|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
B1 |
We need a place were we really run stuff.. A state inside the United States still would be subject to US Federal law.. I am in favor of something alittle more drastic. We need complete independence, freedom to make our own laws. There are places in this hemisphere that alos fit the bill, Belize, Haiti, is about it. But Africa is where we really should be looking. I think Namibia, Angola, Botswana, really fit the bill..
|
|||
|
|
D1 |
I'm down with that but do you really think that the people in those countries are just going to step aside and welcome us in with open arms? Also, thinking about doing something here is more realistic. Getting folks to move to Georgia is a tad bit easier than moving to Namibia!
 Plus, honestly, we've built a standard of living here in America that I'm not sure that I'm willing to sacrifice. Personally, I don't think I need to have the right to print currency or wage war to feel free. Just give me a sense that I have an equal shot at the brass ring and surround me with black folks and I'll be cool. I think we could get folks to congregate someplace in this country sometime in our lifetime. Not sure about a mass exodus across the Atlantic. |
|||
|
A1 |
quote:Seriously, how do you suppose we finance this exodus? What contingency of Black folk do you know or assume will pick up and go... (I don't know what to say as far as pick-up and go to what because you have not illustrated thoroughly enough to say what we will pick-up and go to.) I understand your sentiment but please offer us a little more on the logistics. What I am asking is how do we build to that point where we can decide whether we want to stay or go... And just in case you still haven't understood... There are plenty of us who will not "go" while there may very well be some of us that may. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. -- Frederick Douglass |
|||
|
C4 |
Hey, I can just pick up and leave.
I'm an African immigrant, and my family just built a house for ourselves in Nigeria, so if I feel this country isn't doing it for me, I can just walk away whenever I want. But I don't, because you know why? That would be taking the easy way out. What about all the other blacks who don't know where they came from and have no means to take this step? Am I just to leave them alone? No, for all the difficulties me and my family went through due to the legacy of slavery, we have also benefitted immensely from the contributions blacks have made for this nation, whether it was forming the base of the incipient economy to shattering the barriers of hate so that people like me can come to this country in the first place. It's disappointing how many Africans don't identify with blacks this way, but in my heart I know what's right. |
|||
|
D5 |
I think that repatriation was tried in the past when the U.S. recolonized Liberia with with freed African-americans during the mid 1800's. It was marginally successful from what I understand. There were several other attempts to repatriate African-americans to Africa that failed miserably.
There are so many things to take into consideration when looking into this issue. I favor NoahTheAfrican's idea of AA's settling in a southern state or states. Once the propeties have been purchased, business connections have been formed, trade partners established and government has been reformed, then it will be an attractive place for all blacks from other countries to live. Just my opinion. "I am a child of God, a servant of Allah, a child of Shango, a child of Oshun, no matter what anyone does to me." |
|||
|
A1 |
I had a first cousin who had a standard reply for anyone who said "Let's go back to Africa." She would say, "Take 'Let's' and go."
I don't support a state, or states for Americans of unknown African ancestry. One reasson is the logistics of making that happen. I realize this is a "what if" scenario, but can you imagine the politics of deciding who gets in, and who would have to be immigrant. The most likely resolution would be on the basis of race, color, and citizenship. Then the priority system of "who comes next." It would get messy. There are some clear social and political impacts to this option. Every established State would get two seats in the Senate. Each State would get a number of seats needed to reestablish the proportionality of the House of Representative. BUT, aLL OF THE IMPACT ON THE POLITICS OF ALL OTHER STATES WOULD BE LOST. ALL THE PUBLIC OFFICES OF ALL OTHER STATES. THE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL FEDERAL MONIES WOULD BE NARROW TO THE NEEDS OF A STATE(S) CONTAINING THE APPROX. 35 MILLION CITIZENS. WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ALL OTHERS, WHICH WOULD BE LEGAL ALIENS. I'm sorry I have to retreat to my personal preference  , BUT I think there is greater impact, socially and politically, to identify ourselves as an ancestral entity. Reject all identity by color, except as a descriptor. Create an national committee register in the political structure of our nation, and simply "go forth."The impact would be monumental! The self-perception of our children would immdediately leap to a parity in all the decisions they would be faced with. The politics of America would never be the same. The language of American society would change forever. The definition of "diversity" would force the change of how decisions are made in the institutions of the nation. African America would then be able to come to the table of Pan-Africanism with the clarity of speaking for a people, as opposed to simply "a delegation of "Blacks" (perish the word) with an attitude." There is no going home. Home slammed the door in our faces. We can't know home. Home can't know us. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
D1 |
quote: What?  |
|||
|
|
B1 |
In response to a couple of issues raised, I would like to respond. It would not have to be everybody. Everybody won't be willing to go. Most of us are to involved in Ameirca and truly beleive we could not ever make it w/ out white people. Reference the battered wife syndrome.. But as far as who would pay for the trip? Anyone w/ 2 grand. It aint hard at all.. I think a core group of may 500,000 would be more then enough. Once we get things moving there more people would come later. It would not just be opened to African-Americans either.. Haitins, Afro-Cubans, Afro-Brazialins, Jamiacans, whomeever from acrooss the diaspora would be interested. And yes some comforts of western life would be given up, that would be a small price to pay for true freeddom.
|
|||
|
Founder |
quote: What is your concept of what "true freedom" is? How do you think that would be obtained? Just by moving somewhere in Africa? Also, a serious issue is how the indigenous people would receive us. Are you certain that 500,000+ Americans would be welcome? We could move to Africa and have less liberty than we do here. Most people operate out of their self-interest. How is it in their self-interest to let a group of foreigners in to "run things"? |
|||
|
C5 |
Damm good questions MBM!!
Obviously, its not as simple as it appears, - just review Liberia's history. As you stated MBM, the concept of "freedom" is much more complex than just simply moving elsewhere. |
|||
|
|
Founder |
To be clear, I don't mean to downplay this issue. I'm just trying to flesh out some of the ideas a bit. I'm curious about how this might play out.
As you can probably tell though, I am very intrigued about the idea of creating an "African American state". I can "see" that vision much more clearly than an exodus to Africa. I also, honestly, am not focused as much on the "freedom" issue as are others. I'm not sure that true freedom can be found much of anywhere. I don't know what that means even (are Africans "freer" than we are here etc.?). In my opinion, freedom is more a state of mind than anything anyway. Under that scenario, I could be really free in a black controlled state here in America.  |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Well, MBM...
My idea as far as an "African-American State" is centers around national sovereignty and self-determination. Simply put, self-determination for us is the full control over the every decision-making aspect of the collective social, political, economic, educational, and cultural lives. ...Power and controlling influence to create our own vision and chart our own course in mandated, codified and institutionalized ways. quote: As far as an "African American State" is concerned, the "Mississippi Model" as Noah promotes is interesting. However, I'm at a loss to see how an official "migration" plan will play out. I just think that comes by way of a concentrated effort to make an area attractive for those seeking "a place to call home", a place were Black progress will abound. Maybe that's what he's saying but I don't see how we can ever effectively control a certain geographical area in the U.S. and call it our own without considerable time, money and power. I guess in my mind a declared migration plan puts the cart-before-the-horse. Perhaps I'm not understanding what is intended as well as all the logistical steps. It goes without saying that I completely understand the sentiment and reasoning for the need for such an entity/endeavour. I think we need a plan to work up to that point. A plan that can envision "statehood" ("nationhood" is my preferred term) either in a geographically specified area of the U.S. or in Africa. But, for sure, IMO both of those are rather long range projects that will take precise planning, training and preparation to do them right. Just picking-up and leaving whether to a certain area in the U.S. or in the "motherland" makes absolutely no sense if there is nothing there already established by us to make the transition smooth. If you plan a vacation you make definite arrangements for all accomodations. If we "repatriate", where will the jobs be on the other side?? Where will we get food from? How will we house ourselves? These are the logistical questions and arrangements that must be firmly set before any travel/migration plans go forward. That goes for both the "Back To Africa" idea and the "Mississippi Plan". For all of us that discuss these ideas we really do need to focus on the logistics and move beyond the reason why... I think on some level we all agree on the goal or perhaps more so on the idea of having more control over our lives with minimum or no outside interference or adverse influence. quote:You're new, I guess, so perhaps you don't know the people here well. But suffice it to say very few if any of us believe that "we could not ever make it w/ out white people." The challenge is for you to demonstrate how we can in a clear step-by-step manner, even to the most minute detail. That is what we all need to do to make a realistic assessment. We might find that maybe the very thing we desire may not be so feasible, at least not in the short-term. Frankly, I think we need a TRANSITIONAL or interim plan. A step before either of those can be successful procured. (continued) |
|||
|
|
Founder |
Here's a thought about logistics -
Black folks migrated out of the South after Reconstruction. Over the last 20 years or so we've already started heading back to the South. We understand migration. All we'd have to do is stimulate and focus the migration to a place - state/city etc. and over time the demographics would take care of themselves. Think of the way Mexicans have migrated throughout the United States, and they have a border (and culture, language etc.) to contend with. I think if the concept was embraced by African America, and people that moved felt as if they were "investing" in something - it could happen. Of course, parallel with this migration would need to be a cultural awakening about politics. We'd need to embrace "the system" and use it for all it's worth. Again, I see extraordinary opportunity in playing their game, but playing it more explicitly to our advantage. Whether embraced as a "transition" plan of some kind, or an end in and of itself - building strong and active black community can only be a good thing! |
|||
|
|
A1 |
I suggest an Interim or TRANSITIONAL PLAN because I feel it is necessary that we have the building blocks in place so as not to "build our house on sand." (Note: In Iraq the U.S. has set up a "transitional" temporary gov't or plan that will change once 'everything is set up' and the right people are in the 'right places'.)
Simply, I believe that we should seek primary control over our institutions, politics and economics nationally right here in the U.S. without any direct migration plans per se. To me, we need to redefine and reshape America's democracy. In my quest to figure this out and approach a working model, I have come across the African-American [Consultative] Assembly idea I posted in the What does everybody think of this Political Option? thread and, before that, in a Black Nationalist exploration in my provocatively title Time To Elect A BLACK PRESIDENT! thread. Recently that idea has spurred productive consideration of what EBONYROSE has entitled the BLACK CENTRAL COMMITTEE. I see that idea as the first step. We must first consolidate our leadership, genius, and, most importantly our vision. From there, I believe in having PRIMARY control over our tax dollars. Then, I feel we can begin to build the infrastructure in our communities city-by-city, then eventually state-by-state or within certain states if we decide. So, NOAH's "Mississippi Plan" isn't outside of the purview of my idea. As far as "repatriation" is concerned, I see the "Central Committee as the functioning body that could lay the ground for that too. But I think most serious thinkers believe we have a lot of work to do before we get to that point. We want to leave with something and go somewhere where we have something (of our own). Unless we can really meet that criteria we are doing ourselves a disservice and taking this monumental task all too lightly. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote:That's my feeling too. I see it as perhaps something that if expressed openly - i.e. deliberate migration - it could open ourselves up to undue backlash and counter-planning. However, I think, as I think you do MBM, that there must be a rallying force that would cause this to happen in a more expedient fashion. I also think that a permanent structure has to take form to ensure the lasting viability of this approach. (I use the term Transitional strictly to acknowledge that there may be "high" goals... and that there may be a different set-up at some time to keep this going.) |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Hey... MBM
I need you to formulate some questions for me so we can get on the same page or at least allow me to articulate how this would work. You say "work within" or "embrace" the system... whatever works, man... However, I feel that it must be changed to some extent. There are plenty of people around the world who are fighting for their right for self-determination. And I believe a struggle to transform democracy in multiethnic societies into a consociated democracies is a worthwhile and the ultimate struggle for meaningful co-existence... Could you tell me how this will happen by simply "embracing" the system and taken it "as-is"? What would it require that hasn't been tried already? How will traditional models or approaches to politics of "mobilizing our vote" expand to accomodate a task like this that may be outside of conventional electorial politics? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
As I said, I would prefer the "State Model." There is a lot of logistics to consider in any case. But the "State Model" is already there. The logistics are already there.
You simply move! Organizationally, there needs to be a political template in place. As population rises, demographics will effect the political dynamics of each community, which will effect each municipality, which will effect each county, which will ultimately define the State. This is accomplished simply by following the rules. That's the way it works now. The backlash would be huge. Business and industry would leave or threaten to leave, because most will be owned, at least at the outset and in transition, by Europeans, and/or those "lock-in" with that power structure. The big hurdle is motivation. I would recommend that one State be selected. One with a shore line, Atlantic or Pacific, but not Great Lakes. (A strong argument could be made for the proximity to Canada.) It could, instead, be served by one or more of the major rivers of the continent. It should have a large land area to enable self-sustaining agriculture. It should have a currently modest non-European population, meaning less than 20% to minimize "who's in charge challenges" at the beginning. Things like that would be on my short-list. About sovereignty: States are already sovereign entities. They all surrender most national sovereign rights to the federal system of the Republic as a condition of membership. The 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment reserve to individuals and the State, respectively, control of all those things not specifically addressed in the Constitution. And, its all legal!!! And, it does not need anyone's permission for it to happen, at any pace, or time. It can be done!!! THE QUESTION IS: DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DO IT? PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote:That's what I would hope to avoid. Not the backlash because you will never have control over that - what other people do. Rather, I feel like any model would attempt alleviate at that forthrightly. We should be able and seek to build a supportive economic structure before the "move", IMO. As far as want to do it. We still haven't arrived at a clear vision of what we really want to do... what the goals are and how we all are implicated. Why would we want to subject ourselves to the type of backlash from white businesses and indusrties?? Implicit in that, even in this move for "independence" is our dependence, at least initially, on those very White entities. What's missing in all the rhetoric is how are we gonna supply jobs for ourselves. Are Black people suppose to feel secure "moving" somewhere where their employment which may happen to be at a "White" firm will be threatened or lost? Certainly we need to formulate a more secure plan if we really intend on it working. |
|||
|
|
B1 |
There are some issues that would have to be tackled.
As far as AA going there and trying to take advantage of the native populous there, I hope that would not be an issue. We should go there in all humbleness and try to build a future together with them. A future that would include them and us, as equals. The reason I selected Botswana and Namibia is that these countries have very small populations, but have very large corresponding land masses. There is a lot of room there. The small population would minimize the us vs. them factor. The idea of giving AA immediate citizenship has already been debated. Ghana has discussed it. We would have to try to not let the mistakes of the past happen again. I may be over simplifying the issue, but the idea has merit. Check out Ghana and the “Law of Return†http://www.info-ghana.com/right_of_abode.htm http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/index_20000523.asp |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: In my opinion "embracing" the system is the strategy to influence and change it. By rejecting the American political process we only ensure that we remain enslaved by it, or subject to the "benevolence" of those that drive it. It certainly is not "simply" embracing it. It is seeing the current system as a tool to be used to our benefit, however limited and with all of its warts. In general I agree with your "transitional" approach. Whatever the end objective, it would seem that the first step would be to encourage political participation so as to impact things in our communities today, to whatever degree that that might be. As I've said, if we are serious about meaningfully changing our lot in this nation, because of the demographic realities (i.e. 12% of the total pop.),there are only a few things that we can do. They include, IMO: In the same way that a magnifying glass focuses the sun's rays so that it can burn a dry leaf, the above strategies would seem to be able to help African America to make a powerful presence within this country into one that commands much greater power and influence. Let white folks worry about the Democrat and Republican parties until the cows come home. Let's get black folks thinking about how to leverage our vote to our benefit. Period! The concept of a "black state" obviously fits this bill. Plus, for those that are serious about secession, wouldn't a pre-existing black state be a more meaningful platform from which to seek independence? IMO, being more powerful politically only gives us more options, not less. |
|||
|