Anonymous #2 11w

It’s called The Republic of New Afrika. It was something developed by followers of Malcolm X. The idea was to make these states secede, black Americans can choose to abandon their American citizenship, and then they become citizens of a new country. They said this region would become majority black again by having all the black people migrate there from the north.

6

Anonymous #4 11w

It’s honestly extremely similar in ideas to the founding of Israel.

0

Anonymous #4 11w

lol said by a settler btw

1

Anonymous #4 11w

and it’s important to note that there are multiple frameworks for Black nationhood within the lands the white settler colony currently occupies. CPUSA also has proposed an independent African Republic

1

Anonymous #2 11w

reparations for genocide and chattel slavery, and independence from the white supremacist state

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

It is similar. The idea of Israel was to draw the jewish diaspora from their varying nations to a place that Jewish people historically lived. This was claimed to escape persecution by creating a Jewish-majority state with Jewish governance. That’s the same idea behind New Afrika. Both even saw communal settlements as a method.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

except that Africans were kidnapped from their continent and forced to work on this one by Europeans. to claim that it is a settler colony, when 1) African slaves were never settlers, and 2) living in THE settler colony is disingenuous at best

1

Anonymous #4 11w

Israel, because ethnonationalism is terrible and people already lived there, ended up pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing and displacement against the non-Jewish population. I see no reason why the ethnonationalism of New Afrika would be any different towards the existing white, Chinese, Filipino, Latino, and Native American populations that also lived in the south.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

“israel” was armed by white supremacist projects with the intent of colonizing Palestine. an African republic in the US would simply be self determination for Black people. is Haiti a settler colony to you? this is stupid, especially when you probably defend the existence of all of the white settler colonies…

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

what about Jamaica? African states that exist beyond Africa. are they settler colonies? they never willingly came here…

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

Was the presence and dispersion of Jewish people throughout Europe not also a product of the imperialism of European powers? We have other examples of this. Liberia existed. It was done for the same reasons. And the indigenous Africans were subjugated. Ethnonationalism is bad. Creating a state intended for one ethnicity will lead to the subjugation of others. That’s the takeaway here.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

You lowkey cooking him twin keep going imma go get a bev

2

Anonymous #4 11w

Liberia, organized by the American Colonization Society, a white and Christian organization that founded Liberia under the racist notion that Africans could not assimilate into European society, and that whites would continue their violence against them. again, disingenuous argument that doesn’t take into account full historical context. quit comparing various nations histories as if they’re all a monolith

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

I think that settler colonies shouldn’t exist but given they already do, we shouldn’t be going out of our way to create new ethnonationalist states to persecute minorities.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

y’all use this argument also to contest Land Back for indigenous nations. “ethnostates are bad” but the largest and most powerful ethnostate on the planet, the United States, somehow has a right to exist?

1

Anonymous #4 11w

painting self determination in the same light as supremacy nationalism is way too reductive

1

Anonymous #4 11w

there are various forms of nationalism. the reactionary variety that colonial and capitalist states practice, and the self-determinative variety, practiced by marxist and indigenous movements

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

Why was Palestine colonized? What was the motivation? It was done under the banner of creating an independent state to protect the interests of a geographically dispersed and historically persecuted ethnic minority.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

that’s the excuse they use. in practice, it was to project power and have a guaranteed ally in the region, for the staging and testing of military weapons. the Europeans tried to leverage “israel” to reconquer some of their stolen assets (the Suez canal) from Egypt. that was the premise for “israel’s” establishment. today, it’s used to counter Iran

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

I would not call them settler colonies, no. They are a product of colonialism. But they were not settlers. I don’t know that I would explicitly call this settler colonialism either, but it’s borderline.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

and projecting white and capitalist thought onto Black radicals is an incorrect method for understanding history

1

Anonymous #4 11w

then it’s in no way comparable to “israel”. this country that currently exists, is though

1

Anonymous #4 11w

Haiti was not a settler colony itself. But it did invade and occupy the Dominican Republic and then imported black people from the United States into Dominican regions such as the Samana Peninsula. Honestly I wish there were more English-language sources about the Haitian occupation, I’d like to go into more detail.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

Anti-colonial ethnonationalism regularly causes harm too. Uganda expelled its ethnic Indians. Fiji persecutes its Indians. Greece expelled Muslims. Arabs were massacred in Zanzibar. Egypt expelled its Jews, Greeks, Maltese, and Italians. Being opposed to colonialism is good. But the problem inevitably arises when one declares “this state is only for this ethnicity.”

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

Israel was held up as a way for Jewish people to have self-determination. The problem is that any state that exists only for one ethnicity will persecute those not of that ethnicity.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

The Zionist movement was initially not allied with Europe and it predated direct European imperialism in the region. It began under the ottomans. The Zionist militias like the Lehi and Irgun were actively warring against the British, because the British tried to institute limits on Jewish immigration to appease the Arab population. The British controlled the Suez until 1956. That is, very prominently, after Israel already existed.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 11w

I believe that the United States is also very comparable to Israel. I’d like to prevent even more ethnonationalist movements from hurting people if possible.

1

Anonymous #4 11w

I will remind you that the initial settlement of Palestine was done through voluntary land purchases from Arab land owners. And that Zionists claimed that no arabs would be displaced, and that they would retain political rights, simply in a Jewish state. This is from Ben-Gurion:

1

Anonymous #4 11w

And a quote from Weizmann (Israel’s first president)

1

Anonymous #4 11w

I will also add that creating a new state for an ethnicity will also undermine the treatment of that ethnicity in their country of origin. One can just “push them over there” instead of actually pursuing equal rights for them. And now those people may be treated as foreigners in their own country.

1