western even if the people are Black is not going to be an African country.

I'm sorry, but after the whopper above it seems to me that "African" really is just some sort of lofty ideal of you with no actual backing reality, so why continue appealing to it?

Because they considered themselves and were called African or similar words by whites from the beginning (i.e. Oleduah Equiano).

You mean the economy that went up in flames during the Civil War? There's asking for reparations from people whose families profited off of black slave labor and there's yet more pie-in-the-sky nonsense like this.

Does debt go away because some dude's house burns down because he run a fucking awesome party and makes money but miscalculates and burns the motherfucker down due to putting too many people in or the 97% Polish spirit catches fire or something?

Do Detroit car assemblers also have the right to their own country since they also at one time contributed greatly to the american economy?

Yeah...no. That sounds like a bunch of historical revisionist hooey to me. The numbers tell me the american south was majorly white even before the Civil War.

The Seminole War in Florida and Georgia suggests there was blacks there, WITH native americans before the whites were in masse.

~10% of blacks have native american ancestry and a lot more have claims to having native american ancestry. And they did it before the white americans did so.

Also, please don't give me that "I'm fully 1/32nd Cherokee" spiel. Because if you take that as legitimate cause for a black homeland within the US then I'd argue the Natives have a right to an actual homeland (and not an oversized ghetto like today's reservations) first.

I agree, uphold the treaty of fort laramie. But we are talking about black people

For the record, Saxtonite, I myself am not an immigrant. My parents are, I was born and raised in Germany. So your attempt to paint me as some sort of minority Uncle Tom finds no traction.

You still were raised in an assimilationist household of people who WANTED to become German, as people who were FORCED to become German (comparison: Ask the border Polish Tribes who were Germanized in not so nice ways at times).

If you want to decolonize yourself, you need to start speaking one language, your co-ethnics on one side another, your co-ethnics on the other side yet a third... the words "Tower of Babel" come to mind.

Multilingualism would be a good idea. It is the norm in many parts of the world.

It's not your desires that strike me as odd, it's your sense of practicality. As I said before, if you want to found a nation you have a duty to be realistic about it that is sacred, you cannot treat it as a pure-minded but impractical revolutionary symbolism.

I said earlier I would be happy with new black majority states in the union, as well as explicit acknowledgeent of blacks as a distinct nation.

<snip population transfer and popularity>

Ok, I acnowledge that.

Blacks are moving from certain cities to certain other cities; so are whites. Cities in the South whose economic development was delayed in the mid-20th century have now caught up, while cities in the North that were flourishing in those days are now doing poorly. So people move.

There is an ethnic aspect to why the blacks are choosing Atlanta or Washington D.C. It is to be with other blacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_mecca
http://madamenoire.com/1561/the-10-best ... -families/
http://www.city-data.com/forum/atlanta/ ... lacks.html
http://www.city-data.com/forum/general- ... ngles.html

But as they move in, the black populations of those cities are intermingled with large number of whites and literally surrounded by suburbs that contain even larger numbers of whites. What are you supposed to do with a city like Atlanta, forcibly dispossess the 45% of the population that isn't black to make it the capital of Bantustan? Or do you make urban downtown Atlanta a detached annex of Bantustan, not geographically connected to the rest of Bantustan, on the grounds that it is 'traditional black homeland' while the surrounding suburbs are not?

What's the plan?

The white population would be resident non-citizens for a period of time after independence as the stat stabilizes and until there is no risk of reconquest or whatnot, then they would be considered citizens. Actually the whites would probably leave themselves. English speakers left Quebec even when there were discussions on independence and Russians left the Baltic states after independence even though there was no mass cleansing.

This particular member of the white population is having so much trouble getting straight answers from a member of the black population who advocates separatism, that he's wondering whether this member of the black population would do a very good job in a discussion with the rest of the black population.

Well, I am not going to the the only person doing such a discussion. If we are accurately roleplaying in a model UN or come sort of discussion or debate, there would be others who would break out the demographic studies and information. Honestly a lot of the discussion here is more of a framework anyway. We aren't making a new state right now immediately, but we are discussing whether it is a good idea. Sorry if this seems like a weasel

Suppose an African-American lad walks up to you when you're having this conversation about separatism. He asks you a simple question like "so, do we have to move to the suburbs of Atlanta where you kicked out all the white people, because the white people up here in Philadelphia won't want us around anymore?" Are you prepared to answer that question, in a way that lets you confidently say you're not accidentally trying to lead your people into a trap?

I do not know. Then again I doubt I would end up being a 'natural' leader in such a manner. I would probably be better served as an appratchik or a member of a council. But since we're brainstorming in such a situation, I might be able to.

Since you used that as an example, if the white population expels blacks, the black population would expel whites. And it likely would not be state-organized, but a natural response. If it is state-organized it would be more limited (something like Treaty of Sevres, or proportional retailation if the ethnic cleansing is more violent)

It's not that no roads exist, it's that they aren't laid out the way that a country would have built its own roads of its own initiative. You're going to find a lot of places where important roads pass through areas where the majority is definitely white. That forces the new Bantustanis to either dispossess those whites (which can backfire, the Israelis have that problem). Or accept that they can't get from one part of their country to another without passing through a foreign and hostile territory (which stinks, the Palestinians have that problem).

If you can't get from East Blackbeltia to West Blackbeltia without passing through a blob of white-occupied territory in between (I call it... "Deliverance..." ) you have a problem.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. The author of Civil War II mentions in advance negotiating with white military or political leaders of negotiations not to starve each other out or whatever happens.

Who held that opinion poll?

The Black Government Conference was convened by the Malcolm X Society and the Group on Advanced Leadership (GOAL), two influential Detroit-based organizations with broad followings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika

What percentage of African-Americans want to live in a "Republik of New Afrika," noting the spelling? Five bucks says it's less than twenty percent, even in the Black Belt territories you're planning to make the "Republik" from.

I can see that. Hence we are talking about referendums and discussions on other options (i.e. black majority U.S. states and explicit acknowledgement of black people as a distinct nation).

In that case, you are engaged in idle fantasizing. Why didn't you tell me earlier?

Well this is all hypothetical given we are on a science fiction forum, and not in business suits and dashikis in the UN discussing the borders and population

Oh great, now you're planning to forcibly disposses me.

You can stay. But whites would probably leave even without being dispossed.

Find the evidence. This is obviously a topic dear to your heart and soul. You have a responsibility to be intelligent and informed about it. If you actually want this to happen, be prepared for it to happen, which means knowing what will happen when it happens.

Find those polls. If you can't find them, figure out a way to make them happen, in an unbiased way. You owe yourself and your people that information, in a clear and accurate form.

Ok.

This extends to criminal cases?

I am unaware.

If you're not careful, some defendant will complain that he didn't get equal protection from a segregated court. Not because it was full of his co-ethnics but because of procedure. For example, because a witness was accepted against him who could not identify her own written testimony, to choose an example from the original topic.

There's more to due process than "trial by people who feeling me."

Correct. Not all legal systems are correct and modifying things will mean 'a lot of bugs in the system to shake out'

Good luck implementing that. You are going to run into an awful lot of people asking you what kind of weirdo nonsense words you're trying to teach their children. And they will get a vote, even if you're doing this in your own country, unless you want Bantustan to be a dictatorship.

I posted that JSTOR articles about like 70% saying speaking an African language is a good idea in 50%+ black areas. It seems pretty transferable to 'your own black language' IMO.

And preferably the state would not be a dictatorship, bu I could see some people adopting fascistic ideas in the operation of the state.

No, they are stupid and irrelevant ideas that never caught on. People don't like artificial languages, Saxtonite. It doesn't matter whether they're black, white, purple, or green.

Standardized Basque has been called an artificial language, and it clearly caught on. It is mutually unintelligible in some extreme cases.

Nevertheless, you are creating an artificial barrier to success, and an additional burden, by artificially widening the gap between the language people already speak and the one they need to learn.

Well, other countries do the same and do well.

My advice to you is to start thinking like you were planning to found that nation, so that if by some strange stroke of chance it came to exist, you would not be approaching the project in a foolish or ignorant way.

Ahh. More of a 'founder' effect and less of a alternate historian or politicial theorist.

But there will be more walls in place than there would be now, there will be more obstacles than there are now, and trust me you aren't going to make a new country out of this without somebody getting evicted from somewhere at gunpoint.

There are intermediate stages such as autonomous regions or black majority U.S. states.

There aren't any laws against moving back and forth between India and Pakistan either- but they've fought several wars, and are suspicious as all hell of each other, because of their history.

And do you think I'm joking about those rural white communities? I'm not. If you think it's funny or ironic, fine, but consider the implications for your ideas.

I know you were serious re. that, I found it funny.

This comment made me curious. Where do you live or at least is it in the American Southeast?

Chicago

I'm still confounded by the idea that he thinks the repressive white European America will give the Republik of New Afrika vast swathes of the Southeast coast instead cutting them a country out of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah.

Why would white europeans displace themselves from there? They are a majority in Arizona, Colorado and Utah. Utah Mormons wold not like being displaced by people without a historical claim to the land.

The extra k's in the spelling really do give the whole scheme an extra touch of impractical fantasy: "look how edgy I am, I spell words wrong to show how independent I am of your conventions!"

That is just... completely useless and hopeless as the founding spirit of a revolutionary new nation-creating movement. Sinn Fein never wasted time deciding the English name of their new country would be the Republik of Eireland or anything like that.

That's how the original founders called it. Also there's other similar spelling and puns used such as "overstand" vs "understand". Such spellings and whatnot has a rhetorical purpose.
see here.

Also, the Republic of Ireland has a Gaelic name. They don't need to reformat their spelling in English.

I just quoted the paper directly in my last post. That is plainly not what the paper was saying. Nowhere in that paper does it say anything about black control of the economy - only about controlling the local community economy.

The graph uses the phrasing "control the economy" in the pdf. There was a difference I admit. But the phrasing is meaning nearly the same, that blacks have economic self-control.

That is a very important distinction that I am not sure you entirely understand. There is a big difference between a community that is already predominantly black (where these surveys were taken) wanting to control the local businesses, and between some sort of wider black nationalism movement (which the paper you cited offers no support for).

Wanting to control your own economic affairs is a form of nationalism. If you consider yourself distinct, phrasing things such as "Black run their own businesses" and "blacks should learn african languages", as opposed to "support local businesses" and "learn foreign languages". There is a specific and that specific is that it is oriented towards other black people. There is such a national counciousness and wanting to have your own schools or economic self-determination is s sign of such.

So ...? This is exactly my point. The black community is more in favor of integration than separatism.

Believed. Past tense.

Look, you cited that paper as proof that the black community in the US would support a black nationalism movement. However, the paper clearly shows that this is not necessarily the case. This indicates that you either misunderstood the paper, or misrepresented it entirely. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just misunderstood it by reading through it too quickly and not fully synthesizing what it said.

Ok, I will rephrase it. Blacks in the US have a sense of national counciousness (the 'social identity' theory) and a feeling that they are distinct. This may be different than what many would say nationalism is, but they still consider themselves black, they consider themselves a distinct ethnic group, etc. Social identity is a prerequisite for nationalism. Hence those with a national counciousness can become nationalist.

This is a complete non sequitir. The paper was surveying black people in a predominantly black community to gauge the degree of interest they have in various items related to "black nationalism." What do your mutterings about the "bourgoeise" have to do with anything? The paper doesn't even specifically comment on the socioeconomic class of the surveyed people, making this comment especially bizarre on your part.

This was regarding my statement from The Disintegration of Black America. Also: the cited paper does show there is an economic aspect to this too (page 246, middle left; page 247, bottom left)

So, again: the only claim I am interested in is yours that the black community, as a whole, would support "black nationalism" (whatever that term entails). The paper you cited does not support this assertion, as I have shown. Either provide another source, recant your use of that one, or demonstrate why I am wrong in my analysis of the paper.

My claim is that self-reliance, mutual economic support, government control, and distinct education is a case of national conciousness, which is a part of nationalism.

I define black nationalism as simply this: Black people are a distinct ethnic group and nation in the united state. This ethnic group and nation has a collective right to exist. Others will use different phrasings but I like this phrasing. Saying you should economically support yourself, have your own school and run your government is pretty much black nationalist thought.

Why do you call the people surveyed "bourgoeise"?

Because they are? If they make 100k USD/year, yes they are bourgoeise. If they run their own business, they are bourgoeise or petit bourgoeise.

What makes you think that this makes their viewpoint on black nationalism any more or less valid?

Well for one, the richer people are more integrated into the status quo generally. Again the cases of Koreans under Japan rule shows how the Koreans easily integrated if they were more of a higher class. The bourgoeise in Haiti still spoke parisian french and many did not like Haitian Creole, even years after independence.

If I was being insulting, I would use the term "bougie" which basically means "elitist, classist."

Why is it that you feel that you can cite the "73% say blacks should control the economy" figure, but dismiss other elements of the same survey?

I don't think they define black nationalism in this survey for one thing. And they don't define 'nation' and if blacks in the US are a 'nation', etc.

See, this is what bugs me about Saxtonite's theory. Black Americans never were as monolithic as the Irish were.

Several groups who identified as Irish changed their identity to be British over sectarian reasons over centuries and became loyalists. Black Americans did not STOP identifying as black american in a similar manner. Former Creole ethnics began to identify as Black MORE over the time period.

They had different tribes and languages; they certainly were far from unified; what kind of tradition, language and whathaveyou are they gonna draw from? This supposed language of American blacks is a permutation of American English, and their so-called history is a part of America. Everything about African Americans only makes sense in the context of them being part of America.

"Living in a shed does not make one a horse". Being influenced by white americans does not make one white. Black identity developed in RESPONSE to white identity.

I won't deny the country has been giving them trouble and continues to do so, but as for being separated from the majority, they got shit on Europe's ethnic minorities that actually speak different languages and actually have a history of their own in the land they inhabit.

LOL, I've talked to Kurds, Scots etc and they in general sympathize with me.

[Jub]

Many of them are -not- happy just speaking English, French or Spanish. For example, many Nigerians felt shame at their accents and some decided not to trasmit their tribal languages to their children. Part of this is due to other reasons sch as ethnic/tribal tensions in Nigeria (see Biafran War) but there was a legacy of colonialism which lowered the amount of African languages spoken in Nigeria.

In Latin America, many people there are not happy speaking Spanish either. There are still Mayans in Mexico resisting the Mexican government and still wanting to be Mayan after all. The Natives in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador similarly are not necessarily happy speaking Spanish and would prefer their native languages like Quechua.

Hell, people IN Spain and France don't like speaking Spanish or French. Ask the Catalans or Occitans about how they 'wanted' to speak Spanish or French. OR the Basque and Bretons.

You mean a few minorities have issues and a small percentage of African nations. That's hardly a normal thing and many of the places that created a new language did so in an already functioning nation after it was setup, not before and not in the way you think it should be done. Plus you don't even know which African language to base Blackesse on and ignore the fact that much of the language structure and grammar isn't even from an African language but from British dialect.

I guess making Kriol an official language of Haiti was a vanity project too?

Indeed it was, and it faced resistance and isn't universally spoken to this day. It created a fractured environment for nothing more than simple nationalism.

Nations do. And of course, if you want to get into 'straight bullshit' we can make arguments from Jungian psychology and sapir-worth, etc about archetypes and modes of thought being different and reflected by language, but I am trying to stay relatively stable and "realistic" as you say.

There is no Afrolandia to speak this language and there likely never will be. Also Jungian psychology is flawed to the point of being as useless as anything Frued did and his archetypes are so vague as to be worthless, it's why we uses Myers-Briggs tests and not Jung's worthless shit.

You're working backwards to make points to fit your goal isn't of having a goal that requires a new language.

I said you can speak multiple languages. So you can still speak White American English and be educated to understand foreigners.

That can be done, but it tends to happen in places with multigenerational traditions of doing so or a pressing need to learn another language. You're just going to make it harder for people and the majority of first and second generation Afrolandians won't speak their own official language. It will create a divide between blacks more than it will unify them. Plus what about blacks that don't speak AAVE and find it degrading and a sign of poor education, how will you convince them this is a good idea?

The Jews of Europe were assimilating en masse and identifying as GERMANS, French, Poles, Soviets, etc from the late 1800s to the mid 1930s. Then the Nazis came out and reminded them that they were Jews. The Jews who got put into camps thought they were German themselves. They intermarried with Germans. They adopted German names. They served in the German military.

So don't say it can't happen again. I am sure a Serb in Bosnia never thought Yugoslavia would be plunged into ethnic war in the 1970s when life was good. And I am certainly sure the Japanese in the United States did not think they would be rounded up and put into concentration camps in the 1940s either.

Those are pretty one off cases and the world moves away from it more than it moves towards it. Yeah shit still happens and may happen again, but it isn't likely and it's not prudent to plan for things that aren't realistic.

It is not a 'ceased' event - we still get gerrymandered in a lot of cases and arguably undercounted in census reports. Being mass incarcerated into the prison-industrial complex and explicitly targeted by drug and gun laws is not ceased event.

Slavery is over and equal rights are best served by integration not segregation.

Reconstruct and guide a language back from the past.

Which language and from which specific group's past? There was no one native tongue spoken by the blacks that were taken as slaves.

I dunno about you, but that land is still largely owned by black people. Not much stealing here. Now, the whites who live in that land stole a bit of that land from the years of 1870-1960s. But I guess that's not supposed to be rectified. Oh, and if we're able to steal land the US won't be as powerful anymore. Declining empires are easier to break away from.

Two wrongs make a right if your black now I guess... Plus this is a fucking pipe dream anyway and a bad one at that.

it's rectification for past injustice. But hey, if you don't want a sovereign state, you can always accept the admission of black majority states in the U.S. south as well as reparations from slavery, jim crow, and having your businessed burned down. After all, there are still living victims of de facto slavery which lasted until WWII in the US South.

Why would the US go for that? Blacks aren't a majority in many places in the US, and I think not in an area large enough to create even a small state, and no politician would carve up his state to give you this land. You're not getting your revenge so stop focusing on it.

Yes. Other countries get the right to payback. Why doesn't the black man? Why should the victims of having their villages burned down not get recompensation? Why would you tell living survivors who had to put up with whites fucking them overtly to bury the hatchet and just get along.

Fuck you. Nations going to war over petty shit are evil and short sighted and you seem to admire this ability. Go hate whites in some corner far away from the rest of us.

Im not a brony, kthx. However, I am sure the living victims of white oppression would be happy hearing that.

Frankly I could care less what they think of me. I've never oppressed them, my nation isn't actively oppressing them, and I never will oppress them, so they can swallow their hate or have me look down on them as racists.

There was never a referendum on independence

Now, discussing this in the open on the viability of such a referendum would be useful.

So you have no official support for this pipe dream except for a report that doesn't say what you think it does. Yeah, not taking this seriously.

Between 1965 and 1977 The Autobiography of Malcolm X sold over six million copies worldwide. article on the popularity of Malcolm X (around the time of Spike Lee's novel.

So even if three people read each book that's less than half that read it.

A poll showed that eighty-four per cent of African-Americans between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four saw Malcolm as “a hero for black Americans today.”

here.

yet many likely don't know shit about him and follow him because others do. That's not a thing to aspire to.

The Baltics did such because they did not want to be absorbed by Russia. If the black republic is not formed in violence there would not be such a need. In Eastern Europe after WWI Europeans did their best to preserve the right of minorities (i.e. Polish/German treaties) for a period of time because they wanted their ethnic group's rights to be reciprocated. How would this be different for black and white southerners if there is a peaceful separation.

Newsflash, you're already absorbed and nobody besides you cares. Plus there is almost no way this happens peacefully.

I hung out with a half white/half asian girl at the pride parade sunday. I met a white girl at a carnival-esque place last week. I hung with a white guy a few days ago. Doesn't seem like a uber racist who would go all Ustasha on people.

I'm not racist I have a black friend... Fuck off.

I mentioned semi-autonomous areas and new black majority states to be admitted into the current federal union as a possible option which would be a compromise in the past.

You pretty much just brought those up now. Plus that's still not going to happen.

What if you have a claim to the house.

You don't and in most cases the person that owns part of the house has to buy out the other party if they also own a share. Can your black nation afford that fee?

You said the black population can leave and go to Africa if they are oppressed. Why can't the white population leave and move to the rump white american or southron state? After all, blacks are still disproportionately affected by drug laws, etc.

Why should they? Nobody is forcing you to go anywhere, you want petty revenge by reversing the injustice and hurting the white man.

There were blacks in south florida (Seminole War) before there were whites. There were blacks in the lowlands of the carolinas before there were whites (Lumbees and black allies).

Source and why didn't they form a nation then if it was so important?

Ireland was formed from four conquering tribes who melded into each other. I am pretty sure they were not necessarily there 'first'. And again, the black population is the MAJORITY of the population in a significant portion of the region. What's that about other people being there first?

Ages before the Brits took them over and they forged a unified identity over those years. What unified identity do blacks have at this point in time?

You think black people don't have guns? I said 'militia' for a reason.

That militia will have a lot to deal with and next to nothing to do it with. Do you think you'll have enough soldiers, policemen, judges, jailors, etc. to run this nation effectively enough to prevent it from having worse living conditions than inner city ghettos?

Well for one thing, we have major cities from the American Empire such at Atlanta and New Orleans which are full of blacks. We have pretty much all of our universities in this state. Are you saying the central government will cart out each and every brick from black universities and move each skyscraper out? Move all the roads away? Demolish each courthouse?

I doubt Puerto Rican independence would end up like that

That's great, you'll still have no budget, no military, no government, infrastructure not designed to be a nation, and a significant number of people moving in with little money and no job prospects. It will be a hell hole within the first year or two. Plus you'll have to deal with a boarder along a nation that resents you and has more guns and money than you do. Do you want to end up like Palestine with only the bare essentials getting through a US lead blockade.

Puerto Rico isn't on US soil and has never been part of the US proper.

Well they're not being invaded and maintain a decent standard-of-living and if the oil peak is as bad as some say, they have a pretty good head start.

They ask tourists if they can buy their clothes because their industry can't make them for people. Children will cry for joy if you give them a small plastic trinket because the nation can't afford luxury goods. Kids have a pencil quota for the school year. Is this better than an inner city ghetto in the US?

There's motherfuckers going into warzones like South Sudan - "Cowboy Capitalists" or whatnot. There's a , I would say a former American territory which declares independence would be much safer than that.

Yet it would also have less need and draw less pity from people who feel a desire to help the less fortunate and if it was so bad that they felt that need then you made things worse for the blacks tricked into your insane plan.

Would you like the term "peckerwood" then?

Slow clap.

Independence with a political union is fucking shit up? Again, I am willing to accept a semi-autonomous region or several black majority U.S. states as specified in the past.

You accept that there could be a race war and are okay with that. You also think it would be okay for a black nation to seek revenge for past wrongs.

-----

In short you're stupid, this idea is stupid, and you want it for all the wrong reasons.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Why would white europeans displace themselves from there? They are a majority in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.

To sabotage what is essentially a hostile group and ideology antithetical to American beliefs and desires by first picking up from where they have historically lived and then isolating them in a landlocked nation where we have an upper hand in any matter and all trade has to be done either through us or over our skies. You know, as has been historically the case when we create "nations" within our country.

Utah Mormons wold not like being displaced by people without a historical claim to the land.

No one said we'd be giving them the whole states, just carving them out of the parts of those states we don't want.

[Metahive]

OK, Saxtonite, to cut it short from your drawn out musings, this is what Neo Afrika should be like:

1. Presumably located around MIssissippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Florida which will of course happily cede territory to be administered by an ethnic minority
2. Have AAVE + an unspecified number of randomly chosen loanwords from several West African languages as its official language for "authencity"
3. Presumably have a religion other than Christianity (Louisiana or Haitian Vodoun?) since you're so keen on rejecting "white" influences
4. Justified on the idea of white reparations for past grievances and a national identity centered around holding grudges towards white people and white culture

BTW, I'm not accepting your historical revisionism WRT to some supposed historic black claim to the US south. If we go by that then the land should be given back to the native tribes that settled there, like the Choctaw and the Muskogee, period.

5. Run as a state by Afro-Americans for Afro-Americans

Is that correct?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

See, this is what bugs me about Saxtonite's theory. Black Americans never were as monolithic as the Irish were.

Several groups who identified as Irish changed their identity to be British over sectarian reasons over centuries and became loyalists. Black Americans did not STOP identifying as black american in a similar manner. Former Creole ethnics began to identify as Black MORE over the time period.

I don't see how these things help your case.

"Living in a shed does not make one a horse". Being influenced by white americans does not make one white. Black identity developed in RESPONSE to white identity.

Well, no, because these identities are subsets of a general American identity. You apparently don't want this general American identity, but prefer a different classification based on skin color. Hey, is it okay to call you a racist?

LOL, I've talked to Kurds, Scots etc and they in general sympathize with me.

Yes, and their situations are comparable to yours how exactly?

[Thanas]

The Jews of Europe were assimilating en masse and identifying as GERMANS, French, Poles, Soviets, etc from the late 1800s to the mid 1930s. Then the Nazis came out and reminded them that they were Jews. The Jews who got put into camps thought they were German themselves. They intermarried with Germans. They adopted German names. They served in the German military.

This happened after the worst war in human history, followed by the worst economic catastrophe in human history, followed by several foreign occupations and aggression and after one civil war, three coup attempts, a presidential dictatorship and the occupation of about half of all industry combined to put a radical party in power.

Somehow I don't see this happening to the USA.


As for the assimilation of poles which you tried to paint as forced absorption, the situation is a lot more complex than that. A lot were forced, yes, but the vast majority integrated peacefully after migrating west. Just look at the Ruhrgebiet where a majority of people have an original eastern (now considered a typical German) name. Dirk Nowitzki is just one example.

[Saxtonite]

There's a irony on discussing this on the Fourth of July LOL. Also, if there is a 'gap' in responding for the next three days or so, I am going to an anime convention. Please excuse me.

You mean a few minorities have issues and a small percentage of African nations. That's hardly a normal thing

I dunno about you, but being angry over cultural suppression is more than 'hardly a normal thing'

and many of the places that created a new language did so in an already functioning nation after it was setup, not before and not in the way you think it should be done. Plus you don't even know which African language to base Blackesse on and ignore the fact that much of the language structure and grammar isn't even from an African language but from British dialect.

Well you can conduct the language planning afterwards. It need not be done immediately. Everyone in Israel did not speak Hebrew immediately.

Also, There was still a significant amount of Africanisms in Ebonics

Although exact African word survivals are few in number, there is a dominant African linguistic presence that survived in the African style of speaking; in other words, using English words with an African lnguistic FLAVA

Indeed it was, and it faced resistance and isn't universally spoken to this day. It created a fractured environment for nothing more than simple nationalism.

The vast majority of Haitians - 95% are BLACK Africans. They got rid of most of the mullatoes in their revolution, there were a few who survived and stayed intact. Pretty much everyone spoke Haitian Creole and not Parisian French. So some mullatoes who resisted their Africanness is unsurprising, but most people prefered the Creole. Also the nationalist writings of people like "Papa Doc" Duvalier promoted a UNIFICATION of Haitian people into a stronger urbanized nation as opposed to various villages who practiced their own voodoun practices.

There is no Afrolandia to speak this language and there likely never will be. Also Jungian psychology is flawed to the point of being as useless as anything Frued did and his archetypes are so vague as to be worthless, it's why we uses Myers-Briggs tests and not Jung's worthless shit.

Well, archetypes are universal, the mentor, the young hero, etc. Archetypes are modified by the culture they are in, white americans circa 1970s generated Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars, Black Americans of that same time period created The Wiz, etc. Remember we're discussing this on a forum named after a starship which is from a science-fiction universe which is updated general mythological archetypes. That is factual, I'm not using some (way more questionable) "Human Biodiversity" blog as citation.

That can be done, but it tends to happen in places with multigenerational traditions of doing so or a pressing need to learn another language. You're just going to make it harder for people and the majority of first and second generation Afrolandians won't speak their own official language. It will create a divide between blacks more than it will unify them.

Well, if black and white american english are different languages, there is a need right there. 80% of black americans speak some form of Ebonics and switch back and forth. This is not being built out of literally nothing. It is language engineering of a preexisting tongue.

The Jews resurrected Hebrew from pretty much being a dead language and there were similar tensions. Hebrew was better than Yiddish as it had no cultural baggage to it for example. Modifying an existing language would be less of a hardship then trying to remember a 'dead' language and graft new terms for 'computer' or 'wiring' or whatnot.

Plus what about blacks that don't speak AAVE and find it degrading and a sign of poor education, how will you convince them this is a good idea?

Well sucks to be them. Maybe place some law that only politicians who can speak some Ebonics can run for office in contexts? Several Central Asian countries adopted such laws after the USSR collapsed.

Those are pretty one off cases and the world moves away from it more than it moves towards it. Yeah shit still happens and may happen again, but it isn't likely and it's not prudent to plan for things that aren't realistic.

Despite the fact that my ethnic group is disproportionally put in jail for drug offenses among other general BS. How is it unrealistic to say that's not a risk? When a majority of drugs are consumed by European descended people and they use such drugs at a per capita rate higher than Africans.....yet Africans get put in jail in higher numbers for such laws, how is this not unlikely to happen again?

Slavery is over

Amendment #13 of US Constitution

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

There were chain gangs in the American South as late as the 1990s. Not to mention the gray area of prison labor for small compensation.

and equal rights are best served by integration not segregation.

How were equal rights provided by integration in Northern Ireland? Integration caused more tensions and communities had to be walled off. Segregation of ethnic groups has worked to stop people from butchering each other (i.e. Poles and Ukrainians in post WWII Europe). It did the job faster than the NKVD trying to take out Ukrainian Nationalists and Home Army remnants.

Which language and from which specific group's past? There was no one native tongue spoken by the blacks that were taken as slaves.

The early creole used by the slaves in america.

Why would the US go for that? Blacks aren't a majority in many places in the US, and I think not in an area large enough to create even a small state, and no politician would carve up his state to give you this land.

Because 40 million people is a pretty large number, with the attendant GDP and political influence that entails? 10% of the population is enough to get a claim on a good number of land after all, especially when there is a historical claim.

Fuck You

NO U

Nations going to war over petty shit are evil and short sighted and you seem to admire this ability.

I admire that they have the RIGHT to do so

Go hate whites in some corner far away from the rest of us.

Having a white former girlfriend totally shows how I "hate" whites.......NOT!

So you have no official support for this pipe dream except for a report that doesn't say what you think it does. Yeah, not taking this seriously.

I dunno about you, but economic empowerment and economic/political self-determination seems prettty close to nationalism to me..........

yet many likely don't know shit about him and follow him because others do. That's not a thing to aspire to.

Not quite, and even if so, not different than other peoples

Eighty-four percent replied that Malcolm X stood for "blacks helping one another"; eighty-two percent responded that the black leader symbolized a "strong black male," with another seventy-four percent indicating that he represented "black self-discipline."

Not the reasons I would use, but meh.

Oh, and Spike Lee's film on Malcolm X is preserved in the congressional film archives. So it's significant enough a presence.

Newsflash, you're already absorbed and nobody besides you cares. Plus there is almost no way this happens peacefully.

1. Those people put in jail on trumped up charged and those people who were lynched, had their towns burned down etc etc do care about forceful annexation
2. Well we weren't annexed peacefully either.

I'm not racist I have a black friend... Fuck off.

I wanna fuck you in the ass.

You pretty much just brought those up now.

DOHOHOHOHOHO

Therefore, the black nation deserves its sovereignty or at least cultural autonomy and rights.

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

Independence with a political union is fucking shit up? Again, I am willing to accept a semi-autonomous region or several black majority U.S. states as specified in the past.

I can see that. Hence we are talking about referendums and discussions on other options (i.e. black majority U.S. states and explicit acknowledgement of black people as a distinct nation).

There are intermediate stages such as autonomous regions or black majority U.S. states.

Plus that's still not going to happen.

The Mormon ethnoreligious group got their own U.S. state (Utah). Chicanos got their own U.S. State (New Mexico). It is in the U.S. constitution to split states apart and create new ones.

Why should they?

We were here first? We have a stronger claim due to generations of bonding to the land? We worked unpaid to build the infrastructre of the area, including the industry of for example Birmingham?

Source and why didn't they form a nation then if it was so important?

I posted a link earlier but also see this.

They didn't form a nation because they were largely expelled. But there are still Seminoles in Florida actually.

Ages before the Brits took them over and they forged a unified identity over those years. What unified identity do blacks have at this point in time?

National identity developed in Europe after then. People in that time period did not consider themselves necessarily 'irish'. People in general did not consider themselves German until the late 1800s/early 1900s. The tribes etc may have existed for a long time but people did not consider themselves as such. A German barbarian surely wouldn't say he's 'German' as opposed to a Goth or whatever

That militia will have a lot to deal with and next to nothing to do it with. Do you think you'll have enough soldiers, policemen, judges, jailors, etc. to run this nation effectively enough to prevent it from having worse living conditions than inner city ghettos?

We don't know.

That's great, you'll still have no budget, no military, no government, infrastructure not designed to be a nation, and a significant number of people moving in with little money and no job prospects. It will be a hell hole within the first year or two. Plus you'll have to deal with a boarder along a nation that resents you and has more guns and money than you do. Do you want to end up like Palestine with only the bare essentials getting through a US lead blockade.

Well economic development occurs over a longer term period than that, so it wouldn't suddenly be 'no military, government or infrastructure'. And again, even if the state is reconquered the existence as sovereign for a period of time would be something beneficial to a national mythology and storyline.

They ask tourists if they can buy their clothes because their industry can't make them for people. Children will cry for joy if you give them a small plastic trinket because the nation can't afford luxury goods. Kids have a pencil quota for the school year. Is this better than an inner city ghetto in the US?

Noticeably worse, but would it be worse than post oil peak/climate change america?

You accept that there could be a race war and are okay with that. You also think it would be okay for a black nation to seek revenge for past wrongs.

You can't make an omelete without breaking eggs. And I am far from the first person to mention the possibility of a race war.

Also other countries seek restitution for past wrongs again. Why is it wrong for black people to seek restitution when there are LIVING VICTIMS in many cases.

To sabotage what is essentially a hostile group and ideology antithetical to American beliefs and desires

huh? the national mythology of WASPs is that the country was founded due to 'no taxation without representation' and being unrepresented or whatnot. Setting up your own form of government and telling others to "fuck off" is pretty 'American'. There's cases of that in colonial and expansionist U.S. after all.

by first picking up from where they have historically lived and then isolating them in a landlocked nation where we have an upper hand in any matter and all trade has to be done either through us or over our skies. You know, as has been historically the case when we create "nations" within our country.

I think you mean moving nations around. And given the Chechens managed to continue to exist even when moved about by Stalinist ethnic policies as well as other policies, that doesn't mean black people would magically cease to exist. Also can those areas support 40 million new people?

No one said we'd be giving them the whole states, just carving them out of the parts of those states we don't want.

I don't think the Mormons would want to give up ANY of their influence. There are too many "Gentiles" in that area anyway and their demographic influence has been lessened due to that.

....Unless you think they'll convert us so we find out about the awesome stories of Joseph Smith and how he was a prophet!

I don't see how those thins help your case

Blacks in the US were more stable in identity than Irish were.

Well, no, because these identities are subsets of a general American identity. You apparently don't want this general American identity, but prefer a different classification based on skin color. Hey, is it okay to call you a racist?

No because that is not "racism". And it's not necessarily even racial given people like this are considered 'black'. There were AFRICAN slaves who looked like such, and due to Fugutive slave acts there were cases of slave catchers abducting free white people because they looked like slaves on the look.

Yes, and their situations are comparable to yours how exactly?

No self-determination.

This happened after the worst war in human history, followed by the worst economic catastrophe in human history, followed by several foreign occupations and aggression and after one civil war, three coup attempts, a presidential dictatorship and the occupation of about half of all industry combined to put a radical party in power.

Somehow I don't see this happening to the USA.

Correct, but within living history in the US 100 thousand people were put into concentration camps and people striking and blacks defending themselves from white attacks got bombed from the air. It wasn't as extreme but it's certainly not impossible to see something like this in the future.

As for the assimilation of poles which you tried to paint as forced absorption, the situation is a lot more complex than that. A lot were forced, yes, but the vast majority integrated peacefully after migrating west. Just look at the Ruhrgebiet where a majority of people have an original eastern (now considered a typical German) name. Dirk Nowitzki is just one example.

Correct. There is more to Germanization/Drive East than force. I was specifically focusing on the more forced Germanization during the Second and Third Reichs as opposed to the earlier social processes.

OK, Saxtonite, to cut it short from your drawn out musings, this is what Neo Afrika should be like: <snip>

#1 As well as South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia which have black historical claims to them.
#2 correct
#3 correct as well, but the state will practice laicity.
#4 pretty much, but mainly in a sense of not being white.

BTW, I'm not accepting your historical revisionism WRT to some supposed historic black claim to the US south. If we go by that then the land should be given back to the native tribes that settled there, like the Choctaw and the Muskogee, period.

Many of them [the natives] were assimilated and lived in and with the black population.....

5. Run as a state by Afro-Americans for Afro-Americans

Correct, but whites can live there. The example of white donut of Atlanta Dr. Trainwreck mentioned - they can live there in peace perferably. There are other ethnic states which treat minorities decently.

I would prefer the population to be at least 70% black. Higher than 90% population generates annoying ethnocentrism.

Is that correct?

Yes

[une]

Saxtonite, as a fellow black man I have to say that you're being ridiculous. Like most black people I'm partial to some aspects of black nationalism, but you're taking things too far and drifted into some bizarre fantasy that has no chance of happening and would only make things worse if it did happen.

Integration hasn't been perfect and to be honest it will probably never solve everything, but for all it's flaws it's been pretty successful. Overall black people have succeeded under integration and I honestly feel that the problems we face today can be solved within this system. There's no need to break apart and form our own nation.

Saxtonite, I understand your feelings, but this idea of yours is horrible.

[Terralthra]

Saxtonite, I see, has ignored the evidence I've posted and continued to harp on as if AAVE is descended mostly from African languages, and posted a link to a pop-culture book as his evidence.

Also, Saxtonite, your survey did not ask whether "blacks in America should speak an African language," it asks whether black children should study African languages. In order to study such a language, the immediate implication is that they already have a native language and are studying a new language in school, much like children today already have the option (and are in many cases required) to study another language in their primary and secondary school years. That the language options for learning are generally French, German, Spanish, and little else is absolutely eurocentric and should be modified to include Asiatic and African languages (e.g. Japanese [already happening], Mandarin [already happening], Arabic [just starting]), and a wide selection of others. The investment and overhead necessary is difficult to justify, but it would certainly be easy enough to have predominantly-black schools have foreign language instructors for modern and heritage African languages, should the parents and students demand it.

"How you naturally speak"? What the fuck does that even mean?

Gullah is 'closer' to its' African roots then 'natural' Ebonics. African peoples in the New World Africanized many languages in the New World that they spoke and built different Creole languages. There would not be a historical stigma from speaking something more influenced by their historical oppressors, and that would improve the social standing of the people in question.

They would cleanse themselves from the feeling of speaking "white" and whatever dichotomy that might generate (remember where this thread was split from). And yes, I understand this might simply replace "speaking white" with some weird class way of speaking things, but I do not think that is highly probable.

Are you seriously proposing that millions of people of 10+ generations distance from Africa will somehow speak more naturally and better in a language formed from an amalgam of languages almost none of them have touched in hundreds of years?

Yes, because that amalgram of languages would be closer to the creole that they spoke originally in the new world which was formed basically to allow the slaves to understand each other easier and better. Unless you have a better way for blacks to be black and speak black and remove themselves from the feeling of being dark skinned white people who were completely westernized.

I accept your concession that when you said "naturally" you meant "ideologically desirable, to me."

[energiewende]

but it would certainly be easy enough to have predominantly-black schools have foreign language instructors for modern African languages

You already said they had French, not to mention English.