Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A demographic profile is generally defined by the following categories:
Age.
Gender.
Income.
Education.
Marital Status.
Employment.
Home Ownership.
Geographical location.
Race or Ethnicity.
What happens to people who qualify for multiple groups? Do they have to choose only one? If not, does membership of more groups confer benefits that are unavailable to someone who qualifies for fewer groups? How do such people divide their time between different "reservations"? Who decides where each reservation should be located? Would local state & federal government still be involved? On what basis would they tax and spend?
Whether good or bad idea is immaterial. it's completely unworkable.
[moderator cut]
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-13-2020 at 11:48 AM..
Reason: Please DM a moderator with your concerns. Don't discuss members on the forum. Thank you.
You can already form your own self-sufficient community. There are several in the country now. There's one ecovillage in particular that really impresses me: Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage in Rutledge, Missouri.
They aren't isolationists, they come and go as they please. But they are a sustainable eco-community that lives off the land, is off-grid, and has very little need of outsiders (though outsiders are welcome). They're also working on a zero-waste system where ALL waste (yes, I mean ALL) is re-used, recycled, or converted to fuel.
Moderator's statement for a couple of people who have had their posts deleted: I have not been able to determine that the OP is advocating in this topic for enforced, racist segregation, and any such advocacy would have no place in Great Debates or anywhere else on the City-Data forums.
Anyone with concerns is asked to direct message one of the moderators for this forum. Otherwise, discuss the topic -- not forum members. Thank you.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-13-2020 at 06:41 PM..
To elaborate I think no great harm could come of Congress passing a law allowing all legitimate ( i.e. non criminal in nature ) demographic groups to form their own reservations/autonomous communities/whatever you want to call them , because ( IMHO ) there quite simply seem to be plenty of people out there these days who would be better off living separately from the mainstream of American society and vice versa .
After all , what is the point of them living in a society they so fundamentally want to change , when such change is unlikely to ever come about particularly in a peaceful/orderly fashion ?
1. Who gets to define "mainstream American society?" Can you define it?
2. Since Congress gets voted in by American citizens, I doubt an elected official will sponsor a bill that reduces the electorate. Besides, such a bill would not be Constitutional.
3. As far as fundamentally changing our society, what fundamental changes are we talking about? American society is not one static thing. It's dynamic and always changing. Stopping change would be un-American.
4. I don't see any "demographic group" (and we know what this means) volunteering for reservations. So, wouldn't this have to be forced?
OP, who do you see trying to change America and what proposed changes do you view as being so problematic that certain people need to be in a reservation?
Mainstream American society includes white, Black, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, all LGBTQ, etc. Why would any of these people decide to live in a reservation? Everyone gets to participate in America.
As far as the Hasidic community example, that's just a community or a neighborhood. There certainly aren't Hasidic reservations. Communes are voluntary and doesn't involve Congress. By the OP's assertion of the use of Congress clearly shows that the intention is something borderline nefarious.
America was born out of struggle and the country continues to grow and develop through those same means.
Last edited by charlygal; 09-13-2020 at 07:37 PM..
That's a very pertinent point , though such communities could receive other sources of funding besides property taxes .
For instance sympathetic organizations could obviously make donations to help the formation of such community police forces , not to mention that more permanent sources of revenue could be found were these communities to extend their rights of autonomy to the economic sphere .
In short said communities could ( for example ) establish casinos , like many Native American tribes have done , or rent out rehabilitated old buildings for use to tech companies .
The same sort of federal tax credits that Native American reservations enjoy could be applied to them as well .
Soup lines
Free loaves of bread
5lb blocks of cheese
Bags of groceries
Sorry that was a song by the C.... Jerks from the 80's
Govment housing, free health care, blocks of cheese? Sure open a casino but how many of them can exist? I think it would be a bad strategy to let any group to get a plot of land and then live off the government forever. Eventually who is going to be left to pay for all these people? What if 60% of the population wants to go this route?
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 09-13-2020 at 08:00 PM..
As far as having casinos, surely people don't think that the occasional casino means that ALL indigenous Americas are living good? People are current reservations in America don't have electricity, running water, plumbing, etc. Why would anyone sign up for that?
Americans have always had the right to freedom of association, and many religious groups persecuted in Europe (such as the Amish) immigrated to America for that very reason and to form their own religious communities. I'm not so sure that government should be involved in telling people where they may or may not live, or in enforcing the existence of any "autonomous zones."
However, I see no problem with individuals organizing their own communities based on a desire to live with like-minded others. Hasidic Jews in America have been doing this for generations because traditional Judaism insists on a separation from the secular world. This includes Jews of all colors.
Freedom of association certainly exists , however the sort of reservation style political rights I've been referring to currently only apply to certain federally recognized Native American tribes , when I think it's quite obvious that many people in this country would either like to establish those sorts of communities and/or ( probably much more commonly ) advocate for political measures that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement within the confines of mainstream society's political structure .
A very good example of this ( IMHO ) is the call for community based policing , which I cannot see being successfully implemented in local communities which lack political autonomy , particularly in the divisive bipartisan climate we're currently experiencing .
And no I'm not advocating that government should be involved in telling people where to live and who to associate with , I'm merely advocating in favor of people who want to separate from mainstream society be given the right to do so under the proper auspices of achieving political autonomy .
Reservations for select groups, no. But certainly, groups of people can choose to live in close proximity and associate with each other almost exclusively. We have that right.
American Indians are a special group who have had their ancestral lands forcefully taken from them. They are a special case.
Generally, I believe in all of us learning to live together, and getting along. I think wholesale segregation in multiple enclaves would simply foster resentments and misunderstandings. We’ve had social segregation between blacks and whites for many decades, and where has that gotten us?
Moderator's statement for a couple of people who have had their posts deleted: I have not been able to determine that the OP is advocating in this topic for enforced, racist segregation, and any such advocacy would have no place in Great Debates or anywhere else on the City-Data forums.
Anyone with concerns is asked to direct message one of the moderators for this forum. Otherwise, discuss the topic -- not forum members. Thank you.
I am most certainly not in favor of Jim Crow style laws and I find it quite sad that some people seem to ascribe such motivations to the content of my posts , when they quite clearly speak in favor of freedom for all groups of people .
Unfortunately many people might deem giving the right to form reservations/autonomous communities/etc. on the basis of race to be the same as advocating for Jim Crow style laws , which is a sad reflection of the inability of this society to distinguish between benign and malignant forms of racism , an inability which is very much contributing to the current increasingly pernicious divide in this country .
To elaborate on what I mean by this , the act of not wanting to associate with people of another " tribe " ( in this case race ) is most certainly ignorant , however it quite clearly is not the same as oppressing people on the basis of their race .
In short I do not see why people who consider race to be the marker of their " tribe " shouldn't be given the right to form their own reservations/autonomous zones/whatever you want to call them , the same way people who consider political affiliation , gender , sexual orientation , etc. , to be theirs shouldn't as well .
In fact it's far better IMHO that such individuals be given the right to do separate themselves from society as opposed to having them get the impression that society is not letting them go their own way , since it's precisely this sort of feeling that adds more fuel to the fire of radicals who agitate for ( oftentimes violent ) my way of the highway type solutions to present day problems .
P.S. Blood quantum laws already exist as a way of defining tribal membership with respect to federally recognized Native American tribes , which is why I don't see why allowing people to form their own " white homeland " or what have you would constitute a legally infeasible concept under federal law .
P.P. S . If my writing frankly about this issue constitutes a violation of forum rules , then I shall most certainly take note of it and cease to do so in the future , however I most certainly hope that it's plain as day that what I'm advocating for is as far removed from racial ( or any other group membership based ) oppression/genocide/any other type of reprehensible thing as a tractor is from a bucket of salt .
Furthermore I also dare hope that any sort of punishment I may incur in the case of having committed some sort of transgression of forum rules , will be meted out with a measure of mercy on account of my good intentions .
For thousands of years, DIVIDE ET IMPERA was motto of conquerors. Only countries, peoples, that stood united against an enemy, stayed independent.
As an example, look at Kievan Rus and Mongol invasion. That country was the largest and most powerful territory at the time. Mongols conquered it with no major effort for reason very simple.
It consisted on 16 "dukeships" each one squabbling with its neighbors and each duke pretending to be the king of them all.
Instead of standing united against Mongols, they were handpicked one by one or, succumbed to conquerors after some beneficial promises.
That was TYPICAL example of how smaller military force can overcome significantly larger one, if taken in chunks.
Thread is confusing human aggregations based on say, religious, convictions and, reservations, that are pretty much states within states. With their own regulations, health care, politicians, law enforcement, culture, religion and, unfortunately, long term animosity towards outsiders.
Like as if we do not have enough "independence" shown, as it is, by states, based on their governments political prejudices, you want to break this all down into further, smaller subgroups?
Rachel, I'll touch on rather sensitive nerve but, you do understand that, part of eyebrows raised towards Jewish communities was, always, their seclusion and self isolation from others. This ALWAYS makes folks wonder - what is that they are hiding there?
I say, it a very dangerous idea. Country needs to be united, UNITED, not kept broken down under any pretexts. OP is typical Overton Window entry. This is how it starts.
Always, always remember historical examples, how pieced out countries were conquered and held in submission. Entire Roman Empire flourished on that principle and made MAJOR effort, maintaining separation in its vassals.
United we stand. Broken into pieces, we become slaves to those, that are united.
How can so many different groups of people who oftentimes want nothing to do with each other/have extreme difficulty finding any sort of bipartisan middle ground stand united ? Especially when so many of them have such a litany of grievances with the present centralized unitary system ( aka the Federal government ) ?
Furthermore you do not seem to mention the scenario of allowing peaceful separation resulting in increased future unity , f.ex as a result of people realizing that it's harder to exist outside of mainstream society than within it and consequently returning to the fold , which makes me curious on your take on that as well .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
