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.
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.
So the idea of giving marginalized predominantly Black inner city communities the right to political autonomy akin to that of Native American reservation is a form of what's commonly referred to as white separatist philosophy ?
Even when such ideas ( especially with regard to police presence in such neighborhoods ) are increasingly more popular ?
Last edited by Lionel Fauquier; 09-14-2020 at 11:41 AM..
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 .
.
Thanks for your reply, but regarding the above, what would happen if such a new community was established, and then a couple had a child, and then the couple died and left their estate to their child who was now an adult. If the adult did not conform to the community's values, would the heir be forced to sell the property back to the community or to someone who did conform?
I can see why your suggestion re: reservations appeal to many people for various reasons, but I think it might be too "Big Brother" to appeal to many people
P.S. There is an old book, Lucifer's Hammer, that explored this idea in just a small way after a comet hit the earth. It is not perfect and I don't agree with all the points it made, but I recommend it to anyone who likes to think about such things.
Thanks for your reply, but regarding the above, what would happen if such a new community was established, and then a couple had a child, and then the couple died and left their estate to their child who was now an adult. If the adult did not conform to the community's values, would the heir be forced to sell the property back to the community or to someone who did conform?
I can see why your suggestion re: reservations appeal to many people for various reasons, but I think it might be too "Big Brother" to appeal to many people
P.S. There is an old book, Lucifer's Hammer, that explored this idea in just a small way after a comet hit the earth. It is not perfect and I don't agree with all the points it made, but I recommend it to anyone who likes to think about such things.
I don't have an answer offhand for that , but I'm sure some sort of non completely unjust legal procedure already exists/could be contrived for such a scenario .
For instance I'd wager that many Native American reservations probably have laws that prohibit tribal members from selling their land to non natives with corresponding sanctions , that could be emulated .
Which is not to say a completely just way of dealing with such a scenario could be cooked up , but the same is true of any broad sociopolitical system .
In short I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my idea will lead to a perfect society , because it most certainly won't , only that I believe we might as well consider trying it out in light of the ( IMHO ) ever apparent failure of trying to get everyone to live together/like each other approach of the past 50 years .
FWIW as a way of summarizing my proposal in a nutshell , what I'm advocating for is both voluntary multiculturalism and voluntary separatism .
In short those who want to live in a diverse society should be allowed and encouraged/incentivized to do so and those who don't should also be allowed/encouraged/incentivized to do so .
A philosophy that can be referred to as Multicultural Separatism or Integrationist Separatism if you will , though I personally prefer the term " Voluntary Autonomous Zoneism " since such zones could encapsulate both the concepts of multiculturalism and separatism respectively .
Hmmm. The last time we put people on reservations, they didn't get much say in the matter.
Questions:
Once your demographic goes on the reservation, what happens if they change their mind? Can they leave any time they want? What kind of hoops would you make those people jump through?
Where's this real estate going to be? Will they have developed land, with buildings and homes? Or will they simply occupy cities and surrounding areas already occupied? Like say...Seattle, or Portland? If they occupy the cities, where do people go who are not in agreement with those on the reservation? (If the reservations are actually cities.)
If people go to reservations, do they retain their citizenship rights? Or do they become a sovereign nation unto themselves?
So the idea of giving marginalized predominantly Black inner city communities the right to political autonomy akin to that of Native American reservation is a form of what's commonly referred to as white separatist philosophy ?
If you actually believe that "giving" Black ghetto people political autonomy, is somehow a simple act of granting them something that the constitution already allows each individual, you may have a hard time understanding the dynamics of America's separatist racial policies which has resulted in the modern day ghetto debacle in all our large cities.
My comment re: White separatists includes the thought that many will cling to the hope of a separate nation for Blacks under the guise of creating an equal but separate situation for Black citizens, and, further, that such a construct will be in the self interests of Blacks. We will never see an equal situation for Blacks in such a future autonomous separation, especially when we can't allow them to be a true equal in our current socio-economic system.
Hmmm. The last time we put people on reservations, they didn't get much say in the matter.
Questions:
Once your demographic goes on the reservation, what happens if they change their mind? Can they leave any time they want? What kind of hoops would you make those people jump through?
Where's this real estate going to be? Will they have developed land, with buildings and homes? Or will they simply occupy cities and surrounding areas already occupied? Like say...Seattle, or Portland? If they occupy the cities, where do people go who are not in agreement with those on the reservation? (If the reservations are actually cities.)
If people go to reservations, do they retain their citizenship rights? Or do they become a sovereign nation unto themselves?
If you're referring to the beginning of the establishment of Native American reservations in this country then you're certainly correct that they were established in an involuntary fashion , though since then many different reservations have come about in a voluntary fashion .
Many different currently recognized tribes have fought long and hard legal battles to get recognized in the past , which goes to show that the formation of reservations isn't an inherently involuntary phenomenon ,regardless of its early history in this country .
That said let me answer your questions :
1 . People would most certainly be free to come and go as they please , except of course in cases such as ( for example ) being sent to a reservation/autonomous zone located correctional facility as a result of being convicted of a crime , a scenario that would obviously not be free of potential abuses which again leads me to reiterate the obvious fact of there being no perfect system .
2 . As I've stated before such places could be carved out of already existing communities ( which could enjoy only partial autonomy with respect to certain issues if they so chose ) or not yet existing communities , in which the usual rules of real estate transaction law would apply if such a place were to come about as a result of the purchase of property .
3 . People would retain their citizenship rights the same way present day residents of currently existing reservations retain theirs .
If you actually believe that "giving" Black ghetto people political autonomy, is somehow a simple act of granting them something that the constitution already allows each individual, you may have a hard time understanding the dynamics of America's separatist racial policies which has resulted in the modern day ghetto debacle in all our large cities.
My comment re: White separatists includes the thought that many will cling to the hope of a separate nation for Blacks under the guise of creating an equal but separate situation for Black citizens, and, further, that such a construct will be in the self interests of Blacks. We will never see an equal situation for Blacks in such a future autonomous separation, especially when we can't allow them to be a true equal in our current socio-economic system.
I'd appreciate it if you were to elaborate on your views a bit more , since I'm not quite sure if I understand them correctly , but suffice to say that there are more than one ways of looking at a thing .
That is that while one can most certainly look at any proposal as a way of keeping group X down , however that is ( I must say ) a rather defeatist attitude that won't lead to any positive results .
IMHO the fact remains that the top down federal/state government approach of trying to engineer society is ever increasingly failing , which begs the question of an alternative one .
FWIW I am not in the least claiming that everyone should move to reservations or what have you , in fact I wouldn't mind one bit if not a single reservation/autonomous zone was formed .
For its the spirit of this proposal ( i.e. live and let live ) that matters the most to me , one which is very much ingrained in our Constitution .
People seem to be far too fond of getting in other people's faces these days due to fundamental disagreements about the general direction of society , when it's really unnecessary IMHO .
I mean why fight about something when you can go your own separate ways both figuratively and ( in the case of the organizing of political structure ) literally ?
P.S. It goes without saying that not all or even most people are getting up in each other's faces , even if they are from very different backgrounds/have very different viewpoints , hence my simultaneous endorsement of multiculturalism .
That said there really isn't much to write about those who are actually getting along , which is why my writings mainly focus on those who aren't getting along .
If we don't hang together, we'll all hang separately.
A house divided against itself will not stand.
That statement is very much correct in a certain sense , yet it begs the question of how do we unite ?
Not to mention the fact that political union is still possible between many different autonomous political units in a federal system , which is what we're living in to begin with .
In short a system of the sort I've fleshed out would only expand the concept of the present US political system as opposed to fundamentally changing it .
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.
