Black Nationalism (Split from Zimmerman Trial)

[Grumman]

The argument can easily be translated to not use the word "nation" at all:

"A people/culture/ethnicity already exists, one which has distinct characteristics, and which is set apart from all others by history. The events and forces that created this separation are powerful, and as far as we can see, they cannot be undone. As long as they exist, it is impossible for this minority to coexist in this country as anything other than a permanent underclass. Therefore, let us create a new country for the minority, so they can live and prosper in peace."

What do you think of that argument, if we abstract it out so it can refer to just any widely dispersed, disadvantaged ethnic minority?

It is an argument in favour of making sure the two peoples can never coexist as equals in one country. The people who make this argument want to legitimise the forces that they say prevent equitable co-existence by writing them into law.

[mr friendly guy]

I can't help myself, but I can imagine a separatist might argue that - sure the two groups might eventually coexist in a long time, but until then the underclass is suffering, so tough luck to them right. Its the potential lives that benefit down the track are more important than the ones now.

Or someone can make a smart arse comment and say, no it doesn't mean they can never coexist, because in the future if they do decide to, they can do things like allow freedom of movement, merge into one country (eg Scotland and England) etc.

[Grumman]

Or someone can make a smart arse comment and say, no it doesn't mean they can never coexist, because in the future if they do decide to, they can do things like allow freedom of movement, merge into one country (eg Scotland and England) etc.

That is an admission of defeat. It is an admission that we are right, and that demolishing the forces that set people apart on the basis of their race can be the right way to go.

[Simon_Jester]

That is an admission of defeat. It is an admission that we are right, and that demolishing the forces that set people apart on the basis of their race can be the right way to go.

But at what point would someone be well-founded in saying "sure, races CAN get along together, but in this place and time, it's not realistic to expect them to get along on equal terms any time in the next 100 years?"

What do you do then? Do you demand that not only the present generation, but their children and grandchildren, accept poor conditions now for the sake of an idealized future later?

The most blatant case of this is Israel and Palestine, and there's a reason why most people serious about peace proposals in Palestine during the past 50 years have gravitated toward two-state solutions. Theoretically, 200 years from now the Israelis and Palestinians might be getting along very well. But right now, integrating both populations throughout the region into a single state is a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen. Because in such a state, either the Israelis would keep the power to oppress, marginalize, and squeeze out the Palestinians, or the Palestinians would have enough power to do the same things, to take revenge on the Israelis.

In this case, agreeing to divide the available space between the two mutually hateful factions is a much better solution NOW, even if it isn't as nice in principle as waiting 200 years for them to learn to get along. Especially since there is no pragmatic guarantee that things will be that much better in 200 years; it's not as if there aren't plenty of 200-year-old ethnic conflicts elsewhere in the world.

Now, Israel and Palestine are the extreme limiting case, because relations between the two groups are utter shit, they have mutually exclusive demands and interests, and large majorities on both sides have pretty much given up even trying to have reconciliation within this generation.

But if you can make allowances for them, you at least have to stop and THINK about whether or not to make allowances for other groups who have the same complaint, that it will 'take too long' for full integration to be achieved. You can't dismiss that out of hand.

And if you can't make allowances for them, your idealism is so unrealistic that it has no relevance to the problem we're actually discussing.

[Terralthra]

That is an admission of defeat. It is an admission that we are right, and that demolishing the forces that set people apart on the basis of their race can be the right way to go.

But at what point would someone be well-founded in saying "sure, races CAN get along together, but in this place and time, it's not realistic to expect them to get along on equal terms any time in the next 100 years?"

What do you do then? Do you demand that not only the present generation, but their children and grandchildren, accept poor conditions now for the sake of an idealized future later?

The most blatant case of this is Israel and Palestine, and there's a reason why most people serious about peace proposals in Palestine during the past 50 years have gravitated toward two-state solutions. Theoretically, 200 years from now the Israelis and Palestinians might be getting along very well. But right now, integrating both populations throughout the region into a single state is a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen. Because in such a state, either the Israelis would keep the power to oppress, marginalize, and squeeze out the Palestinians, or the Palestinians would have enough power to do the same things, to take revenge on the Israelis.

In this case, agreeing to divide the available space between the two mutually hateful factions is a much better solution NOW, even if it isn't as nice in principle as waiting 200 years for them to learn to get along. Especially since there is no pragmatic guarantee that things will be that much better in 200 years; it's not as if there aren't plenty of 200-year-old ethnic conflicts elsewhere in the world.

Now, Israel and Palestine are the extreme limiting case, because relations between the two groups are utter shit, they have mutually exclusive demands and interests, and large majorities on both sides have pretty much given up even trying to have reconciliation within this generation.

But if you can make allowances for them, you at least have to stop and THINK about whether or not to make allowances for other groups who have the same complaint, that it will 'take too long' for full integration to be achieved. You can't dismiss that out of hand.

And if you can't make allowances for them, your idealism is so unrealistic that it has no relevance to the problem we're actually discussing.

Using Israel/Palestine isn't a great example, when the government of the only state there is explicitly dedicated to maintaining a theocratic apartheid state. Of course integration isn't going to work under those circumstances - it has to be multilateral.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course it's not a great example of integration in action. It is the worst possible example, it is the poster child for integration NOT being a practical solution, which is exactly my point.

There are a wide range of cases in the world that are varying degrees of "less bad." Sometimes the majority shows great intolerance for the minority, and the minority is moved to open rebellion (Israelis and Palestinians). In other cases there is considerable friction but no danger of open warfare (say, Flemings and Walloons in Belgium). In still others, the difference between minority and majority is so small today as to be largely irrelevant for practical purposes (say, between Englishmen and Welsh in Britain).*

The point I'm trying to make is that applying separatism to Israel and Palestine is consistent with applying 'integrationism' to, say, England and Wales. But to decide which applies to which case, you have to make an actual judgment call based on the facts of the case. For example, we might ask:

-Is the minority getting fair treatment in the legal system?
-Do members of the minority have realistic access to the centers of political, economic, and cultural power?
-Is the minority's physical appearance, cultural patterns, and accepted modes of behavior 'allowed' within the overall society, or are they denigrated and seen as inferior?
-At the present time, are the interests of the minority being adequately represented by the integrated state's government?
-Are the minority's concerns getting a share of state resources and attention that is in line with the minority's needs and share of the population?
-Does the integrated government have a long term plan to address the minority's remaining problems?
-Does the 'integrated' government do this, or does it pursue policies that actively penalize and discriminate against the minority?
-How does the government react when questioned on discriminatory policies? Does it withdraw them? Does it ignore the criticism? Does it actively counterattack, labeling the questioners as 'seditious' or biased against the majority that backs those policies?
-How, realistically, do you see the answers to those questions evolving in the future? In the next five years? Ten? Twenty-five? Fifty? A hundred?

What kind of answers you get to those questions tells you how bad the plight of the minority is. Once those questions are answered, you can talk intelligently about whether integration is working, whether separatism is called for, and what needs to be done to make one or the other work in the future.
________________________________

*Though the example of Wales shows pretty clearly one of the problematic things about integration. Distinctive aspects of the minority culture are in danger of disappearing altogether, unless actively preserved, which you might see as a downside.

[Saxtonite]

Oh shit, you got me! You're right, I'm actually secretly racist and I hate black people. I was hoping nobody would find out, but I guess you're too clever.

and Jews can be very racist against black people

Thanks for reminding me of Jewish racism towards black people

"A special and unique relationship to Jews"
When we were working in Chicago, we had numerous rent strikes on the West Side, and it was unfortunately true that, in most instances, the persons we had to conduct these strikes against were Jewish landlords. There was a time when the West Side of Chicago was a Jewish ghetto, and when the Jewish community started moving out into other areas, they still owned the property there, and all of the problems of the landlord came into being.

We were living in a slum apartment owned by a Jew and a number of others, and we had to have a rent strike. We were paying $94 for four run-down, shabby rooms, and we would go out on our open housing marches on Gage Park and other places and we discovered that whites with five sanitary, nice, new rooms, apartments with five rooms, were paying only $78 a month. We were paying 20 percent tax.

The Negro ends up paying a color tax, and this has happened in instances where Negroes actually confronted Jews as the landlord or the storekeeper. The irrational statements that have been made are the result of these confrontations.


Clayborne Carson, ed., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Warner Books, 1998), p. 309.

"The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron in Dougherty [Georgia]; and as we ride westward, by wide stretching cornfields and stubby orchards of peach and pear, we see on all sides within the circle of dark forest a Land of Canaan. Here and there are tales of projects for moneygetting, born in the swift days of Reconstruction ­'improvement' companies, wine companies, mills and factories; nearly all failed, and the Jew fell heir." -W.E.B. DuBois

Do you know the White ("Fake") Jews in Israel denigrate the BLACK Jews from Ethiopia, the Jews who who can claim descent from King Solomon? A bunch of descendant converts claiming that black Jews are not Jewish enough.

it only "worked" (for some small value of "worked") with Israel due to the Western world's bizarre fascination with Abrahamic monotheism.

Actually, World Jewry was involved in supporting and setting up Israel at the beginning. As in "Israel was kept afloat originally due to remittances from American Jews" level support. Not due to 'western world's fascination wiht Abrahamics'

There's no reason to think that having some sort of "ethnic sovereignty" is the solution to racial tensions, especially when we're making progress with integration.

Will Polygamy be legalized? Will Ebonics be made an official language of the US south? White Americans get 'standard' English, why don't we get Ebonics?

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't counting metaphorical nations that only exist in your head.

I guess having our own flag(s), universities/colleges, national anthems, LANGUAGE, cuisine, culture and politicial leaders isn't enough to have a nation now?

Why do you care so much about ensuring your "distinct history"?

Because it was stolen from me?

what good will your own state do if it gets invaded one day by some nation of white supremacists, and the US doesn't feel like doing anything about it?

Black America goes down fighting? Hell, you can always kick the invaders out eventually. Ask the Zimbabweans. I would expect "International brigades" to be formed from haitians and whatnot to assist us.

A better overall strategy would be to push for integration, so as the decades roll by racial tensions deflate. By creating a separate "race state" you're only exacerbating the problem and ensuring that racial differences continue to divide us long into the future, all in the name of your precious "African distinct history".

The racial divides happened to the point that it was considered a good idea to establish your own state MULTIPLE times during the history of the black man in america.

Just relax. Your history, and everyone else's, will be preserved forever on Wikipedia.

After you wipe it off the face of the earth

Gandalf's reasons are boring semantic bullshit. The most common definition of "nation" implies some sort of national sovereignty or governmental structure. Any other usage is mostly metaphorical or colloquial (like the Nation of Islam).

No, "nation" is an ethnic group. "state" is what you refer to when you say sovereignty and government.

Please explain why integration doesn't promote psychological health and social empowerment.

Because the black underclass was shat on and black schools were thrown under the bus during integration? Because black history was butchered by white americans who fucked up the teaching/historical aspects? Because blacks have to put up with white american culture even more because black businesses were screw over by integration? Because blacks have to deal with whites saying "you aren't really black" when you grew up in a black family/culture/neighborhood and presumably you know more about being black than a foreigner does?

Black social mobility and "empowerment" has increased tremendously since the 60s, to the point where we literally have a half-black President.

The last two PMs for the UK were Scottish. Doesn't mean the Scots don't feel oppressed still. A nominal black person as president means jack shit if he is basically white in outlook/design/policy.

The Bourgoeise has their own outlook on life and often it will not match the outlook and aspirations of the majority of the population. The Black Bourgoeise, Obama being an example will not automatically look out for the affairs of other black people.

Are you that impatient that you can't wait another few fucking decades for blacks to reach economic parity with whites? You'd rather throw all that progress away and create a bunch of bullshit race states?

The American Empire is on the way to collapse. The sooner black people deal with this eventuality the better, so they can jump shit when things get really shit.

What the fuck makes you think that if we divided up the world into a bunch of separate "race states" that there wouldn't be escalated international tensions and wars? What gives you the idea that we'd have some sort of "separate-but-equal" Utopia where all the world's races were divided by national boundaries, and yet everyone just respects each other and gets along. Yeah, that will ever happen. (And God help the poor children born of interracial unions!)

Poland and Ukraine. The populations were separated and interethnic violence stopped. Greeks and Turks in Cyprus. The Turkish military separated the Greeks and Turks. The violence stopped. Northern Ireland. 'Prods' and 'Taigs' were separated into different areas. The violence stopped.

while you may want to pretend otherwise, we're actually making progress. If you think people have the same attitude about race today as they did in the 60s, then how come interracial marriage is now at an all time high (almost 15% of all married couples in the US were interracial in 2008), compared to less than 2% in the 70s.

LOL, early on whites considered OTHER whites to be from a different race. That is simple Goalpost moving. Remember the "Mediterranean" and "Alpine" race nonsense? Anyway, there was an increasing amount of intermingling/intermarriage....before Yugoslavia collapsed.

Seriously, dividing up the world into separate nations based on racial lines is literally one of the most insidious, harmful ideas I've ever heard someone present with a straight face. And the fact that you present it with an air of intellectualism is really quite disturbing.

[/quote][/quote]

All people deserve the right to determine their own affairs without foreign influence.

[mr friendly guy]

Or someone can make a smart arse comment and say, no it doesn't mean they can never coexist, because in the future if they do decide to, they can do things like allow freedom of movement, merge into one country (eg Scotland and England) etc.

That is an admission of defeat. It is an admission that we are right, and that demolishing the forces that set people apart on the basis of their race can be the right way to go.

Dude, you set the criteria that the argument implies that two peoples can never coexist as equals in one country. For one thing, while I am not a separatist, I think its safe to assume that they don't care that the two peoples can never coexist sometime in the future. They are more worried about the here and now. However, back to your point separation now doesn't preclude people from coexisting in the future, thus its hardly an admission of defeat even if the separatist did care that they can't coexist in the future.

[Grumman]

Or someone can make a smart arse comment and say, no it doesn't mean they can never coexist, because in the future if they do decide to, they can do things like allow freedom of movement, merge into one country (eg Scotland and England) etc.

That is an admission of defeat. It is an admission that we are right, and that demolishing the forces that set people apart on the basis of their race can be the right way to go.

Dude, you set the criteria that the argument implies that two peoples can never coexist as equals in one country.

I said that their "cure" perpetuates the same separation that they claim makes coexistence as equals in one country impossible.

On top of that, if you're relying on whites leaving voluntarily rather than forcing them, what's stopping them from simply voting as a bloc to undo all of your changes?

[Ultonius]

Thanks for reminding me of Jewish racism towards black people

The 1991 Crown Heights riot, including the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, shows that the reverse can also occur.

Do you know the White ("Fake") Jews in Israel denigrate the BLACK Jews from Ethiopia, the Jews who who can claim descent from King Solomon? A bunch of descendant converts claiming that black Jews are not Jewish enough.

What about all the genetic studies that show that most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews have predominantly Near Eastern ancestry, while the Beta Israel have predominantly Ethiopian ancestry?

Hell, you can always kick the invaders out eventually. Ask the Zimbabweans.

Because the Mugabe government's approach to dealing with white Zimbabweans has worked so very, very well .

The last two PMs for the UK were Scottish. Doesn't mean the Scots don't feel oppressed still.

Blair's family left Scotland before he was two, so I don't think he really counts. Do you have any evidence for widespread feelings of oppression in Scotland, and could you explain why Scots should feel oppressed? Scotland has its own parliament to legislate on most local issues, and has representation in the national parliament roughly proportional to its population.

[Saxtonite]

The 1991 Crown Heights riot, including the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, shows that the reverse can also occur.

That is a response to Jewish exploitation of black people. Personal example: My uncle lived in 'Bronzeville" neighborhood of Chicago during some of the 1950s/1960s. There was a Jew who ran a grocery store. The Jew overpriced for bad quality food and found ways to manipulate the black population into paying for low quality goods. What happened? During one of the uprisings during the 1960s, the Jew was burned out. There would -not- be a crown heights riot if not for that exploitative behavior, just as there would not be a pogrom of the Koreans during the Rodney King uprising if not for Koreans basically doing the same thing.

What about all the genetic studies that show that most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews have predominantly Near Eastern ancestry, while the Beta Israel have predominantly Ethiopian ancestry?

Please show me where Askhenazi jews are predominantely near eastern as opposed to Khazaric origins.

Because the Mugabe government's approach to dealing with white Zimbabweans has worked so very, very well .

There aren't many white Rhodesians left, so it seems to have worked

Do you have any evidence for widespread feelings of oppression in Scotland, and could you explain why Scots should feel oppressed? Scotland has its own parliament to legislate on most local issues, and has representation in the national parliament roughly proportional to its population.

this sort of behavior. Note the words "Feel oppressed" as opposed to "being oppressed". Scotland got off better than Wales regarding that, i.e. "No Welsh" cultural suppression. But even with 'no welsh' the British PM during the end of WWI, Lloyd George grew up speaking Welsh. My point is just because people from an ethnic group are in government does not mean the standards of their group are 'good' and there is no discrimination.

[Ultonius]

That is a response to Jewish exploitation of black people. Personal example: My uncle lived in 'Bronzeville" neighborhood of Chicago during some of the 1950s/1960s. There was a Jew who ran a grocery store. The Jew overpriced for bad quality food and found ways to manipulate the black population into paying for low quality goods. What happened? During one of the uprisings during the 1960s, the Jew was burned out. There would -not- be a crown heights riot if not for that exploitative behavior, just as there would not be a pogrom of the Koreans during the Rodney King uprising if not for Koreans basically doing the same thing.

So if you have a grievance against members of a particular ethnic group, the way to make things better is to vandalize their homes and businesses and attack any individual of that group you come across, even if they've done nothing to you? People did that for 30 years in Northern Ireland, and the only thing that stopped it, albeit not completely, was dialogue and a willingness to work together to find common solutions.

Please show me where Askhenazi jews are predominantely near eastern as opposed to Khazaric origins.

From Wikipedia:

Efforts to identify the origins of Ashkenazi Jews through DNA analysis began in the 1990s. Like most DNA studies of human migration patterns, the earliest studies focused on two segments of the human genome, the Y-chromosome (passed on only by males), and the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA, passed on only by females). Both segments are unaffected by recombination, except for the ends of the Y chromosome - the pseudoautosomal regions (PAR1 and PAR2). Genome-wide association studies have also been employed to yield findings relevant to genetic origins. Genetic studies revealed that Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Middle East during the Bronze Age (between 2500 BC and 700 BC) spreading later to Europe.[57]
Male lineages: Y-chromosomal DNA

A study of haplotypes of the Y-chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al.[58] found that the Y-chromosome of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East. The proportion of male genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, with "relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim," and a total admixture estimate "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%." This supported the finding that "Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors."

A 2001 study by Nebel et al. showed that both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish populations share the same overall paternal Near Eastern ancestries. In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent. The authors also report on Eu 19 (R1a) chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%–60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. They hypothesized that the differences among Ashkenazim Jews could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding European populations and/or genetic drift during isolation.[59] A later 2005 study by Nebel et al., found a similar level of 11.5% of male Ashkenazim belonging to R1a1a (M17+), the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans.[60]
Female lineages: Mitochondrial DNA

Before 2006, geneticists largely attributed the genesis of most of the world's Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to founding effects by males who migrated from the Middle East and "by the women from each local population whom they took as wives and converted to Judaism." In line with this model of origin, David Goldstein, now of Duke University, reported in 2002 that, unlike male lineages, the female lineages in Ashkenazi Jewish communities "did not seem to be Middle Eastern", and that each community had its own genetic pattern and even that "in some cases the mitochondrial DNA was closely related to that of the host community." In his view this suggested "that Jewish men had arrived from the Middle East, taken wives from the host population and converted them to Judaism, after which there was no further intermarriage with non-Jews."[61]

However, a 2006 study by Behar et al.,[1] based on high-resolution analysis of haplogroup K(mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, or "founder lineages", that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Middle East in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Although Haplogroup K is common throughout western Eurasia, "the observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population:

"..Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.."[1][61]

In addition, Behar et al. have suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from ~150 women, most of those likely of Middle Eastern origin.[1]

...

A 2010 study on Jewish ancestry by Atzmon-Ostrer et al. stated "Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews. The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of European Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry.", as both groups – the Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews shared common ancestors in the Middle East about 2500 years ago. The study examines genetic markers spread across the entire genome and shows that the Jewish groups (Ashkenazi and non Ashkenazi) share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships and that each of the Jewish groups in the study (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek and Ashkenazi) has its own genetic signature but is more closely related to the other Jewish groups than to their fellow non-Jewish countrymen.[66] Atzmon's team found that the SNP markers in genetic segments of 3 million DNA letters or longer were 10 times more likely to be identical among Jews than non-Jews. Results of the analysis also tally with biblical accounts of the fate of the Jews. The study also found that with respect to non-Jewish European groups, the population most closely related to Ashkenazi Jews are modern-day Italians. The study speculated that the genetic-similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Italians may be due to inter-marriage and conversions in the time of the Roman Empire. It was also found that any two Ashkenazi Jewish participants in the study shared about as much DNA as fourth or fifth cousins.[67][68]

...

The genome wide genetic study carried out in 2010 by Behar et al. examined the genetic relationships among all major Jewish groups, including Ashkenazim, as well as the genetic relationship between these Jewish groups and non Jewish ethnic populations. The study found that contemporary Jews (excluding Indian and Ethiopian Jews) have a close genetic relationship with people from the Levant. The authors explained that "The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant".[71]

There aren't many white Rhodesians left, so it seems to have worked

You think ethnic cleansing is something to laugh at? Is that what any white Americans who remain in 'New Afrika' can look forward to?

this sort of behavior. Note the words "Feel oppressed" as opposed to "being oppressed". Scotland got off better than Wales regarding that, i.e. "No Welsh" cultural suppression. But even with 'no welsh' the British PM during the end of WWI, Lloyd George grew up speaking Welsh. My point is just because people from an ethnic group are in government does not mean the standards of their group are 'good' and there is no discrimination.

That article was written nearly 20 years ago, and therefore may not reflect current feeling in Scotland. Furthermore, in the very first paragraph, it points out that 'most Scots...are appalled' by the emergence of anti-English groups, which doesn't exactly support your argument.

[Rogue 9]

Because the Mugabe government's approach to dealing with white Zimbabweans has worked so very, very well .

There aren't many white Rhodesians left, so it seems to have worked

That is about the worst fucking thing you could have said. The Mugabe government's approach has ruined the country; sure, it drove out all the white people, but it left the black Africans living there in abject poverty and the grip of hyperinflation. So you're not only laughing at ethnic cleansing, but you're endorsing the sort of mismanagement that financially ruins a country and starves large portions of its people. Mugabe is not an example to be looked up to; he's a living warning and monument to what not to do.

[Saxtonite]

So if you have a grievance against members of a particular ethnic group, the way to make things better is to vandalize their homes and businesses and attack any individual of that group you come across, even if they've done nothing to you? People did that for 30 years in Northern Ireland, and the only thing that stopped it, albeit not completely, was dialogue and a willingness to work together to find common solutions.

There were boycotts of Jewish businesses and similar complaints since the 1930s in Harlem, for example a "Sufi Abdul Hamid" was conducting such actions, so I would say there were non-violent attempts to fix the problem.

Please show me where Askhenazi jews are predominantely near eastern as opposed to Khazaric origins.

From Wikipedia:
<snip>

Thank you. However that does not exactly say that Askhenazim are the Jews straight out of Judea. That can still fit the Khazar origin theory of Askhenazi Jews. It also mentions the Askhenazim being related to 'modern' Italians from Roman Era. Note that during the Roman Empire there -were- many converts to Judaism before the 'formation' of Christianity, so these Jews could simply be converts and not the Jews expelled from Judea. Some Jews say there was no expulsion from Judea at all even.

You think ethnic cleansing is something to laugh at?

When used in response to a sarcastic ( " " ) "smiley face", yes I think laughing is warranted.

Is that what any white Americans who remain in 'New Afrika' can look forward to?

No, they would preferably be Africanized in some manner.

That article was written nearly 20 years ago, and therefore may not reflect current feeling in Scotland. Furthermore, in the very first paragraph, it points out that 'most Scots...are appalled' by the emergence of anti-English groups, which doesn't exactly support your argument.

George Orwell in 1945 did mention that "Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation." - so there seems to be I guess a generalized tendency of similar behaviors.

That is about the worst fucking thing you could have said. The Mugabe government's approach has ruined the country; sure, it drove out all the white people, but it left the black Africans living there in abject poverty and the grip of hyperinflation. So you're not only laughing at ethnic cleansing, but you're endorsing the sort of mismanagement that financially ruins a country and starves large portions of its people. Mugabe is not an example to be looked up to; he's a living warning and monument to what not to do.

I am aware of the "one billion zimbabwe dollars" joke. However, we were talking about the liberation struggle and the immediate aftermath of independence ("repel the invaders!"), not Mugabe's later incompetence and power hungry actions.

One major difference: I doubt there would be a permanent colonial class if a bunch of white supremacists invade New Afrika, so there would not even be such a need for that sort of extreme treatment at all. And note the incompetence and megalomania took ahold of several years after independence.

[Grumman]

There were boycotts of Jewish businesses and similar complaints since the 1930s in Harlem, for example a "Sufi Abdul Hamid" was conducting such actions, so I would say there were non-violent attempts to fix the problem.

Clearly somebody was buying from these overpriced, substandard grocery stores, so the product couldn't have been that bad. And I would not hold Hamid up as any kind of example, if any of the information I've found about him is correct.

Is that what any white Americans who remain in 'New Afrika' can look forward to?

No, they would preferably be Africanized in some manner.

That's not very reassuring.

[Thanas]

I don't think there are any serious ancient historians who claim Jews were expelled at all from Israel by the Romans. They were forbidden to enter Aelia Capitolina (read: Jerusalem after the Romans bulldozed it) but that was about it.

I also have never met any serious historian who wasn't one of those charlatan afrocentrists who claimed that the expulsion of whites helped a post-colonial society like Zimbabwe.

[Simon_Jester]

[recalls his last post]

Although at the same time, if this is the intellectual caliber of separatism, it's going to have a very rough road to cover.

Thanks for reminding me of Jewish racism towards black people

"A special and unique relationship to Jews"
When we were working in Chicago, we had numerous rent strikes on the West Side, and it was unfortunately true that, in most instances, the persons we had to conduct these strikes against were Jewish landlords. There was a time when the West Side of Chicago was a Jewish ghetto, and when the Jewish community started moving out into other areas, they still owned the property there, and all of the problems of the landlord came into being.

We were living in a slum apartment owned by a Jew and a number of others, and we had to have a rent strike. We were paying $94 for four run-down, shabby rooms, and we would go out on our open housing marches on Gage Park and other places and we discovered that whites with five sanitary, nice, new rooms, apartments with five rooms, were paying only $78 a month. We were paying 20 percent tax.

The Negro ends up paying a color tax, and this has happened in instances where Negroes actually confronted Jews as the landlord or the storekeeper. The irrational statements that have been made are the result of these confrontations.

Clayborne Carson, ed., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Warner Books, 1998), p. 309.[/quote]

"The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron in Dougherty [Georgia]; and as we ride westward, by wide stretching cornfields and stubby orchards of peach and pear, we see on all sides within the circle of dark forest a Land of Canaan. Here and there are tales of projects for moneygetting, born in the swift days of Reconstruction ­'improvement' companies, wine companies, mills and factories; nearly all failed, and the Jew fell heir." -W.E.B. DuBois

Are you using the EVIL JEWISH LANDLORD/BANKER stereotype, in examples from 1900 or 1950, to justify holding a grudge?

How easy do you want it to be, for the people with real power in this country to use "divide and conquer" tactics to keep you under? Because you're making it so easy it's like you've painted a target on your back.

Do you know the White ("Fake") Jews in Israel denigrate the BLACK Jews from Ethiopia, the Jews who who can claim descent from King Solomon? A bunch of descendant converts claiming that black Jews are not Jewish enough.

If you are going to call the Jews of Europe fake, you'd better have a really good reason, or it just makes you sound like a ranting, babbling idiot. Do you enjoy being self-marginalizing?

There's no reason to think that having some sort of "ethnic sovereignty" is the solution to racial tensions, especially when we're making progress with integration.

Will Polygamy be legalized? Will Ebonics be made an official language of the US south? White Americans get 'standard' English, why don't we get Ebonics?

Will it make Blackbeltia a stronger place to speak the AAVE dialect? Especially if people like you go and try to turn it into a constructed language redesigned for maximum 'blackness' according to whatever standard you set for it?

The arrogance and obnoxious behavior of people who think "integration" means "bulldoze over the minority culture" disgusts me, but at the same time, I have to wonder if you or someone like you would be competent to preserve their culture even given complete freedom to do so. Or whether you'd end up steamrollering it in this bizarre Year Zero frenzy.

Because the black underclass was shat on and black schools were thrown under the bus during integration? Because black history was butchered by white americans who fucked up the teaching/historical aspects? Because blacks have to put up with white american culture even more because black businesses were screw over by integration? Because blacks have to deal with whites saying "you aren't really black" when you grew up in a black family/culture/neighborhood and presumably you know more about being black than a foreigner does?

If you are going to turn around and condemn people for being "not really black" when they try to explain being black to a foreigner, and do so intelligently, then this last one seems a bit hypocritical.

As to the rest, this is actually not the first place I've heard "we were better off segregated!" Although I for one would kind of like to see that studied by someone who isn't so fired up by the conclusion that their methodology falls apart.

The Bourgoeise has their own outlook on life and often it will not match the outlook and aspirations of the majority of the population. The Black Bourgoeise, Obama being an example will not automatically look out for the affairs of other black people.

If you disown them, though, and then complain because blacks are not successful, you are being stupid.

[note: bourgEOisie]

Be careful when you find yourself starting to make an argument like "Prosperous blacks are not really black and don't count. And I am upset that not enough REAL blacks are prosperous!" If you got what you wanted you might not even notice- because the prosperous blacks might still be getting dismissed as "not really black," and you'd still be looking at "real blacks" who were, by process of elimination, not prospering.

LOL, early on whites considered OTHER whites to be from a different race. That is simple Goalpost moving. Remember the "Mediterranean" and "Alpine" race nonsense? Anyway, there was an increasing amount of intermingling/intermarriage....before Yugoslavia collapsed.

All people deserve the right to determine their own affairs without foreign influence.

In your case, though, it sounds like your hostility to foreigners is so great that it would tear apart a state ruled by your own ethnicity- because if people move into Blackbeltia with the education and experience it takes to make Blackbeltia a successful state, you will turn on them as "not black enough" and try to drive them out or disdain their efforts.

I'm picturing a less bloody version of the horrors of the Year Zero movement in Cambodia, where planeloads of educated Cambodians were encouraged to come home to help rebuild their country... and then slaughtered for being 'too educated' in the old and intolerable ways. You wouldn't be killing people, but nonlethal attempts to exclude and disown parts of one's own people can still destroy a culture in the long run.

That is a response to Jewish exploitation of black people. Personal example: My uncle lived in 'Bronzeville" neighborhood of Chicago during some of the 1950s/1960s. There was a Jew who ran a grocery store. The Jew overpriced for bad quality food and found ways to manipulate the black population into paying for low quality goods. What happened? During one of the uprisings during the 1960s, the Jew was burned out. There would -not- be a crown heights riot if not for that exploitative behavior, just as there would not be a pogrom of the Koreans during the Rodney King uprising if not for Koreans basically doing the same thing.

I tell you, if you want to reserve the right to hold pogroms against entire classes of people you feel are making your life worse, you are painting a goddamn target on your back. And your REAL oppressor is holding the shotgun.

Because the Mugabe government's approach to dealing with white Zimbabweans has worked so very, very well .

There aren't many white Rhodesians left, so it seems to have worked

And in case you hadn't noticed, Zimbabwe is now damn near a failed state. Mugabe succeeded in expelling the whites, but failed miserably at running a country, which is actually much harder. Because when you're trying to make a country work, your troubles don't all come with convenient color-coded skins to beat up on.

This is especially true if you doom your people to ignorance and incompetent rule, by expelling people with the education and experience it takes to make a difference. If those people are white, they are unwelcome because of their whiteness. If they are black, then they are unwelcome because having learned to code-switch and to manage businesses and to send their children to the best available schools means they are 'not really black' or 'not black enough' to be worthwhile leaders.

[Knife]

Do you know the White ("Fake") Jews in Israel denigrate the BLACK Jews from Ethiopia, the Jews who who can claim descent from King Solomon? A bunch of descendant converts claiming that black Jews are not Jewish enough.

Would not your blacktopia be roughly the same then? If Eurocentric Jews are not real Jews, then would not neo Afrikan blacks not be really black?

[Saxtonite]

Clearly somebody was buying from these overpriced, substandard grocery stores, so the product couldn't have been that bad.

If you are nearly starving to death you will eat food with rotten maggots in it. The black slaves ate intestines with shit in it which they had to clean out, the pigs of feet among other leftover foods. Just because someone buys from the location does not mean it is not shit.

And I would not hold Hamid up as any kind of example, if any of the information I've found about him is correct.

He is likely a hustler and involved with organized crime, yes. But that does not mean his actions were not popular & not a symptom of the social tensions of that era. The Autobiography of Malcolm X has some writings on black and jewish relationships during that time as well

That's not very reassuring.

Learning Ebonics or being married or in some romantic/sexual relationship with black people is not very reassuring?

Are you using the EVIL JEWISH LANDLORD/BANKER stereotype, in examples from 1900 or 1950, to justify holding a grudge?

Hmm?

I was backing up Duchess' statement of Jewish racism against blacks. The whole "color tax" was a good example.

How easy do you want it to be, for the people with real power in this country to use "divide and conquer" tactics to keep you under? Because you're making it so easy it's like you've painted a target on your back.

Let me get this straight? Because I would mention cases of Jewish exploitation and racism towards black people, I would get a target painted on my back? When you know, there are -many- countries which currently are not exactly pro-Zionist and of which some countries have pretty "Anti-Semitic" policies (i.e. Hugo Chavez who studied under an accused holocaust denier). An independent state would not be outmaneuvered by Zionists for the simple fact that they can ally with anti-zionists on the world stage.

If you are going to call the Jews of Europe fake, you'd better have a really good reason, or it just makes you sound like a ranting, babbling idiot. Do you enjoy being self-marginalizing?

Here?. The fact of Roman conversions to Judaism being very large compared to the 'actual' Jews from Judea is well known, given this was before Christianity coalesced as a separate identity. Many of the European Jews are descended from converts. The Khazar theory of the origin of Askhenazim is a major theory as to the existence of Askhenazi Jews.

Also, I did not call them "Fake". Note I quoted the word "fake". The statement about "fake jews" since you mention it is in responsible to Askhenazim bigotry against Beta Israel, the Ethiopian Jews.

Will it make Blackbeltia a stronger place to speak the AAVE dialect? Especially if people like you go and try to turn it into a constructed language redesigned for maximum 'blackness' according to whatever standard you set for it?

I would say yes given some variant of AAVE is already spoken by a majority of the black population in America.

The arrogance and obnoxious behavior of people who think "integration" means "bulldoze over the minority culture" disgusts me, but at the same time, I have to wonder if you or someone like you would be competent to preserve their culture even given complete freedom to do so. Or whether you'd end up steamrollering it in this bizarre Year Zero frenzy.

Uh, no - I did mention the Africanization process would be much longer and WAY more streamlined then Democratic Kampuchea's agrarian programs.

If you are going to turn around and condemn people for being "not really black" when they try to explain being black to a foreigner, and do so intelligently, then this last one seems a bit hypocritical.

Where have I said people are not 'really black'? I've said that some of the bourgoeise may not have the same interests as the majority population but I don't think I said they "aren't really black."

As to the rest, this is actually not the first place I've heard "we were better off segregated!" Although I for one would kind of like to see that studied by someone who isn't so fired up by the conclusion that their methodology falls apart.

This book goes over some of it, but a lot of it is ancedotes. From what I remember the author -does- mention some numbers as to the increasing amounts of urban poor.

This book has a little information as to desegregation and how unevenly it was handled in the states of the former confederacy. It mentioned some examples I mentioned about uneven firings and mergers of schools

If you disown them, though, and then complain because blacks are not successful, you are being stupid.

[note: bourgEOisie]

I did not 'disown' them however. I mentioned they are not automatically going to side with the nationalist due to it being in many of their their self-interests. The "i made it why can't you" outlook of Bill Cosby....or Japanized Koreans during Japanese rule who willingly accepted Japanese culture. Which explains one of the studies I linked earlier (there is another study in "Disintegration of black america" which suggests otherwise, but apparently that study focused on nouveau-riche).

Be careful when you find yourself starting to make an argument like "Prosperous blacks are not really black and don't count. And I am upset that not enough REAL blacks are prosperous!" If you got what you wanted you might not even notice- because the prosperous blacks might still be getting dismissed as "not really black," and you'd still be looking at "real blacks" who were, by process of elimination, not prospering.

Where did I say "prosperous blacks are not really black?" though?

In your case, though, it sounds like your hostility to foreigners is so great that it would tear apart a state ruled by your own ethnicity- because if people move into Blackbeltia with the education and experience it takes to make Blackbeltia a successful state, you will turn on them as "not black enough" and try to drive them out or disdain their efforts.

I'm picturing a less bloody version of the horrors of the Year Zero movement in Cambodia, where planeloads of educated Cambodians were encouraged to come home to help rebuild their country... and then slaughtered for being 'too educated' in the old and intolerable ways. You wouldn't be killing people, but nonlethal attempts to exclude and disown parts of one's own people can still destroy a culture in the long run.

I have no real hate for foreigners though. Preferably people can be reformed, Africanized, and I don't mean it in the Orwellian manner. Pretty much everyone can be saved.

And I would like to point out other countries post-independence handled their "cleaning house" worse (than a hypothetical black state). I.e. see post-war North and South Korea's trials and purges of Japanese collaborators. Apparently there was a student/communist movement in provisional Korean state which basically went after anyone who had some sort of connection to the japanese regime. Socialist Yugoslavia had trials for Ustasha and Cetnik fighters. Many countries have such a stage post-independence. Apparently one of the current POTUS' grandfather was a collaborator during the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya.

I tell you, if you want to reserve the right to hold pogroms against entire classes of people you feel are making your life worse, you are painting a goddamn target on your back. And your REAL oppressor is holding the shotgun.

As I said earlier, the black state would not go about provoking pogroms against Jews or Koreans. I had an idea which was provisional regarding ethnic tensions actually: There would be a referendum among the native population, in areas of ethnic tensions. If the black population wants the other ethnic group to leave, they can vote for it and the other ethnic group would be pressured to move to a more hospitable part of the state or to leave it altogether. This would be used in cases of extreme ethnic tensions where there is a risk of pogroms happening already, so this would be a case of population transfer solving a problem or preventing one from happening. Note that this would not be the go to/general/de facto response to any sort of ethnic tension or any small issues.

And in case you hadn't noticed, Zimbabwe is now damn near a failed state. Mugabe succeeded in expelling the whites, but failed miserably at running a country, which is actually much harder. Because when you're trying to make a country work, your troubles don't all come with convenient color-coded skins to beat up on.

This is especially true if you doom your people to ignorance and incompetent rule, by expelling people with the education and experience it takes to make a difference. If those people are white, they are unwelcome because of their whiteness. If they are black, then they are unwelcome because having learned to code-switch and to manage businesses and to send their children to the best available schools means they are 'not really black' or 'not black enough' to be worthwhile leaders.

The Africans in Zimbabwe preserved their culture and languages better, so there was less of such a pressure. And again, the mismanagement began to take place several years after independence. My statement about "it working" was in context with the liberation struggle, restoration of black rule and what immediately took place after the struggle, not Mugabe's douchebaggery years down the road. The economy stagnated during the 1990s and afterwards.

EDIT: Also I don't remember hearing of Zimbabwean claims of "not being black enough". It was AFAIK mainly a power struggle with some ethnic aspects (i.e. one communist group had more support from one ethnic group than another one)

Would not your blacktopia be roughly the same then? If Eurocentric Jews are not real Jews, then would not neo Afrikan blacks not be really black?

No, because the Askhenazi Jews are Khazaric converts, not Jews expelled from Judea as the Jewish national myth says.

[Grumman]

Clearly somebody was buying from these overpriced, substandard grocery stores, so the product couldn't have been that bad.

If you are nearly starving to death you will eat food with rotten maggots in it. The black slaves ate intestines with shit in it which they had to clean out, the pigs of feet among other leftover foods. Just because someone buys from the location does not mean it is not shit.

They weren't slaves. From what I've read it sounds like you're just making shit up, because the complaint was not about the quality or price of the product, it was that the grocery stores weren't employing blacks.

And I would not hold Hamid up as any kind of example, if any of the information I've found about him is correct.

He is likely a hustler and involved with organized crime, yes. But that does not mean his actions were not popular & not a symptom of the social tensions of that era. The Autobiography of Malcolm X has some writings on black and jewish relationships during that time as well

Popular is not a substitute for ethical. Advocating cutting out the tongues of Jews or starting a riot that destroys hundreds of businesses are not legitimate tactics.

That's not very reassuring.

Learning Ebonics or being married or in some romantic/sexual relationship with black people is not very reassuring?

No, it's not. Sex, romance and marriage should serve their own interests, not your political doctrine of "Africanising" white people. Learning the language would be reasonable if they were making a conscious decision to travel to a new country, instead of you just barging in, making up a new language and expecting people to start using it.

[Saxtonite]

They weren't slaves. From what I've read it sounds like you're just making shit up, because the complaint was not about the quality or price of the product, it was that the grocery stores weren't employing blacks.

Well my uncle's statement about bad food was not made up shit. The 'maggots in food' thing was an example I meant of people eating crap if they will starve (in same context as 'chitlings'), it was not exactly meant to be "The jews sold food with maggots in it". I have not found any evidence for that currently.

from wiki:

Black novelist James Baldwin (1924–1987) grew up in Harlem, and expressed a view of Jews that was representative of many Harlem blacks of that era: "... in Harlem.... our ... landlords were Jews, and we hated them. We hated them because they were terrible landlords and did not take care of the buildings. The grocery store owner was a Jew... The butcher was a Jew and, yes, we certainly paid more for bad cuts of meat than other New York citizens, and we very often carried insults home along with our meats... and the pawnbroker was a Jew - perhaps we hated him most of all."[13][15]

here suggests yes the food was noticeably bad, even for people who grew up eating chitlings and hamhocks.

Popular is not a substitute for ethical. Advocating cutting out the tongues of Jews or starting a riot that destroys hundreds of businesses are not legitimate tactics.

The point is he was a case of collective response - say, a "human face" in response to Jewish racism towards black people, and he was proof that there was some sort of non-violence thought process before things moved to "pogrom time".

No, it's not. Sex, romance and marriage should serve their own interests, not your political doctrine of "Africanising" white people.

Paraguay banned white people form marrying each other in order to form an Mestizo race/nation and prevent any casteism. The Polish and Czech government left exceptions for German expulsion orders to allow people married to Slavs to stay in the country. Saying "learn ebonics or get involved with black people" to become a citizen seems pretty light handed, as non-citizens would still have rights (i.e. like the Baltics)

Learning the language would be reasonable if they were making a conscious decision to travel to a new country, instead of you just barging in, making up a new language and expecting people to start using it.

I am using a preexisting language as a base though.

[Channel72]

Oh shit, you got me! You're right, I'm actually secretly racist and I hate black people. I was hoping nobody would find out, but I guess you're too clever.

and Jews can be very racist against black people

Thanks for reminding me of Jewish racism towards black people

"A special and unique relationship to Jews"
When we were working in Chicago, we had numerous rent strikes on the West Side, and it was unfortunately true that, in most instances, the persons we had to conduct these strikes against were Jewish landlords. There was a time when the West Side of Chicago was a Jewish ghetto, and when the Jewish community started moving out into other areas, they still owned the property there, and all of the problems of the landlord came into being.

We were living in a slum apartment owned by a Jew and a number of others, and we had to have a rent strike. We were paying $94 for four run-down, shabby rooms, and we would go out on our open housing marches on Gage Park and other places and we discovered that whites with five sanitary, nice, new rooms, apartments with five rooms, were paying only $78 a month. We were paying 20 percent tax.

The Negro ends up paying a color tax, and this has happened in instances where Negroes actually confronted Jews as the landlord or the storekeeper. The irrational statements that have been made are the result of these confrontations.


Clayborne Carson, ed., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Warner Books, 1998), p. 309.

"The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron in Dougherty [Georgia]; and as we ride westward, by wide stretching cornfields and stubby orchards of peach and pear, we see on all sides within the circle of dark forest a Land of Canaan. Here and there are tales of projects for moneygetting, born in the swift days of Reconstruction ­'improvement' companies, wine companies, mills and factories; nearly all failed, and the Jew fell heir." -W.E.B. DuBois

So a bunch of bullshit anecdotes from Chicago and some quote from W.E.B. DuBois establishes, in your mind, that Jews are generally hostile towards black people? I'm beginning to wonder if you're even worth responding to at all.

Here's the reality: Jews are, like every other ethnic group, composed of racist and non-racist people. But I doubt you can establish that a significantly larger percentage of Jews have negative views torwards black people than any other group.

Now, allow me to do some hand-waving generalizations of my own: most American Jews (New York Jews) are just upper-middle class white people who embrace the same politically-correct racial sensitivities as any other educated spectrum of society. And Israeli Jews don't give a shit about black people. They're too busy hating Arabs.

Do you know the White ("Fake") Jews in Israel denigrate the BLACK Jews from Ethiopia, the Jews who who can claim descent from King Solomon? A bunch of descendant converts claiming that black Jews are not Jewish enough.

You're a complete idiot. Nobody can claim descent from King Solomon because there's no way to trace lineage back that far, apart from ridiculously unreliable Biblical records. Historians aren't even exactly sure if King Solomon even existed, since the Biblical accounts of his reign are couched in such obviously legendary material. He probably existed, since the House of David is almost certainly historical, but there's very little reliable historical evidence for anything relating to King Solomon. Archeology, at least, reveals that accounts of his glorious temple are greatly exaggerated; the remains of the Temple today in Jerusalem are almost entirely from Herod's time. Even if Solomon existed, it would be impossible to trace lineage to him: There is no way to reliably trace ancestry that far back, and the multiple Diaspori (the Babylonian exile, followed by the Roman Diaspora) make it all but impossible to trace lineage back to First Temple Period Israel.

it only "worked" (for some small value of "worked") with Israel due to the Western world's bizarre fascination with Abrahamic monotheism.

Actually, World Jewry was involved in supporting and setting up Israel at the beginning. As in "Israel was kept afloat originally due to remittances from American Jews" level support. Not due to 'western world's fascination wiht Abrahamics'

American Jews make up less than like 2% of the population. While they are disproportionately influential in this country due to their economic prosperity, a large percentage of support for Israel comes from Christian Evangelicals.

Will Polygamy be legalized? Will Ebonics be made an official language of the US south? White Americans get 'standard' English, why don't we get Ebonics?

If enough people support the legalization of polygamy, then I'm sure it will eventually be legalized. I don't know any black Americans who actually want polygamy legalized. The large majority of black Americans are Christian, and therefore unlikely to support your indigenous African ideas, any more than modern Irish Christians are likely to support worshipping Celtic deities.

And why the fuck should Ebonics be made an "official" language? What elevates Ebonics over any other regional vernacular, like the New York, Italian-American dialect, or the Irish-Boston dialect, or whatever? If anything, Spanish should be made into an official language of the US, since a very large percentage of Americans speak Spanish.

Why do you care so much about ensuring your "distinct history"?

Because it was stolen from me?

No it wasn't, unless you were born 300 years ago and you were literally dragged off in chains from Africa.

what good will your own state do if it gets invaded one day by some nation of white supremacists, and the US doesn't feel like doing anything about it?

Black America goes down fighting? Hell, you can always kick the invaders out eventually. Ask the Zimbabweans. I would expect "International brigades" to be formed from haitians and whatnot to assist us.

You're an idiot. Really, how many other black Americans do you know that share your insane ideas? Seriously, are you this guy?

A better overall strategy would be to push for integration, so as the decades roll by racial tensions deflate. By creating a separate "race state" you're only exacerbating the problem and ensuring that racial differences continue to divide us long into the future, all in the name of your precious "African distinct history".

The racial divides happened to the point that it was considered a good idea to establish your own state MULTIPLE times during the history of the black man in america.

And the numbers show that the "black man in America" is overall, having a much improved experience than was normal only 30 years ago, in terms of education, economics, and integration. Interracial marriages are at an all time high also, by the way. In another 20 to 30 years, blacks will probably reach economic parity with whites on average, in which case nobody will give a shit anymore about these problems.

No, "nation" is an ethnic group. "state" is what you refer to when you say sovereignty and government.

Whatever. "Nation" also generally refers to "people who share a common territory and government", but I'll just drop this because I don't care to get into a boring semantic debate.

Because the black underclass was shat on and black schools were thrown under the bus during integration? Because black history was butchered by white americans who fucked up the teaching/historical aspects? Because blacks have to put up with white american culture even more because black businesses were screw over by integration? Because blacks have to deal with whites saying "you aren't really black" when you grew up in a black family/culture/neighborhood and presumably you know more about being black than a foreigner does?

Yes, I'm aware of all those problems. And Jews were persecuted for millenia, and then literally almost whiped off the face of the Earth by the most technologically advanced murder-industry the world had ever seen. So what? Now Jews have their own state and what good is that doing anybody? All it's done is ignite religious/ethnic tensions throughout the Middle East and generally cause everyone a major fucking headache. But it's all good, because now we're free to embrace our "distinct history"!

Black social mobility and "empowerment" has increased tremendously since the 60s, to the point where we literally have a half-black President.

The last two PMs for the UK were Scottish. Doesn't mean the Scots don't feel oppressed still. A nominal black person as president means jack shit if he is basically white in outlook/design/policy.

The Bourgoeise has their own outlook on life and often it will not match the outlook and aspirations of the majority of the population. The Black Bourgoeise, Obama being an example will not automatically look out for the affairs of other black people.

Please prove to me the majority of black Americans support your wild pro-African rhetoric. Most black Americans I know have the same overall desire to be happy and prosper in 21st century America. They're also pretty supportive of Obama, in general.

The American Empire is on the way to collapse. The sooner black people deal with this eventuality the better, so they can jump shit when things get really shit.

Again, please spare me your boring rhetoric. Prove that the "American Empire" is collapsing. What gives you that idea? A declining GDP? What? I agree the US will soon cease to be the world's only super power, due to the emergence of China and other significant world powers, but I doubt the US will "collapse" (by any standard definition of collapse) anytime soon. At worst, it may eventually be fated to be relegated towards much lesser significance, like Great Britain after World War 2.

Poland and Ukraine. The populations were separated and interethnic violence stopped. Greeks and Turks in Cyprus. The Turkish military separated the Greeks and Turks. The violence stopped. Northern Ireland. 'Prods' and 'Taigs' were separated into different areas. The violence stopped.

Right. And India and Pakistan are separate as well, and they never fight. Israel and Palestine are separate and they never fight. Clearly, separation always works!

All people deserve the right to determine their own affairs without foreign influence.

This is circular. What does "foreign" influence even mean? You were born in the US: no foreign government is bothering you right now. You've simply attached your identity to some generic pre-Triangle Trade African culture. Seriously, it's pretty sad that your entire identity is based around some ethnic affiliation. Just be your own fucking person.

[Channel72]

Crap, I screwed up the quotes tags for those last couple of quotes... sigh.

[Saxtonite]

So a bunch of bullshit anecdotes from Chicago and some quote from W.E.B. DuBois establishes, in your mind, that Jews are generally hostile towards black people? I'm beginning to wonder if you're even worth responding to at all.

I quoted Martin Luther King on the Jews, that's not a 'bullshit ancedote'. Unless you can show how Jews did not go and exploit black neighborhoods.....

Here's another quote from Andrew Young, a black former UN delegate who was fired for meeting the PLO:

But, you see, these are the people who have been overcharging us — selling us stale bread, and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they’ve ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans, and now it’s Arabs; very few black people own these stores.

This is from 2006. This narrative isn't exactly limited to a few people on the behavior of Jews towards blacks.

And Israeli Jews don't give a shit about black people. They're too busy hating Arabs.

Care to explain discrimination against Beta Israel? Or shit like This?

You're a complete idiot.

NO U

Nobody can claim descent from King Solomon because there's no way to trace lineage back that far, apart from ridiculously unreliable Biblical records. Historians aren't even exactly sure if King Solomon even existed, since the Biblical accounts of his reign are couched in such obviously legendary material. He probably existed, since the House of David is almost certainly historical, but there's very little reliable historical evidence for anything relating to King Solomon. Archeology, at least, reveals that accounts of his glorious temple are greatly exaggerated; the remains of the Temple today in Jerusalem are almost entirely from Herod's time. Even if Solomon existed, it would be impossible to trace lineage to him: There is no way to reliably trace ancestry that far back, and the multiple Diaspori (the Babylonian exile, followed by the Roman Diaspora) make it all but impossible to trace lineage back to First Temple Period Israel.

Let my get this straight. You go wax and wane about how King Solomon miight not have existed, and how the evidence is iffy for his existence......in a discussion about the descendants of Converts calling Black Jews with a better 'claim' not Jewish enough. How do Askhenazim have a better claim to being 'legitimately' Jewish then Beta Israel, as that was my statement above.

American Jews make up less than like 2% of the population. While they are disproportionately influential in this country due to their economic prosperity, a large percentage of support for Israel comes from Christian Evangelicals.

Not originally. Israel was chugging along pretty well and even developed nuclear weapons on their own before the US began taking an interest/aid into Israel.

Recognizing that the State Department was skeptical of the "peaceful" outcome of establishing an exclusivist Zionist state on Arab territory, the Zionists and the Jewish Agency (later the Government of Israel) established outlets for propaganda and pressure on the U.S. public. The American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was placed in Washington to influence Congress, public officials and the press. It was well funded and published in the Near East Report and was recognized as "the Israeli Lobby." A psuedo--"American Christian Committee for Palestine" was funded by the Israeli Government and U.S. Zionists.

What Mr. Truman then did was to turn over the Middle Eastern policymaking and the fate of State Department personnel to the Zionists; who were not in Government at all. He turned it away from his trained diplomats and over to irresponsible and fanatic people who simply purged the State Department.

As you can see, that's why the United States has made blunder after blunder in the Middle Eastern area. It has been controlled by Zionist groups, through money to Congressmen and Senators who get large fees. For instance, Mr. Hubert Humphrey gets as much money from the Zionists and the Jews as he does from the U.S. Government.

There was tremendous pressure upon the governments of other countries to vote for the partition program, which the Zionists had accepted. There were a number of Jewish Zionists at the U.N., like Robert Nathan, Bernard Baruch, and various other people, who were calling up the chiefs of other states and saying, "Unless you vote for this partition program, the United States will not build a road in your country; will not help you in aid or will not do something else." They were pretending they had the authority of the President of the United States to determine policy, when they were just one individual operating on their own.

The main reason the many countries even ACKNOWLEDGED Israel, or the partition plan, or whatnto was because the Zionist Jews manipulated the US government to do so and threatened other countries that the US would not assist them if they did not support the foundation of Israel. Evangelical Christians did not take over the government in the 1940s to support Israel. Evangelical Christians did not funnel massive amounts of money to buy politicians for Israel. The JEWS did.

If enough people support the legalization of polygamy, then I'm sure it will eventually be legalized.

The central government fought a war against Mormons in "Deseret" partially over that and there were disputes until 1898 or so. And these were white americans who predominantly had converts from Northwest Europe.

I don't know any black Americans who actually want polygamy legalized. The large majority of black Americans are Christian, and therefore unlikely to support your indigenous African ideas, any more than modern Irish Christians are likely to support worshipping Celtic deities.

Most of the African-American Polygamists are Muslim.

And why the fuck should Ebonics be made an "official" language? What elevates Ebonics over any other regional vernacular, like the New York, Italian-American dialect, or the Irish-Boston dialect, or whatever?

Nationalism.

If anything, Spanish should be made into an official language of the US, since a very large percentage of Americans speak Spanish.

New Mexico and California spoke Spanish as official languages from the beginning as U.S. States. Which U.S. states with large black populations have Ebonics as an official language?

No it wasn't, unless you were born 300 years ago and you were literally dragged off in chains from Africa.

Well, I don't know my ethnic group's origin, the languages they spoke before creolization, etc. Yeah that is -stolen-. Oh, and my first name is a European name, not an African name sooo......

You're an idiot.

O RLY

Really, how many other black Americans do you know that share your insane ideas? Seriously, are you this guy?

The Vice President of the Republik of New Afrika group is mayor of Jackson, Mississippi

And the numbers show that the "black man in America" is overall, having a much improved experience than was normal only 30 years ago, in terms of education, economics, and integration. Interracial marriages are at an all time high also, by the way. In another 20 to 30 years, blacks will probably reach economic parity with whites on average, in which case nobody will give a shit anymore about these problems.

And you think economic parity will magically erase racism? Asian-Americans are economical par and "superior" to white americans re. income yet they still are discriminated against. So how will that preserve black culture?

Yes, I'm aware of all those problems. And Jews were persecuted for millenia, and then literally almost whiped off the face of the Earth by the most technologically advanced murder-industry the world had ever seen. So what? Now Jews have their own state and what good is that doing anybody? All it's done is ignite religious/ethnic tensions throughout the Middle East and generally cause everyone a major fucking headache. But it's all good, because now we're free to embrace our "distinct history"!

Well, you don't have to worry about antisemitism while in Israel, or a "hitler coming to wipe us out again" given you have the ultimate power of state control and goddamn nuclear weapons to wipe out any motherfucker who threatens you. The Jewish people are more secure now than in the past. You can probably wipe out all the Arabs around you and get away with it because of your power. So yes, Jews having their own state was pretty good for the Jewish people, because there was no discrimination against them in their state, no pogroms against them in their own state, no Nazis throwing them in ovens in their own state, no religious bigotry against them in their own state, no ethnic/cultural bigotry against them for being Jewish (not the stuff i mentioned earlier), etc.

Hebrew was a dead language before Zionists ressurrected it in Israel. Remember, culture is important to people, people have been jailed and killed over language issues in many countries for example.

Please prove to me the majority of black Americans support your wild pro-African rhetoric. Most black Americans I know have the same overall desire to be happy and prosper in 21st century America. They're also pretty supportive of Obama, in general.

Ask them specifically what the "Black President" has done specifically for blacks

Prove that the "American Empire" is collapsing. What gives you that idea? A declining GDP? What?

Peak Oil, Climate Change, Soil Degradation, etc. Oh, and several governments around the world are discussing the effects of such things. Peak Oil will be the thing which pushes the collapse the most. There were US government reports which basically said it will take 20 years for a transition without any shocks in the process. That was in the 1990s/early 00s. Guess how much time has passed now.

Right. And India and Pakistan are separate as well, and they never fight. Israel and Palestine are separate and they never fight. Clearly, separation always works!

Without Separation, the subcontient would still be in mass violence probably. Please show me how integration is such a good thing. After, the Kurds and Persiand and Turks all share states and are integration, clearly integration works *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

This is circular. What does "foreign" influence even mean?

not black

Seriously, it's pretty sad that your entire identity is based around some ethnic affiliation. Just be your own fucking person.

Says the guy whose' society and standards overwhelmingly 'shield' him form feeling otherized

You're telling someone to be their own fucking person, when someone is being their own 'fucking person'. I guess wanting to speak your mother tongue in government is being someone else's bitch now......

Also my entire identity is not ethnically based, why would I be posting on a science fiction forum about this then? Also I mentioned earlier in this thread about going to an anime convention. That's three things which show you're wrong.......

[Simon_Jester]

How easy do you want it to be, for the people with real power in this country to use "divide and conquer" tactics to keep you under? Because you're making it so easy it's like you've painted a target on your back.

Let me get this straight? Because I would mention cases of Jewish exploitation and racism towards black people, I would get a target painted on my back?

I think you misunderstand me.

There is a term for what happens when various small groups start blasting away at each other: "circular firing squad." Put the target in the middle.

A circular firing squad is not good at destroying its target- or if it does destroy the target, it also destroys the firing squad! In this context, the 'target' is an oppressive social order.

If you waste energy pursuing old grudges, or picking fights with small minority groups that purely incidentally have, at this moment, found a niche in the system that happens to harm your group... you're going to end up in that circular firing squad.

So I do not recommend that a new state start by denouncing Israel unless, say, it is a Middle Eastern Arabic country. Middle Eastern Arabic countries have much more to gain than to lose that way. Most other countries have it the other way around. You do NOT want your state's continued well-being to depend on support from a handful of relatively marginal outliers. Like Venezuela under Chavez, who is now DEAD. Do you want to bet that his country's outspoken foreign policy will persist without Chavez the professional grandstander in charge of it?

Will it make Blackbeltia a stronger place to speak the AAVE dialect? Especially if people like you go and try to turn it into a constructed language redesigned for maximum 'blackness' according to whatever standard you set for it?

I would say yes given some variant of AAVE is already spoken by a majority of the black population in America.

That certainly isn't a good answer to the second question. You're proposing not only to make AAVE the national language of Blackbeltia, but to change it into a made-up language. The black equivalent of Esperanto or something.

Do you expect that to help? Will it be helpful if, fifty years down the road, foreigners cannot visit your nation without relying on native interpreters? Will it be helpful if your own people are torn by an internal debate between those who do, and do not, want to adopt the new language and teach it to their children?

The arrogance and obnoxious behavior of people who think "integration" means "bulldoze over the minority culture" disgusts me, but at the same time, I have to wonder if you or someone like you would be competent to preserve their culture even given complete freedom to do so. Or whether you'd end up steamrollering it in this bizarre Year Zero frenzy.

Uh, no - I did mention the Africanization process would be much longer and WAY more streamlined then Democratic Kampuchea's agrarian programs.

I'm not sure that's good enough.

The fundamental problem isn't just that you are planning to do in 100 years what Pol Pot wanted to do in five. The problem is that you are starting out with a long range goal of overwriting much of the culture of the people you need for your country to succeed, and replacing it with an 'authentic' culture that does not represent them, and a language that did not grow naturally on their minds and tongues.

You are, in short, trying to turn people into alien beings- or into more alien beings than they were before. I think this will tend to backfire- just not as bloodily as trying to do it with machetes would have gone.

If you are going to turn around and condemn people for being "not really black" when they try to explain being black to a foreigner, and do so intelligently, then this last one seems a bit hypocritical.

Where have I said people are not 'really black'? I've said that some of the bourgoeise may not have the same interests as the majority population but I don't think I said they "aren't really black."

Put this way. If you are rejecting them, then while the words "not really black" may not be in your mouth, that is the effect your words have. You are saying they are unfit as a spokesman because their lives have diverged too far from the people you want them to speak for.

I say that of necessity, anyone powerful enough to be of use to you is likely to match that description. Lord knows it's hard to find a non-corrupt, honest, close-to-his-roots representative for any other group with an economic disadvantage in America.

If you disown them, though, and then complain because blacks are not successful, you are being stupid.

[note: bourgEOisie]

I did not 'disown' them however. I mentioned they are not automatically going to side with the nationalist due to it being in many of their their self-interests. The "i made it why can't you" outlook of Bill Cosby....or Japanized Koreans during Japanese rule who willingly accepted Japanese culture. Which explains one of the studies I linked earlier (there is another study in "Disintegration of black america" which suggests otherwise, but apparently that study focused on nouveau-riche).

If you don't have them, do you have a plan for succeeding without them?

Many of the people you need who have the skills you would need to run a country, with experience running large businesses, maintaining large infrastructure, running bureaucracies... they're exactly the class of people you project may not be siding with you.

And in case you hadn't noticed, Zimbabwe is now damn near a failed state. Mugabe succeeded in expelling the whites, but failed miserably at running a country, which is actually much harder. Because when you're trying to make a country work, your troubles don't all come with convenient color-coded skins to beat up on.

This is especially true if you doom your people to ignorance and incompetent rule, by expelling people with the education and experience it takes to make a difference. If those people are white, they are unwelcome because of their whiteness. If they are black, then they are unwelcome because having learned to code-switch and to manage businesses and to send their children to the best available schools means they are 'not really black' or 'not black enough' to be worthwhile leaders.

The Africans in Zimbabwe preserved their culture and languages better, so there was less of such a pressure. And again, the mismanagement began to take place several years after independence. My statement about "it working" was in context with the liberation struggle, restoration of black rule and what immediately took place after the struggle, not Mugabe's douchebaggery years down the road. The economy stagnated during the 1990s and afterwards.

A point you are missing, in my opinion:

The "house-cleaning" phase can cause the "misrule and douchebaggery" phase. "House-cleaning" is often a brutal process. It demands politicians willing to order killings and deportations. It demands a people willing to tolerate these measures, and turn upon hated enemies who live in their own towns and neighborhoods. If it is done in an organized fashion, it demands the efforts and resources of something very like a secret police force.

And once you have those things... you get a rule like Mugabe. He's established a native government by destroying the foreigners, and has established that his faction runs the native government by being more ruthless at destroying foreigners than anyone else.

In other words, he's all set to engage in rule by thuggery. How likely is it that he will submit to orderly, efficient rule of law?

If you want an even better example of this, take Idi Amin.