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...

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


Nmaginate:

I think I lost one of your postings. It was good. I thought my response was on target. I hit the button. It disappeared, and never came back. I told MBM. He said the site has been "acting up." Anyway.

The link: http://www.iaanh2.org

The nation is African America. I guess you are saying it isn't in the sense that it doesn't exist. I say it is. The framers of the (U.S.) Constitution delineated and described its occupants and defined their value. They went on to regulate their entrance into the country, and place a federal value on each person's entry. Subsequent amendments adjusted their place in the greater society, and authorized the passage of legislation to further manage descendants. They defined it. I simply gave it a name --- African America. I live there. It is where I am "from." It is sovereign in the conduct of its own (internal) affairs.

The Indian Nations are comparable to the States of the United States. All of those States that participated in The Revolutionary War are sovereign and condition as such in the agreement (The Treaty of Paris of 1783) ending that war. I believe most,if not all of the subsequent States are also sovereign entities. They can leave "The Perpetual Union" any time they decide. Texas certainly is. In fact, it is the only State that joined "The Union" as an independent and sovereign nation.

Our African ancestors were certainly "foreign nationals" (aliens) --- from some other place. They did not however "represent" anyone, or anything. The rights they had when they were brought here in their former nations were nil. Most were slaves in the nations from which they left. You is correct. It does not matter. The RIGHT to sovereignty is inherent in man.

EXCUSE ME?!! Charade? "dress up to pretend to be a self-respecting person!" That's cute. You worked real hard for that. Personal attack seems to be your default mode. What's that about? Validation.
Nmaginate, that's "Charlie's Rap." I beat that with the help of the first African American-American I knew --- who knew who he was. I was 17. I thank regularly. Next.

I happen to agree with your concept. Believe it or not, I have written such an a approach, not a plan, to look at longterm viability for my declaration. I criticize your order of things. I think it is backwards. I think that to "get there" requires sovereignty-of-identity, if you will, before plan legislative bodies, and consulates, etc. I don't know how long it will take for it to happen my way. Since the process requires a person-by-person, family-by-family decision. But, I am on my way.

Are you saying, if its not your way, it is an expression of contempt for "a real liberating theory?" You can't be that vain.

My plan --- is to continue to hoor my flag for African America over all that it represents.

I am not a recruiter. I will tell anyone if the subject, and maybe even on the slightest pretext.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC
World Conference against Racism - NGO FORUM DECLARATION

5. Recognizing that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and have the capacity to contribute constructively to the development and well-being of their societies and, that all human societies ascribed towards shared values of dignity, equality, justice, tolerance, solidarity, pluralism and multiculturalism.

8. Recognizing that racism, racial discrimination, genocide, slavery, xenophobia and related intolerances are based on an ideological construct that assigns a certain group of persons a position of political, economic and social power over others through notions of racial superiority, colour, identity, dominance purity and majority status


48. Affirming that members of far too many minority communities, including national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities are collectively and individually subject to all forms of racism and institutionalized discrimination including denial of citizenship, exclusion from political participation, denial of access to resources and a dignified standard of living, political repression and genocidal practices because some nation-state structures that are majoritarian deny the rights of minority communities including the right of self-determination.


74. There is an unbroken chain from the slave trade, slavery, colonialism, foreign occupation, apartheid, racial discrimination and the contemporary forms of structural racism that maintain barriers to the full and equal participation of the victims of racism and discrimination in all spheres of public life;

76. Victims of declared and undeclared wars throughout the world have had their human rights violated because of their race, ethnicity and the intersection of race, ethnicity and gender and disability and are in need of reparation;

115. We assert that minorities and groups are entitled to affirm their right to self-determination which includes, inter alia, the recognition of their history, national memory, historical land claims, language rights, cultural rights, religious rights as well as the right to share political power.
http://www.directblackaction.com/blackop.html

How can African Nationals be citizens of the United States when they never agreed to be governed by the United States?

Their forced enlistment as U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment was just another type of slavery... { Dr. Robert Brock, President of the Self Determination Committee }

A. There was no MUTUALITY of agreement to partake in the citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

B. There was no opportunity for DISCLAIMER on the part of Blacks who wished to decline forced citizenship.

C. The legal DOMICILE OF black ex-slaves was and continues to be in Africa, according to all the rules of legal construction. (The domicile of origin is the domicile of every person until it is abandoned freely. The domicile gained by free birth in Africa cannot be changed by a slave birth in the United States.)

D. JURISDICTION based on Slavery.

Brock's legal analysis is as logical as his conclusion is inescapable. The forced citizenship of Blacks was the product of completely unilateral acts by others against them. No vote was ever taken, no petitions were ever signed, and no polls were ever conducted to indicate that African Nationals in America wanted to live under the White-created Constitution.
quote:
Are you saying, if its not your way, it is an expression of contempt for "a real liberating theory?" You can't be that vain.

Mr. Chester...

I'm not vain and you are not posing a critique. You can't even stay true to the words and examples you brought into this discussion so if you disrespect me with your intellectual dishonesty as an afront to the sound elementary level counter-arguments I present to answer your "critiques" then I have no obligation to respect you as a person, as if you are here for a serious discussion. You actions demonstrate that you are not.

Every definition of the terms:
Self-Determination, Suzerain, etc.
... You have prostituted and given you own narrow archaic, constricted definition because you are beholden to your AMERICAN identity.

You forget... I know you! You are twice as happy to be an "American" as you are to be African - you more or less said that. That type of attitude, for one, makes this discussion out-of-your element because it is the antithesis to that expression, in the way that you have expressed it before.... I think you know why.

See... People like you say stuff and when it becomes contradictory or inconsistent with what you have said before, you try to act like words don't mean what they mean and you didn't say what you said or that what you.... (I think you get the picture.)

If anyone has the vanity problem it is you because, like a number of other people you hold to logic that can't hold up. And I'm not saying logic that can't hold up to "my" scrutiny. NO! Your logic and statements could not hold up on the grounds you presented because you never supported what you have said with any other evidence other than your own opinions.

I showed you dictionary definitions counter to the meaning of the words YOU used, cited instances that contradicted examples or comparisons YOU brought up as well as any number of website links to support my position... something I cannot say for you. And after all that "Shuckin' and Shufflin'" I'm suppose to uphold to some decorum... you got the wrong brother. Be real with me, and I'll be real with you.

While you're trying to figure that out...

Check this out: The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities
    Item # 10: Did you know that the U.N., under international law, provides National and Ethnic Minorities with the right to exercise local control over institutions, services and taxes of their communities ?

    Yes = 26.21% No = 51.83% Uncertain = 21.96%*

    (* can be assumed that a full 83.79% (51.83% plus 21.96%) of those surveyed are NOT familiar)

    African-Americans Only: Yes = 26.55% No = 50.97% Uncertain = 22.48%
    ******************************************
    Item # 11: Do you believe that in certain instances African-American have the right to be treated as a "collective body", and not just as "individuals", in the attempt to address their common problems and needs ?

    Yes = 66.81% No = 19.15% Uncertain = 14.04%

    African-Americans Only: Yes = 68.67% No = 17.99% Uncertain = 13.35%
    *******************************************
    Item # 12: If presented with the opportunity, should African-American voters participate in an independent election to createa "National Assembly" to help monitor and represent their own collective interests ?

    Yes = 60.50% No = 23.35% Uncertain = 16.15%

    African-Americans Only: Yes = 65.95% No = 19.65% Uncertain = 14.40%
    ********************************************
    Item # 13: Would you be in favor of African-Americans having some degree of independent control over those institutions and services that most directly affect their own communities ?

    Yes = 74.82% No = 14.35% Uncertain = 10.83%

    African-Americans Only: Yes = 81.01% No = 9.69% Uncertain = 9.30%
All that goes to show you that what I have said is grounded in some truth that somebody way more qualified than me have placed some stock in. So your argument that there is no grounds because of the Amendments... is... groundless.

I challenge you to find information counter to this [website quote] or rather some that supports your view!

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on June 19, 2003 at 02:30 AM.]
Nmaginate:

I am American. I am an African American-American. I am proud of both. I have no problem with who you are. I have no problem with who you want to be. I have no characterisztion for your choices.

I also believe you are sincere. You certainly are doing the due diligence for your decisionmaking. I'm impressed with the thoroughness of your search. I am sure the information is accurate.

I read all of your postings. Dr. Brock's conclusion about citizenship is flawed. While the 14th Amendment did confer citizenship, it was not mandatory. It was not conscription. Citizenship could have been rejected, then. Citizenship can be rejected, now. Citizenship is binding only if the citizen wants it to be.

About his presentation of "domicile:" I don't disagree. Africa does not have either an opinion, or the ability to express one. Africa is not a political entity. Africa is a geographic location. Africa is my ancestry. I am assuming it is yours as well.

Clearly, if Africa is our ancestry, forcibly denied, Africa is our legal domicile. My problem is where? Where do I go? If I do find a place, I am an American in African Place. That is what the government of The Place will designate me to be. That is what the People of The Place will consider me. And I thoroughly believe that will be without either malice, or rancor.

If I am to be American, I choose to be American here. I am already African with my ancestry. I am American with my citizenship --- which I choose to keep. I am African American in my ancestral natinality and heritage. I am an African American-American.

I don't want to change you. You are who you say you are. Equally important: Your children are who you say you are.

As to your invitation to produce evidence to support my declaration, it is a challenge always offered to Americans of unknown African ancestry. You know that. I decided not to fall into that "Charlie Trap" early in my search. Instead, I looked for reality, and for authority. I found both --- in the Consitution. I won't labor over the citations. It's a short document. I accepted the reality. I exercised the authority. I'm am happy with my decision for both myself, and my children.

You still didn't tell me what you think of my flag. C'mon, I can take it.

PEACE

Jim Chester

P.S. Sorry for all the entries. I'm babysitting a 3-year old.

JWC

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 19, 2003 at 05:49 AM.]


[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 19, 2003 at 05:50 AM.]


[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 19, 2003 at 05:59 AM.]


[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 19, 2003 at 06:29 AM.]
Again...

How can you have a nationality without a NATION?
Or at least an aspiration to a national concept that goes beyond what your historical adversary by way of Constitution or other means has laid out for you?

I find you position a bit curious and slightly disingenious.

On one hand, in comparison to Native Americans you say we have/had no sovereignty - as in the ability/capacity to enter into treaty agreements. Yet, when it came to the question of citizenship and the other Amendments & Acts, then you say "We did the confrontation" - as if WE made an official, consenual, binding "agreement" as an entity.

I'm sorry... I don't recall any historical footnotes about an African-American referendum replete with fully viable choice-options for any of those things "we did". I don't deny the struggle and "gains" of our people but you have to be honest and say those things were against an uneven backdrop of repressive coercion.

We either had to agree as you say now abide by the "rules" and parameters of freedom the dominant culture set forth or... basically continue to live under their blatant oppression. That's not to say that we didn't force their hand to change but ultimately we had no self-determination in that because the parameters were set, designed and controlled by the oppressor.

It's funny how we don't trust... say... "police to police themselves (effectively)" but we have unconditional trust in the gov't that sponsored, supported and benefitted from our oppression. Constitution or not, we never was in the mutual decision-making role in any of those "we did that" events. At the most, leaders like Dr. King played an advisory role not a determining one.

You seem to at one time say we have no vehicle via sovereign status to engage in status changing covenants yet at the other say we made willfull covenants. You put all this in the context of war... which I don't disagree with but that goes further into blurring the line you tried to draw to distinguish the two.

Suffice it to say that the Amendments & Acts were HANDED down to us. We were under great duress.

Keeping with the warlike scenario, a conquered or defeated nation or people, much like the Natives are dictated terms of surrender which may come in the form of treaties (perhaps out of the goodwill of the victor or at least out of their calculation of the worth of continued strife...)

It's not clear whether you are saying we WON the Civil Rights phase or not, but if you did I know you can't believe that we dictated the terms?? Especially not when it was the slave-master's Constitution and the oppressors gov't that "passed" the laws.... can you say the police are policing themselves!

None of that is to say that we didn't improve our condition or I should say that we influenced them to improve our condition. We're not sovereign, autonomous or anything like that so we could not have done such a thing on our won....???
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))

My point in the Dr. Brock post was to simply say that I'm not making this up - not necessarily to say I agree with everything the authors believe. You will see additional posts with more and more info. that makes this a serious undertaking/consideration.

That said...
If you were kidnapped tonight and taken to some unknown place far away from your home for an inordinate period, would you not be able to dictate when, where and how you would reclaim your right to "residency" and ownership of property equal to or the approximate equivalent of you now dispossessed home when you "manage" you release?

Would your kidnappers have any rights thereafter to determine where and/or what your home (and your home life) would be like?

Mr. Chester... You, the American (first) then African American American (second - for a total 3 times AMERICAN) have a colonized mind. Your options are useless because you would rather stay in captivity "than deal with the consequences" of being free and gaining freedom!

You only want what the kidnapper gives you... You do in fact have Stockholm Syndrome, I'm sad to say.
quote:
Dr. Brock's conclusion about citizenship is flawed. While the 14th Amendment did confer citizenship, it was not mandatory. It was not conscription. Citizenship could have been rejected, then. Citizenship can be rejected, now. Citizenship is binding only if the citizen wants it to be.
What were the other options to citizenship? What??? Slavery!! Jim Crow!!

How is it that now, individually, we can reject citizenship when then, no such option was functionally available?

Like I asked: What were the other options?

Note you did say WE - as in COLLECTIVELY - when first referring to the Amendments & Acts. I know for sure there was no collective consensus amongst us in the CRM for what actually came down as the end of segregation. People would not view such prominent leaders like MLK and Malcolm X as "opposites" if there was a consensus for how - as in self-determination of methods & measures - to have the oppressive system removed and rights observed. ALL THAT WAS DICTATED BY THE OPPRESSOR.

You can cite the Constitution but in the end you know the Constitution itself is a White creation....

I'll leave it at that!
Mr. Chester...

I just saw your "Things Separate Us' post...
I thought it was pretty good, though I still disagree with your overstated American interest...

You have to realize there wasn't much of a choice then (even as it is now considering our relative power and actualized wealth...)

I wish you would include some of the reasoning behind the beliefs then as well as those voices that were not heard...

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
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
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Mr. Chester...

I just saw your "Things Separate Us' post...
I thought it was pretty good, though I still disagree with your overstated American interest...

You have to realize there wasn't much of a choice then (even as it is now considering our relative power and actualized wealth...)

I wish you would include some of the reasoning behind the beliefs then as well as those voices that were not heard...

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
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


Nmaginate:

You say there wasn't much of a choice then. Clearly, you have missed the glaring point of the convention in Philadelphia. It was all about choice. Those who were free declared their allegiance, and REFUSAL TO ABANDON/LEAVE those who were in boundage. The option to leave, in response to the demand being made by America, was there, and was rejected. They not only chose to remain, they INSISTED.

The resolution coming out of that convention was the ultimate declaration of unity. As I stated, I believe it was the foundation statement of African America.

I didn't continue to research the rationale surrounding the event. I was in search of reality and authority, because I was in the process of determining which way I was going to go. For all of my life, I had followed the choice of my parents and their parents.

You will recall from earlier postings my grandfather was a slave, freed at the age of 10. His choice and the choice of my were to stay. My father made the choice in France in 1919. He came home. He didn't have to. His parents, and his wife and children were here. They all made the choice to not go to Africa in response to Marcus Garvey's call to the African Diaspora. I am told it was a very "heady" time. My grandfather was in his in his 60s. My father was in his early 30s. I was not yet born.

My point here is that it has always been about choice. We have always a choice. Stay a slave or commit suicide. Stay alive, slave and run. Stay alive, stay a slave, and stay a slave. Once freedom and means were obtained the choice broadened. Some took the offer of Monroe, and did go back to Africa to land arranged for them by Monroe. Curiously, their flag looks like the American flag.

My family has in investment in this country of at least 192 years that can be identitfied. At least 100 of those years are investment of choice.

African America is the place where my parents live all of their lives. African America is the place where I have lived all of my life. It is my heritage. It is the placed my parents and their's help to make a safe haven for refuge in this hostile land. It is that place within this place has is of me and mine. It is all the ancestral nationality we, The Chester's, will ever have.

That place was forced on us (Chester's) limiting our participation in the nation of our birth. America made us (Chester's) as special kind of American. That place is real. It is as real as America is real, and was created by the same people, who at the same time defined the "Rule of Law" for America.

I decided to recognize and honor that safe haven that was made by my ancestors out of the bad place in which they were forced to live. It didn't have a government, but I knew the rules both without and within. It didn't have a name. I gave it one. African America. It is where I am from. It is where I live. My ancestors made it a safe place for themselves, and their children. Someone should honor it. I did.

It doesn't matter whether you or anyone else for that matter either accepts or agrees with my decision. That's why I call it, "My Decision."
I designed a flag for it. It is my flag. It is not the flag of the African Diaspora. You will notice, when you decide to look, that it recognizes and honors our people spread, forcibly, across the face the world, without a place.

Every place on the face the earth was given a name by some person at some time. To do such a thing is within the natural authority of humankind. I decided to not let the system of chattel slavery continue to cheat me out of that innate right. That mental trick is the last bondage of the crime against the children of Africa. I can't go back to the place from which I came, but I can control of the place in which I am.

With, or without government, that is a sovereign act. With, or without government, that sovereign ty gives me nationality. Because I say so. It is the rule of humankind. It is the land of my fathers. It is my heritage. It is my ancestral nationality. That how I know that I am not simply an American who is African, but an American who is African American.

That's as plain as I can make it.

I tell you all the time that your choice offers not problem to me. My choice is no challenge to your choice. We are who we say we are.

The most important of all is this ends a continuing cycle of ignorance in the Chester Family. The insidiousnes of Multiculturalism can no longer poison the lives of our children. Our children will never have to say they don't know who they are. They can never be forced to believe that "what they are" is "who they are."

You still haven't told me what you think of my flag. By the way, it can be yours too.

By the way, I invite anyone who wants to see my flag to take a look, and please tell me what you think. The URL is: http://www.iaanh2.org. My e-mail: jwchest@worldnet.att.net

PEACE

Jim Chester





JWC

[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 20, 2003 at 07:02 AM.]


[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 20, 2003 at 07:04 AM.]


[This message was edited by Jim Chester on June 20, 2003 at 08:11 AM.]
Jim Chester:

Why do you contradict yourself?
**************************************
  • YOUR LAST STATEMENT:
    With, or without government, that is a *sovereign act*. With, or without government, that *sovereignty* gives me nationality.
    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.


  • EARLIER STATEMENT:
    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.
Why is it NOW that you are arguing that we are sovereign when before you were trying you best to say we were/are not?

I have no problem with the Philadelphia Convention. I accept ALL my people - right, left or center. And I never advocated anything but changing the power-dynamics and our political relationship, indefinitely, HERE!

As for arguing what type of political ideology was first, tell me what African in chains [when slavery began and/or during its height] was celebrating the Constitution, seeking integration, citizenship, etc.? I think they wanted freedom and a way to get back to their homeland, to be honest.

But you are the one who turned this into a Back To Africa thing... not me. Nationalism is the full expression of self-determination, lest I show you a dictionary again. I can't help it if you got hang-ups about Africa and really I'm not talking about Africa in terms of going back 'home'.

You and I both know that Garvey, the ACS, or anything else was not a viable, sustainable project. You are not making a point that there was "equally" viable options/choices. AND I mean collective or group choices, not individual or small groups. I talking about mass operation for the masses.

See... you make it hard because you can't be honest. You can't be honest and not contradict yourself - Are We SOVEREIGN or NOT?? You can't be honest in your comparisons...
quote:
...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.
Why was it that when I outlined the truth about the political arrangement that YOU CITED about Native Americans - in comparison to us as or our "suzerain", nation-within-a-nation relationship with the U.S. - and suggested that we should strive for the same qualitative arrangement you acted like it was wholly impossible and something that couldn't be compared?

Do you see how you contradict yourself??
************************************************

As far as your flag goes... I don't like it and the RED, BLACK, and GREEN in its plain broad, bold strokes are powerfully representative enough for me.

I read somewhere someone use the term: American African.... I'm pretty sure it refers to us though I don't remember the context...

I was wondering what you thought about that.

Also could you tell me who, besides you, seems to be conflicted over the use of - African-Americans - as a name (hyphen or not, I don't think the meaning changes....)

You can call me everything but a N-gger and Colored... I KNOW WHO I AM and a name is not that big of a deal. If so, why are we all, with few exceptions, still wearing European personal names without any complications??
Why aren't you on that crusade too?
quote:
My point here is that it has always been about choice. We have always a choice. Stay a slave or commit suicide. Stay alive, slave and run. Stay alive, stay a slave, and stay a slave.
Mr. Chester... lol

LIFE or DEATH is your idea of real, significant choices or options? I know you are DEFINITIONALLY CHALLENGED but what do the words VIABLE and SUSTAINABLE mean??

"Once freedom and means were obtained the choice broadened."

Does that not go to the heart of Viability and Sustainability?? You and I both know by reading history that Liberia was not a viable option for the MASSES of our people, let alone those... those who chose to go. There was no gov't finance only the undermined and perhaps dubious, yet fragile support of the ACS, a private organization. TELL THE TRUTH!

"My family has in investment in this country of at least 192 years that can be identitfied. At least 100 of those years are investment of choice."

Where have I argued against that choice? Where have I said we should leave??

All that is in your mind. I'm advocating making our situation better HERE... And as an aside, I note that since you and perhaps someone else brought up Going Back To Africa that only by being able to strengthen ourselves HERE could we ever develop the MEANS by which to make that a VIABLE option, IF DESIRABLE!

I speak in plain language, without hang-ups and an idea of what FREEDOM is NOT... I don't put in limits on it. YOU do! You interjected so much that you had no reason or basis for...
This goes further, I hope, into describing via terminology and structure of what I've been trying to get across:
    Dr. Robert Brock ...seeks to have the US government establish consociated democratic institutions permitting the African American minority to meet their special needs and culture resulting from their special historical relationship with the majority.

    Proponents ...are quick to note that self-determination should not be interpreted to mean secession. Although not entirely ruling out the need to establish new, independent states, especially by occupied and colonized nations, they say that most self-determination demands could be peaceably resolved by more pluralistic governance options, such as autonomy and federalism.
http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0017.htm[/URL]

I'm waiting for you to acknowledge the apparently legitimacy or at least the serious consideration of what I have presented here whether you agree with it or not (that's been a little hard to tell...). These are knowledgeable professionals who have audience with the U.N. and I wouldn't have presented anything here unless I felt there was a basis.

I would like to know you actual problems with multiculturalism and why it is such a Push-Button-Topic with you, not the media, YOU. If the media starts to misrepresent or classify all those who would agree to your African American American by say one who would claim that title yet go against or betray the true essence of that heritage and thrust, would you shy away from using it again yourself?

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on June 20, 2003 at 08:10 AM.]
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Jim Chester:

Why do you contradict yourself?
**************************************+ YOUR LAST STATEMENT:
_With, or without government, that is a *sovereign act*. With, or without government, that *sovereignty* gives me nationality.
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. _

+ EARLIER STATEMENT:
_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._Why is it NOW that you are arguing that we are sovereign when before you were trying you best to say we were/are not?

I have no problem with the Philadelphia Convention. I accept ALL my people - right, left or center. And I never advocated anything but changing the power-dynamics and our political relationship, indefinitely, HERE!

As for arguing what type of political ideology was first, tell me what African in chains [when slavery began and/or during its height] was celebrating the Constitution, seeking integration, citizenship, etc.? I think they wanted freedom and a way to get back to their homeland, to be honest.

But you are the one who turned this into a Back To Africa thing... not me. Nationalism is the full expression of self-determination, lest I show you a dictionary again. I can't help it if you got hang-ups about Africa and really I'm not talking about Africa in terms of going back 'home'.

You and I both know that Garvey, the ACS, or anything else was not a viable, sustainable project. You are not making a point that there was "equally" viable options/choices. AND I mean collective or group choices, not individual or small groups. I talking about mass operation for the masses.

See... you make it hard because you can't be honest. You can't be honest and not contradict yourself - Are We SOVEREIGN or NOT?? You can't be honest in your comparisons...
quote:
...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.
Why was it that when I outlined the truth about the political arrangement that YOU CITED about Native Americans - in comparison to us as or our "suzerain", nation-within-a-nation relationship with the U.S. - and suggested that we should strive for the same qualitative arrangement you acted like it was wholly impossible and something that couldn't be compared?

Do you see how you contradict yourself??
************************************************

As far as your flag goes... I don't like it and the RED, BLACK, and GREEN in its plain broad, bold strokes are powerfully representative enough for me.

I read somewhere someone use the term: American African.... I'm pretty sure it refers to us though I don't remember the context...

I was wondering what you thought about that.

Also could you tell me who, besides you, seems to be conflicted over the use of - African-Americans - as a name (hyphen or not, I don't think the meaning changes....)

You can call me everything but a N-gger and Colored... I KNOW WHO I AM and a name is not that big of a deal. If so, why are we all, with few exceptions, still wearing European personal names without any complications??
Why aren't you on that crusade too?




Nmaginate:

I just "looked in" to edit my last posting. I saw your comparation to my earlier comment on the order of placement of independence. It quickly occurs to me that you are not allowing an idea to have its own integrity.

When I spoke of independence there it was referencing about developing government with legislature and consulates, etc. And the relationship of the Indian Nations to the United States.

The posting I made this morning was about my process of decisionmaking, and an attempt to again explain how and what my declaration of ancestral nationality is about.

That's not contradiction. That is comparison out of context.

I don't have a "grand plan." As corny as it may sound, my PERSONAL plan is not simply about me. It is about my children. They will not have to wrestle with the decisions you and I are dealing. Time is a marvelous thing. My grandchildren will think the Civil Rights Movement of Martin, and Malcolm, and you and I is anciet history!! Amazing. My grandchildren already they have two flags, one American, one African American. There is not doubt. There is no need for explaining. They never ask who they are any more. They know who grandpa is. Everything else is a given.

I love it.

I'm on the run. I'll be back.

PEACE

Jim Chester

JWC
quote:
When I spoke of independence there it was referencing about developing government with legislature and consulates, etc. And the relationship of the Indian Nations to the United States.

The posting I made this morning was about *my* process of decisionmaking...
STOP LYING!

Yes, you have been trying you best to make everything come down to and revolve around you personal quest for inner peace... which I have suggested is more your own PERSONAL problem/malfunction/hang-up/ISSUE than any thinking person HERE... (we are not so conflicted and in need of or in search a 'new' name or more complete identity... YOU ARE..)
---- BUT -----
As part of legitimizing your personal issue you have been trying to negate the foundation for others. You have made all the contradictions I've charged you with because of your hang-ups.
quote:
The resolution coming out of that convention was the ultimate declaration of unity. As I stated, I believe it was the foundation statement of African America.
What was your point??? You were making both a historical point that our ancestors made a "sovereign" choice when your argument is that we have no sovereignty to construct DECISION-MAKING bodies and are subject to the suzerain (though you have yet to properly apply the term and the correct power & decision-making relationship) U.S. gov't...
quote:
My fight is the fight of my ancestors --- here. My demand is the demand of my ancestors --- FREEDOM. HERE. ..."go back to Africa" in the 1920s. They said, "No." then. I say, "No." now, both literally and figuratively...

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.

Oh! ... I see your point! They built the fence and you're fighting to stay within it!... literally and figuratively.

News Flash: That's not self-determination when the all the parameters and arrangements are set by someone or something other than yourself. That's called slavery, colonization, and servitude by any other name...

Typical..... Silly NEGRO!

I waiting for you to actually address what I'm saying instead of trying to jump to some conclusion that you can't find based on what I have had to say here.

You are fighting/arguing against greater political power and efficacy - HERE!... cause that is the premise of my talk. So you are the enemy of your own people's quest for a better political reality as it relates to this debate.
Mr. Chester...

Note: It is not effective to edit and re-edit a post in a discussion when someone responds to your original pre-edited post. When you go back and change something that is not close to being the last post entered (no matter who's it is) you are being somewhat underhanded by repeatedly over several hours of the day editing an old post unless it gets no responses.

You just can't help but have integrity issues HERE... huh?
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Mr. Chester...

Note: It is not effective to edit and re-edit a post in a discussion when someone responds to your original pre-edited post. When you go back and change something that is not close to being the last post entered (no matter who's it is) you are being somewhat underhanded by repeatedly over several hours of the day editing an old post unless it gets no responses.

You just can't help but have integrity issues HERE... huh?



Nmaginate:

When I edit, it is typically grammatical.

JWC
Mr. Chester...

You're knowledgeable about the Constitution right?...

Then tell me what in the Constitution would prohibit the formation of an African-American National Assembly - i.e. an elected Black gov't that I cited in one of my post (not my idea of Black Control Of Black Taxes) labeled *MOCK gov't model*?

What would prohibit us or why should we not seek to obtain a similar arrangement via TAX CONTROL akin to the Native Americans in essence yet fully "consociated", interdependent with the larger U.S. gov't?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×