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.
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?
The present day divide is hardly limited to race ( much less the oft mentioned divide between black and white Americans ) however it's not as if the project of trying to get Americans of all stripes to live together and get along hasn't been attempted .
In fact to this very day it's the official program , one which ( as we can see by current events ) doesn't seem to be going too well .
In a nutshell what's referred to as multiculturalism is a great thing as long as the people taking part in it do so willingly , while in the opposite case it leads to dysfunction .
All this is not to suggest that the implementation of aforementioned multiculturalism in this country has been an abysmal failure or what have you , only that many people have had no desire to participate in it from the beginning , the results of which are becoming ever more apparent .
Furthermore an increasing amount of people seem to be supporting measures which would lead to ever increased tension/conflict were they to be implemented within a multicultural framework , which is why the option of granting the right of political separatism to those who would willingly choose it seems to be a reasonable and just alternative .
[Respectfully snipped post in order to address one particular statement that stood out to me.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Fauquier
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 .
Really? Because I do see a problem with that.
Due to European colonialism, historical forced religious conversion, romantic ideas of manifest destiny, Hitler's Lebensraum, etc., it seems to me as though most of the know world had already been declared a "white homeland."
I see no pressing need for acquiescence to this historical trend by appealing to government to provide additional resources for those who may now feel that they are somehow being persecuted by no longer having their own way and sway over others.
[Respectfully snipped post in order to address one particular statement that stood out to me.]
Really? Because I do see a problem with that.
Due to European colonialism, historical forced religious conversion, romantic ideas of manifest destiny, Hitler's Lebensraum, etc., it seems to me as though most of the know world had already been declared a "white homeland."
I see no pressing need for acquiescence to this historical trend by appealing to government to provide additional resources for those who may now feel that they are somehow being persecuted by no longer having their own way and sway over others.
All other demographic groups would have the right to form their own Black , Asian , Christian , Muslim , Liberal , Conservative , etc . , homelands as well so it's not like those of the White racist/supremacist/whatever you want to call them persuasion would be receiving a privilege others would be left out of .
[Moderator cut of personal remarks.]
After all neither the Troubles nor the Basque conflict ended as a result of the British and Spanish governments shutting the radical strains of Irish republicanism and Basque nationalism out of the political process .
In short what can be referred to as acquiescence can also be referred to as compromise , which is an indispensable part of civil society IMHO .
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-14-2020 at 07:28 AM..
Bottom line is that America is not going to be broken up in "homelands." What we are seeing in the world is nothing but American ideals at work.
I've not seen anything that indicates that certain people are trying to fundamentally change America beyond anything that isn't already promised to all Americans.
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.
1. I define mainstream American society , for the purpose of this discussion , as the part of American society that is still able to have a civil conversation with those who don't belong to their " tribe " ( whether it be political , racial , religious , or whatever else in nature ) and/or don't have the same views as them .
2. The possibility of Congress passing a bill that would extend the right to form reservations to those not belonging to the category of federally recognized Native American tribes is indeed a highly debatable subject , however as for being unconstitutional I highly doubt it .
Of course I will most certainly stand corrected , particularly if someone with intimate knowledge of constitutional law will weigh in , but there already is a legal precedent allowing people of a particular group ( i.e. Native Americans ) to form their own enclaves which have political autonomy ( i.e. reservations ) .
In short why would there be a legal obstacle that would prevent extending that right to other groups of people ?
3. I'm afraid you've lost me with your statement about fundamental changes in society , so you'll have to elaborate on that .
FWIW I am not at all in favor of fundamentally changing American society , in fact my OP concerns the subject of my perceived reasonable alternative to the already present reality of increasing social conflict in this country .
4 . I for one could certainly imagine plenty of people forming their own reservations/autonomous zones/ whatever else if such a law were to pass , in fact as I'm sure you and everyone else knows one such zone did form in Seattle , albeit without legal sanction .
And if no one were to take the opportunity to form such reservations/zones/whatever else then there would no problem at all IMHO .
My intention with putting this idea forth is not because I believe everyone should be herded onto separate reservations or what have you , it's merely an idea relating to how American society could ( for lack of a better term ) take five/cool off /take a break with respect to the increasingly tense sociopolitical atmosphere that exists right now .
I mean if you happen to belong to one of those groups of people who believes that American society should be fundamentally changed according to your own worldviews , then why not go live in your own separate zone with people who actually agree with you ?
And to rephrase that question to the majority of American citizens ( whom I dare say ) aren't of this opinion , why shouldn't we give the right to people like that to go their own way ?
Bottom line is that America is not going to be broken up in "homelands." What we are seeing in the world is nothing but American ideals at work.
I've not seen anything that indicates that certain people are trying to fundamentally change America beyond anything that isn't already promised to all Americans.
Wouldn't you say that people who put forth proposals like reparations for slavery or community based policing are advocating for ideas that would very much change present day American society as we know it ?
Or on the flip side don't you believe that it would be better to take the steam out of movements that advocate for concepts like the Northwest Territorial Imperative/the Republic of New Afrika/Aztlan by giving them the right to put their ideas into practice on a much smaller/less radical scale ?
One may counter that these are fringe ideas/movements that aren't likely to effect any sort of significant change and I'm inclined to agree that at the present stage it is so , yet that doesn't mean these sorts of ideas and ( more importantly ) the broad based philosophies they emanate from haven't gained traction in recent years , and IMHO choosing to ignore their allure/failing to address the problems these ideas/movements are attempting to address will only bring about more trouble in the future .
I'm gonna jot down two very simple ideas as to how my " reservation " ideas could play out , especially since some have unfortunately got it in their heads that a peaceful swampneck like me has nefarious intentions .
1. All communities would receive the right to form their own popular based police force , where they to choose to exercise that right by putting forth a referendum of that sort to vote .
In short ( to use a pertinent example ) all the majority Black American communities that have experienced the various incidents we've seen in recent years , would be allowed to form their own police force were they to choose to vote in favor of doing so in their own locally held election .
2. White Americans willing to pay reparations to Black Americans for the legacy of slavery would be allowed to do so and Black Americans willing to accept such reparations would be allowed to set up their own special autonomous zone to make use of such funds .
These are just two hastily sketched ideas , but now I hope that people will finally cast aside any aspersions they have of me having nefarious intentions .
First, I want to thank the OP and others for a civil and intelligent discussion.
However, although I might be taking the OP's idea too simplistically, I don't see the need for this beyond what already exists. It seems to me that like-minded people or people with similar cultures band together already, as evidenced by the many communities within a larger community. For example, think of the many exclusive gated communities populated by the wealthy or communities in which Spanish is the dominant language by far. It also seems to me that people naturally gravitate to, or stay in, communities where they feel "at home".
But if one is speaking just "politically", how could this even be accomplished? For example, suppose a community only allowed people who were 100% against abortion and were 100% in favor of the right of people to own and use any kind of weapon without any restrictions. Would anyone now living in such a community who did not believe in those things be forced to move? And if a new community was formed (such as the Shaker community of the 1800's or even many of the communes of the 1960's and beyond), how many people could afford to move there? And also, speaking practically, I don't see how this could be accomplished -- and there is also the possibility that many of rules these communities might try to establish would be illegal because some of the rules could be considered a form of illegal discrimination or a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
My opinion is that people will move into or out of a community naturally, as individuals. For example, when we were looking for a place to retire, we knew what kind of place we were looking for (a rural home in a four-seasons climate that had a fairly even mix of Democrats and Republicans and was mainly comprised of working and middle-class people). We would not have even considered some place like NYC or a place where the only form of socializing was Bible meetings, and we found our own "happy place" all by ourselves without having to go through any kind of screening process by a town committee.
My hope is that eventually the conservatives will leave the inner cities entirely and the liberals will leave the rural areas, and that each group will give up trying to make the other group see the errors of its ways. (If that doesn't happen, I would not be surprised if a large new "red state nation" eventually formed withing the next 50 years, or even 25.)
First, I want to thank the OP and others for a civil and intelligent discussion.
However, although I might be taking the OP's idea too simplistically, I don't see the need for this beyond what already exists. It seems to me that like-minded people or people with similar cultures band together already, as evidenced by the many communities within a larger community. For example, think of the many exclusive gated communities populated by the wealthy or communities in which Spanish is the dominant language by far. It also seems to me that people naturally gravitate to, or stay in, communities where they feel "at home".
But if one is speaking just "politically", how could this even be accomplished? For example, suppose a community only allowed people who were 100% against abortion and were 100% in favor of the right of people to own and use any kind of weapon without any restrictions. Would anyone now living in such a community who did not believe in those things be forced to move? And if a new community was formed (such as the Shaker community of the 1800's or even many of the communes of the 1960's and beyond), how many people could afford to move there? And also, speaking practically, I don't see how this could be accomplished -- and there is also the possibility that many of rules these communities might try to establish would be illegal because some of the rules could be considered a form of illegal discrimination or a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
My opinion is that people will move into or out of a community naturally, as individuals. For example, when we were looking for a place to retire, we knew what kind of place we were looking for (a rural home in a four-seasons climate that had a fairly even mix of Democrats and Republicans and was mainly comprised of working and middle-class people). We would not have even considered some place like NYC or a place where the only form of socializing was Bible meetings, and we found our own "happy place" all by ourselves without having to go through any kind of screening process by a town committee.
My hope is that eventually the conservatives will leave the inner cities entirely and the liberals will leave the rural areas, and that each group will give up trying to make the other group see the errors of its ways. (If that doesn't happen, I would not be surprised if a large new "red state nation" eventually formed withing the next 50 years, or even 25.)
Good questions !
FWIW all my references to reservations/autonomous zones aren't meant to imply that the concept should only apply to not yet existing communities , but also already existing ones as well , not to mention that the political autonomy I'm referencing could be of a partial nature .
For example an already existing inner city Black American community that has experienced numerous instances of tragic events related to encounters of its residents with law enforcement , could exercise it's right to form its own police force/neighborhood watch group , that would not at all be under the jurisdiction of the broader municipal authorities .
While at the same time it could retain it's dependence on the city at large with respect to services it would be satisfied with .
As for your question regarding people having to move , the establishment of non already existing reservations/autonomous would obviously take place according to existing law , i.e. they would be established on completely vacant land and/or on land purchased from another party that would vacate the premises after purchase , the same way as in any standard real estate transaction .
In short the possibility of people being forced off their land to make way for newcomers would not at all occur as long as everything would be done properly .
As for the issue of discrimination , the same private settings exemption that already exists under federal law would apply to these zones .
In short they would have the right to regulate the behavior of all people living and/or present on them , the same way ( for instance ) churches already have the right to kick someone out of their service if they get up on the pulpit to make a speech about the nonexistence of God .
Of course certain Federal laws may very well have to be reinterpreted , but as others have mentioned , the Constitution is a living document after all and I'm merely putting forth my opinion of how it should be reinterpreted for the benefit of all .
Last edited by Lionel Fauquier; 09-14-2020 at 09:34 AM..
For example an already existing inner city Black American community that has experienced numerous instances of tragic events related to encounters of its residents with law enforcement , could exercise it's right to form its own police force/neighborhood watch group , that would not at all be under the jurisdiction of the broader municipal authorities .
The characterization of these "inner city Black American communities," as just another example of how the US is already fragmented along the interests of it citizens ignores the fact that these are actually ghettos, a kind of reservation wherein the people there are mostly dissatisfied with the bulk of their daily reality, self policing is not high on their list of demands to be included in the greater society.
It may not be obvious to all, but the realization that America is already fragmented by a vastly different socio-economic construct superimposed over the landscape, is a clue to the fact that we, in fact, do have areas reserved for people of like mind, and economic status. It's just not delineated with fences or walls but we do see more of that kind of separateness rising amid social unrest.
I'm guessing we actually need MORE socio-economic inclusion and less separation as the path forward, so no, I don't think we would gain anything by a furthering of US social fragmentation. As a side note: This idea seems to be an adjunct to much of the white separatist ideologies, and posturing those notions as an innocuous proposition would be offensive to minority populations.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-14-2020 at 01:04 PM..
Reason: Fixed closing quote tag.
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.
