Yeah, that was my thought, too. Move to VT if you hate blacks that much.
Pretty much although you may not have thought it through. How are you going to have black states and white states unless you restrict where black people and white people can live?
If your theory is that people will be allowed to live wherever they want and black people will just voluntarily choose to live in some states and white people will just voluntarily choose to live in other states, then the system you’re suggesting is the same as the system that now exists. There’s nothing that prevents people from segregating themselves by states now - but apparently they don’t want to.
And the last fifty years of US history have proven that the segregation that existed in the hundred years before that didn’t work. Race relations in America have been improving since we ended segregation. Why go back?
The OP wants to redraw some state boundaries, the way redistricting works, to create several majority black states. I’m not sure if that’s possible without creating non-contiguous borders, but whatever. That’s not the same as moving people around, although you’re bound to piss some people off royally who don’t want to be part of the new state. And then you have to assume people will not self-integrate over time and “ruin” the whole plan. I doubt there’d be many whites lining up to move to majority black states, but there might very well be lots of blacks who want to move out of the majority black states.
Presumably, the majority black states would have majority black governments as well as Senators and Congressmen. That would give blacks, as a group, more power in the Senate and maybe more power in the House. The fact of the matter is, though, most of the things that affect our day-to-day lives are related to local governments, so I’m not sure the feds can do much about the kinds of things the OP is concerned about. That’s why some of us suggested looking at the status of majority black cities now to see if they are much of an improvement for blacks over more integrated cities. I think the whole is idea is kind of kooky, so I’m not really motivated to do such an analysis myself. If the OP is serious, he or she should probably take the time to do it, though.
I assume the point is to cater to the truly racist (on both sides). Christian Identity believers and the like - people who think there should be no mixing of races. So you’d need a 100% white state to qualify.
Of course, no major corporation would do business in Whiteoming or North Blackota, so they’ll be economic backwaters. But at least we can really say racists have an option then.
On behalf of everyone from Vermont: Please don’t.
I’m hope I’m correct in assuming this is a whoosh
I do not believe that assumption is correct. The purpose is to form several black-majority states and Hispanic-majority states. It is assumed that the rest will be white-majority (an incorrect assumption because we already have Hawai’i and CA and if not now, soon TX that are not white-majority). There won’t be any attempt to form a strictly black or strictly white state, although I suspect you’d see significant white flight from the majority black states.
Bwahahaha, but you’ll always have the stealth racials like me: just so Ashkenazi a Nazi would care, married to a woman with enough Sub-Saharan African that Jim Crow would care. Other than that, we’re as blond and as Celtic as you could imagine. And we walks among you! You’ll never know…bwahahaha.
Seriously: genotype, phenotype and skin color have been poor indicators of political leanings for some time. The further we go along, it gets more complicated and stupid when you try to view it through a strictly racial prisim. Why try to reinforce it, in the most generous case?
I suppose you could do this to create black states and white states without any forced movement. But in order to keep it up you’d have to constantly be redrawing state lines as people move around.
It seems like a lot of effort to achieve a goal that most people don’t seem interested in. You don’t see a flood of black people moving to Mississippi or a flood of white people moving to Montana.
Rather than adjusting boundaries constantly to try to maintain proportional representation of racial, ethnic, and cultural subgroups (Do the geeks and nerds get their own enclave? They are probably a more cohesive group in terms of special interests than blacks). You would probably be better off getting rid of the whole idea of states. Either break things up into smaller local district size regions, or switch over to a parliamentary system so every group can elect their own slate of candidates.
If you want to stick within the current system, and really believe that this system would immeasurably improve the lives of African Americans, then your best bet is to designate a few states (say Mississippi, North Carolina and Louisiana) as black homelands and convince the blacks from everywhere else to move there until you achieve a majority.
What I’m concerned about, which seems to fly past your ears, is the cultural affinity of the power structure.
Which states have a preponderance of black business owners? Or black elected officials?
I’m not saying that you should have to live in a state because of your ethnicity. I’m saying that a state with a predominantly black local power structure doesn’t seem to exist–there are regions of states, yes–and maybe if it did, we’d stop thinking that all blacks are necessarily low-class.
So, you believe that the data support black inferiority, I take it? :dubious:
I don’t know what the data supports. That’s why I was suggesting someone might be interested in doing the analysis. It would be a lot of work, and I’m not interested enough the subject to do it myself.
And I’m not suggesting black inferiority as even a possibility, as I don’t believe blacks are inferior. I’m not part of the “we” you were referring to as “thinking that all blacks are necessarily low-class”. I bet a lot people disagree with you, and also don’t think that. You seem overly eager in this thread to take a “you’re either with me or a racist” attitude, and I don’t think that is serving you well.
The point being, we have something fairly close to what you are advocating already, so why not look at those large cities that are predominantly black and see if blacks do better there? If they don’t, it probably just means that it sucks to be a disadvantaged minority in a country like the US whether you are segregated or integrated, and perhaps there are better ways to solve the problem of racism than tweaking the amount of segregation and integration there is.
OK, that’s a fair answer.
Thank-you. I tried my best to make it one.
There probably isn’t one. But I am very confident that the negative effects of reinstituting segregation (which we’ve seen at work historically) would far outweigh the possible benefits.
They tend to choose the Idaho panhandle or Oklahoma, at least in past decades (although NB the latter area has a huge Native American population).
Why don’t you, yourself “stop thinking that all blacks are necessarily low class”? What is this “we” crap?
You’re coy about your location. I’m not & I know plenty of well educated, hardworking, family oriented blacks. Of course there are problems in the community, due to the many years of discrimination. But progress has occurred & must continue.
We also need more political participation–by blacks, Hispanics & all those sane white Texans who dislike Ted Cruz & his ilk. (Yes, I’m thinking locally.) Protection of voting rights & elimination of gerrymandering would help.
I live in the country’s most diverse city, which will soon be majority-Hispanic. But we’ve had a strong black community since the end of slavery; moving to Big Houston has always been a way for country people from Texas (& Louisiana) to improve their lot. Should they have to move to some dismal patch of flyover country? And what about all our Vietnamese? Desis? Chinese? All those other people who don’t fit into the black/white categories?
This is a dreadful idea. Despite the OP’s protest, his main desire seems to be a more racially pure community.
This is roughly the same explanation I give in my 8th grade history class, so it’s watered down, but hits the high points.
[ul]
[li]Most of the state of Virginia wanted to secede and join the CSA[/li][li]Plenty of Virginians didn’t. They were mainly concentrated in the western mountains where slavery didn’t have much of a foothold.[/li][li]The Western Virginians got together after the declaration of secession by the Eastern Virginians and said that secession was illegal.[/li][li]This meant that the East Virginian government that supported secession was made of criminals, and needed to be replaced.[/li][li]So the Western Virginians made their own government. With moonshine! And Gen. Hooker![/li][li]This new government (Composed of people from the West side) decided that the state should split in two.[/li][li]So the Western government of Virginia held a statewide election on splitting the state and asked the US to let the new state in.[/li][li]The Eastern government said they couldn’t do this, but didn’t have the power to stop the Western government from doing it[/li][li]And they certainly weren’t going to Washington DC to argue that it couldn’t happen.[/li][li]So the Western government had popular support for splitting the state, and decided that the Western counties should break off and start a new state.[/li][li]The US govt, following the Constitution, checked with the Official Government of Virginia ™ to see if making a new state out of their territory was OK[/li][li]And the Western Government said yes.[/li][li]So they made a new state, and creatively called it West Virginia.[/li][li]After the war, Actual Virginia sued in cases that went to the Supreme Court to try and get West Virginia back.[/li][li]The Supreme Court basically told them to take a long walk off a short pier and stop asking stupid questions.[/li][/ul]