|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Founder |
quote: Exactly! That is precisely the crux of my argument, in fact. The racial climate, as well as African American demographics, are such that it is extremely difficult to get black officials elected to positions outside of the relatively few predominantly black Congressional districts sprinkled throughout the country. And when we do, they naturally have to have the interests of their broad constituency in mind in everything they do. Thus their ability to push a black agenda is muted. Just think of the power and influence of a black Senator or Governor with a clearly pro-black agenda? And before some of you throw out the "backlash" argument, think of that person as an extremely smart politic an who knows how to create sound alliances and to "get things done" in the political process, as well as "deliver" a state to a potential Presidential hopeful. Without creating majority black electorates, we essentially forfeit the opportunity to be in those committees that you talk about, much less advance to a position of chairing them. The Mississippi Plan facilitates that. quote: I'm really confused here. Taking our political future into our own hands and doing something about it is begging? How? Vox, you're a lawyer. You must believe in the power of law and in the political process. There seems to be quite a conflict between your chosen profession and your position on this matter. How do you justify that in your own mind? Why shouldn't black folks be smart about how we use the system? quote: Perhaps if the Mississippi Plan required all blacks, or even the vast majority, to move to the chosen state I could understand this tack better. As I mentioned, it doesn't necessarily take that many people. In Mississippi there are just over 1 million black folks. There are only 1.8 million whites! It doesn't take long to shift the demographic there rather quickly - in some instances with negligible impact on the broader demographics. |
|||
|
A1 |
quote: Haven't read every last word but thought I'd highlight this!!! |
|||
|
|
C5 |
(Noah The African : KH, the “Mississippi Plan†does not call for leaving the Union. It simply would manifest from the proclivities and prejudice of white folk who have demonstrated aversions to living under black majority rule. Again, black intellectual and monetary capital could be directed to Mississippi. It would start by building a foundation of Education and Universities, hospitals in industries. The state could recruit talented African Americans and Africans and develop exchange programs with Africa and the Caribbean. It could have a favored trade relationship with many African nations.)
Then I am with you 100%. |
|||
|
A1 |
quote: I'm not a lawyer yet!! You guys have to stop jinxin' a brotha!! But on your point, the language I used, kind of in response to Noah's post, probably was over the top. But while his model is interesting and worth looking into, the political aspects do kind of trouble me. Like Noah, I strongly believe that economic emphasis usually beats political ephasis. But the two don't exist in a vaccuum. The Mississippi model makes me think back to a supreme court case involving Hawaii. Native Hawaiians owned all of the land, and that ownership was concentrated in the hands of a small number of Hawaiians. The state basically confiscated the land to allow other people to buy it, and the court said this was okay. I always saw this as the court agreeing to take land from the Polynesian owners and redistribute it to the whites who had moved there. The case was from 1984. Seeing the concept of Noah's model a little more fleshed out (I haven't read this whole thread), I can see how it could be effective, especially if it doesn't require huge masses of blacks to move there. More later... |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Vox: (But while his model is interesting and worth looking into, the political aspects do kind of trouble me. Like Noah, I strongly believe that economic emphasis usually beats political emphasis. But the two don't exist in a vacuum.)
Why not? If there is a majority of blacks in a state, so much so that redistricting can not keep whites in power, then how can that not be considered a vacuum? Should white businesses leave due to racial prejudices, why can there not be an economic vacuum? It is the perfect situation for blacks to be entrepreneurs. Vox: (The Mississippi model makes me think back to a supreme court case involving Hawaii. Native Hawaiians owned all of the land, and that ownership was concentrated in the hands of a small number of Hawaiians. The state basically confiscated the land to allow other people to buy it, and the court said this was okay. I always saw this as the court agreeing to take land from the Polynesian owners and redistribute it to the whites who had moved there. The case was from 1984.) These individuals, were they considered American citizens? I think that in this situation (The Mississippi Plan) the government could not win, especially with contracts of ownership. For the government to challenge them would be an embarrassment. "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: As to question #1, I don't understand the question ("how can that not be considered a vacuum?") What I was saying was that, while we historically have given a higher emphasis to political equality over economic equality and need to make some changes to that way of thinking, concentrating power and influence into one state (if that were the plan here) could be harmful if we're not leveraging influence elsewhere. I live in a region of the country that is seeing its own influence diminish as the south and west continue to grow. The south went thru the same thing before the Civil War. I'm not saying this would be a fatal problem (especially now that I've thought about it more). But Mississippi would have to become a thriving, booming success to offset some of the political disadvantages sure to befall it. #2: The Hawaiian landowners were Hawaiian citizens, and therefore they were US citizens. The thing about that case that was disturbing is that the legal doctrine used to make the ruling took a big stretch of logic to apply to this case. It reminds me of Clarence Thomas' dissenting opinion in the affirmative action case.It reminds me a bit of Plessy v. Ferguson. Clearly the law as faithfully applied could never sustain such a decision. This means it was a decision the court was hellbent on making happen. So when white people decide they want to move into Mississipi and capitalize on the economic success, they will cite the Midkiff case as precedent. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Vox: (As to question #1, I don't understand the question ("how can that not be considered a vacuum?") What I was saying was that, while we historically have given a higher emphasis to political equality over economic equality and need to make some changes to that way of thinking, concentrating power and influence into one state (if that were the plan here) could be harmful if we're not leveraging influence elsewhere. I live in a region of the country that is seeing its own influence diminish as the south and west continue to grow. The south went thru the same thing before the Civil War. I'm not saying this would be a fatal problem (especially now that I've thought about it more). But Mississippi would have to become a thriving, booming success to offset some of the political disadvantages sure to befall it.)
Gotcha. Understand and agree completely. Vox: #2: (The Hawaiian landowners were Hawaiian citizens, and therefore they were US citizens. The thing about that case that was disturbing is that the legal doctrine used to make the ruling took a big stretch of logic to apply to this case. It reminds me of Clarence Thomas' dissenting opinion in the affirmative action case.It reminds me a bit of Plessy v. Ferguson. Clearly the law as faithfully applied could never sustain such a decision. This means it was a decision the court was hellbent on making happen. So when white people decide they want to move into Mississipi and capitalize on the economic success, they will cite the Midkiff case as precedent.) However breaking contracts is a serious matter which would lead other precedences that would cause anarchy. I don't think they would even attempt to do so on such a scale. As they have done this to a small number of individuals, how could they do it against millions? Especially if the courts are run by blacks within the state, who would not allow it to go all the way to the Supreme Court. As to how this could get into Federal Court, I just can not see. Did you mention the date of this case, for if it was a territory, then it is very possible that the Hawaiians were not considered citizens and then it could indeed get into Federal Court. Puerto Rico did not have its populace as citizens until when? The 1980s? "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
Founder |
So, is it Mississippi or Georgia? Louisiana?
 |
|||
|
|
A2 |
It would be none of the above. That's not repatriation, that's just moving from your state to another on a mass scale. That would be business as usual, with a twist.
|
|||
|
|
C5 |
I want quick access to interstate 95, Georgia please!
"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
D5 |
I have learned so much from this thread - thank you
 I also feel that it is hard to get an honest break in the States - but - I think with a bit of creativity and imagination, it can be done (I think of Reginald Lewis who bought Beatrice). It can be done. What exactly do the Jews do to control the States though - are there not fewer of them in numbers than African Americans? The US seems to jump through hoops to protect Israel  I most definitely feel that a repatriation effort should focus on on economics and not politics - I remember the saying "You have heard of the Golden Rule haven't you? Whoever has all the gold makes the rules?" It was my understanding that there was a *significant black population* in Florida who were not allowed to vote in the last presidential election because they were "not registered"? Was it not Florida that took Bush over the top? What about "re-districting"? I remember seeing a documentary on TV of a town (so long ago in Oaklahoma) that was 100% black and was doing very, very well. It had been burned down once but they still rebuilt again - just as strong as ever. In the end, the town died. The thing that killed it was not the white hatred but integration. The documentatry ended saying that Integration was successful in doing what white people could not do through force. Can the success of this black Oaklahoma town be duplicated now? Given the US now has a tendancy to ship jobs overseas leaving cities in difficult situations(someone has already mentioned Detroit), that other countries are not holding dollars anymore but exchanging them for something else (be it Dinar, Euro or Yuan), and given that the US *depends* upon foreign captial to prop it up, I wonder how much longer the States can survive with this altogether. Most of it is owned by China The stock market is being artificially inflated To try to integrate into the American system now (after being excluded for *hundreds* of years) is (IMHO)like fighting for the best seat on the Titanic 8 hours before it goes down. Repatriation sounds like a good idea. A place designated where black folks can independently produce goods for consumption or sale as once done in Oaklahoma (not depending upon external assistance) sounds even better. I like how this thread is focusing on possible logistics and scenarios  Of course, there would be the problem of someone coming to try to "burn the town down" but would they? Given the state of affairs now, are they (Greenspan, et. al.) scrambling to get into those "first class" boats. To me, it seems that TBTB are more focused on preserving the *corporation* and not the US nation itself. Should not repatriation plans or efforts take the current and future status of the US into account? |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Sarabi, you hit the nail on the head. America is on the decline culturally, morally, spiritually, and economically. This country is circling the drain. The Idea of Repatriation has been on my mind heavily for about two years now, and I love it. I frankly don't see how it's avoidable, babylon is falling, and still has much atrocities to answer for from many peoples. I believe there are very few poor ideas in the world, it's just a matter of poor execution.I believe:
1)We got to unite those with a come purpose from across the diaspora, those who want to will, those who don't will catch up later. 2)Understand this is a process, not a whim. Strong foundations take more time. 3)Accumulate as much capital here as possible. Start our own bussinesses,corporations, etc. here while keeping our common objectives in mind 4)Put aside a certain percent of net profit, to help bros. and sis. from across the diaspora learn a trade, get a degree, start there own, just be of some use. 5)While at the same time, building a rapport with foreign leaders. Make them an attractive offer, make them understand this is to our mutual benefit, "If I build x amount of factories, hospitals, and schools, pave x amount of roads, can I expect x amount of land." 6)Understand we're all not going to be in the same location. Some will be in certain countries some will be in others. Unless we decide to purge N. Africa there are too many people for any one country. 7)Lastly, return in waves. First the businesspeople with the capital, then engineers and construction, the medical field and and educators, then whoever else(except cuba gooding jr. mo'nqiue, and the usual "bafoon squad") An added bonus would be ripping the u.s. a new one, when our spending dollars are removed from the economy, and IMO finding or creating a common language for our displaced peoples would help our transition and settlement go alot smoother. Africa is'nt as opposed to the idea as some of you might think, some countries are already trying to promote the idea. I know Ghana is making a full court press to get AAs to return and already has a AA community there now, and Tanzania is just starting to do the same, even offering us lakeside property by lake victoria(I swear they need to change that name)I'll look for those articles and post them if I find them. ______________________________ May the high praises of YAH be in their mouth and a two edged sword in their hand, To execute vengence on the peoples;to bind their kings with chains,and their nobles in shackles of iron,to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the glory of the saints (psalms149) |
|||
|
A1 |
Norland:
In looking back over some of the posts, I ran across your comment: quote: I was reminded that similar comments were made as Dr. King continued his involvement beyond the bus boycott. There were letters to the editor from this small African American community (0.3%) calling him a "trouble maker" and a "rabble rouser." "Making it bad for all of us." The writers earnestly believed they "lived in a good Place." The "Valley with a Heart" is the motto of the Chamber of Commerce. The general sentiment of the editorial pages were essentially the same. "Things didn't get the way they are overnight. You can't expect change overnight." "Patience." "Work within the system." Voices like yours have kept us "digging in the dust" for generations. DON'T MAKE MR. CHARLIE MADE!!! You have the right to say it. But voices like your need to be identified for what they are EVERY TIME THEY RISE. YOU ARE DOING CHARLIE'S JOB!!! Well intended or not, YOU ARE DOING CHARLIE'S JOB. European America has controlled the vote of African America since 1865. It still does. AND is in the process of taking the force of law protecting that right away, as we speak. If you don't believe that is true, please go to the post in Editorials entitled "Urban Legend That Is True." I would be interested in your assessment as to action that should be taken. PEACE Jim Chester PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A2 |
Mr. Chester, believe me, I'm not doing "Charlie's job". For the life of me, with all the problems we endure in this country, I don't know why we'd want to "repatriate" here. 'Tis all!! Just like you, I've lived thru all this stuff and more. Sorry if I've given you the wrong impression.
|
|||
|
B1 |
I am warming up to the MS plan. It is all about being politically expedient and doing what is in the best interest of black people. I still believe that returning to Afrika, and I propose southern Afrika (Namibia, Angola, and/or Botswana), is in our collective best interest. But if we returned to the south and exercised political hegemony over three states (Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia), it would do allot towards black power in the United States
|
|||
|
|
B1 |
In response to all small minded plantation mentality negroes still out there. On planning the future of the black nation, we do not take into consideration (at all) the thoughts, feelings, considerations,opinions, attitudes, beliefs,reactions, or responses of the collective white race. We do not care in the least how they will feel or what they will do in response to our future moves
|
|||
|
|
A1 |
You got that Sh-t right blaqfist. I always wondered why negroes would speak of white perception of them as if they needed to be validated. From affirmative action on, they would say such things. They referred to terms such as "stigmas" and "acceptance". What in the hell is that all about?
|
|||
|
|
C5 |
I know this post is old now but here are two of the articles.
Fihankra International An article from tanzania ______________________________ May the high praises of YAH be in their mouth and a two edged sword in their hand, To execute vengence on the peoples;to bind their kings with chains,and their nobles in shackles of iron,to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the glory of the saints (psalms149) |
|||
|
|
A1 |
This State Plan is giving rise to thoughts of the political power of African America. If we are to cast our lot in a "new" political structure, it is better to do it here than any other place.
Outside of the U.S., Africa is the only other place that would make any sense at all. I am against doing that, but considering; Africa: There is no nation in Africa that is likely to absorb a significant African American population influx without a serious political shift, including South Africa, the most stable of all nations south of the Bantu Line (that's what "they" mean when they say sub-Saharan). There is no nation in Africa north of the Bantu Line that is likely to absorb a significant African American population without an even more serious political shift. The issues are several, but the major ones are religion and ethnicity. Most African Americans are Christian. Many governments in Africa are religion-based, and Islamic. The new population will be "American" in the eye and mind of the nation, more so than "black." "Black" to the residents is not an identity, but a fact of physicality. The basis of our "unity" will be of little consequence to the people we are "unifying" with. Beyond identity, assimilation will be very slow, because of language, in any country. You can't expect them to change their language to suit the new immigrant. State A population shift in any State will have little effect on the daily life of anyone. The numbers involved in migration will only need to be the amount to protect against gerrymandering during the transistion of majority. The government will remain the same. Religion will not be an inherent factor in government. Language will not be a problem. Political dominance, in the State, will immediately translate into a significant presence on the national scene. The State option will move African Americans, across the nation, to look seriously at registering as independents. That independent status will take African America out of the mix when party platforms are being planned. Those African American Independents can plan an agenda that addresses the needs of African America. The high value of this is that when the national convention of each party approaches neither will have a handle/control on the power of the vote of African America. We will have converted the latent power of the registered voter into the active power of negotiation with 25% percent of the voting power of the nation. This "control of vote" issue will is becoming key to the political well-being of African America with the protection of that vote terminating in 2007. The State Plan is better way to go. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
Sarabi:
I noted your citation of the "Golden Rule" "Whoever has all the gold makes the rules?" There's another rule that says, "It takes money to make money." It's hard to argue with the "golden rule." But, money is hard to get. It is much easier to exercise one's will. That's all it takes to gain political independence. You make the decision, and do it. Your only investment is the time and effort to get to the place that makes that decision a part of the system with your registration. All of us can do that. I also remembered the argument for a separate nation, instead of a separate State. I would urge those in favor to recall that the State of Rhode Island went down that road in 1789. We don't usually think of Rhode Island as a slave State. But, Rhode Island was a major player in the United States slave trade, and that of other nations for that matter. In addition to everything else, Rhode Island was the primary builder of the ships used in the slave trade. Rhode Island seriously balked at signing the Constitution. They wanted to play it from the outside. Even with the 20-year "grace period" given to the slave traders, Rhode Island balked. Only after considering their "outside" status, import/export, taxes of various kinds, transborder considerations, raising and maintaining an army, an embassy in every State plus nations overseas, and on and on. A separate nation is a very flawed option. Also, remember the Rockerfellers. One picked West Virginia. Another picked a State in the mid-West. They both the exercise the "golden rule" to gain power. Pick a State and dominate. Okay. We need a more politically sensitive slogan. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|