Metahive wrote:Saxtonite is fixated on the american South because he got it in his head that afro-americans somehow colonized that area first. That's a historically revisionist view of it to say the least.
Historical nitpick:
The part of this that's actually true is that much of the American South (i.e. Florida and the Cherokee territories in Georgia) wasn't settled by whites until the late 1700s and early 1800s. Aside from a handful of traders, Europeans didn't get very far from the coast. Meanwhile, escaped slaves were merrily merging themselves with the native cultures, which were a hell of a lot more hospitable for blacks than the European colonists were.
So in the areas held by native tribes up until 1800 or so, the territory of the Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and various minor tribes,
yes there were blacks in those areas before there were whites, unless you count Hernando de Soto and other explorers, or merchants who weren't settling down there to live.
Replying specifically to Saxtonite, I would like to take my own tack here; I've broken down my responses to Saxtonite
by topic, instead of by chronological order, to fight the quote spaghetti...
On Language:
Saxtonite wrote: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.
Just to take one example, I've already met a man who will probably be one of Bantustan's greatest physicists. Do you expect this guy to
start speaking a new language to be more authentic?
The creation of a constructed "African" language for African-Americans may be a goal of the black nationalist movement, but I'm not sure you're being intellectually honest with yourself about how well it's going to work.
Practically all constructed languages fail miserably. The best you can hope for is that this becomes the black equivalent of Esperanto, in which case it'll at least exist for more than one generation... but you'll only be able to communicate in it to people who wanted to speak the black equivalent of Esperanto.
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.
My ancestors of a dozen generations ago mostly spoke Dutch and Gaelic. If you tried to teach me to speak in a dialect of mixed Dutch and Gaelic, it would not make me more authentic, even if it was "closer" to the "original" language that my ancestors spoke at a time centuries removed from myself. Indeed, trying to force me to speak in such a language would make my words
inauthentic, because it would no longer reflect, would no longer represent, all that I am and have learned in my own life.
If a black person has learned to write novels, has learned to write poetry, has learned to write powerful song lyrics, in AAVE or in the Queen's English or somewhere in between, are you to tell him that those novels, poems, and lyrics are "inauthentic" and that his literary talent is now the property of Bantustan, to be used in the language of Bantustan? But if he refuses to write novels, poetry, and lyrics in the new language, then where will Bantustan get that body of art which is so vital to self-expression?
You want this language as a vanity project, nothing more.
I guess making Kriol an official language of Haiti was a vanity project too?
The Haitians made it an official language for a sensible reason: countless thousands of their people already spoke it. You are making up a whole new language to use as an official language, so you have no such reason for doing so.
Simon_Jester wrote: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.
I know why they do it. My point is that by trying to do it
in this way, they betray themselves and their cause. When you propose to found a nation, you need a certain amount of solemnity and intellectual competence, you need to be
seen having those things, or your people will not trust you. Or should not, at any rate.
I argue that when black nationalists start spelling words funny, they risk losing an extra slice of that respect. Sure, it makes them sound cute and they can congratulate themselves on their clever puns. on having invented a word like "overstand." But the puns will age and become bad jokes, and the damage to the cause will not cease.
Also, the Republic of Ireland has a Gaelic name. They don't need to reformat their spelling in English.
It has both. But for the sake of the non-Gaelic speakers within their borders, and the foreigners whose assistance they needed in creating their nation, they drew a conscious distinction between "this is how we identify ourselves in 'our' language" and "this is the
only way to identify ourselves.
If, in the context of a plausible future America, you declare the Republik of New Afrika, you are not drawing that distinction. And many people both inside and outside your country will rebel against the label you put on your state, and may even devise their own less complimentary labels (such as "Bantustan"). When this happens, you undermine your own cause.
If I was being insulting, I would use the term "bougie" which basically means "elitist, classist."
I remember seeing that on papers when I was in high school, asking the girl to define the term... it took a long time for me to get a straight answer. On the other hand, I have had very fruitful conversations with students now that I
teach high school, by asking them to define these terms precisely. The mental exercise is good for them.
That's one of the things you will need to teach very well, if this ever happens. In Standard English, people are routinely required as part of the education process to define their own terms and rhetoric, so that they not only know
how to use a word, they know precisely what it means so they can use it like I'd use a piece in a jigsaw puzzle.
It is my perception that the culture surrounding the use of AAVE contains less of this kind of formality and rigor. While not every person needs it... if you don't have some people who have that attitude, in the context of a nation where a modified form of AAVE is the official language, you're going to have a serious problem preserving collective literacy and intelligent dialogue within the nation.
On Demographics, and on Who Desires This
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 get:banghead:
Now, discussing this in the open on the viability of such a referendum would be useful.
As a matter of basic common sense, shouldn't you at least struggle to get an
accurate survey on this question, instead of basing it on your own wild imaginings and fantasies? I am not opposed to open discussion, but you seem most reluctant to discuss this openly with
me, when I ask you basic factual and practical questions. That does not bode well for the idea as a whole, if I cannot get you to answer the simplest questions about it.
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.[/quote]But which would you prefer?
If your preference is for an independent black state, shouldn't you be ready and willing and able to answer basic, obvious questions about that state?
<snip population transfer and popularity>
Ok, I acnowledge that.
OK, so what are your conclusions from this thing you have acknowledged? Do you conclude that this will be a problem, or not a problem?
Think widely, and deeply, and maybe you will come to understand this subject with a great and respectable breadth and depth. Maybe even do some math.
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...
My criticism is not that you are weaseling; in the long run it means very little to me. But if your idea is to be respectable, it should have a sound intellectual grounding. Research the practicality of these things, or at least find someone else who has.
My worst-case scenario is that maybe you will find that
no one has, that calls for the creation of a "Republik of New Afrika" have been idle boasts and exercises in rhetorical grandstanding from the beginning... in which case, if you wish to have intellectual self-respect, perhaps you should start trying to gather that information. Someone will have to, if it's ever going to work at all.
You see, "We'll do the homework at the last minute!" is not a sentence you want to hear when listening to someone explain how they're going to get a whole new country and ask you to live in it. It's sort of like saying "it'll just need a little time in the shop, then it'll be good as new!" when buying a used car. Common sense makes people suspicious of someone who says things like that. Even if they are sincere, it suggests that they are not reliable.
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)[/quote]So, what precisely would you say to that young man? He is a prospective citizen of this nation; he has a right to know. You might well be the only representative of this idea that he ever meets, or at least the best-informed one. Hell, he might be the guy who's going to grow up to
lead this idea, but first he must be convinced that it is not a fool's errand so that he can put his strength behind it.
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
Might the self-honesty of the poll have been influenced by who wrote it? Might the relevance of the poll's data be affected by
when it was written?
Have there been any polls on this more recently than the 1970s?
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
There's hypothesizing, and there's idle fantasy. In your case, you are implicitly presenting yourself as one of the founding members of this proposed new nation. Not a leader, but a founder nonetheless: "I was into Blackbeltia before it was cool," so to speak.
If your fantasy is to be non-idle, then you would be wise to think more deeply about this, and to state your starting assumptions clearly. That's good for
you, not just other people debating you.
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.
Well, I know at least two people who have made up countries from an alternate-historical perspective and poured their hearts into it... and have learned and grown
personally as a result of doing so.
However, I would counsel you against trying to approach this as a political theorist. I think doing that would tend to make you more detached and unaware of the realities around you. I can go into that more later, if you like.
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.
But "blacks should run their own businesses" may simply mean "I want black people to be economically successful," not "I want black people to have economic autarky."
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.
The bourgeoisie (note spelling) are also necessary to the success of your nation. Beginning by hating and dismissing their opinions will not go well.
On Resistance to Resettlement
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.
OK. Now think about the consequences of this. What will happen in majority-white towns or counties or regions within Blackbeltia that would end up surrounded by Blackbeltia, but are not themselves majority-black? Compare and contrast to the Palestinians...
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.
Well, perhaps you'd better think about this in a bit more depth? Try this as an exercise:
Take a sheet of tracing paper and one of those plots of African-American population that you're using as your basis for Blackbeltia. Trace out the borders of Blackbeltia. Then take a large map of the American South, with highways and topography marked. Compare those borders. See how well this is going to work.
Oh great, now you're planning to forcibly disposses me.
You can stay. But whites would probably leave even without being dispossed.
I happen to be rather sentimental about my town, thankyouverymuch. Also, you might miss having one extra math teacher.
On a larger scale, what effects will there be on the newly reconsolidated black communities, as a consequence of removing most or all of the whites who play a role in those communities? What will the positive effects, and the negative effects be?
Please, lay this out, or at least think it through for yourself. I'm here if you need a sounding board.
On All-Black Courts
This extends to criminal cases?
I am unaware.
Hint: it doesn't, precisely because of the 'equal protection under the law' issue.
Correct. Not all legal systems are correct and modifying things will mean 'a lot of bugs in the system to shake out'
However, if you preserve the due-process laws in the new courts you will STILL have problems with cases like the Zimmerman case, where even if you really really think the bastard did it... the evidence stinks and the witnesses are unreliable.
Are you prepared to accept that, that if these new courts are genuinely fair then they will not always give you the results you desire? Will you be able to resist questioning the "authenticity" of a court that rules against you?
Perhaps the answer is "yes," but look at yourself hard when you answer the question. Many people of all races have trouble with it.
