Time To Elect A BLACK PRESIDENT!

quote:

---

"Great social movements don't enforce existing law; they create new law."
http://www.selfdetermination.net/

---

We need a New Black Power Movement based on securing Black Self-Determination and NOT settling for anything less!

"Whether we are discussing the rights of nations or the human rights of peoples, the issues of self-identification and self-determination are always crucial. The ability of a people to define themselves and to exercise their will is the very essence of liberty. African-Americans were emancipated from slavery but were and are not freed. True freedom for a people can come only with the liberty to make choices and to map out their own destiny, even if their destiny is related to the destiny of others as, of course, it must be.

In some countries, ethnic dominance is often maintained under the rule of law called majority rule. But all people groups need to exercise their human rights and self-determination. The ethnic conflicts erupting around the world today are a result of majority rule or dominance. These facts alone argue for a more pluralistic democracy with authentic ethnic proportional representation in the electoral process. With this understanding, and because African-Americans have endured a long and tested struggle for human rights, civil rights and fundamental freedoms in the U.S., they are poised to lead the struggle in America for an authentic pluralistic democracy."

Article << click here >>

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on June 17, 2003 at 10:42 AM.]

Is an unbroken line of 'white' presidents no reminder to you that this is *not* our country?

We did not come here sharing their power. I don't not think they will soon change their minds.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."

I guess what I've said is too simple for you...
just like your "providing for the basic needs" argument... huh?

Where was your "this is not our country","I don't think they're gonna change their minds" argument then?

Soul Doctor you dissappointment with your constant contradictions.

Having a black president in this day and age is not going to be the catalyst for a new black power movement. He/She would be a token piece anyway if the Europeans even saw appeasing us to quell a threat as an option. They have gotten us so comfortable that anything can be done and we allow it to happen. Just take a look around at some of the things that are going on today.

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965

Yssys...

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm not suggesting an Al Sharpton or Colin Powell candidate for U.S. president.

To spell it out, I believe in Black Control of Black Taxes... I think we should have our own autonomous leaders - a Black Prime Minister and Parliment for lack of a better terms - to administer basically our own form of gov't within the larger U.S. gov't.

Nmaginate:

As you know, you I agree on the need. However, we fall in the category Yssys describes in her signoff. We have --- essentially --- the same object, but see different methods.

Realizing we will come to the inevitable loggerhead of "consenting disagreement," let me explain.

Sovereignty is established and maintained by the military or political force it can raise and sustain. Sovereignty is only as viable as the force is credible. It is for this reason --- which is far down the list of alternatives --- I believe such a course is ill-advised.

I am categorically against political nationalism. I do not condemn you for considering this alternative to the repression we are constantly subjected to.

I believe we already exist as a kind of suzerain entity. We are indeed a nation wlithin a nation. I have named it African America. As my exercise of self-determination, I have declared African America my ancestral nationality --- mine --- not anyone else's.

I am convinced that such expression of self-determination by African American-Americans will ultimately achieve all the socio-political goals you descibed --- except of course a seat at the Council of Nations.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

Mr. Chester...

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. You say you believe in self-determination but it only manifests itself in the name you choose. I call that self-naming - though I can will admit to the obvious exaggeration.

Obviously your definition is lacking.

Self-Determination:

• [1] decision according to one's own mind or will, without outside influence;
  
  
• [2] the RIGHT of a people to decide upon its own political status or form of government, without outside influence

What I'm talking about is Multicultural DEMOCRACY and not Nationalism per se. It's really that simple.

I said nothing of isolated territory or any type of traditional Nationalistic separatism. It's a bit curious to me how you can say that:
"We are indeed a nation within a nation" ... but we don't ever want to be officially regard as such if I understand your point.

I just ask you to follow what I have said and not what you might assume I'm trying to say or any other notions you feel are akin to what I'm presenting.

I categorically disagree with your characterization of us a semiautonomous entity. I hope you could explain how.

Native Americans have a measure of political autonomy or self-determination. I only think we should strive for the same as minority groups all over the world are doing.

Like I said, to me, this is all about Democracy - gov't of the people, for the people and by the people. African-Americans especially because of our history should have our and exercise our full right of self-determination which in all practicality should first be the expansion of democracy for [minority] political efficacy with prescribe and contractual arrangements to co-exist with the larger U.S. gov't.

I'm sorry... Mr. Chester but if just calling ourselves by the name of choice is to extent of our self-determination then they can call me a Negro cause they really can keep that. Why we are afraid of trying to take a step... a step towards Nationalism, if desired, and instead resign ourselves to being the political paupers in this nation is maddening to me.

How else can we be a "nation" unless we begin to act like one?

Considering the many examples that you and others have spelled out how we are oppressed and held down aganist our will, do you really expect the US government to allow blacks to form their own inner government in this country.

I agreed that blacks controlling our tax dollars would go a long way in helping to ensure that money is put where it is most needed and that presently we lack the political structure to do that. The American political system in its present form does not address the concerns of black america, both parties tolerate us because they need our votes but neither really are interested in helping us.

I would argue that the best way for us to help govern ourselves and elect our own leaders is for us to form a third party based on the notion of black self-determination. Instead of worrying about voting democrat or republican, we would vote Black Power.

quote:

---

"...Do you really expect the US government to allow blacks to form their own inner government in this country.

---

JazzDog... I'm at least glad that you acknowledge how BLACK CONTROL OF BLACK TAXES - i.e. as you called it a Black "inner gov't" - would be effective if implemented.

Getting to your question, ALLOW is the operative word. First, we need to decide and loudly declare whether we are satisfied with the status quo enough not to change. By that I mean all the methods at our disposal as they exist today. That would include the largely ineffective Third party option (I say that because no one has faith in it...) and existing political "leverage" we can muster if "better" organized.

What I am proposing is a goal. An organizing principle. I specifically said we need to create a New Black Power Movement (or you can call it CRM.. I don't care) because it will undoubtedly take a well organized series of events to install such a plan.

Our ancestors once they identified the core principles, legally recognized rights/standards did NOT think in terms of what the U.S. would "allow" them to do. Neither should we.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you completely decide the worth of something - a plan - by how it will be received and possible resistance to it. I have no problem with viability critiques but I think we need to be honest with ourselves.

Do we really think we can effectively exercise the type of control over our political reality we need/want with things organized as they are?

I think not and think it will take an awful lot to erect and maintain it. My idea may take a Movement, admittedly, but once achieved I don't see it failing unless we totally fail ourselves.

Really, I am talking about real democracy where minority rights are not only "respected" by the majority but incontrovertibly observed and engaged.

If they will not "allow" it then we have to bring it into being by the necessary means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Yssys...

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm not suggesting an Al Sharpton or Colin Powell candidate for U.S. president.

To spell it out, I believe in Black Control of Black Taxes... I think we should have our own autonomous leaders - a Black Prime Minister and Parliment for lack of a better terms - to administer basically our own form of gov't within the larger U.S. gov't.

---

Why not Black People in Control of Black People? Why should we even *be* taxed? We built the country for free, why not live here at least tax free? Or even better, if you suggest 'our own form of gov't within the larger U.S. gov't', why not have that 'outside' the US gov't? If we do that, why not buy the whole cart and buggy?

And use it to get back home?

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."

Soul...

Have a little patients and insight.

How do you get to point-C from point-A?
You have to have a B-option to make getting to point-C viable.

Since we know that Reparations alone want sustain both those of us who would like to repatriate and those who would rather stay - since we helped build this country - we have to devise a plan where we can do both of those things for ourselves... effectively.

Now getting in that position is where the planning really comes in.

If we CONTROL OUR OWN TAXES then we'll decide how to appropriate them and eventually sponsor, hopefully, all possible initiatives to reconnect us to Africa politically, economically and even citizenship wise. I see no use as placing a list of demands before the U.S. gov't when we can assert our right to self-determination and do those things ourselves.

quote:

---

Why not Black People in Control of Black People? Why should we even *be* taxed?

---

Well... If my plan is to have a stabilizing function then we would be paying ourselves to construct policies for ourselves. You can't get something out of nothing.

Our taxes will be the political battleground and the "flag" we hope to capture to establish our control over our national political destiny.

Well, my insight into a method for this wasn't very recieved by you. So instead, be patient with me while explain how we get from 'a-c'.

A: United Mind
B: Common Goal
C: Dreams Fulfilled.

Or 'prophecy' fulfilled, as I maintain, considering my position is a spiritual and not material.

The separation is not a slight, mind you. It is just that my focus is on the grander scale of things. Divine Influence, to be specific.

But logically, I think it can be applied in a 'material' way as well. But with God as a preresquisite, the a-c equation would change as follows:

A: United Mind
B: Common Goal
C: Perpetual Success

But that's a bit outside of the 'worldy' tilt of things here, bu that's ok. It's still my point of view.

Isaiah 1;2-3
"Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: I reared up children and brought them up, but they have rebelled agaist me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."

quote:

---

A: United Mind
B: Common Goal
C: Perpetual Success

Courtesy of SOUL_DOCtor

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Mr. Chester...

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. You say you believe in self-determination but it only manifests itself in the name you choose. I call that self-naming - though I can will admit to the obvious exaggeration.

Obviously your definition is lacking._Self-Determination:_
+ [1] _decision according to one's own mind or will, without outside influence;_

+ [2] _the RIGHT of a people to decide upon its own political status or form of government, without outside influence_What I'm talking about is Multicultural DEMOCRACY and not Nationalism per se. It's really that simple.

I said nothing of isolated territory or any type of traditional Nationalistic separatism. It's a bit curious to me how you can say that:
"We are indeed a nation within a nation" ... but we don't ever want to be officially regard as such if I understand your point.

I just ask you to follow what I have said and not what you might assume I'm trying to say or any other notions you feel are akin to what I'm presenting.

I categorically disagree with your characterization of us a semiautonomous entity. I hope you could explain how.

Native Americans have a measure of political autonomy or self-determination. I only think we should strive for the same as minority groups all over the world are doing.

Like I said, to me, this is all about Democracy - gov't of the people, for the people and by the people. African-Americans especially because of our history should have our and exercise our full right of self-determination which in all practicality should first be the expansion of democracy for [minority] political efficacy with prescribe and contractual arrangements to co-exist with the larger U.S. gov't.

I'm sorry... Mr. Chester but if just calling ourselves by the name of choice is to extent of our self-determination then they can call me a Negro cause they really can keep that. Why we are afraid of trying to take a step... a step towards Nationalism, if desired, and instead resign ourselves to being the political paupers in this nation is maddening to me.

How else can we be a "nation" unless we begin to act like one?

---

Nmaginate:

Your quote: You say you believe in self-determination but it only manifests itself in the name you choose.

It is more than simple naming. The first step to sovereignty is the declaration of the existence of an entity existing --- now. The sovereignty is valid as long as no one challenges its right to existence.

Your quote: I categorically disagree with your characterization of us a semiautonomous entity. I hope you could explain how.

I not sure I used the term "semiautomomous," but it is fair. Nations have existed within nations for literally ages. In our own society, all of the Indian Nations are in that circumstance. They are in a suzerain relationship in the classic sense. They operate at the discretion of a domainant suzerain authority --- the United States.

African Americans are limited by parameters set and controlled by the United States. Within those limits, we may establish institutions, organizations, etc., even political parties. We may practices religions, traditions, and cultural protocols. We create,operate, and control all of these societal attributes. We may participate in the society, and politics of the suzerain entity. All of the members of this contained entity are of a single description. We are all Americans of unknown African ancestry, wholly or in part. All this, but only within the parameters defined by the larger entity.

It is a real political circumstance. It is a real societal circumstance. It is a real economic circumstance. I simply gave a name. It --- African America --- is as real as the United States is real.

Your quote: prescribe and contractual arrangements to co-exist with the larger U.S. gov't.

This is not going to happen. Independence has to happen first. That requires being separate from the United States. Clearly, this is true, because in order to enter into an agreement with a freestanding sovereign entity, both entities must be freestanding and sovereign. The agreement between such entities is a treaty. The United States is not likely to enter into a non-business agreement with a non-sovereign entity.

The agreement of the United States with Americans of unknown African ancestry is comprised of the United States Constitution,and its 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments --- and the laws passed for the specific enforcement of those amendments.

Albeit under suzerain authority: "WE CANNOT BE A NATION UNLESS BE BEGIN TO ACT LIKE ONE."

That is what I have done. African America has a uniquely identified people, a flag, a document of creation, and a geopolitical place on the face of the planet.

It is a place for all who wish to claim it.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

Ok, why don't we start with black lobbyist first. Who is up in D.C. lobbying for the average black man on the street? From what I've seen of the Black Caucus they just seem like a social club for the black elected officials. The idea of lobbying also, a Malcolm X idea, is not new. Let's start off with something that we can handle before we get all up in the black tax thing. One step at at time Nmanginate.

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965

"MOCK" GOV'T Model

African Americans need democratic self-determining processes (elections) to establish what it is they want and who speaks for them, and a permanent mechanism (parliament or assembly) to endow that leadership with the full authority of the will of the African American people. Both the process and the mechanism can be brought about by African Americans themselves, outside of any institutions and processes currently established by Anglo Americans. It need not depend on Anglo American good will; it could be done without it.Yet once established by African Americans as the legitimate spokesbody for African Americans, the African American Consultative Assembly (or whatever it might be named) would be well situated to lobby the U.S. government for legal recognition and structures of governance (i.e. law-making and administrative capacity) in relation to the African American community in sectors such as education, health and so on. It would also be positioned to seek some manner of public funding (transfer payment, the right to tax, etc.) for its regular and ongoing enablement -- similar to autonomous arrangements for national minorities elsewhere in the world which receive public monies to establish, fund and run the institutional structures their people require.

*A Consultative Assembly may be the mechanism through which African Americans might best pursue their goal of reparations - as well as negotiate to determine what the reparations should be, and how same should be disposed of. Indeed, legally recognized and publicly funded structures of governance might be the reparations!

...Should African Americans proceed towards African American elections and a Consultative Assembly, they could expect expert help from the UN and other international organizations. If African American oversight of the process were to be placed in the hands of a strictly technical and functional body which had no interest in taking a leadership role within the Assembly itself, but rather in facilitating its establishment, then the process itself would not be stigmatized by seeming to be captured by a contending group at its very inception. The process should be made available to all leadership elements in the community, permitting all to freely and democratically contend, whether as parties or as individuals -- or in whatever manner might be established in advance for the free, fair and democratic holding of African American elections, in keeping with UN advice and assistance, through conferences or other processes within the African American community at large.

...Legal apparatus, governing structures, law-making capacity: this is needed by peoples - any people - to achieve their objectives, express their will, and get things done.

Why not African Americans?

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

quote:

---

I not sure I used the term "semiautomomous," but it is fair.

---

Mr. Chester...

You made me open up my dictionary on your term - suzerain = semiautonomous of sorts.

What's the problem?

Native Americans are autonomous or perhaps semi-autonomous and would be a prototype of which we are nowhere close. All our homage - aka taxes is rendered to Ceasar! There's is not! So you bring up a good example.

Again I ask: What's the problem?

Why do we have to be "limited by parameters set and controlled by the United States" and stay solely "within the parameters defined" as they exist today. First I think you need to do some research and understand the arrangement Native Americans have.

My post above this would go to answer both your and YSSYS latest concerns.

I welcome you feedback.

And I don't know how many times I said that this is not about separatism. Why we feel like we have to be completely subject to the "suzerain" U.S. gov't and still fancy the notion that we are a "nation" - without functioning in any way like one - is curious to me.

Yssys...
All I saying is we need to take a step. What that is doesn't really matter to me but we need to have an explicit, defined goal whether that's the ultimate long range goal or a short term transitional one. Again, the "mock" gov't in the cititation in the above post to me sounds like an adequate "lobbying" organ as well as a oversight/organizing body.

quote:

---

The idea of lobbying also, a Malcolm X idea, is not new.

---

Yssys...

What do you think is the logical progression of Malcolm X's focus on HUMAN RIGHTS?

Knowing that his core efforts were for Black self-determination - reference his Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism emphasis - do you think "lobbying" was the extent of what he viewed as African-American's political options?

Look at yourselves. Some of you teen-agers, students. How do you think I feel and I belo ng to a generation ahead of you - how do you think I feel to have to tell you, "We, my generation, sat around like a knot on a wall while the whole world was fighting for its human rights - and you've got to be born into a society where you still have that same fight." What did we do, who preceded you ? I'll tell you what we did. Nothing. And don't you make the same mistake we made...
- Malcolm X, December 31, 1964

American presidents have bloodlines that can be traced to ENGLISH ROYALTY. The system's set-up that way.

If the fairy tale of an "American Black Presidency" ever happened; if that imaginary man called for war; do you honestly believe that the European populace of the U.S. would send their sons/daughters to fight in the manner that we do, on "his" orders? I don't believe the "fan" would be able to handle 300 million human feces that would hit it and the black pres. Anyhow, I don't believe "he'd" last but a N.Y. nanosecond.

These folks don't consider us as "friends". We weren't brought over here as "buddies". We didn't even come here willingly.

If we were liked, we wouldn't be fighting to work with 'em, live with 'em, go to school with 'em, live peacefully with 'em, breathe with 'em, now would we?

This is a fairy tale!!!

Mr. Chester...

Here are some facts I would like you to consider:

Indian nations are sovereign governments with the acknowledged power to impose their own taxes, on both tribal members and non-members, within the boundaries of their reservations. Although the individual states are likewise sovereign governments with the inherent power to tax, they are precluded by federal law from imposing any tax payment or collection obligation on an Indian nation...

The idea that an Indian nation can adopt and implement a tax system ...is not foreign to a federalist system of government. The fifty states and the District of Columbia, for example, impose sales taxes ...

Native American Sovereignty and TAX Autonomy

What Does This Mean?

• Tribes remain sovereign nations and possess self-government.
  
• Tribes have a nation-to-nation relationship with the U.S. federal government.
  
• Only Congres has plenary (overriding) power over Indian affairs.
  
• State governance is generally not permitted within reservations.

American Indian Tribes Possess a "Nation-within-a-Nation" Status

quote:

---

I believe we already exist as a kind of suzerain entity. We are indeed a nation within a nation. I have named it African America. As my exercise of self-determination, I have declared African America my ancestral nationality - Jim Chester

---

Now, I'll ask you:

How are we "A Nation Within A Nation" if we have NO sovereignty, no autonomy, no right to self-determination (by the real definition)?

As you can see the Native Americans are just that, sovereign. Is their sovereignty "established and maintained by the military or political force" ?

Nmaginate:

The circumstance of the Indian Nations resulted from their being separate, and sovereign. Their arrangements with the United States are treaties of war. They lost. That's the problem. I don't support going to war to achieve my need --- and I admit what I see as the need for African American-Americans --- ancestral nationality.

However else we look at it, slavery was a hostile "prisoner-of-war" condition. The release of those prisoners was effected by the 13th Amendment. The last bondage of that "prisoner-of-war" condition (chattle slavery) is the loss of ancestral nationality.

You seem to want independence without going through the inconvenience of the confrontation necessary to get. We did the confrontation. It culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Medgar Evers died, Dr. King died, Malcolm died, the little girls died, Viola Liuzzo died, Cheney, Werner and Chapman died, thousands were beaten and bled, and yes John Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy died. A lot of people died --- all in the cause for breaking the chains of that "prisoner-of-war" condition. Looking at it, and reading about it is one thing. Being there is another. You think it hurts now? You can only imagine! I can only imagine!

Simply complaining about it is useless. I don't only empathize with you. Every thinking African American-American feels the same way!!

WHAT IS IT I DON'T UNDERSTAND?

I understand I am an American. I understand I can change that anytime I want.

I understand that I am getting an absolutely despicable deal as an American. I can change that greatly by exercising the presence of mind to stop calling my color, my identity; to stop calling my race my culture; to stop calling my ancestry my ancestral nationality; to stop using a "victim mentality" to guide the decisions of my life. I am on your side.

Our ancestors --- here --- made their sacrifice for freedom --- here. Our ancestors fought for us to be free --- here. Their sacrifice was their investment --- here. While I know I have the freedom of choice, I was not given a license to throw that investment away.

My fight is the fight of my ancestors --- here. My demand is the demand of my ancestors --- FREEDOM. HERE. My parents were full grown adults, with children, when they turned down the offer to "go back to Africa" in the 1920s. They said, "No." then. I say, "No." now, both literally and figuratively. Their choice was to continue the investment of our family in their citizenship --- here. Their choice was to continue the search for ancestral nationality --- here. My claim is the claim of my family for ancestral nationality --- HERE.

That ancestral nationality is African America ---HERE.

The framers of the U. S. Constitution defined the landscape of our circumstance in that document. They built the fence in our minds.

Only we can tear it down.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 18, 2003 at 04:57 AM.]

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 18, 2003 at 05:09 AM.]

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 18, 2003 at 05:24 AM.]

Apparently, you are not on my side. When did I say I was not prepared for the consequences?? It is you who are afraid of what those consequences might be therefore you can't even let the words come out of your mouth.

How are we any different than any other ethnic group?? You want to say we are a "nation-within-a-nation" but we are not to function as one. You are apparently happy with that.

I hate to inform you but we already have a name - African-American. To the extent that you, personally, aren't happy with that is of no consequence. That name no matter what it is does NOT make us a nation. Acting in a unique national fashion does.

I suggest that you also research the various U.N. Convenants on Human Rights.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights


• 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
  
  
• 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
  
  
• 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

I am NOT posing a strict measure of INDEPENDENCE. Instead, I am fashioning a measure of INTERDEPENDENCE whereby we are not wholly subjugated by the larger U.S. gov't - i.e. a multicultural democracy.

You might be right. Our history does show that in order to have our rights fully observed we have had to fight for them. Those Amendments, IMO, do not constitute our full and complete freedom. If you are on my side then that's what you (and I) want - unconditional, uncompromised freedom or exactly what we define as acceptable alternative NOT just what America has to offer by way of citizenship, etc. That's a decision others made and you admit that we are subject to it and, as such, to their definition - the exact opposite of self-determination.

I close with this last thought in response to your continued confusion and the price you seem to think I'm not ready to pay or don't recognize... which is really only your hapless projection of your feelings onto me; I'm not at all confused...

If you're not ready to die for it, put the word "freedom" out of your vocabulary. - Malcolm X, Chicago Defender, 28. Nov. 1962

Mr. Chester, YOUR NAME GAME is just that, a game. A game you play with yourself to make you feel good. That's fine. To the extent that you actually incorporate some authenic aspects of African culture, all the more the better... BUT THAT IS NOT THE SELF-DETERMINATION I'M TALKING ABOUT! Nor am I satisfied with the "freedom" to call myself something different and pretend that that will solve real political problems or afford more political efficacy.

Keep your comments to that! I'm on a different issue now and your "ancestrial identity" thing is not on the same level or close to the same magnitude.

I can't help it if you have NO VISION! I can't help it if all you can surmise to do is reinvent the wheel with the NAME GAME! Hardly anyone is struggling with their identity as we are now called African-Americans, save you. Yet there are plenty of us admittedly as you say..."I understand that I am getting an absolutely despicable deal as an American"... many of us who are concerned and will not indefinitely accept our politics to be meted out the "American way".

Sorry... but change your name a thousand times does not change your or our political reality and YOU KNOW IT!

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
If we have differences, let us differ in the closet; when we come out in front, let us not have anything to argue about until we get finished arguing with the man." - MALCOLM X

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on June 18, 2003 at 05:16 AM.]

quote:

---

"...slavery was a hostile "prisoner-of-war" condition. The release of those prisoners was effected by the 13th Amendment."

---

You have just shown evidence of your STOCKHOLM SYNDROME.

What POW's are released and remain in the country of the enemy, willingly?

What self-respecting POW or descendant of a POW would accept any arrangement that the enemy country offers to them to be "citizens" of that "enemy" country?

You know what... forget those questions! Don't respond. There is no way possible I can hope to have a fruitful conversation with you.

Not when you bring up topics then run from the obvious conclusions of them that contradict your confused statements - e.g. Native American Sovereignty.

You said they aquired their sovereignty through treaties to mark the end of conflict with the U.S. [I think??] Then you went on to tell me that I wasn't willing to deal with or calculated those kind of factors into my consideration. Then, as inconsistent as you could be, you told me in your history lesson that "we've already fought those wars".

Which is it?

You may like being a political slave or a scared ex-slave but I, for one, am not.

What part of New Black Power, New Civil[Human Rights] Movement and Multicultural Democracy don't you understand?

Nmaginate:

You're faster than a speeding bullet. I was making a correction, clicked "Post Now", and there you were.

You may be right. But then, America IS a name game. That's how they keep us where they want us. But addressing the more important issues of your reply:

The points of concern in the United Nations are international issues. They apply to sovereign States and/or protectorates of sovereign States. Once again, this requires independence. There is no challenge to what you are willing to do to get it. We all know what we are indeed williing to do only when the time comes. I believe you.

I am secure in my choice. I is made for me. Your choice is for you. There is no problem here.

You may want to re-think your "multicultural democracy." When you check out the Multiculturalism folks, you will find that they are teaching our children that's what we have now. I don't think that is what you mean.

To believe that a declaration of who you are is only a name change in the "name game", is right in line with America's game plan for us. That plan says there is nothing you can do to change who you are. So, just tell me what you want me to call you. My answer is "Mr. Chester." That's the beginning of "name game" that counts.

Determining who you are is not simply a "name game." Example: I have an acquaintance who adamantly insists he is "Persian." Where is that Farhan? Point to it on the map. He then goes into this explanation. I know what he means. It makes him angry, because he knows I know. The point is he knows who he is. But, I'm not here to defend my choice of ancestral nationality. It is. I tried to explain why it is true --- for me and mine. It is also important to understand our "political reality."

Declaring my ancestral nationality most definitely changes my political reality. As a first step, it creates a foundation for the political presence of African American-Americans in our society. You cannot play in America's game if you don't have a "suit." Such a foundation not only creates a place for others, but it points the way to parity in our society.

Interestingly, European Americans that, where we are concern, if there is one there are hordes. Politically, a name is more than enough for a beginning.

Our political reality in political terms is "whatever European America wants us to be." "Political reality" is the sense you see cannot be without independent sovereignty. The reality of our political fortune is imbeded in the force we wield --- politically. Somehow, some way, we have to shape who we are into what we are as a political force in our society. Once again, one of the first challenges to this is European America telling us, "You don't need that. Simply join one the existing parties to get your voice heard. Stay within the system."

You say I'm not on your side. Be that as it may, one thing is for sure. Charlie is not on you side.

By the way, I keep telling you African America is real, not imagined. Also, did you look at our (Ooops!). Sorry, my flag. What did you think?

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 18, 2003 at 06:41 AM.]

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 18, 2003 at 06:45 AM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nmaginate:

quote:

---

"...slavery was a hostile "prisoner-of-war" condition. The release of those prisoners was effected by the 13th Amendment."

---

You have just shown evidence of your STOCKHOLM SYNDROME.

What POW's are released and remain in the country of the enemy, willingly?

What self-respecting POW or descendant of a POW would accept any arrangement that the enemy country offers to them to be "citizens" of that "enemy" country?

You know what... forget those questions! Don't respond. There is no way possible I can hope to have a fruitful conversation with you.

Not when you bring up topics then run from the obvious conclusions of them that contradict your confused statements - e.g. Native American Sovereignty.

You said they aquired their sovereignty through treaties to mark the end of conflict with the U.S. [I think??] Then you went on to tell me that I wasn't willing to deal with or calculated those kind of factors into my consideration. Then, as inconsistent as you could be, you told me in your history lesson that "we've already fought those wars".

Which is it?

You may like being a political slave or a scared ex-slave but I, for one, am not.

What part of New Black Power, New Civil[Human Rights] Movement and Multicultural Democracy don't you understand?

---

Nmaginate: Ex-slave? Wow!!

Your quote: (I don't know how to do the efficient things with the site yet.)

"You said they aquired their sovereignty through treaties to mark the end of conflict with the U.S. [I think??] Then you went on to tell me that I wasn't willing to deal with or calculated those kind of factors into my consideration. Then, as inconsistent as you could be, you told me in your history lesson that "we've already fought those wars".

No, no. You missed it.

Only sovereign entities can enter treaties. The Indian Nations were sovereign when the Europeans came. I didn't see my recitation of historical fact as a lesson, but be that as it mey. The fact remains. "We did that." was my point.

Maybe my behavior is out of the Stockholm Syndrome. I hope not. I have known people personally who were trapped in thet mentality. All knew that was where they wanted to be --- and didn't care. Part of the "teaching" of chattel slavery was to forbide the claim of ancestral nationality. I call it "the last bondage" of that institution. So, I am growing. I hope I get better. I am sure I will because I won't volutarily give it up again.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

I'm just reading your post but I had to stop to address this:

quote:

---

You may want to re-think your "multicultural democracy." When you check out the Multiculturalism folks, you will find that they are teaching our children that's what we have now. I don't think that is what you mean.

---

See... That's the problem. People get so hung up on words and how the are used in practice (or should I say mis-used) anytime the word is used by its actual definition you get that old knee-jerk, ring-the-alarm reaction like you stole somethin' on Aisle 3.

DAMN!!! Is it that hard to go by the dictionary definition and/or ascertain the meaning intended from the way inwhich it is used?

Mr. Chester...

You will have to show me a link to your flag again... I don't think I saw it...

Mr. Chester, How can you have a nationality without a nation? How can you have a nation without self-determination - aka sovereignty?

What's the use of a name - national identity - and a flag if it is not a symbol of that sovereignty??

Notice in the Native American posts...
their sovereignty was compared to that of the 50 contiguous (if you will) states of the Union. Neither of those states are wholly INDEPENDENT yet they have "separate" function and authority over those that are "citizens" of their states and, for the Native Americans, they have authority or autonomy over their population.

You are correct that Native Americans were sovereign nations before America was formed. Likewise, our African ancestors were foreign nationals - aka representatives of sovereign African states - and never gave up their rights to such.

What you are saying is that you prefer to be governed by White people. That's what you're saying. ADMIT IT! You whole national identity is just a charade, a dress up thing to pretend to be a real self-respecting person!

I can understand all the criticism in the world about feasibility of what I've proposed but to act like it has no basis for the reasons you've presented shows a high level of content for our current condition and contempt for a real liberating theory whether fully organized or not.

What's your plan?

Wave your newly created flag over the nothingness that we control?

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
If we have differences, let us differ in the closet; when we come out in front, let us not have anything to argue about until we get finished arguing with the man." - MALCOLM X

Maybe it is time for a black president....

on the other hand, what is it about a black president that will make this country's administration any better? Truth be told, I want a president that will look at us as "citizens" not blacks, whites, latinos, asians etc...I want a president who will set an agenda of equality, peace, and justice and actually stick to it. A man of any race will do....

"black control of the black tax dollar" is laughable...American citizens (especially blacks) feel like we are too highly taxed now. If this so-called autonomous state were established the citizens would have to be taxed at an extrememly high rate (over 50%) in order to establish basic services... I think that the idea is separatist and illogical, but that's just my opinion....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
I'm just reading your post but I had to stop to address this:

quote:

---

You may want to re-think your "multicultural democracy." When you check out the Multiculturalism folks, you will find that they are teaching our children that's what we have now. I don't think that is what you mean.

---

See... That's the problem. People get so hung up on words and how the are used in practice (or should I say mis-used) anytime the word is used by its actual definition you get that old knee-jerk, ring-the-alarm reaction like you stole somethin' on Aisle 3.

DAMN!!! Is it that hard to go by the dictionary definition and/or ascertain the meaning intended from the way inwhich it is used?

---

Nmaginate:

When we are not there, words are what define us.
Our words defend us. Multiculturalism is a "trigger word" in our society. It drives an entire industry. It defines the world in which most of our academics live. I made the substitution. If your definiton of "multicultural democracy" is literal it still describes the society in which we currently live. Typically, we interchange the words "diverse" and "multicultural" to describe it. If you mean something different, please explain.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

quote:

---

No. No. You missed it. Only sovereign entities can enter treaties.

---

Mr. Chester...

My whole presentation (for lack of a better term) by citing the U.N. Convenants is to state that we have the basis and right to self-determination and can derive sovereignty from our status as a "people" or minority with the self-definition and will to govern ourselves.

Remeber you brought up the Native Americans as a classical example of "nation[s] within a nation". Then, of course, you would try to wiggle out of that when I used that example to highlight as case & point of what I'm saying. YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF...

How do you expect me to view your opinion as honest if you don't stand by what you say?

You tripped over my synonym for your word SUZERAIN - i.e. semi-autonomous. I had never heard or seen that word used before so I had to look it up. I just looked it up on my computer and an even clear definition appears to make those words, in fact, the same with semi-autonomous being perhaps the lesser of the two.

SUZERAIN: (definition)

• a dominant state controlling the foreign relations of a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs

Mr. Chester, that would be almost exactly the type of arrangement I would seek for us a Stolen People, with a Defined Identity, and Definite Claim to a unique status heretofore unrecognized and disregarded.

Please... if you are going to use 'obscure' terms (obscure to me at least... though one of the primary definitions refered to Feudal relations or the OVERLORD function...) at least know the definition and applied the word correctly.

You make it so very hard to talk to you. I hope you know that. At least be honest and upfront. If you don't like 'my' idea because you love White people and never want to see Black people rule over their own affairs say so instead of coming up with idiotic excuses to say its not desirable.

Not feasible, I can understand...
But your arguments and the great inconsistencies in them hints of something more than a critique. And you know it.

If I'm so wrong about the validity of our rightful claim to sovereignty via the right to self-determination then why are there a number of people who believe there is such a thing, such a notion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
http://www.reparationsthecure.org/beta/nura1.html
African Americans need democratic self-determining processes (elections) to establish what it is they want and who speaks for them, and a permanent mechanism (parliament or assembly) to endow that leadership with the full authority of the will of the African American people. Both the process and the mechanism can be brought about by African Americans themselves, outside of any institutions and processes currently established by Anglo Americans. _It need not depend on Anglo American good will; it could be done without it.__Yet once established by African Americans as the legitimate spokesbody for African Americans, the African American Consultative Assembly (or whatever it might be named) would be well situated to lobby the U.S. government for legal recognition and structures of governance (i.e. law-making and administrative capacity) in relation to the African American community in sectors such as education, health and so on. _ It would also be positioned to seek some manner of public funding (transfer payment, the right to tax, etc.) for its regular and ongoing enablement -- similar to autonomous arrangements for national minorities elsewhere in the world which receive public monies to establish, fund and run the institutional structures their people require.

*A Consultative Assembly may be the mechanism through which African Americans might best pursue their goal of reparations - as well as negotiate to determine what the reparations should be, and how same should be disposed of. Indeed, legally recognized and publicly funded structures of governance might be the reparations!

...Should African Americans proceed towards African American elections and a Consultative Assembly, they could expect expert help from the UN and other international organizations. If African American oversight of the process were to be placed in the hands of a strictly technical and functional body which had no interest in taking a leadership role within the Assembly itself, but rather in facilitating its establishment, then the process itself would not be stigmatized by seeming to be captured by a contending group at its very inception. The process should be made available to all leadership elements in the community, permitting all to freely and democratically contend, whether as parties or as individuals -- or in whatever manner might be established in advance for the free, fair and democratic holding of African American elections, in keeping with UN advice and assistance, through conferences or other processes within the African American community at large.

_...Legal apparatus, governing structures, law-making capacity: this is needed by peoples - any people - to achieve their objectives, express their will, and get things done. _

Why not African Americans? Sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

---

Nmaginate:

Sounds pretty good to me too. In my envisioning the future of African America, most if not all of the above could be seen. All those things become even more possible when they come from a real place. What do you call your place? I call mine African America. And by the way, thanks for dropping the hyphen in "African America." You used it ten or more times and nary a hyphen. That's the African America I know. Thanks

Seriously, what do you call your place? Everyone in America is from some place else. Where is your place? I think I am from there too.

I tried to reply to the early part of your reply, and didn't do right.

In response to the latter part of your posting:

You, me, we are free (autonomous) in defining our internal affairs. We can set any rule we want, PROVIDED the rule does not valid one of their rules --- as long as we stay within the defined limits. It may not be fair, but the usage is correct. As to obscurity, you told me in an earlier posting: That's what dictionaries are for. I don't mind having to use it. I see education as a part of my responsibility.

The more you define your position, the more it sounds like the one I have taken. I am approaching it from the one side, and I from the other.

I think all the things you advocate may indeed be achievable. I think having an identity first (1) solves more problems for me, (2) makes future steps out of such an identity more feasible, with more credibility both inside of, and outside of that identity.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 18, 2003 at 09:37 AM.]

Nmaginate, in regards to electing a Black Prime minister or President, I am in full agreement, based upon the model presented in the hyperlink you provided in the thread "Soldier death rate in Iraq vs DC murder rate". I have long thought that Africans in America should ELECT its leaders and not have people ASSUME the status by virtue of who the media give the mic too. I kind of envision such as a symbolic position and being the TRUE voice of the African community and therefore the conduit or port that the political establishment must connect with to win the support of the African masses.

Of course such a process would not be without challenges, but nothing worthwhile is easy and the challenges would not be insurmountable.

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America

quote:

---

Our ancestors --- here --- made their sacrifice for freedom --- here. Our ancestors fought for us to be free --- here. Their sacrifice was their investment --- here. While I know I have the freedom of choice, I was not given a license to throw that investment away.

My fight is the fight of my ancestors --- here. My demand is the demand of my ancestors --- FREEDOM. HERE. My parents were full grown adults, with children, when they turned down the offer to "go back to Africa" in the 1920s. They said, "No." then. I say, "No." now, both literally and figuratively. Their choice was to continue the investment of our family in their citizenship --- here. Their choice was to continue the search for ancestral nationality --- here. My claim is the claim of my family for ancestral nationality --- HERE

---

And what is your (edited) point... here?

When and where did I say something about Going Back To Africa?.... And what about those who may choose to do that - collectively at some point???

Black people where not monolithic then (the 1920's) and they're damn sure not monolithic now.

But see.... there it is... your aSSumption of me saying something I AM NOT! Did you know that "your" ancestors had at least two other opportunities to Go Back To Africa well before the 1920's?

Lincoln offered to repatriate Blacks - Liberia or New Granada (Central America). (A lot of the "founding fathers" felt the same... you know... Get Rid Of The N~ggas!) The American Colonization Society founded Liberia (1830's or so??) with little or no gov't blessing. There obviously were some takers there, over and across a sea of great uncertainty (once you consider the vile nature of racism then... they were really brave...)

LINK: Lincoln's Black-To-Africa Plan

You have no concept of what I'm talking about for confusing it with all the jilted junk you have in your mind which was evident when I first started posting on your African-America topic....

Mr. Chester, you are one confused individual...
I hope you can make peace with yourself over these issues and stop contradicting yourself.
I mean that with sincerity...

I was talking about a suzerain relationship HERE! I don't know how you figured otherwise. And that's exactly what needs to change, the political power relationship.

quote:

---

I have long thought that Africans in America should ELECT its leaders and not have people ASSUME the status by virtue of who the media give the mic too. I kind of envision such as a symbolic position and being the TRUE voice of the African community and therefore the conduit or port that the political establishment must connect with to win the support of the African masses.

---

Yeah... I have a name for it - the Black Parliment (& Funkadelic ).

The TRIPLE "A" - The AFRICAN-AMERICAN ASSEMBLY.
(... I know it's corny...but what could I do on such short notice...) OR simply, the ASSEMBLY, unless something strongly & authenically African
would be more desirable.

I envision its function similar to the way you do, NOAH. It would fill those traditional roles of protest, advocacy, and policy proposal and could, at least initially, be constructed of at least one representative from the various national leadership organizations. The could convene for quarterly retreats until the groundwork is laid out for the organ/parliment.

I too think that its leadership, as a NGO yet representing the interest of all governed AA's would be respected by default or in absence of any other recognized Black leadership with significant following. That sounds like SOLIDARITY to me.

They could eventually press for reparations and or the autonomy I have tried to outline here. But those would be perhaps distant goals to come after all the kinks are worked out and we have a solid, united Black Front.

Like I said,
YOU CAN'T BE A NATION UNLESS YOU ACT LIKE ONE!

I think that Consultation or Mock gov't model is the best start. Their function would also be like a solidified "third party" of sorts because they would constantly weigh-in in every election but wouldn't be so short-lived or narrowly focused.

I think that's something we can rally around and foster the nation mindset we need to organize and unify.

Thanks for the comment!

quote:

---

You, me, we are free (autonomous) in defining our internal affairs. We can set any rule we want, PROVIDED the rule does not valid one of their rules ...

---

Are you thick headed or what???

Autonomy, suzerain, self-determination, sovereignity ALL suggest, as noted in the Native American version, the capacity to RULE, CONTROL, and GOVERN one's own political, social, and cultural affairs. Matter of fact, GOING BACK TO THE DICTIONARY your word "suzerain" said what??? ONLY the FOREIGN RELATIONS of the vassal state were governed or controlled by the OVERLORD or superior or larger gov't.

Native Americans opt to allow the U.S. to provide National Defense for them. My idea, if you would ask like an intelligent person who sincerely wants to dialogue, would do the same with those "contractual arrangements" I talked about.

Beyond that, in its ultimate U.S. based - aka HERE - manifestation, the Black Parliment would collect Black Taxes with a certain pre-ordained percentage to automatically go to the larger U.S. gov't.

Damn... Mr. Chester!! You're worse than some those White people I've had to defend this to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nmaginate:

quote:

---

No. No. You missed it. Only sovereign entities can enter treaties.

---

Mr. Chester...

My whole presentation (for lack of a better term) by citing the U.N. Convenants is to state that we have the basis and right to self-determination and can derive sovereignty from our status as a "people" or minority with the self-definition and will to govern ourselves.

Remeber you brought up the Native Americans as a classical example of "nation[s] within a nation". Then, of course, you would try to wiggle out of that when I used that example to highlight as case & point of what I'm saying. YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF...

How do you expect me to view your opinion as honest if you don't stand by what you say?

You tripped over my synonym for your word SUZERAIN - i.e. semi-autonomous. I had never heard or seen that word used before so I had to look it up. I just looked it up on my computer and an even clear definition appears to make those words, in fact, the same with semi-autonomous being perhaps the lesser of the two._SUZERAIN: (definition)_
+ __a dominant state controlling _ the foreign relations of _a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs _ _ Mr. Chester, that would be almost exactly the type of arrangement I would seek for us a Stolen People, with a Defined Identity, and Definite Claim to a unique status heretofore unrecognized and disregarded.

Please... if you are going to use 'obscure' terms (obscure to me at least... though one of the primary definitions refered to Feudal relations or the OVERLORD function...) at least know the definition and applied the word correctly.

You make it so very hard to talk to you. I hope you know that. At least be honest and upfront. If you don't like 'my' idea because you love White people and never want to see Black people rule over their own affairs say so instead of coming up with idiotic excuses to say its not desirable.

Not feasible, I can understand...
But your arguments and the great inconsistencies in them hints of something more than a critique. And you know it.

If I'm so wrong about the validity of our rightful claim to sovereignty via the right to self-determination then why are there a number of people who believe there is such a thing, such a notion?

---

Nmaginate:

Your quote:
we have the basis and right to self-determination and can derive sovereignty from our status as a "people" or minority with the self-definition and will to govern ourselves."

I AGREE.

On the description of Indian Nations: If I was wiggling, I didn't feel it. Indian Nations are sovereign now, and have always been.

Your quote:

_SUZERAIN: (definition)_
+ __a dominant state controlling _ the foreign relations of _a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs _ _ Mr. Chester, that would be almost exactly the type of arrangement I would seek for us a Stolen People, with a Defined Identity, and Definite Claim to a unique status heretofore unrecognized and disregarded.

Please... if you are going to use 'obscure' terms (obscure to me at least... though one of the primary definitions refered to Feudal relations or the OVERLORD function...) at least know the definition and applied the word correctly.

I THINK I DID.

I addressed this issue is an earlier posting. We in African America are at liberty to control our internal affairs as long as they don't exceed the limits, among which is one is foreign affairs, of the controlling entity --- the United States. There is to subtrefuge intended here. I think this is the most important issue any two Americans of unknown African ancestry can talk about.

Your quote:

You make it so very hard to talk to you. I hope you know that. At least be honest and upfront. If you don't like 'my' idea because you love White people and never want to see Black people rule over their own affairs say so instead of coming up with idiotic excuses to say its not desirable.

Not feasible, I can understand...
But your arguments and the great inconsistencies in them hints of something more than a critique. And you know it.

If I'm so wrong about the validity of our rightful claim to sovereignty via the right to self-determination then why are there a number of people who believe there is such a thing, such a notion?

It is not your idea I don't like. Typically, I see only bits and pieces of your idea which you inject almost as accents to other subjects. I agree with your idea in concept. I disagree with it in its order of things. It seems to have the "cart before the horse."

I'm not going to answer your imply charge about white people. If you suppositon of my relationship to white people is as you imply, then you haven't read even half of what I have written. I am however willing to send you a copy of my book "The African American Ethnicity" --- if you think it would be useful.

I don't make "excuses" to you or anyone else. Whether they call themselves "Black" or White" and with or with capital letters. Nor do I have to.

I do not believe your are wrong about the right to sovereignty, nor is it wrong to determine it within your own recognizance. That is what I am all about. I have told you this repeatedly from our first exchange. Sovereignty is the single-word defintion for self-determination. It is typically, however, applied to nations. I would expand on that, but in this forum it is not appropriate. We are on the same page.

Critique is my intent. I would just you personally, or the value of your decisions to you. I will disagree. I will give you a reason for that disagreement. To me, that is what productive discussion is all about.

When we finally admit we agree, this board is going to crash!! Admit it. There's hope. You did give up the "hyphen." I have been re-reading "Souls of Black Folk" by W.E.B. DuBois in its 2003 edition. The guy who did the "Introduction" uses African American, and African America. He never uses a hyphen!! Believe me, it is the natural resolution of our political circumstance. Nmaginate, there is no hyphen in North Carolina, South Carolina, The Dakotas, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and on, and on. There is no hyphen in African America. It is a place. It is a place.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC

quote:

---

You, me, we are free (autonomous) in defining our internal affairs. We can set any rule we want, PROVIDED the rule does not valid one of their rules

---

How is that any different than say.... Arab-Americans??? I guess their autonomous too. And, apparently, for the same reason we are... huh?

Aren't their rights protected by the Constitution. That's a really sad prescription when on one hand you try to claim uniqueness but when compared to every other American there really is none.

NO! Mr. Chester.... You are not even in the neighborhood. You either need to confess that you are white are just plain ignorant! I'm tired of breaking everything down for you like you are dunce.

You used the word suzerain and now you act like you don't know what the hell it means! I'm trying not to go back to the language I used in you African-America post... but that's exactly what you are acting like.

Chester....

You must be on some crack or something.

YOU AND I DO NOT AGREE>>>>> YOU PUT LIMITS ON FREEDOM.... by definition that doesn't make it free. I elaborate by saying you put arbitrary, counter-to-dictionary definition limits on all the terms used herein.

You are demented.
You are recreating the wheel... We Are AFRICAN-AMERICANS!!! There is not conflict no confusion except yours because of your hate and discomfort with Africa.

If the Native Americans were effectively conquered yet are still sovereign why is it even a strange idea that we, a kidnapped-conquered people, would not have the same or similar sovereignity since we never denounce our right to self-determination - i.e. SELF-GOVERNANCE!

With Negroes like you... who needs Honkies!
(I say that affectionately... with no disrespect to White people because I don't call them that any other time.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Mr. Chester...

You will have to show me a link to your flag again... I don't think I saw it...

REPLY: THE LINK IS: HTTP://WWW.IAANH2.ORG

Mr. Chester, How can you have a nationality without a nation? How can you have a nation without self-determination - aka sovereignty?

REPLY: YOU CAN'T. YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT AS YOU KNOW AFRICAN AMERICA IS A PLACE, OUR PLACE. IT IS ALL THE ANCESTRAL NATIONALITY WE HAVE BEEN LEFT, AND THAT WAS NOT INTENDED. IF THEY PREVENT YOU AND/OR ME FROM CLAIMING IT THEY WILL. WITHOUT IT WE INDEED HAVE NOTHING TO WAVE A FLAG ABOUT.

What's the use of a name - national identity - and a flag if it is not a symbol of that sovereignty??

REPLY: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. SOVEREIGNTY IS A SELF-DECLARED AUTHORITY THAT IS VALID AS LONG AS YOU CAN MAKE IT VALID. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR EITHER CONSENT OR APPROVAL. IF YOU DID IT WOULD NOT BE SOVEREIGNTY. FINALLY, IF YOU DON'T DO IT, NO ONE ELSE WILL.

Notice in the Native American posts...
their sovereignty was compared to that of the 50 contiguous (if you will) states of the Union. Neither of those states are wholly INDEPENDENT yet they have "separate" function and authority over those that are "citizens" of their states and, for the Native Americans, they have authority or autonomy over their population.

THEY ARE COMPARABLE TO THE STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THEY ARE NOT "WHOLLY INDEPENDENT BECASUE THEY LOST THE WAR. NOTICE THE STATE OF TEXAS. THEY WON THEIR WAR WITH MEXICO. TEXAS IF THE ONLY STATE TO JOIN THE UNION AS FREESTANDING NATION. THEY CAME INTO THE UNION WITH SPECIAL AUTHORITIES RESERVED TO THEIR GOVERNMENT.

THE INDIAN NATIONS ALSO HAVE AUTHORITIES RESERVED BY TREATY TO THEIR GOVERNMENT --- EVEN HAVING LOST THEIR RESPECTIVE WARS. THEY ARE IN A SUZERAIN CIRCUMSTANCE.

I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY AFRICAN AMERICA IS A NATION IN A SUZERAIN ARRANGEMENT. THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO NOT RECOGNIZE THAT FACT.

You are correct that Native Americans were sovereign nations before America was formed. Likewise, our African ancestors were foreign nationals - aka representatives of sovereign African states - and never gave up their rights to such.

REPLY: I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. BUT "REPRESENTATIVE" IS NOT THE APPLICABLE WORD. MOST IF NOT ALL OF OUR AFRICAN ANCESTORS OUT OF ENSLAVED CIRCUMSTANCES, AND BY THE SECOND GENERATION DID NOT KNOW, NOT ONLY THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH THEY PARENTS EMBARKED, BUT HAD NO IDEA OF THE COUNTRY THEY PARENTS CAME FROM ORIGINALLY. WHEN I SAY THINGS LIKE THIS YOU SEEM TO TAKE IT AS A PUT DOWN. IT IS NOT. THEY ARE MY ANCESTORS TOO.

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FIRMLY CONVINCED OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF US A PEOPLE--- THAT SOVEREIGNTY BEING BASED THE COMMONALITY OF OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. AFRICA IS OUR ANCESTRY. WE CANNOT HOWEVER GAIN IDENTITY OUT OF FRAGMENTED ORIGIN. WE HAVE HAD TO REBUILD. OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN ANCESTORS DID THAT FOR US. I CLAIM IT.

What you are saying is that you prefer to be governed by White people. That's what you're saying. ADMIT IT! You whole national identity is just a charade, a dress up thing to pretend to be a real self-respecting person!

REPLY: EXCUSE ME?!!! CHARADE? DRESS UP? FROM MY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU IT IS ALMOST CERTAIN I WAS RESPECTING MYSELF BEFORE YOU KNEW WHO YOU WERE LET ALONE WANT TO BE. WHY MUST EVEYTHING REVERT TO PERSONAL ATTACK WITH YOU? IS THAT HOW YOU GAIN VALIDITY? IF IT IS, IT IS FAR BENEATH WHAT I SEE IN YOU. APPARENTLY .... TIME OUT.

I can understand all the criticism in the world about feasibility of what I've proposed but to act like it has no basis for the reasons you've presented shows a high level of content for our current condition and contempt for a real liberating theory whether fully organized or not.

REPLY: HOW YOU GOT "CONTENT" OUT OF ALL OUR DISCUSSIONS I DON'T KNOW. AS I SAID, EARLIER IN THIS POST, I CRITICIZE YOUR APPROACH. I THINK THAT EVEN THE SEQUENCE OF LOGIC, IT IS BACKWARDS. I ALSO HAVE NO CONTEMPT FOR YOUR THEORY. BELIEVE OR NOT WILL ULTIMATLY AGREE. WE MAY NEVER AGREE ON THE NAMING. BUT REMEMBER, A ROSE IS A ROSE IS A ROSE.

What's your plan?

Wave your newly created flag over the nothingness that we control?

REPLY: IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU SEE IT. IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES. IT WILL WAVE NONETHELESS.

PEACE

Jim Chester
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
If we have differences, let us differ in the closet; when we come out in front, let us not have anything to argue about until we get finished arguing with the man." - MALCOLM X

---

JWC