- cross-posted to:
- indigenous@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- indigenous@lemmygrad.ml
After the revolution (or even before if possible), we should immediately create autonomous regions (ARs) based on the traditional territory of all native groups. This will include but not be limited to current reservations, even if those reservations are located outside of their traditional homeland (such as those in Oklahoma).
These ARs will be able to make their own laws that apply to everyone in their territory, including non-natives. They will have their own elected governments, control of their natural resources, and have their own official languages. The current US Congress will be abolished and replaced by a Council of the Union (elected based on population) and a Council of Nationalities. Both will have to approve all national laws by a majority vote. Large native nations will have 8 representatives, medium-sized ones will have 3, and small ones will have one. There will also be a large number of representatives for the New Afrikan and Chicano nations and a smaller number for other oppressed nationalities within the former USA such as Arabs and Asians.
All ARs will be able to declare independence by a majority vote from all adults of their native nation, including members living outside the AR or abroad. They will also be able to merge with other ARs if they choose to do so. Overseas colonies such as Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and others will immediately become independent after the revolution (besides "American" Samoa which will go straight back to Samoa) and may choose to stay independent or join with each other or other countries.
You must log in or register to comment.
These ARs will be able to make their own laws that apply to everyone in their territory, including non-natives.
All ARs will be able to declare independence by a majority vote from all adults of their native nation
I'll be honest that kinda sounds like ethnostates. Only the indigenous get self-determination? What about black descendants of slavery, they just have to live under whatever the indigenous decide on?
Sorry if this comes off as bad faith or something, it's not. I just genuinely wonder how you would pull off something like this without basically asserting indigenous ethnic rule over other ethnicities.
There should be another region for New Afrika and maybe one for the Chicano (occupied Mexico) region in the southwest. I already said those groups would have representation in the national legislature but I forgot to say they would also have their own regions. All workers will be able to vote in all the autonomous regions regardless of ethnicity.
It seems like in basically every region, indigenous peoples would be a numerical minority, I don't really see how that's decolonization. For (an extreme) example, the area labeled Mohawk on the map seems to roughly correspond with Vermont, which is >90% white and <0.5% indigenous (obviously as a result of colonization). If everyone has an equal say, it would just be a white legislature.
Basically I see a contradiction between the idea of decolonization and not either establishing ethnic rule or removing the colonizers entirely. I'm not saying that as opposition to decolonization or support for the latter in principal, I just don't see how it could be rectified.
">90% white", or 20% French, 18% Irish, et cetera? I'd argue that decolonization would necessitate the dissimilation of "white" nationalities out of "white" culture: should this happen, the ex-whites would suddenly have a lot more consciousness of their status as immigrants, and I would say would even be politically aligned with the interests of the natives.
If you want to break white down into categories, a majority would just identify as American. Yeah their ancestors might have been English, Irish, French, whatever, but that was 200-400 years ago for most of them. They have no connection to the culture or land of their ancestors.
Except on St. Patrick’s day I guess /s
EDIT: I FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR ANGLO-CANADIAN IMMIGRANTS IN THIS COMMENT, AND HOW IMMIGRATION RATES VARY HIGHLY BY REGION. MY ESTIMATES ARE WAY OFF!
That's, like, the point I'm trying to make, though? That they don't really have a connection right now, but that they could try to *re-*establish a connection. Most white Americans are going to have heritage from multiple countries, so which country/countries they'd try to reconnect to is kind of up to them, frankly.
That "200-400 years" number is really dubious, too.
According to Gallup — and this relates to the US as a whole — only 58% of whites are "third-generation Americans or more". So, just over two in five white Americans have at least one grandparent or parent who were foreign born, or for that matter were foreign born themselves. And then of the whites who are "third-generation or more", it's anybody's guess as to exactly how many are specifically third-generation Americans, and how many are fourth generation, and how many are fifth generation, et cetera.
So... Let's guess!
We notice in that Gallup poll, that with each generation you go back, the likelihood of having at least one ancestor who was foreign-born in that generation more than doubles: 4% of whites are immigrants, 10% have (an) immigrant parent(s), 27% have (an) immigrant grandparent(s).
And this makes sense, if we assume that any given person has a roughly equal chance of being foreign born, and that each generation has twice as many ancestors as the previous... This is of course not actually the case, because for each generation of Americans, there's a different likelihood of being foreign-born: the period with the highest immigration to the US was 1850-1920, so people in those generations are in fact particularly likely to be immigrants, floating between 10-15% irrespective of race.
(And not all generations have exactly as many different ancestors, either, because "roll tide", but let's just not touch that one, OK?)
Anyways, if we assume a one in ten chance of a person being an immigrant, that would mean that, what, three-fifths of 3+ generation Americans have at least one foreign-born great-grandparent. Of the remaining two-fifths of 3+ generation Americans, nine in ten have at least one foreign-born great-great-grandparent. My own anecdotal experience confirms this, but my own anecdotal experience isn't worth much, anyways.
As a reminder: your great-great-grandparents are your grandparents' grandparents. This might sound kinda "duh", but this means that if you met all of your grandparents, and they met all of theirs, that you would only have one degree of separation from your great-great-grandparents. This is probably not actually the case for most people — I myself never met my paternal grandmother, and I only ever met one of my great-grandparents — but it's still worth highlighting to show just how recently all of this really is.
Your great-great-grandparents' generation would've likely been born in the latter half of the 19th century, so not exactly "200-400 years ago". Most of a white American's great-great-grandparents would've been born in the USA, granted, and I'm sure your average white American could trace a lineage back to the Yankees of the Thirteen Colonies... But what we're looking for is any given white person's closest familial connection to another country. And what we've found is that for the vast majority of American whites, they're only zero-to-one degrees of separation from an immigrant ancestor.
Compounding this: assimilation of immigrant communities was not instantaneous, but often took several generations. For instance, my maternal grandfather, born in the early 1930s, was part of the first generation on the American side of my family who grew up not speaking Norwegian. He would share stories with me of his parents speaking in Norwegian as a code to keep him and his siblings from understanding, in fact. And he would've grown up in the 1930s and '40s. He died in the coronavirus pandemic. "200-400 years ago" my ass, that wasn't even 100 years ago!
Having a single great+ grandparent being foreign born doesn't mean you have any sort of connection to their culture when the rest of your family has been here for a while.
But what we're looking for is any given white person's closest familial connection to another country.
No, we're looking for a cultural connection. If 93.75% of your great-grandparents were born in America, that last 6.25% is likely not going to have much of an affect on your culture.
Hell, my mother is a Portuguese immigrant and my connection to her culture is sadly lacking, and I've been to Portugal many times. You think people will have a connection with the culture of a single ancestor they never met from a country they've never been to?
For instance, my maternal grandfather, born in the early 1930s, was part of the first generation on the American side of my family who grew up not speaking Norwegian. He would share stories with me of his parents speaking in Norwegian as a code to keep him and his siblings from understanding, in fact. And he would've grown up in the 1930s and '40s. He died in the coronavirus pandemic. "200-400 years ago" my ass, that wasn't even 100 years ago!
Cool, and how much connection to Norwegian culture do you have exactly? Do you think it would be no big deal to uproot your entire life and move to Norway, where you don't even speak the language? Do you think it would be any easier than moving to any other European country? Do you think it would be much easier than moving to a non-European country?
You're basically doing race science. "Well you're 6.25% Italian so off to Italy you go." What about people who claim to be some percent Native? What about people who actually are some small percent Native, but have no connection to Native culture?
The solution to centuries of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and ethnostates is not more ethnic cleansing and ethnostates.
I was born in and live in Norway and speak the language natively. My mother was the one who chose to uproot her entire life to move to Norway and learn the language and learn the culture, ultimately due to ancestors who she had never met (i.e. she was introduced to my dad through Usenet because of genealogical research which required a translator). And we are both currently helping my cousin in Montana learn Norwegian as well!
I am not telling people with some tiny fraction of Italian in them to move to Italy on the basis of some bizarre blood quantum. That's obviously wrong, I never even mentioned moving people anywhere in any comment.
I am not demanding that my cousin move to Norway, and if he had chosen to learn German or Irish instead, I would've encouraged him just as much, triply so if he'd chosen to learn all of these languages. How he chooses to engage with his family history is up to him, but what matters is that he does it at all. That's my point: I do not see it as a "foreign" usurpation of Norwegian culture that my cousin is learning my native language, even though his Norwegian is still stilted and broken, and even though he's only "one-fourth Norwegian"; rather, what he is doing is reversing the assimilationism, and that, I think, is something to praise. He is re-establishing a connection. He is making his home more diverse.
Why shouldn't those with Native heritage but no connection to the culture, learn that culture, if it is done with respect? Why shouldn't you learn Portuguese culture if you find it "sad" how lacking your connection is? Literally what is stopping you? You can literally talk to your mom about it, and why shouldn't you!
I didn't say anything you think I did. Of course it's good to learn more about your family's culture. Although in both our cases it's a lot closer than it is for most Americans. My cousins on my dad's side learning about English, Irish, and Scottish culture wouldn't really be learning about their family, they'd just be learning about other cultures that theirs split from many generations ago. Like I quipped earlier, it's like white Americans pretending they're Irish on St. Patrick's Day because they're of distant Irish descent.
But none of that is a justification for thinking white Americans should go back to Europe so Native Americans can establish an ethnostate.
That's obviously wrong, I never even mentioned moving people anywhere in any comment.
I think you've forgotten what this post, and my original reply to it, is about.
Honestly I think we're both just completely lost and not understanding what the other is trying to get at, at all, and we would frankly probably completely agree with each other if we were just not so completely and utterly bewildered at what the other person is trying to say... Like, I don't actually know what you're referring to when you say "anything you think I did"?
Alright, so, to clarify, I have since the very beginning been trying to say, that I do not support the creation of a Native American ethnostate, nor the deportation or killing or forced assimilation of whites. Rather, I believe that all the people who currently live on Turtle Island, regardless of appearance or family history, could live in harmony with the same consciousness and interests; but that to achieve this, the concept of whiteness has to be deconstructed and abolished, and that this deconstruction and abolition of whiteness, is achieved by whites engaging with their family history, which is something that I think most people could get on board with really without question.
So the point of divergence between us seems to be that I believe that the vast majority of white Americans actually do have foreign-born heritage about as far back as my cousin has, and so could, if they chose, do the same stuff that my cousin does. I believe that there is a genuine difference between that whole commercialized "kiss me, I'm Irish" stuff, and, like, actually studying Irish American history, and that Turtle Island would be better off if more people chose the latter.
More than anything, though — and I honestly neglected to mention this, even though it is possibly the most important point — is that even a few people now choosing to engage with their heritage in this sort of meaningful way (probably because they have a much more direct connection to it, like we do!), could create a positive feedback loop that gradually disseminates throughout society over future generations, as every learner becomes a teacher.
So, your cousins do not actually need to LARP as Scots!
Like, I don't actually know what you're referring to when you say "anything you think I did"?
Bad wording probably. Maybe “I didn't say anything you think I said” would have been better.
So the point of divergence between us seems to be that I believe that the vast majority of white Americans actually do have foreign-born heritage about as far back as my cousin has, and so could, if they chose, do the same stuff that my cousin does.
You never mentioned how far back he has, but there’s two ways I could interpret that.
- You share Norwegian grandparents or maybe great-grandparents, so he’s still gotten some exposure that way. This probably isn’t the case for most Americans*.
- His Norwegian ancestry is further back and essentially coincidental with the fact that you are Norwegian and his cousin. In which case, that coincidence is what pushed him to look further back and he has you and your mother to reference. This is definitely not the case for most Americans.
* Of course this is regional. Obviously someone in New York City or at least the Northeast is a lot more likely to have closer immigrant ancestors, and ethnic enclaves established by those ancestors (e.g. Little Italy) enabled that culture to stick around. Whereas in the South (excluding Texas and Florida), families have been here for many generations and never really had those kinds of ethnic enclaves.
Having been into family trees, the closest immigrant ancestor on my father’s side that I know of is my 8th great-grandfather, born in Ireland in 1655. Obviously there could be closer, but if I don’t know about them even being into family trees, then they’ve had no affect on me culturally and are as foreign to me as any other European from their time.
Holy Hell that is... pretty far back, yeah.
Re the cousin: He wouldn't have personally met any ancestors who spoke Norwegian, those would be three generations back, and his actual Norwegian-born ancestors would be about four or five generations back; but our grandpa grew up in an ethnic enclave right as the Norwegian language was dying out, as said. So this influenced my aunt to sort of promote a token "Norwegian-ness" on her kids (this is upheld in other cousin families, too: one of my cousins is named after my grandpa's hometown, itself named after its Norwegian-born founder). I also absolutely believe that my mother moving to Norway would've influenced my aunt's promotion of Norwegian-ness on her kids, all of whom were born after me; and that my cousin knowing me and visiting Norway on several occasions would've also influenced his interest in the language.
So... Not exactly an average American's experience, no, although I stand by that your average white American will have some foreign-born ancestor within four generations back... Although, as you say, this varies regionally by quite a bit, because nobody wants to move to the South, apparently.
I mean, there was still that point about how every learner can become a teacher, but...
A lot of whites will voluntarily leave like how hundreds of thousands left South Africa after apartheid ended. I’m fine with deporting capitalists or racists back to Europe, and the natives would probably also encourage some white workers to emigrate.
The leaders of the regions should have to be from the local native nation. In majority native regions like Navajo Nation, I think it’s safe to give equal voting rights for the legislature (although reactionary individuals should’t be able to vote). For other regions, a majority of seats should be reserved for natives and whites can still vote on the rest or you could have two houses with one for everyone and one only for natives.
I don’t think South Africa is really comparable. The peak white population of SA was 22.7%, and that was in 1911. In 1986 it was 17.3%. White South Africans left because in an equal system, they were the minority.
The (non-Hispanic) white population of the US is 57.84%. In a truly equal society, they would still be the majority. You aren’t going to see 100,000,000+ whites who are a few hundred years removed from Europe just up and leave.
Even if the white population went down as much as it did in SA from its peak to today, 15pp, whites would still be the plurality. But again, they wouldn’t really have a reason to leave.
The leaders of the regions should have to be from the local native nation. For other regions, a majority of seats should be reserved for natives and whites can still vote on the rest or you could have two houses with one for everyone and one only for natives.
That’s an ethnostate.
Again, I don’t know how to resolve it, and I’m not opposed to some form of decolonization, but an ethnostate ain’t it.
Council of Nationalities. Large native nations will have 8 representatives, medium-sized ones will have 3, and small ones will have one
Gonna be honest, replacing the American House and Senate with a racial House and Senate does not seem like the best we can do.
This will include but not be limited to current reservations, even if those reservations are located outside of their traditional homeland (such as those in Oklahoma).
All these displaced reservations have two claims: the nation that used to live there and the nation that lives there now. How's that gonna work? Same for e.g. a New African region that's going to be on someone's traditional land.
Like /u/edge says, you're gonna have the problem of governance by tiny minorities. Most residents will be non-native people with no citizenship and nowhere in particular to go. You will also find that a lot of indigenous people have built their lives somewhere else, and don't want to uproot and move across the country to where their ancestors lived.
It's based on the Soviet of Nationalities and Soviet of the Union in the USSR. The latter was based only on population and the former had 25 or 32 seats from each republic, 11 from each autonomous republic, 5 from each autonomous oblast (province), and 1 from each autonomous okrug (district).
For New Afrika, I think the native regions should start out as autonomous parts of New Afrika that can declare independence if they want to but can't discriminate against New Afrikans.
It doesn't seem workable due to the differing economic powers different nations will have, which due to colonisation might well be the inverse of their size.
For instance, here in Australia this would mean that 5/6 nations out of several thousands would have control of >99% of the economic power and 90% of the total population. And since these are the nations that experienced the initial genocide of first contact, they are far less cohesive and smaller than other first nations. Most members are unaware of their heritage and many that are hide it.
In fact they sometimes don't break the top 10 first nations in their original territory.
I improved the resolution so you should be able to read both if you zoom in.
Alternative solution: just outlaw sunscreen, and let the earth heal the infection naturally.
What are the differences between the AR's and current nation-states and how would those changes prevent/change the current dynamics of their interactions? Or in other words, what's stopping them from competing for resources?
I would more be in favor of a method closer to the Soviet method with modernizations in regards to the lessons learned from the PRC.
This is all great and I have nothing against it, Europe can support 3x its current population, but we do agree that in a socialist world that we would have to control birthrates, right? Like a loose 2-child policy (where you can have more children in exchange for giving up certain privileges)
otherwise certain individuals just have more kids and then you get resource constrained and you're back at where you were before
Arguably Native Americans and certain other groups could be allowed a higher birthrate for a while in the name of biodiversity, but eventually it'd have to be capped off
Overpopulation is largely a myth, but I'm fine with having a 1 or 2-child policy for settlers. Natives, on the other hand, should not have this because their populations are so low right now. When China had the 1-child policy, it only applied to Han and not to ethnic minorities, who could have 2 children in cities and 3 in rural areas. Rural Han could also have 2 children instead of 1.
I agree so far. What are your thoughts on blood quantums btw? Most people don't like talking about this but I think there should absolutely be laws based on blood quantums for Native Americans, and the specific cutoffs should be based on what the current Native American population on reservations have in their ancestry fractions
I know that a ton of tribes today have a 25% rule, I think a few even have a 50% rule
I think people who can prove that they are descended from members of the tribe and are currently enrolled in the tribe and/or accepted as a member of that community should be counted as natives. That way you keep out whites who have 1% native ancestry or something but you won't discriminate against natives who don't meet blood quantum because of (likely forced) interbreeding with whites.
So basically you support blood quantum but not for people who are already enrolled? (and their descendants)
Of course you should need some indigenous ancestry to be considered native but there shouldn't be a specific percentage cutoff. It should instead be based on your involvement in the native community and whether they recognize you as a member of their nation.
