A enraging expose from Jon Oliver on voting rights.

[AniThyng]

And I realize that this has gotten rather off-topic, for which I'm sorry. But I feel that it is important to express my discomfort with the idea of creating a state at least partially based on race. And frankly that should make anyone else uncomfortable too. Sometimes I feel like progressiveness has bent around in a loop until, with the best of intentions no doubt, its ended up in the same place as white supremacism, more or less. Separate but equal.

Would it surprise you if for some members of minorities, separate but equal is desired if it means they get to keep their own customs and culture? TBH I think it's too complex an issue to reduce to "basing on race = always bad", especially when the race in question is the minority and/or the oppressed.

[Simon_Jester]

First of all, I am aware that their are differences between the situation of the Native Americans and the situations of other groups. That said, I am not convinced that these differences justify creating a separate state for certain groups of people. If they are part of the United States, they should be part of the same system and society. If they are not part of the United States (and I recognize that large parts of the country, if not the entire country, were taken from their inhabitants by force), then they should be a separate nation altogether.

As Duchess notes, the current status quo is that the native tribes ARE recognized as separate nations, which happen to be subordinated to the US government by treaties that limit the exercise of their sovereignty. These tribes have ceded much of the land they used to occupy, also by these same treaties, in addition to the many areas of land in America that never belonged to any surviving tribe because those tribes were utterly wiped out (e.g. much of California and much of the Eastern Seaboard)

Of course, that doesn't work in practice because if we were to give the natives all of their land back we would have to pretty much disband the United States (I do not wish to legitimize secession). At some point (and believe me I do not say this lightly because I recognize that a lot of truly horrific things were done to Native Americans), you have to accept that you can't undo the past, and you just have to do the best you can to treat everyone equally going forward.

I had previously assumed you knew what the status quo was; I was obviously wrong.

I do hope you'll revise your conclusions in light of the fact that the Indian tribes legally HAVE autonomous existence, never conceded that, and already live under a separate legal regime from other people living in the states adjacent to their borders.

And you might note that I never used the term "melting pot", a term I do not like because it implies that all cultures should merge into a homogenous mix. I have no problem with cultural diversity so long as all people are ultimately subject to the same laws and part of the same state.

As noted, the Native American tribes are already independent entities. Since you seem to want them to be subject to the same laws and part of the same political hierarchy, I assume you know the current status of the tribal reservations and want to merge them with the existing US government... in which case you are very much advocating a "melting pot" approach to sovereignty.

And logically, you cannot have a 'melting pot' with regards to sovereignty if you don't also have a 'melting pot' with regards to culture. Because a culturally distinct people may well need specific laws to protect their way of life. They may need government institutions that are useless to others who do not have the same cultural arrangements as themselves. They may need a maze of exemptions.

So while rhetorical posturing about 'melting pot' versus 'salad bowl' is all very well, the reality is this:

If you want to make the rhetorical point that allowing Indian reservations to amalgamate into the 51st state (or the 51st through 56th states) is 'apartheid' and is troubling because it opposes your ideological conviction that all races should live under the same law... You are basically arguing that the sovereignty of the Native Americans, which they never conceded, somehow 'needs' to be conceded in order to fulfill an ideological vision you have for America. A vision that is yours, not theirs, and that almost certainly has far more to do with the culture and customs of the Old World colonists in America than it does to do with the natives themselves.

That is not a good place to stand.

I also think it is a mistake for you to refer to the natives as if they are a homogenous group. I imagine their are a variety of feelings on the issue in the native population, seeing as how it is comprised of a large number of individuals, though admittedly I don't have any statistics on the subject on hand at the moment.

Well, it's not like the reservations are falling all over themselves to give up what limited sovereignty and autonomy they have. So when I speak about "the native tribes," I may not speak for literally every native, but I am definitely describing a trend that has real existence.

[Joun_Lord]

I think different ethnic groups have a right to enforce their own customs through their own laws.

Not disagreeing with you but what about when that is not possible because of irreconcilable differences between cultures?

Things like female and non-Muslim oppressing Sharia law, forced marriages, honor killings, FGM, and other things similar tend to not gel so well with our western pig dog customs. At the risk of sounding anglo-centric, our customs and laws regarding those things are (usually) superior and creating a separate society within our society for their society of barbarism would continue to cause harm.

If say an Native tribe had (and I'm just pulling random shit out of me rotund rear and not actual implying any tribes do these things I say, well type) human sacrifice like the Aztecs or Incans. A part of their tribal custom for thousands of years and highly important to their culture, what would you think the response should be about it?

Similar, though far less bad unless you are PETA, conversations are going on about Native tribes custom of hunting endangered animals like whales or bald eagles.

And to run the risk of sounding like a racist I can see where RR is uncomfortable with the "separate but equal" treatment of Native tribes. Its the same reason people were highly uncomfortable about Saxtonites blathering of turning the South into a black Bantustan and dividing the country along racial lines. Having some control over their destiny is good (though if they are on a PC they are shit out of luck) but having a completely separate state for race will breed discrimination towards other races. Will create greater divisions amongst people and allow the assbags with the power (rich whiteys) to remain in power and privilege rather then going towards what most people want and that is the McRib being a permanent menu item.......no, thats not right, equality was it I think maybe.

Plus there is the fact racial dividing is kinda harder these days. Native Indians tend to be some of the whitest people. Most African Americans are atleast partially white, my own state has the "whitest" black people. Many white people have atleast some Indian ancestry and quite often some African.

I'm so white I can wear white gloves and people don't notice at times but my great, great, great, granddaddy was apparently an African for Sicily according to some family tree crap my family did. Discounting the anti-Obama idea that Africans who never experienced slavery aren't really black, I could be considered black. Should I be moving to the black nation despite being able to disappear in a snow shower if I decided to streak?

Race in the US is just all kinds of muddled.

[The Romulan Republic]

And I realize that this has gotten rather off-topic, for which I'm sorry. But I feel that it is important to express my discomfort with the idea of creating a state at least partially based on race. And frankly that should make anyone else uncomfortable too. Sometimes I feel like progressiveness has bent around in a loop until, with the best of intentions no doubt, its ended up in the same place as white supremacism, more or less. Separate but equal.

Would it surprise you if for some members of minorities, separate but equal is desired if it means they get to keep their own customs and culture? TBH I think it's too complex an issue to reduce to "basing on race = always bad", especially when the race in question is the minority and/or the oppressed.

No, it wouldn't surprise me if some minorities want separate but equal. You can find someone who will support almost anything. But that doesn't mean that its a good idea. Ultimately, I feel that the goal should be to have a society where everyone coexists equally, not to further divide society along racial lines and thereby reinforce the idea that different races can never fully coexist.

And I deny the suggestion that a minority group cannot keep their culture except by cutting themselves off from other cultures, except insofar as I recognize that all cultures inevitably evolve over time with (or without) interaction with other cultures.

The Native Americans HAVE different countries. Those countries are presently in a state of vassalage to the United States. That is the legal definition of an Indian reservation.

I was aware that native reservations have some autonomy, but they are clearly still subject to the authority of the United States to some extent and so far as I'm aware their residents are US citizens.

I suppose my terminology was not completely accurate, for which I am sorry, but I believe I understood at least the general idea of the situation.

And here's a question: Given a choice between the status quo (you seem to have an understandable dislike for it) and the abolition of reservations with the Native Americans simply being treated the same as any other Americans, which would you prefer?

At any rate, I fundamentally disagree with your definition of equality. I think different ethnic groups have a right to enforce their own customs through their own laws.

Out of curiosity, how far would you take this? Do you believe, for example, that Muslims from the Middle East should be allowed to practice Sharia law? Or that white people should be able to have a state where white supremacy and Christian theocracy are part of the law, since those things are, unfortunately, part of traditional white cultures?

And frankly, if every culture is allowed to have its own laws without major limitations, the entire idea of a country with more than one culture becomes an unworkable farce. Which means any society which allows the free movement of people and the free expression of ideas becomes an unworkable farce.

If Nebraska and New York can have different laws, why can't Native Americans have different laws from California? A federal system already functionally allows each state to enforce its own mores.

This seems to be a somewhat more compelling line of reasoning, but I still see a sharp distinction between a state formed along racial lines and one formed based on less poisonous criteria.

Here, I actually think it's racist for you to suggest that a distinct group of people with their own distinct needs should be included within New York, as in the case of the Seneca. Why shouldn't they be able to choose their representatives just like New Yorkers can separate from Pennsylvanians? If federalization includes the right to legislate on guns and healthcare and marijuana, why are we going to demand federalization be based on random geographic lines instead of a set of shared values?

Ah. Unsurprisingly, we get to the "Label your opponent racist" tactic for debating issues to do with race.

So, its racist to dare to believe that people from different races should live together in the same state and society? Like I said, progressivism bending to the point that it ends up in the same place as white supremacism.

Is Germany racist for forcing all the Bavarians to be in Bavaria and live under Bavarian law? On the contrary it seems like as a clearly defined unique group of German citizens, Bavarians actually prefer to have the right to control some of their own destiny in a collective fashion.

Germany forces all Bavarians to stay in Bavaria? I didn't know that. I find that hard to believe, but if so, that's discrimination.

The simple fact of the matter "The Romulan Republic", is that I find your beliefs on Native reservations to be profoundly racist, ignorant, and anglocentric. They're based on the assumption that all people are inherently better off under white law.

Bullshit.

First of all, what the fuck do you mean by "white law"? Laws are not white or Native American or anything like that.

And an idea should be judged based on its merit, not who came up with it. I certainly do not favour laws because they were invented by white people. I don't give a shit who came up with the law. I care about weather its just and effective. I may be mistaken sometimes, being only a fallible human being, but you should at least respect me enough to not to make such false assumptions about my motivations.

That white notions of civil rights work best for all people, and that individuals in Native reservations have no right to preserve elements of their own custom, religion, language, and legal code by having a framework for doing so (called a "state" in this instance, or else a reservation as it currently stands) distinct from other groups of people.

Again, an idea is not white or Native American or anything like that. It is an idea, which should be evaluated based on its merits, not on who invented it or is associated with it.

You are practicing an ad hominem fallacy writ large.

And I never said, nor do I believe, that the natives on reservations do not have a right to have their own culture, religion, or language. Those things can and should coexist with other cultures, religions, and languages in a free multicultural society.

I think you are a liar and if I did not hold the right to freedom of expression in very high regard I would report you to moderation for violating Posting Rule number 3.

At any rate, it gets even more fundamentally absurd when you consider that they'd still have to comply with the overarching constitution. If being a group of white people living on the Mississippi instead of a group of white people living in Cascadia is a good enough reason to have separate US Constitution compliant state constitutions, why isn't being a group of native Americans a good reason to have a separate state-level constitution? There's no good answer to that, and you need to step back and think about it for a bit. Ethnic groups have as much right to exist as people do, and more to the point, they have an especial right to decide on their own laws, language, and custom.

Your insinuation that I do not believe ethnic groups have a right to exist (which is a small step from saying I advocate genocide) is further proof of your dishonesty.

And if I had my way I'd be inclined to make the whole Earth one country, but clearly that isn't going to happen in the near future.

We've stolen everything else from them, we've maimed and tortured and raped and killed so much that we changed the very climate of the world with our holocaust,

We have not done any such things. I can say with absolute certainty that I have never stolen Native land, maimed anyone, tortured anyone, raped anyone, or killed anyone. You want me to take responsibility for possession of stolen property by virtue of having been born on this continent? Fine. For the rest, judge me as an individual, not as a white man, just as I would judge a Muslim as an individual and not on the actions of ISIS or an American as an individual and not on the actions of the KKK.

and now a bunch of libertarians and leftists alike want to finish the job and erase their very identity and the very last of their sovereign land. God, but THAT'S the sickening thing.

I have no desire to erase anyone's identity.

Liberals thought they could integrate Native Americans before, so they took away their reservations and they forced them to farm and they forced them to learn the white man's ways, and made them more broken, more ignorant, more helpless, more divorced from happy lives.

Forcing anyone to abandon a healthy way of life is an atrocity. However, I hope you are not trying to say that all Natives should live traditional lives regardless of their own choices on the matter, because that would make you pretty damn racist.

The Agent on the reservation forcing people to wear Victorian dresses and plant wheat for the sake of equality and progress drove as many into the helpless, despairing death of drink as the cavalryman shot on the frontier.

Yeah, I'm not going to defend that kind of shit, believe it or not.

All they want to do is live their own lives, according to their own values and customs. And that's somehow 'wrong' in your worldview.

Who the fuck are you to speak for what all Native Americans want, oh great white saviour? And who the fuck are you to tell me what I think in contradiction of my actual words? I'll tell you who. A liar and a hypocrite.

The correct response to what you propose is resistance. The just thing to do, of course, is to negotiate, and finally settle the end of five hundred years of slaughter.

Are you seriously saying that living as equal members of a multicultural society is an idea that should be met with resistance? And God help you if you are advocating violent resistance because that I will report to moderation.

Fuck, you're nuts.

Simon_Jester, I'll get to your post later. For now, it is late and I am going to bed. I just couldn't leave the lying hypocrite until the morning. I have this thing about being publicly defamed and insulted.

[The Romulan Republic]

I just want to say, again, that I am sorry for how this topic has gone so off-topic. I never intended for this to happen and would gladly abandon this tangent if it were not for the need to defend my arguments against dishonest attacks.

In fact, I'm inclined to create a separate thread for debating policy toward Native Americans and multiculturalism versus segregation since I think its a debate worth its own thread. However, it will have to wait until morning.

I am also sorry if I have offended anyone. I believe in racial equality and justice for all people, and that is a motivation for my arguments and part of why I was so angered by Duchess of Zeon's post.

[AniThyng]

Would it surprise you if for some members of minorities, separate but equal is desired if it means they get to keep their own customs and culture? TBH I think it's too complex an issue to reduce to "basing on race = always bad", especially when the race in question is the minority and/or the oppressed.

No, it wouldn't surprise me if some minorities want separate but equal. You can find someone who will support almost anything. But that doesn't mean that its a good idea. Ultimately, I feel that the goal should be to have a society where everyone coexists equally, not to further divide society along racial lines and thereby reinforce the idea that different races can never fully coexist.

And I deny the suggestion that a minority group cannot keep their culture except by cutting themselves off from other cultures, except insofar as I recognize that all cultures inevitably evolve over time with (or without) interaction with other cultures.

Coexistence and tolerance can happen even with arbitrary racial lines. You have yours and I have mine, say. Intermixing and assimilation invariably benefits the majority(or stronger) culture at the expense of the weaker. And even then both parties can disagree on who is actually the weaker culture in that case. It may be interesting to think about what you expect about assimilating immigrants or minorities and what you give to them in return - I may be spitballing here but from what I see, what tends to happen is that the 'stronger' culture picks and takes the bits it likes from the weaker culture (food, clothing, maybe) but refuses whatever it does not like (religious custom, gender roles) and forces the weaker culture to conform. This may well be a good thing but you see how ti can get twisted into "white ways = better"

Sure you can talk about sharing and making both stronger, but that doesn't mean anything necessarily - Japan and China and Korea share so many cultural similarities and yet....

And I think it's really relevent to think about what it means when you have things like Sharia into the mix. It's not even a western only problem. I come from a multi-cultural country with a muslim majority and the non-muslims can be no less islamophobic as white westerners, insofar as fear of Sharia is islamophobia, anyway.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think different ethnic groups have a right to enforce their own customs through their own laws.

Not disagreeing with you but what about when that is not possible because of irreconcilable differences between cultures?

Things like female and non-Muslim oppressing Sharia law, forced marriages, honor killings, FGM, and other things similar tend to not gel so well with our western pig dog customs. At the risk of sounding anglo-centric, our customs and laws regarding those things are (usually) superior and creating a separate society within our society for their society of barbarism would continue to cause harm.

If say an Native tribe had (and I'm just pulling random shit out of me rotund rear and not actual implying any tribes do these things I say, well type) human sacrifice like the Aztecs or Incans. A part of their tribal custom for thousands of years and highly important to their culture, what would you think the response should be about it?

Similar, though far less bad unless you are PETA, conversations are going on about Native tribes custom of hunting endangered animals like whales or bald eagles.

And to run the risk of sounding like a racist I can see where RR is uncomfortable with the "separate but equal" treatment of Native tribes. Its the same reason people were highly uncomfortable about Saxtonites blathering of turning the South into a black Bantustan and dividing the country along racial lines. Having some control over their destiny is good (though if they are on a PC they are shit out of luck) but having a completely separate state for race will breed discrimination towards other races. Will create greater divisions amongst people and allow the assbags with the power (rich whiteys) to remain in power and privilege rather then going towards what most people want and that is the McRib being a permanent menu item.......no, thats not right, equality was it I think maybe.

Plus there is the fact racial dividing is kinda harder these days. Native Indians tend to be some of the whitest people. Most African Americans are atleast partially white, my own state has the "whitest" black people. Many white people have atleast some Indian ancestry and quite often some African.

I'm so white I can wear white gloves and people don't notice at times but my great, great, great, granddaddy was apparently an African for Sicily according to some family tree crap my family did. Discounting the anti-Obama idea that Africans who never experienced slavery aren't really black, I could be considered black. Should I be moving to the black nation despite being able to disappear in a snow shower if I decided to streak?

Race in the US is just all kinds of muddled.

Ugh, please, I pointed out repeatedly that States still have to comply with the US constitution--this allows for cultural differences in the law without, of course, violating a set of fundamental precepts and principles. Next, racial division should be based on self-identification only, not genetics. Basing it on genetics IS racism. Honestly though if Kurdistan wanted to keep Islamic civil law while adopting US criminal law when it became the 51st state I'd tend to tolerate that. Relative backwardness in social law, as long as it doesn't directly result in death (i.e., as long as it isn't criminal law) is something that people of that culture and ethnicity should be able to choose how to eliminate on their own. I tried that awesome drug called believing you can force people to be good little westerners against their will, and it was great for a while, but it leaves you feeling really wasted when you come down. It just doesn't work. So getting a group into a legal apparatus where you can enforce laws against honour killing is, in the end, worthwhile even if means tolerating that their divorce law is shit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I just want to say, again, that I am sorry for how this topic has gone so off-topic. I never intended for this to happen and would gladly abandon this tangent if it were not for the need to defend my arguments against dishonest attacks.

In fact, I'm inclined to create a separate thread for debating policy toward Native Americans and multiculturalism versus segregation since I think its a debate worth its own thread. However, it will have to wait until morning.

I am also sorry if I have offended anyone. I believe in racial equality and justice for all people, and that is a motivation for my arguments and part of why I was so angered by Duchess of Zeon's post.

I am in fact saying that Native Americans have a right to armed resistance against your proposals, as the idea that their sovereign reservations should be abolished is an abrogation of their rights so total and fundamental that they have a right to resistance against it. I believe your proposals are that morally odious. But, of course, you have no power to implement them, and I'm not a Native American, so if you interpret that as a threat against yourself, that's pretty hilarious.

At any rate, I think your defense of yourself is pretty hilarious, too. Groups living in the same country under slightly different laws are not cut off from each other. The last time I checked, if you don't mind living in a state where people drive pickups and carry guns, you can pack up your belongings and move to Wyoming right the hell now and nobody will stop you.

I actually do support allowing limited measures from the Sharia into the law of a state with a Muslim majority. The actual vast majority of reasonable Islamic countries do this; they have acknowledged their cultural origins, but only use the law as a basis of a civil code--it is not valid for any kind of punishment, or the punishment is altered to a single year's imprisonment. This argument is an absurd red herring based on the fact that you seem to think US states have vastly more latitude under the law than they're given, an entire intentional ignorance of the context of my arguments. Saying that a self-aware Muslim people under Sharia have no right to reform it rather than to adopt wholesale western law is, once again, profoundly racist. Changing Sharia to eliminate objectionable areas is something most Muslim majority states did rather than wholesale adopt a western code, and why is that wrong? You are pretty laughable to bring up examples like this when everything I have argued is in the context of US states united together under the US constitution. It's like you're seriously arguing that suddenly an ethnic group with its own state will be able to ignore the constitution.

There is nothing poisonous about acknowledging the existence of ethnic groups and their right to decide things as part of their own cultural conversation. The Soviet Union, hardly a bastion of resistance to social engineering like your's, nonetheless massively empowered every single ethnic group in the country through a system of separate republics and autonomous regions. I mean, seriously, Ukrainian wouldn't even exist as an ethnic identity today if the Tsarist oblast system as part of the Russian Federation had remained in control of the Ukraine, it was in 1900 that close to being absorbed into the Russian mainstream. But instead their language, law, and custom were championed, they were given their own state, and the rest is a somewhat bloody history.

Germany forces all Bavarians to stay in Bavaria? I didn't know that. I find that hard to believe, but if so, that's discrimination.

This one is especially hilarious because it shows how dense you are: The point is that the State of Bavaria corresponds with an ethnic group (Bavarians) instead of being randomly geographically assigned! The fact that you cannot even tell this shows how little prepared you are to have a discussion about any of these kinds of concerns.

We have not done any such things. I can say with absolute certainty that I have never stolen Native land, maimed anyone, tortured anyone, raped anyone, or killed anyone. You want me to take responsibility for possession of stolen property by virtue of having been born on this continent? Fine. For the rest, judge me as an individual, not as a white man, just as I would judge a Muslim as an individual and not on the actions of ISIS or an American as an individual and not on the actions of the KKK.

You HAVE stolen their land, racist. As recently as 1960s we were still violating the treaties and directly stealing more land, more rights from our natives. You LIVE on stolen land without paying it. You're a squatter, and that's just a fact. You MUST be judged as a white man, because you exist with white man's privilege in white man's culture. You gain all the advantages of being part of the preferred race, and then you sanctimoniously declare that you're the one who sees further and knows things better than others and deserves to dictate the law to them.

I have no desire to erase anyone's identity.

But that's exactly what you're proposing.

Forcing anyone to abandon a healthy way of life is an atrocity. However, I hope you are not trying to say that all Natives should live traditional lives regardless of their own choices on the matter, because that would make you pretty damn racist.

A healthy way of life. "healthy" being determined by you, I guess? Heil Hitler! Now the mode of living of the whole world shall be impartially judged by the white conqueror on his stolen land. I find it hilarious that bolshevik revolutionaries a hundred years ago were more sympathetic to the reality of how minority ethnic groups were oppressed than you are.

Look, kid, you clearly don't understand privilege and what it does for you, and after all the gamergate arguments about mansplaining and all the other bullshit that's gone on for the past year, that's unacceptable. I do not have an obligation to spend hours explaining to you what you should already know. Let's just put it simply. Right now, you're whitesplaining.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You have clearly painted yourself against a simple concept, TRR: Ethnic groups, particularly indigenous ethnic groups, should be able to apply their own laws to areas they are a majority in, no matter how small or large that area is, according to democratic principles allowing the will of the community's majority to be expressed, and as long as these laws are in general compliance with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as a general set of basic values acceptable to all humans. This very simple concept, fundamental to communal self-determination and the right of a culture to exist as a distinct ethnos, is all I am arguing for.

[Simon_Jester]

I think different ethnic groups have a right to enforce their own customs through their own laws.

Not disagreeing with you but what about when that is not possible because of irreconcilable differences between cultures?

Things like female and non-Muslim oppressing Sharia law, forced marriages, honor killings, FGM, and other things similar tend to not gel so well with our western pig dog customs. At the risk of sounding anglo-centric, our customs and laws regarding those things are (usually) superior and creating a separate society within our society for their society of barbarism would continue to cause harm.

If say an Native tribe had (and I'm just pulling random shit out of me rotund rear and not actual implying any tribes do these things I say, well type) human sacrifice like the Aztecs or Incans. A part of their tribal custom for thousands of years and highly important to their culture, what would you think the response should be about it?

Since this is not the case, I would argue it is not relevant.

Whereas if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion we get the Stolen Generations and their American counterparts. Because surely if our Anglo customs are so superior, we should make the natives learn them, right? Right?

Similar, though far less bad unless you are PETA, conversations are going on about Native tribes custom of hunting endangered animals like whales or bald eagles.

Right, but that is a conversation, it is not or at least should not be just a matter of us piously lecturing the Indians on the importance of living in harmony with an environment and protecting a species we endangered in the first place.

And to run the risk of sounding like a racist I can see where RR is uncomfortable with the "separate but equal" treatment of Native tribes. Its the same reason people were highly uncomfortable about Saxtonites blathering of turning the South into a black Bantustan and dividing the country along racial lines.

My main reasons for discomfort with that were:

1) It would entail massed, forced migrations of blacks into the new nation of Blackbeltia and whites out of it.
2) Saxtonite had a lot of weird ideas about what cultural practices to impose on Blackbeltia, and hadn't thought through how to make it economically viable.

Since the Indian reservations are already legally independent, large concentrations of natives, with well defined customs and laws of their own, neither problem applies here.

I'm so white I can wear white gloves and people don't notice at times but my great, great, great, granddaddy was apparently an African for Sicily according to some family tree crap my family did. Discounting the anti-Obama idea that Africans who never experienced slavery aren't really black, I could be considered black. Should I be moving to the black nation despite being able to disappear in a snow shower if I decided to streak?

Race in the US is just all kinds of muddled.

The argument is, simply, that if you have not experienced the way a minority group is marginalized, you are not of that ethnic group.

To be black in America is to be unfairly suspected of crimes, to be disrespected and passed over for good jobs and opportunities. It's an unavoidable prejudice. To 'look white' while being black under some bizarre one-drop model is NOT to experience these things. And so there is a practical difference.

You have clearly painted yourself against a simple concept, TRR: Ethnic groups, particularly indigenous ethnic groups, should be able to apply their own laws to areas they are a majority in, no matter how small or large that area is, according to democratic principles allowing the will of the community's majority to be expressed, and as long as these laws are in general compliance with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as a general set of basic values acceptable to all humans. This very simple concept, fundamental to communal self-determination and the right of a culture to exist as a distinct ethnos, is all I am arguing for.

I would add as an aside to The Romulan Republic that it is very pretentious to be "post-ethnic" or "post-racial" as

I consciously try to avoid that because I know I am in no position to decide whether racial equality has advanced 'far enough.'

I enjoy a lot of advantages in living in a country that was colonized by the English, made strong by the British Empire over the bones of the native populations, and then able to expand still further at the expense of other native populations on the far side of the Appalachians, the Mississippi, and finally the Rockies.

Those advantages don't go away; the opportunities I enjoy that are denied to Indians on reservations don't go away.

How am I to claim that these native groups 'should' assimilate into the arms of the great-great-grandchildren of their conquerors? That they should give up any legal protection intended to assure that all they are and have been is preserved rather than being permanently erased from the world by the overwhelming size and power of the culture that conquered them?

Can I really argue that just because of some theory we conquering foreigners came up with to pat ourselves on the back for ceasing to actively murder and torture them?

[The Romulan Republic]

You have clearly painted yourself against a simple concept, TRR: Ethnic groups, particularly indigenous ethnic groups, should be able to apply their own laws to areas they are a majority in, no matter how small or large that area is, according to democratic principles allowing the will of the community's majority to be expressed, and as long as these laws are in general compliance with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as a general set of basic values acceptable to all humans. This very simple concept, fundamental to communal self-determination and the right of a culture to exist as a distinct ethnos, is all I am arguing for.

I admit I'm coming from a world view very much at odds with much of the human race, but here goes:

I do not give a shit for nationalism, and I despise the idea that each little ethnic group should have their own nation. I am an ardent anti-secessionist, and I apply this principle across racial lines. I don't support separatism when its racial minorities in America or Right wing Neo-Confederates in the South or French Canadians up here in Canada, and I'm only grudgingly open to the idea of independence in the Ukraine because I fear that the alternative is to risk nuclear war with Russia and, you know, priorities. I do not believe that good will come of dividing people into thousands of little tribes with homogenous, closed-off cultures. Ethnic division and race-based separatism is not progress- it is an evil that people have fought and died to overcome for centuries. And it is an idea which is at odds with a free society and with the globalized world that we live in.

Of course, this is not to say that I do not think other cultures than mine should be allowed to exist. That would be bigoted and despicable. Rather, I believe that the current boundaries of countries should generally not be divided, that government at any level should be based on things other than ethnicity, that the goal should be not segregation but equality and coexistence within a country, and that everyone should be subject to the same laws (which can and probably should incorporate ideas from a variety of cultures based on merit, not who invented them). I admit this all sounds wildly idealistic, but at the very least I would like to see us not regress.

Now, as to Native reservations, if an agreement was signed creating a reservation and giving it some autonomy, regardless of weather I think that was wise I believe that agreement should be honoured until such time as both parties are willing to renegotiate to achieve a better arrangement. Rule of law should be upheld and governments should keep their promises whenever possible.

One more point I would like to raise for the sake of accuracy: you seem to be treating ethnicity and culture as almost synonymous, and they are not one and the same. A person's culture is not an inherent ethnic trait. But of course, culture and ethnicity overlap a great deal in practice. Just a nitpick for accuracy's sake.

I would also like to apologize for the way I responded to your earlier post. I do disagree with you strongly on some points and feel that you misrepresented me, but I responded with ill-considered and undue hostility. I just really, really don't like being called a racist when I am trying to argue on behalf of equality.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I admit I'm coming from a world view very much at odds with much of the human race, but here goes:

I do not give a shit for nationalism, and I despise the idea that each little ethnic group should have their own nation. I am an ardent anti-secessionist, and I apply this principle across racial lines. I don't support separatism when its racial minorities in America or Right wing Neo-Confederates in the South or French Canadians up here in Canada, and I'm only grudgingly open to the idea of independence in the Ukraine because I fear that the alternative is to risk nuclear war with Russia and, you know, priorities. I do not believe that good will come of dividing people into thousands of little tribes with homogenous, closed-off cultures. Ethnic division and race-based separatism is not progress- it is an evil that people have fought and died to overcome for centuries. And it is an idea which is at odds with a free society and with the globalized world that we live in.

Of course, this is not to say that I do not think other cultures than mine should be allowed to exist. That would be bigoted and despicable. Rather, I believe that the current boundaries of countries should generally not be divided, that government at any level should be based on things other than ethnicity, that the goal should be not segregation but equality and coexistence within a country, and that everyone should be subject to the same laws (which can and probably should incorporate ideas from a variety of cultures based on merit, not who invented them). I admit this all sounds wildly idealistic, but at the very least I would like to see us not regress.

Now, as to Native reservations, if an agreement was signed creating a reservation and giving it some autonomy, regardless of weather I think that was wise I believe that agreement should be honoured until such time as both parties are willing to renegotiate to achieve a better arrangement. Rule of law should be upheld and governments should keep their promises whenever possible.

One more point I would like to raise for the sake of accuracy: you seem to be treating ethnicity and culture as almost synonymous, and they are not one and the same. A person's culture is not an inherent ethnic trait. But of course, culture and ethnicity overlap a great deal in practice. Just a nitpick for accuracy's sake.

I would also like to apologize for the way I responded to your earlier post. I do disagree with you strongly on some points and feel that you misrepresented me, but I responded with ill-considered and undue hostility. I just really, really don't like being called a racist when I am trying to argue on behalf of equality.

The point is that it isn't equality when the majoritarian views are imposed on minority groups. It has a nice theoretical sound to it from a certain ideological point of view, but it has literally never worked to improve the lives of ethnocultural minorities (I regard the two to be fairly profoundly interlinked, and I didn't just make up the word ethnocultural). I also admit that because you're a Canadian you're speaking from a really bad standpoint. Canada is worse than the US on indigenous rights, which takes some doing. The recent Canadian supreme court decision on them shows exactly the kind of progress that needs to be made with the conferring of native title, and makes up for the fact that the Harper administration was still trying to explicitly steal land even now.

Diversity is not regression. It is the right of peoples to exist as part of the uniqueness of the human biome. You cannot separate a people from the land they live in, their culture reflects it, and we're all part of the ecosystem that created us. The ways of living in one part of the world don't correspond with those in another part of the world, and imposing one single way of living--a sociocultural structure--leads, I believe, to evils such as habitat destruction and large scale plundering of local resources to meet centralized demand, because you've divorced people from a connection to the needs of the land in which they live. The notion that humans can, through reason, make this divorce from the environment that as animals we live in, is something tragically disproved in the past two centuries.

And the people closest to you in thought, the Soviets, adopted a completely opposed principle to your own. That is something you should perhaps think about.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As an aside: I actually supported Saxtonite's right to argument that Blackbeltia would work. His problem was the rather grim proposal of forced relocation, rather than a confederation between an Afrikan nation and the US, sort of like the old Austro-Hungarian confederation, where the Afrikan laws and cultural customs take on the role of Hungary, and those of the US proper, Austria. In that case, it would then be possible for any white person who chose to live under the laws passed by Blackbeltia, and any black person to choose to live under the laws of the US proper, by free and voluntarily movement between the two. The idea there is that the large bloc of political power inside the confederation exercised by Blackbeltia would force the rest of the US to treat blacks better as a matter of course. "Yeah, we're just not agreeing to the all-confederal defence budget until this changes" was a very effective Hungarian strategy. Of course, you may only think this is workable if you, like me, think that the Austro-Hungarian Confederation worked just fine and collapsed only due to outside military force and political machinations, and was neither ailing nor dying nor perpetually dysfunctional, as none of its socio-economic markers bear that out.

I actually think giving people of African origin that kind of political bloc power may be the only way to end the power of racism in the USA. But of course the devil is in the details, and Saxtonite wanted full independence, which would lead to the sundering of families and either forced relocation or minority populations at the whim of radicalized majorities. Saxtonite's problem was that he couldn't divorce a reasonable demand for African ethnic autonomy from the rather racist overtones of his political program once it was established inside of the new autonomous zone. In short, "Once we have autonomy, we'll pogrom the Jews" doesn't invalidate the argument for autonomy, but certainly makes people sick to their stomachs at the prospect of it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Here's a map of black population density in the US. That sort of concentration would make the Blackbeltia idea more viable, except that they're also below 40% of the population in even the blackest state in the US (Mississippi at 37%). You'd end up with an autonomous Afrikan zone where the black folks are a minority of the overall population, or a bunch of scattered zones where they constitute a majority but cover less geographical area (like reservations).

I don't think a country-within-a-country would be stable in the US if it couldn't be overridden by the larger federal government. It would lead to secession and independence, or be turned into something like the existing states where it's subordinate to the overall government and will of the national majority.

[Simon_Jester]

In any case, the point here is that one can present reasonable arguments for allowing an ethnic minority to control a stable, semi-autonomous region within a larger, federated country. The alternative is for the minority to be everywhere at a disadvantage, everywhere vulnerable to the whims and prejudices of a majority that outnumbers them and is individually richer and more powerful than they are to boot.

Ideological commitment to a melting-pot system where everyone lives all jumbled up under the same law code is NOT a good enough reason to say that this universal disadvantage and vulnerability is okay.

Personally, I'm a firm believer in the idea of the law being fair and treating everyone well enough that they CAN live together. But if that is not possible, I can easily sympathize with ethnic separatism.

And I am very wary of anyone who uses an argument concocted purely by the dominant majority for why minorities don't need their own state. It sounds too much like powerful men in 1955 coming up with explanations for why women don't need to go to college and have careers and have legal recourse to stop their husbands from destroying their families.

[The Romulan Republic]

I missed this vile little tract before, but I feel I must respond to it now since it is so utterly morally repugnant.

I am in fact saying that Native Americans have a right to armed resistance against your proposals, as the idea that their sovereign reservations should be abolished is an abrogation of their rights so total and fundamental that they have a right to resistance against it. I believe your proposals are that morally odious. But, of course, you have no power to implement them, and I'm not a Native American, so if you interpret that as a threat against yourself, that's pretty hilarious.

Regardless of weather you were threatening me, I have a dim view of those who support using violence except as a last resort under extreme circumstances. And you are basically saying that, were I able and willing to act on my ideas (or rather your obscene misrepresentation of them), it would be justifiable to kill me. So excuse me if I find that a) threatening, and b) morally bankrupt, you worthless piece of intellectual excrement.

I would also like to point out that I have explicitly said since this post that I do not think the reservations should be abolished without the consent of the Native Americans, regardless of weather they should have been created in the first place. However, that does not mean we should come up with a new form of separation as you suggest.

At any rate, I think your defense of yourself is pretty hilarious, too. Groups living in the same country under slightly different laws are not cut off from each other. The last time I checked, if you don't mind living in a state where people drive pickups and carry guns, you can pack up your belongings and move to Wyoming right the hell now and nobody will stop you.

Except that you are talking about a state created along racial lines for the purpose of having a culture that is distinct from the rest of the country (which can only really be maintained if other cultures and ethnicities are not welcome in said state). You may not be talking about a wall around the state, but their would be cultural and legal boundaries because that's the fucking point of your proposal.

I actually do support allowing limited measures from the Sharia into the law of a state with a Muslim majority. The actual vast majority of reasonable Islamic countries do this; they have acknowledged their cultural origins, but only use the law as a basis of a civil code--it is not valid for any kind of punishment, or the punishment is altered to a single year's imprisonment.

The history of theocracy is not a pretty one, so I'm leery of any steps in that direction. And I'm thinking of Christians at least as much as Muslims here, before you start whining that I'm a racist again.

And the law is not just if it is not applied even-handedly.

This argument is an absurd red herring based on the fact that you seem to think US states have vastly more latitude under the law than they're given, an entire intentional ignorance of the context of my arguments.

They do have quite a bit of latitude, actually. Not immunity to the Constitution, as you have pointed out, but quite a bit.

Moreover, saying intentional ignorance is calling me a liar. If you want to say I'm mistaken that's fine, but if you want to call me a liar you better have proof or I'll call you one right back.

Saying that a self-aware Muslim people under Sharia have no right to reform it rather than to adopt wholesale western law is, once again, profoundly racist.

A. Muslim is not a race and any objections I may have to Islam or using it as a basis for law are based on factors other than race. I mentioned some just now.

B. You are making a false claim about what alternative I support. You claim that I think law should be purely "western" (never mind that western law is not one homogenous thing but covers a variety of different systems). However, I am more than open to the law incorporating ideas from a variety of cultures (provided such laws are passed in a democratic manner), as long as the law is applied consistently to all and upholds basic rights.

Changing Sharia to eliminate objectionable areas is something most Muslim majority states did rather than wholesale adopt a western code, and why is that wrong?

Though I have a profound dislike for theocracy in general (something I suspect most of this board's members agree with me on), I certainly respect any attempt to reform Islamic law.

You are pretty laughable to bring up examples like this when everything I have argued is in the context of US states united together under the US constitution. It's like you're seriously arguing that suddenly an ethnic group with its own state will be able to ignore the constitution.

Never did that. If it appeared that I was saying that, it was unintentional and I unreservedly retract it.

There is nothing poisonous about acknowledging the existence of ethnic groups and their right to decide things as part of their own cultural conversation.

I have no objection to distinct ethnic groups and cultures existing. I do have an objection to people in the same country not being subject to the same laws. I just happen to think that considerable cultural diversity can exist in a unified country. Call me an idealist.

The Soviet Union, hardly a bastion of resistance to social engineering like your's, nonetheless massively empowered every single ethnic group in the country through a system of separate republics and autonomous regions.

Oh yes, comparing me to a communist. You're borrowing from the Republican Party debating book, which is not a good sign.

I mean, seriously, Ukrainian wouldn't even exist as an ethnic identity today if the Tsarist oblast system as part of the Russian Federation had remained in control of the Ukraine, it was in 1900 that close to being absorbed into the Russian mainstream. But instead their language, law, and custom were championed, they were given their own state, and the rest is a somewhat bloody history.

While I support Ukraine's independence from Russia in the present (no comment on its origins), I would hardly use it as an example of the greatness of ethnic separatism. The results, as you note, have turned out somewhat bloody.

This one is especially hilarious because it shows how dense you are: The point is that the State of Bavaria corresponds with an ethnic group (Bavarians) instead of being randomly geographically assigned! The fact that you cannot even tell this shows how little prepared you are to have a discussion about any of these kinds of concerns.

I would suggest that you were unclear. Note that I did not actually believe that Bavarians were only allowed to live in Bavaria.

You HAVE stolen their land, racist. As recently as 1960s we were still violating the treaties and directly stealing more land, more rights from our natives.

I have stolen no land and I was not born in the 1960s, which means that you cannot accurately call me a racist based on this accusation. My "crime" is being born and living on stolen property that was stolen before I was born.

You LIVE on stolen land without paying it. You're a squatter, and that's just a fact. You MUST be judged as a white man, because you exist with white man's privilege in white man's culture.

Possession of stolen property then. Because the alternative is emigrating to another country, which might not even be feasible.

Also judging anyone by their race is racist and immoral. You can condemn the atrocities committed by some (not all) white people all you want and I will agree with you without reservation, but I will not submit to being branded a thief, a rapist, a slaver, or a murderer because I was born white. Not because I feel that I am particularly persecuted, mind you. The principle of intellectual integrity is all the grounds I need to object.

And what would you suggest if you think that non-Native Americans living in North America is wrong? To be consistent, you would have to argue either that they should all pay a fee and get permission from Native Americans to live here or that they should all be deported, imprisoned, or killed. I can see some reason and justice in the former option, though as a fairly poor individual who had no say in being born here I do not wish to pay for the crimes of others, and I still have just enough respect for you as a human being to not assume that you are arguing for the latter option (which is more than you gave me when you compared me to a Nazi).

Finally, the implication that their is a single white culture is ludicrous. Also, I find the insinuation that my culture is the same as that of, say, the Westbourough Baptist Church deeply offensive. Though you've compared me to a communist and a Nazi, so why not a trifecta?

You gain all the advantages of being part of the preferred race, and then you sanctimoniously declare that you're the one who sees further and knows things better than others and deserves to dictate the law to them.

Not at all. I believe I have a right to express my opinion, which others can debate, just like anyone else in a free country. That does not mean I think I have a right to dictate a single fucking thing.

But that's exactly what you're proposing.

I happen to believe that cultural diversity can exist in a united country. You, apparently, do not. That does not mean that I support wiping out cultural diversity, your pathetic attacks notwithstanding.

A healthy way of life. "healthy" being determined by you, I guess?

Not at all. We have judges, legislators, doctors, and other qualified professionals to determine that.

And I added that qualifier, I believe, to account for extreme cases where a lifestyle would be unambiguously harmful and criminal, like those fuckers in the southwestern US with their child brides (who are pretty white, incidentally). I am not talking about most cultures here. Most cultural ideas I would probably be willing to accept. I am not the raving bigot you are trying to characterize me as.

Heil Hitler!

So now you're calling your opponent a Nazi? I'd be more pissed off if I wasn't amused at you stooping to such pathetic, cliche depths. You really are going off the Republican Party playbook aren't you?

Now the mode of living of the whole world shall be impartially judged by the white conqueror on his stolen land. I find it hilarious that bolshevik revolutionaries a hundred years ago were more sympathetic to the reality of how minority ethnic groups were oppressed than you are.

I am not a conqueror and your implication that I believe my ideas are superior because of my race is false. I will refer to any further claims to that effect as defamation and libel.

I endeavour to base my ideas on reason, evidence, and my own sense of Right and Wrong. I am certainly capable of making mistakes, but the idea of basing one's beliefs on skin colour is abhorrent to me.

Look, kid, you clearly don't understand privilege and what it does for you, and after all the gamergate arguments about mansplaining and all the other bullshit that's gone on for the past year, that's unacceptable. I do not have an obligation to spend hours explaining to you what you should already know. Let's just put it simply. Right now, you're whitesplaining.

Please define that term. This is the first time I can recall seeing it, believe it or not.

I'm guessing it means "You are white so your opinion is invalid unless your opinion is one I deem acceptable.", which I translate to "Ad hominem writ large."

And I'm going to play the "back up your claims or concede" card here.

Edited to fix the quoting.

[The Romulan Republic]

I admit I'm coming from a world view very much at odds with much of the human race, but here goes:

I do not give a shit for nationalism, and I despise the idea that each little ethnic group should have their own nation. I am an ardent anti-secessionist, and I apply this principle across racial lines. I don't support separatism when its racial minorities in America or Right wing Neo-Confederates in the South or French Canadians up here in Canada, and I'm only grudgingly open to the idea of independence in the Ukraine because I fear that the alternative is to risk nuclear war with Russia and, you know, priorities. I do not believe that good will come of dividing people into thousands of little tribes with homogenous, closed-off cultures. Ethnic division and race-based separatism is not progress- it is an evil that people have fought and died to overcome for centuries. And it is an idea which is at odds with a free society and with the globalized world that we live in.

Of course, this is not to say that I do not think other cultures than mine should be allowed to exist. That would be bigoted and despicable. Rather, I believe that the current boundaries of countries should generally not be divided, that government at any level should be based on things other than ethnicity, that the goal should be not segregation but equality and coexistence within a country, and that everyone should be subject to the same laws (which can and probably should incorporate ideas from a variety of cultures based on merit, not who invented them). I admit this all sounds wildly idealistic, but at the very least I would like to see us not regress.

Now, as to Native reservations, if an agreement was signed creating a reservation and giving it some autonomy, regardless of weather I think that was wise I believe that agreement should be honoured until such time as both parties are willing to renegotiate to achieve a better arrangement. Rule of law should be upheld and governments should keep their promises whenever possible.

One more point I would like to raise for the sake of accuracy: you seem to be treating ethnicity and culture as almost synonymous, and they are not one and the same. A person's culture is not an inherent ethnic trait. But of course, culture and ethnicity overlap a great deal in practice. Just a nitpick for accuracy's sake.

I would also like to apologize for the way I responded to your earlier post. I do disagree with you strongly on some points and feel that you misrepresented me, but I responded with ill-considered and undue hostility. I just really, really don't like being called a racist when I am trying to argue on behalf of equality.

The point is that it isn't equality when the majoritarian views are imposed on minority groups. It has a nice theoretical sound to it from a certain ideological point of view, but it has literally never worked to improve the lives of ethnocultural minorities (I regard the two to be fairly profoundly interlinked, and I didn't just make up the word ethnocultural). I also admit that because you're a Canadian you're speaking from a really bad standpoint. Canada is worse than the US on indigenous rights, which takes some doing. The recent Canadian supreme court decision on them shows exactly the kind of progress that needs to be made with the conferring of native title, and makes up for the fact that the Harper administration was still trying to explicitly steal land even now.

Diversity is not regression. It is the right of peoples to exist as part of the uniqueness of the human biome. You cannot separate a people from the land they live in, their culture reflects it, and we're all part of the ecosystem that created us. The ways of living in one part of the world don't correspond with those in another part of the world, and imposing one single way of living--a sociocultural structure--leads, I believe, to evils such as habitat destruction and large scale plundering of local resources to meet centralized demand, because you've divorced people from a connection to the needs of the land in which they live. The notion that humans can, through reason, make this divorce from the environment that as animals we live in, is something tragically disproved in the past two centuries.

And the people closest to you in thought, the Soviets, adopted a completely opposed principle to your own. That is something you should perhaps think about.

First of all, I am a duel citizen of the US and Canada.

And my being Canadian is not the source of my views. I actually have more of an awareness of and interest in US history and politics than Canadian history and politics.

As for the question of diversity, which is more diverse: a separate state built around one group of cultures and ethnicities, or a country in which a wide range of ethnicities and cultures coexist, albeit with certain compromises so that they can exist under a common government and legal system that treats all people equally?

Also, while one's environment influences' ones culture, it is far from the only factor, especially in a world with instant global communication. If a Native American leaves their reservation and goes to live in another country for a while, do they cease to be a part of their culture? Would you say that they do?

And I'm about as far from Soviet ideology as you can get without being Rightwing. I am a fervent believer in democracy and non-violent reform, for a start. Which apparently is more than can be said for you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I cannot believe that you're trotting out tired old 2005 vintage hack claims about "republican party playbook" to attack someone arguing for indigenous rights. Jesus christ, you could get a job making propaganda for the Right Sector. Look, it's the right wing that wants to abolish Native reservations in the name of "racial equality". It's the right wing justices in the Supreme Court that make long-winded, high-minded speeches about "laws which divide us up instead of drawing us together" and eviscerate affirmative action! It's Harper who wants to eliminate the treaty rights established in the 18th century for Natives in Canada! You are playing right into the libertarian/right-wing playbook, you are disregarding and disrespecting the right of ethnic groups to collectively decide their future as a whole and jumping on the libertarian atomization bandwagon. I am breathless, stunned, because even by the sorry levels of internet debating, the sheer bloody-minded mendacity and brainless parade of stereotypes (I am a SUPPORTER of the communist nationalities policy BY THE WAY, so I was pointing it to you as an example of a more correct left-wing perspective!) that you have engaged in against me startles the eye.

So rather than reply directly to the rest of your claptrap, read the work of the indigenous people of your homeland that YOU ARE RIGHT NOW PERSONALLY HELPING TO OPPRESS WITH YOUR ATTITUDES AND DESTRUCTIVE ADVOCACY, in a nation where right up until August of last year, Harper was actively engaged in racist attacks on their land rights, making you a party to an economy based on the theft of resources of your first nations!

++http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com

++http://www.idlenomore.ca/manifesto

++http://www.defendersoftheland.org

++http://nationsrising.org

++http://cultivatingalternatives.com/2013 ... am-barker/

++https://zoongde.wordpress.com/2014/06/2 ... darity-p1/

Some of these people speak a harsher gospel than I do, RR! Be warned! You are definitely a racist, and you'll find out why when you read those perspectives and begin to understand just how ruthless your vision becomes when it is applied to ethnicities by your white privilege. I am a conservative, and I only marginally accept critiques based on privilege, and I don't agree with the term "settler" and the notion of settler politics and systems of settler power, so a lot of those people would consider me an enemy. At my heart, though, I believe while I regard that there is a reality that the peopling of the Americas was just another phase in the Indo-Aryan Völkerwanderung and the occupied land isn't necessarily less legitimately claimed than say, Britain and France becoming Germanic instead of Celtic, I have to acknowledge that the only moral, appropriate, and legitimate compromise is a policy of nationalities in which indigenous groups have full autonomy and veto rights over decisions of the central government about their people and their land.

Read this stuff, and then research and read MORE, and then get back to me. You are, quite simply, damned ignorant on the subject of the indigenous rights movement, especially for someone coming from its heartland, as most of the intellectual fervour in the movement is coming straight out of people in B.C.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

First of all, I am a duel citizen of the US and Canada.

And my being Canadian is not the source of my views. I actually have more of an awareness of and interest in US history and politics than Canadian history and politics.

As for the question of diversity, which is more diverse: a separate state built around one group of cultures and ethnicities, or a country in which a wide range of ethnicities and cultures coexist, albeit with certain compromises so that they can exist under a common government and legal system that treats all people equally?

A common government and common legal system are by definition anathema to diversity. You cannot separate law from culture, ethnicity from government, society from structure of governance. A nation is an organic whole, a living thing, just like a forest is a living thing. The national ecosystem is the sum of all components. The only way to achieve diversity in a country is to unify different peoples, languages, laws, and customs around a single ideal. Austria-Hungary did this around the ideal of personal loyalty to the House Habsburg. The Soviet Union did this around a shared ideal and commitment to the building of communism. Both are cases of true diversity, and neither of your examples is.

Also, while one's environment influences' ones culture, it is far from the only factor, especially in a world with instant global communication. If a Native American leaves their reservation and goes to live in another country for a while, do they cease to be a part of their culture? Would you say that they do?

No. They begin a cultural conversation with others -- something that begins to change their culture through their continued links to it, and something which begins to alter the culture they are in. This a natural process of exchange, a transnational cultural exchange. People negotiate the space they live in -- I am fairly deeply influenced by the work of one of my professors who was very interested in transnational feminism in my women's studies electives, but of course I reinterpreted it through my own conservative beliefs.

And I'm about as far from Soviet ideology as you can get without being Rightwing.

That's a shame. I'm very rightwing, and I think they have had some good ideas.

I am a fervent believer in democracy and non-violent reform, for a start. Which apparently is more than can be said for you.

That is correct. I regard war and violence as a natural and unlamentable part of human nature, a part of the cycle of expression of people, driven by the natural emotions of humans, and which the elimination of would eliminate part of the essential qualities of the human spirit. I also regard democracy with contempt, though I think in the case of the US, with its tradition of a republic, changing the constitutional nature of the state would be foolish, as it is part of our traditions, culture, heritage, society, mode of communication--so it is enough of who we are that it exists by the legitimacy "ab antiquo". So I would probably make a single constitutional amendment to trim a few supreme court decisions around the edges and otherwise leave the US as it is in terms of structural function (I have, of course, a basically integralist, distributivist, or syndicalist economic vision based on a rejection of market capitalism, but that's another matter), so don't start assigning insanity or utopianism to me.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's funny, but about two years ago I swore to myself and my wife that I'd only engage in political advocacy and debate on two issues going forward in life -- gun rights and indigenous rights. Everything else had just gotten so revolting and stressful and my own opinions so at odds with everyone else that it was just making sick to argue about. If this topic hadn't strayed toward the later I wouldn't even be saying any of this stuff. Unfortunately, in the case of indigenous rights, I have a moral obligation to stick to my damned guns to the bitter end. The simple, honest fact, is that indigenous groups have the right of sociocultural autonomy, and that's worth fighting over.

[The Romulan Republic]

I cannot believe that you're trotting out tired old 2005 vintage hack claims about "republican party playbook" to attack someone arguing for indigenous rights. Jesus christ, you could get a job making propaganda for the Right Sector. Look, it's the right wing that wants to abolish Native reservations in the name of "racial equality". It's the right wing justices in the Supreme Court that make long-winded, high-minded speeches about "laws which divide us up instead of drawing us together" and eviscerate affirmative action! It's Harper who wants to eliminate the treaty rights established in the 18th century for Natives in Canada! You are playing right into the libertarian/right-wing playbook, you are disregarding and disrespecting the right of ethnic groups to collectively decide their future as a whole and jumping on the libertarian atomization bandwagon. I am breathless, stunned, because even by the sorry levels of internet debating, the sheer bloody-minded mendacity and brainless parade of stereotypes (I am a SUPPORTER of the communist nationalities policy BY THE WAY, so I was pointing it to you as an example of a more correct left-wing perspective!) that you have engaged in against me startles the eye.

You compared me to Nazis and Soviets to discredit my politics. Sounds pretty much like the GOP to me. Or just a shitty and dishonest debater.

Also, by Right Sector do you mean the Ukrainian Party? I looked up the term and I didn't find anything about another group called Right Sector, but I want to make sure I know who I'm being insultingly and falsely compared to now.

Moreover, I am not a supporter of Steven Harper or of getting rid of treaty rights such as reservations except by hypothetical voluntary renegotiation. Which I have already said.

You are a liar, and a coward too if you don't have the guts for an honest debate.

So rather than reply directly to the rest of your claptrap, read the work of the indigenous people of your homeland that YOU ARE RIGHT NOW PERSONALLY HELPING TO OPPRESS WITH YOUR ATTITUDES AND DESTRUCTIVE ADVOCACY, in a nation where right up until August of last year, Harper was actively engaged in racist attacks on their land rights, making you a party to an economy based on the theft of resources of your first nations!

I do not support stealing anyone's land or resources, as I already explained. Liar.

Also, ducking out of the debate.

++http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com

++http://www.idlenomore.ca/manifesto

++http://www.defendersoftheland.org

++http://nationsrising.org

++http://cultivatingalternatives.com/2013 ... am-barker/

++https://zoongde.wordpress.com/2014/06/2 ... darity-p1/

I am open to researching this, but I would trust the impartiality and accuracy of any source you provided about as much as I would trust the accuracy and impartiality of Fox News.

Some of these people speak a harsher gospel than I do, RR! Be warned! You are definitely a racist, and you'll find out why when you read those perspectives and begin to understand just how ruthless your vision becomes when it is applied to ethnicities by your white privilege. I am a conservative, and I only marginally accept critiques based on privilege, and I don't agree with the term "settler" and the notion of settler politics and systems of settler power, so a lot of those people would consider me an enemy. At my heart, though, I believe while I regard that there is a reality that the peopling of the Americas was just another phase in the Indo-Aryan Völkerwanderung and the occupied land isn't necessarily less legitimately claimed than say, Britain and France becoming Germanic instead of Celtic, I have to acknowledge that the only moral, appropriate, and legitimate compromise is a policy of nationalities in which indigenous groups have full autonomy and veto rights over decisions of the central government about their people and their land.

I'm sure your sources are full of extremism. Probably some stuff about how white people are evil and violent revolt is good which I'd feel obligated to report.

And you know, considering that some people would see you as the enemy, as you say, perhaps you should be more empathetic to those who's opinions differ from your's.

As for the accusation that I am a racist, I will not assert that I have never inadvertently thought or done something racist. I doubt their is a human being who can honestly say that. However, my position in this debate is motivated by reasons other than racism. In truth, I despise racism, and weather I am going about things the right way or not, I am motivated by opposition to racism.

And if you're going to have a country, everyone should be treated equally by the law/the state. Otherwise you make a mockery of the concept of impartial Justice. If you're going to have different laws for different people, you might as well create a separate country, except that that opens the door to secession, and the last time that was seriously tried in America, it killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Read this stuff, and then research and read MORE, and then get back to me. You are, quite simply, damned ignorant on the subject of the indigenous rights movement, especially for someone coming from its heartland, as most of the intellectual fervour in the movement is coming straight out of people in B.C.

Translation: I refuse to debate or defend my position.

Now, I've ducked out of a fair few debates in my day, but its usually because I'm exhausted, otherwise occupied, or lazy. Actually ducking out because you refuse to address your opponents' argument and trying to claim the moral and intellectual high ground while doing so...

[The Romulan Republic]

It's funny, but about two years ago I swore to myself and my wife that I'd only engage in political advocacy and debate on two issues going forward in life -- gun rights and indigenous rights. Everything else had just gotten so revolting and stressful and my own opinions so at odds with everyone else that it was just making sick to argue about. If this topic hadn't strayed toward the later I wouldn't even be saying any of this stuff. Unfortunately, in the case of indigenous rights, I have a moral obligation to stick to my damned guns to the bitter end. The simple, honest fact, is that indigenous groups have the right of sociocultural autonomy, and that's worth fighting over.

And I believe in a society where different cultures, races, and ethnicities coexist equally in the same country, and I think that's worth fighting over.

I also believe in defending myself and my beliefs against misrepresentation and lies.

So if you mean to stick to your guns (a rather disturbing choice of words from someone who apparently thinks I'm a small step away from deserving to be killed), then I'm afraid we'll be here a while.

By the way, I love that your other topic of choice is gun rights. I guess you're really big on being able to shoot people. Creep.

[Joun_Lord]

Ugh, please, I pointed out repeatedly that States still have to comply with the US constitution--this allows for cultural differences in the law without, of course, violating a set of fundamental precepts and principles. Next, racial division should be based on self-identification only, not genetics. Basing it on genetics IS racism. Honestly though if Kurdistan wanted to keep Islamic civil law while adopting US criminal law when it became the 51st state I'd tend to tolerate that. Relative backwardness in social law, as long as it doesn't directly result in death (i.e., as long as it isn't criminal law) is something that people of that culture and ethnicity should be able to choose how to eliminate on their own. I tried that awesome drug called believing you can force people to be good little westerners against their will, and it was great for a while, but it leaves you feeling really wasted when you come down. It just doesn't work. So getting a group into a legal apparatus where you can enforce laws against honour killing is, in the end, worthwhile even if means tolerating that their divorce law is shit.

You didn't say that these racial enclaves would have to comply with Fed law that I recall, I'm much too tired and way lazy to skim through the thread to see if true, so I'll just take your word for it. My point was sometimes cultures have laws and rules and social customs that very much go against the Murican way of life and law.

Racial division sounds bad enough but racial division based on self-identification sounds odd to say the least. Sounds like transgendered people being allowed to self-identify their chosen gender. However its more akin to sex then gender. Race, like sex, is a distinct biological thingymabob. A person is black if they are darker skinned usually from Africa (I'm not sure if aboriginals are considered black, again there is some social shit too like how Obama is not considered black because he isn't descended from Africans who were slaves but I think that is a position not widely held). A white person is usually a lighter skinned white skinned racial epithet from Eurocommieland.

Like sex sometimes being ambiguous, so can race but for the most part their are distinct differences. A pale skinned blond haired, blue eyed Swede from Sweden isn't black anymore then white middle class suburban kids listening to rap music and lamenting how there lives are so tough just like the inner city impoverished and violence knowing rappers are.

A state or group wanting to keep their own local laws like Sharia law is fine and dandy but too often they want to bring parts of it that do not comply with the host countries ideals. Again, anglo-centric but we are a bit more superior (sometimes) when it comes to things like honor killings and child marriages and not killing people over badly drawn images.

We do force people to be good little western pig dogs when we say they can't marry 8 year olds, can't burn a rape victim for dishonoring her family or making her price to a potential suitor go out the window, can't cut off a girls clit or sew up her vagina because........ I don't fucking know why they do that and all the other lovely things their culture says they gots to do (the dew).

Some of those things don't directly result in death but I think most people, possibly yourself included, can agree that saying people can't do it here in Flagwaveyland is quite okay. We force them against their will to not do that shit because in our arrogance we believe our ways of doing things is superior and causes considerably less harm to underage girls and rape victims (unless that rape victim is a female college student or a male at all). We force them because they won't stop on their own and letting them go ahead with the snip snip of the clit clit causes mucho grande harm even if nobody (usually) dies.

And letting them do all the other shit while preventing actual killings is little better. Oh well they can't kill raped women and those that dishonor them but they can still force women into marriages and force them to stay married unless they can get the permission to divorce or the hubby hasn't raped them or feed them in a while. Nobody dies but they can still mutilate girls genitals and chuck stones at women who slept around or went outside without a headscarf or burqa or whatevs but still nobody died.

I doubt that was what you were meaning, I certainly hope not, but it sounds (read) as that way.

[Joun_Lord]

I think different ethnic groups have a right to enforce their own customs through their own laws.

Not disagreeing with you but what about when that is not possible because of irreconcilable differences between cultures?

Things like female and non-Muslim oppressing Sharia law, forced marriages, honor killings, FGM, and other things similar tend to not gel so well with our western pig dog customs. At the risk of sounding anglo-centric, our customs and laws regarding those things are (usually) superior and creating a separate society within our society for their society of barbarism would continue to cause harm.

If say an Native tribe had (and I'm just pulling random shit out of me rotund rear and not actual implying any tribes do these things I say, well type) human sacrifice like the Aztecs or Incans. A part of their tribal custom for thousands of years and highly important to their culture, what would you think the response should be about it?

Since this is not the case, I would argue it is not relevant.

Whereas if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion we get the Stolen Generations and their American counterparts. Because surely if our Anglo customs are so superior, we should make the natives learn them, right? Right?

Learn them? Maybe not. Adhere to them here, maybe so. But there is a considerable line between forcing Natives to dress up in sundresses and bonnets and change their names to Smith and forcing them to not kill people to appease the sun god or eat the other, other, other white meat (which is racist because its white). Or do you think not letting people brutalize others is somehow racist or a bad thing? Many cultures have harm as part of their customs, in a modern society with its rules and civilized customs and lite-brites shit like that don't fly (usually). We stop, or atleast try to stop, the white people Christian customs of killing heretics and blasphemers, we stopped the centuries old custom of owning other people (even fought an entire war over it that still hasn't got a decent video game).

What difference is there between stopping the Catholics from killing people who say God sucks butt and stopping Muslims from killing people that says Mohammad sucks butt?

Similar, though far less bad unless you are PETA, conversations are going on about Native tribes custom of hunting endangered animals like whales or bald eagles.

Right, but that is a conversation, it is not or at least should not be just a matter of us piously lecturing the Indians on the importance of living in harmony with an environment and protecting a species we endangered in the first place.[/quote]

It is a conversation because the Natives for the most part are good enough to be willing to talk about and alter their customs to more them more environmentally sound and more in line with girly man modern sensibilities. Other cultures are considering less open to changing or modifying their customs whether or not we ask really nice with a pretty please and a cherry on top or say do it fuckers.

But even with the natives there is still a stink being raised. I remember some bruhaha a few years back about Indians hunting receding hairline eagles for religious ceremony and even on this board people making a fuss about some Alaskan tribes killing like one or two whales a year to literally survive. Some people wish to discuss it, some wish to force them to stop altogether both the cultural customs and the literally life saving whale killin's. Certainly this is a conversation that is far from settled in our society.

And to run the risk of sounding like a racist I can see where RR is uncomfortable with the "separate but equal" treatment of Native tribes. Its the same reason people were highly uncomfortable about Saxtonites blathering of turning the South into a black Bantustan and dividing the country along racial lines.

My main reasons for discomfort with that were:

1) It would entail massed, forced migrations of blacks into the new nation of Blackbeltia and whites out of it.
2) Saxtonite had a lot of weird ideas about what cultural practices to impose on Blackbeltia, and hadn't thought through how to make it economically viable.

Since the Indian reservations are already legally independent, large concentrations of natives, with well defined customs and laws of their own, neither problem applies here.[/quote]

How about how the large nation can marginalize and isolate the smaller group? Or how people within such a culture have trouble adapting to the outside would should they choose to leave?

Things like economic disparity are also a massive problem. Indian lands work as well they do, and quite often they don't work all that well, because of money from outside and relying on shit like casinos to make money, outside money again.

But all that is fucking fuckity unimportant to the main problem, the thought that people need to be divided up because they can't get along. Thats beyond fucked. Just my opinion though.

I'm so white I can wear white gloves and people don't notice at times but my great, great, great, granddaddy was apparently an African for Sicily according to some family tree crap my family did. Discounting the anti-Obama idea that Africans who never experienced slavery aren't really black, I could be considered black. Should I be moving to the black nation despite being able to disappear in a snow shower if I decided to streak?

Race in the US is just all kinds of muddled.

The argument is, simply, that if you have not experienced the way a minority group is marginalized, you are not of that ethnic group.

To be black in America is to be unfairly suspected of crimes, to be disrespected and passed over for good jobs and opportunities. It's an unavoidable prejudice. To 'look white' while being black under some bizarre one-drop model is NOT to experience these things. And so there is a practical difference.[/quote]

I have been stopped by cops and searched. Followed in stores. Passed up on jobs and seen as lesser because of the way I look and speak.

However those aren't because I'm black (again, I'm not mostly and certainly don't look it). You can probably make the argument its because I'm another minority, Appalachian Americans can be considered a cultural minority and one that is unfortunately an accepted target of ridicule, but none the less being "black" as you put it isn't something that is inherent to African Americans.

I am disrespected because I talk funny and am viewed as an uneducated, racist, incest obsessed, hillbilly (don't use that word, that is our word!). I am followed and stopped by the po-po because I might wear camo (or because I might have a backpack, but that is unrelated to my culture, merely I ride my bike alot and need the pack to carry shite, cops are racist against cyclists) as my culture dictates I should.

Fellows Appalachian Americans, atheists, homosexuals, and other minorities both religious and racial get shit on with plenty of the same shit to attribute to blackness, none of them are black (unless they actually are but the ridicule and junk they receiver as a "god hater" or "queer" are unrelated to their skin color).

By the way, I love that your other topic of choice is gun rights. I guess you're really big on being able to shoot people. Creep.

Not to defend Duchess (of Zeon, not Archer or Archer) but someone who is into gun rights doesn't automatically want to shoot people. Gun rights are beloved for multiple reasons including but not limited to protection of lives and rights. Guns can save ones life and the lives of others. Maybe not with the stupid ass "kill terrorists attacking the mall" bullshit tactical wannabes jack-off to but defense of oneself and others from criminals, dangerous animals, and attackers. While the gun can be used to kill that is usually not what the operators operating operationally wish to do, unless they are crazy douches, but acknowledge sometimes is their life vs someone elses.

Defense of ones rights. One who cannot defend their rights cannot KEEP their rights. Being as sheeple, to borrow that horrifically tired parlance, one cannot defend themselves from slaughter nor defend their rights to exist or much of anything else. Having the right to free speech or freedom or freedom fries doesn't remain a right all that long if you cannot defend that right from those who would wish to take it away from you.

Now of course you can try to defend those rights legally in courts and junk but thats not always a viable alternative. Things like the Civil War were fought with people dying and killing to deny rights to others or to obtain them.

Also to shoot people. And clay pigeons. And real pigeons. Also random bits of scrap and junk, bottles and pop cans. And displaying your several thousands dollar safe queen penis compensator to your buds. All those are also a big part of gun rights.

[StandingInFire]

The Native Americans HAVE different countries. Those countries are presently in a state of vassalage to the United States. That is the legal definition of an Indian reservation.

This is the only reason that can justify letting them be their own states. Past history and "social guilt" is irrelevant if that where a deciding factor every region in the world could claim they have a right to be treated special and separately because they where conquered at some point or another.

Also while you seem to try to make native american bureaucracy not be racist the fact is many purposefully limit membership based on racist means, such as blood DNA tests, heck they are technically more exclusive than the KKK.

If they want to have full state hood they must also reform their ways of allowing people to become members of them and immigrate to their states, otherwise they get to be "special states", which would give them more benefits than other states and would just reverse the situation they are in now and discriminate against non-native states.

On allowing every ethnicity/subculture to have their own law is the worst idea I have ever heard if you want to have equality. It is the reverse of equality, and in most cases would be a massive step back in social rights for many people even if you just allow changes to social laws, as lgbt and woman have reduced social rights in many cases. Not to mention the massive headache of bureaucracy and law tangles you create in mixed culture/ethnicity cases, it would massively increase social segregation and racial tension. You should never encourage laws where 2 people with the only difference being race/culture get treated differently under them.