Would it surprise you to know that non-white people have been elected to state-wide offices? And not just in Hawaii and New Mexico?
To get you started, let’s start with an easy one. You’ve heard of the presidency, right?
I think the OP is defining “power” as a group being in the majority of a voting block. I’m no fan of identity politics, but that does seem to be where he or she is coming from. In that sense, having a black president does not mean that blacks have “power”. Obama is president because he could get lots of whites, as well as blacks, to vote for him.
The details of it are reasonably familiar, and look far more appealing than anything you have provided.
Please do feel free to present the details of your racial balkanization plan (e.g. how implemented, cost, positive and negative consequences you expect, how this has worked elsewhere, etc.). Until you do a good job of this, don’t be surprised at skepticism.
Well, to start with, we could declare all counties with an African-American majority to be part of the new African-American State. We’d have to give up certain notions of what an American “state” looks like–the new African-American State wouldn’t be contiguous, for example.
To bolster its numbers, we could also declare that everyone officially deemed African-American shall henceforth be a citizen of the African-American State, even if they don’t physically reside in one of the counties which make up its new territory. (So they would vote in its elections and so on.)
Hmm…this is starting to remind me of something.
Let me play devils advocate for a minute.
-
We are clearly - as a political state - comfortable with the concept of bending borders to create enclaves for minorities where different groups can be reasonably assured of elected one of their own to office. There are a number - many? - congressional districts in which this has been done.
-
Given that fact, it is only a leap of scale and not of kind to redraw state boundaries to create states where various minorities would hold state level power through population concentration.
So it’s not unconstitutional. Hell, it might make us face certain things about ourselves that we have a tendency to dodge, given the chance.
I admit, I’ve always thought that gerrymandering for any reason - safe seats, minority majority districts and so forth - are trouble. By concentrating certain groups of voters you utterly remove their overall ability to influence elections. I believe ITR has a reasonable point about that.
Is it better to be 75% of one district so that one can get a minority elected but sacrifice all influence on any other district or is it better to represent 15% of the vote in 5 districts and chase influence that way? It’s not an easy question to answer.
You may be a Devil, but it’s unclear to me exactly what you are advocating.
Yes, it’s constitutional, but if we’re going to talk constitution, how do you get something like the OP is proposing through the process of forming new states, per the constitution? It’s a non-starter. It’s the rarest of act when a political entity voluntarily gives up territory.
And once you create these Ethno-States, what makes you think they’ll be stable? More likely than not, they are going to be significantly poorer than the “white” states, and you’d get a mass exodus within a few years.
It makes sense. Beleaguered minorities can band together and help each other out.
Long term (decades/centuries), ethnic states sow the seeds for cultural isolation and drift (think speciation in evolutionary terms), civil war, and probably the dissolution of the United States as we know it. Whether that’s a feature or a bug is up to you, but I think it should be recognized as a potential outcome, just judging from the history of Africa, the Middle East, and Europe.
Oh, I’m not actually thinking it’s a good idea. Far from it. I’m just saying that it’s not a non-starter on legal grounds. We’ve already determined - as I said upthread - as a society that in some cases such things are desirable. Whether they actually work as intended is something that needs some further thinking.
Texas is, as well. It really hasn’t changed the political landscape much.
I don’t see any benefit for the idea of creating racial states. Even if you’re willing to think that race=skin color, that says little of the minds inside. After you’ve established racial states, will you restrict who gets to move in or out so the states stay “balanced”? If so, who gets to decide who’s White/Black/Hispanic/Asian enough to live somewhere?
No thanks. It seems to make a racist state inevitable, involve wayyyyy too much fucking book keeping, and probably wouldn’t achieve whatever goal you’re shooting for.
So we’re in denial that the state governments are inevitably racist now? A 15% bloc of hated, “inferior,” minority residents isn’t the constituency a politician courts, its what they run against to play to the majority.
Yes, we are in denial that state governments are inevitably racist. That is the ONLY reason why anyone could question your plan. :roll eyes:
I read the OP but I haven’t read the other comments.
I disagree with the OP’s premise that American culture is white culture and other races are outside of it. I figure black Americans are just as much a part of America as white Americans are. And the same is true of other races, religions, or whatever. So I don’t see what would be gained by divided the country up into white states and black states.
Look, most posters on this MB recognize that racism is still a significant problem in the US. Maybe we just don’t think that creating racial ghettos is the best solution. And you have not told us why you think it is. You’ve only stated it as some goal without:
- Clarifying how would would create these states
- Explaining why they would be better than integrated states.
So hows about you drop the holier-than-thou attitude, and lay out the specific of your plan.
The first question is whether it’s desirable. How comes later.
Majority-black states with black governments would represent a rejection of the longstanding class paradigm, under which black people exist as the descendants of a discarding servile class and mainly congregate in ghettoes with no real political power. Chicago may be the “capital of Black America” but it’s still very white.
The unspoken assumption in keeping things the way they are is that blacks are “like children” and “can’t, just can’t, rule themselves, the poor creatures.” So blacks are assumed unfit for power.
Meanwhile, our internal security agencies despise and persecute racial minorities. Would black states with black city governments and black police officers trained at black police academies do better? *Probably. *It’s not a perfect solution; it doesn’t have to be; it just has to be better than the present brutality.
“Integration” has meant what, exactly? Has white flight ended? Are blacks generally welcomed as neighbors? If so, that’s welcome news.
But still, “integration” means permanent minority status. I think it makes sense for blacks to have clear, open opportunities for sovereignty in contexts where a black candidate is not just the “Affirmative Action candidate.”
Historically, black cities tend to be treated badly, perhaps because they are under the authority of white state governments.
Maybe black nationalism is a better option. Black states within the USA seems like a compromise. But if you prefer, I can advocate full secession of the banks of the Mississippi as “New Africa” or something. That might be more secure anyway. Have an enforceable border. 
Never seen a study purporting that is the case. Of course, I’ve heard racists, xenophobes, and other assorted bigots wailing about the “loss of ‘our’ culture”. Take a wild guess what they mean by ‘our’ there.
It’s the demographic equivalent of the one drop rule, don’t you know? But if you scope out the demographics of Hawaii, maybe you’ll come to the conclusion that the “one drop” of Whiteness is bestest.
On a related (I hope) tangent, can someone explain to me why this essay does not apply to the discussion in this and the Jerusalem peace proposal thread?
Let’s start with Detroit. It has a population of 680,000 which is higher than either Vermont (626,000) or Wyoming (582,000).
It already has schools and a world-class university (Wayne State), parks, businesses, a housing surplus, an international border, and most of the things other states have.
Give it 2 senators, one rep, it’s own legislature, judicial system, governor, etc. Most importantly, give it access to federal funds on par with the other 50 states.
Watch those Detroiters turn their city into a utopia! They’ll have to build a wall along 8 Mile to keep the Grosse Pointers out!
Am I the only one who thinks the “State of Detroit” may not work out too well? Maybe there are considerations other than skin color that should go into creating a state.
Not really. I could equally say: The first question is whether it can be done without creating more damage that it fixes. You’d be better served with a “what if blacks and whites had segregated after the Civil War”? Of course, you still have to deal with Hispanics and Asians.
I always thought Detroit was the “capital of Black America” (if there is such a thing) and it’s very black.
Nonsense. The SPOKEN assumption for rejecting your plan is twofold: 1. There is no plan and 2. Any conceivable plan would likely make things worse. There are any number of examples of how this type of plan failed (see: Yugoslavia). What are your examples of when such a plan has worded?
See above. What’s a few civil wars amongst friends? Simply put, there is no way to do this except by force. And once you go down that road, you turn the US into Yugoslavia or Iraq or Syria.
Again… where has such a plan ever been implemented without force and violence? You’re talking about the massive displacement of people in order to satisfy some social experiment about race and class. Your omelette isn’t worth the number of eggs that need to be cracked.
One thing is for sure: Your ideas will play very well at your local KKK and White Supremicist meetings. Ask yourself why.
8 Mile Road isn’t the border between Detroit and Grosse Pointe. But I was too late to correct it. And I liked that line, accuracy be damned!
I wonder how the OP’s idea would play with blacks. I doubt he or she could get a majority of blacks to sign up for this. Is there anything that would tell us one way or the other? It might be nice to get some input from the black posters here.