GLR News and Information > Geography, Economy & GLR Politics
Land Ideas (new and old)
joachim999:
--- Quote from: ex-kenyan on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, 10:06 ---Why not go through the UN processes - The Liberia and Israel examples come in handy. I also think we look for places without "extreme" temperatures. Negotiating with an African State on the basis of semi-autonomy would be quite appealing.
--- End quote ---
In Africa, in most of the states is a prohibition of sexual acts between men. So this continent would be - besides the caribic - last choice. In Uganda, Sudan und some other states, sexual acts between men were condemned by death-penalty.
A good choice would be a region with very low homophobia, like the polar regions, South-America and perhaps Europe (Time is going well after Lushkov (i.e. the homophobian Governor of Moscow) got fired).
ex-kenyan:
Why not go through the UN processes - The Liberia and Israel examples come in handy. I also think we look for places without "extreme" temperatures. Negotiating with an African State on the basis of semi-autonomy would be quite appealing.
joachim999:
Why always searching for a land in America?
An other option would be Spitzbergen. This huge island belongs to Norway, but has also Russian settlements. It has a rapidly shrinking population of coal-miners. At time, there are less than 2000 people. The main citys are Longyearbyen, which has a Norwegian coal-mine and Barentsburg, which has a Russian coal-mine.
The best is: Every "town" is here a city, which has an autonomous status (This was a requirement and part of the Spitzbergen-Contract, because as Norway as Russia are using the coal-grounds of that huge island) . So a settlement - even if this would only be 5-10 people - in a left town (e.g. Pyramiden or Ny-London) would suddenly bring us to an autonomous gay-city.
No money is needed. You don't have to buy a ghost-city; everyone is glad, if someone revive that ghost-city. Buildings are usable, but there is work to do for repairing windows, chimneys and ovens. The first gay-republican-settlers can live from hunting and fishing. The population is friendly and speaks languages, the first gay-republican-settlers also easyly can do - like boksmal (Norwegian, which is similar to German), English and Russian.
The island lies in the very North at 80° North. It's about 1000km to the North-Pole. Thanks to the Gulf-Stream, the climate is not harder than in Cannada. The only problem is the long summer and the long winter. Summer is Polar-Day, where is nor dawn nor sunset; winter is Polar-Night, where the sun never shines. Living from hunting and fishing is possible - as in the Arctis is very much life on sea (plancton, fishes, seals) and land (ice-bears). In the Arctis, noone has to suffer on hunger. The domestic people can give the first gay-republican-settlers coal and can get bear-meat on exchange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitsbergen
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzbergen_(Insel) (with links with nice pictures of the "citys" of Spitzbergen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramiden (that's the ghost-city, which could be occupied)
Mogul:
--- Quote from: joe90 on Mon, May 31, 2010, 21:26 ---So the discussion on this thread seems to have reached that a rural option would be the most viable and there seems to still be debate about whether or not to aim for an island or inland.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Feral on Mon, May 31, 2010, 19:27 ---If political control, rather than influence, is the objective, migration to large cities is about the very best way to guarantee failure.
--- End quote ---
The charming advantage of rural areas is their relative "emptiness": Even a minor influx of Gay population would effect in a significant shift in demographics, the land prices are low, and the political control can be transferred more easily than control over an urban area. The usual disadvantage of a rural area is, of course, its low attractivity to urban Gays - no jobs, no culture, no fun (this was the reason why the Alpine County [USA] experiment failed in the 1970ies). Of course, it is neither said that we are limited to urban Gays only, nor that we couldn't urbanize the area in question step by step.
--- Quote from: joe90 on Sun, May 30, 2010, 12:46 --- Investigating other successful secessionist movements
Select an approach that would suit our circumstances
--- End quote ---
May I suggest to look upon other successfull nationalist movements rather than secessionist movements? One fundamental difference to most other separatist movements is the diasporic nature of the Gay people. We can't 'secede' by declaring independence of 'our' territory, since there is no such place where we could rightfully claim ancestry or demographic majourity. The other fundamental difference to all other separatist movements is the way Gays are reproduced in nature. We simply can't pursue a strategy of taking over territorial control by extensive breeding - a strategy which has been successfully applied by others.
The specifics of our people basically contain us to the theoretical options of taking over an area by force or by negotiation (purchase by contract), and subsecuent maintaining the population by the means of constant immigration.
Other nationalist movements which seem interesting in this context is the political Zionist movement and the movement which lead to the foundation of Liberia: both were initiated by diasporic peoples and resulted in establishment of nation-states. Keeping in mind our straight-assisted procreation strategy, structures like the Order of Malta appear to be suitable models for maintaining an entity based on membership instead of procreation.
My suggestion for a viable strategy includes the following steps:
1) Construction of the Gay people as a people sui generis;
2) Creation of an 'atypical subject of international law', a starting point for a Gay state (initially without territory);
3) Creation of a settlement on a territory contractually declared "exterritorial" for 150 - 200 years, whereby the Gay [non-territorial] state will be the guest contracting party;
4) Purchase or construction of a [new] land to become the sovereign territory of the Gay state.
--- Quote from: joe90 on Sun, May 30, 2010, 12:46 ---1) Whats that foundation of the current ‘Gay economy’?
--- End quote ---
We must make a distinction here between the "Gay economy" as in the meaning "economy made for Gays" and in the meaning "economy made by Gays". Clearly, the "for-Gays" economy concentrates on the specifics of Gay life, on things which separate us from straights -- that's mostly the area of socializing, mating, porn, cinema, literature, theater, travel. The "by-Gays" economy, might be indeed slightly biased in favour of the art sector, but in principle we cover the same fields of production as straights do. There are lots of Gay technicians, scientists, doctors, ingeneurs and construction workers - they are just not specifically visible, because their businesses cater to everyone.
I have no doubt that if/when there will be a Gay-controlled settlement, Gay individuals of any required professions will be available for employment in sufficient numbers, either in art, industry, or agriculture. Depending on the ressources of the particular land slip, there might be a chance for the secondary or primary (mining/agriculture) industry. Considering the globalization of world trade and production, there is a good chance that said Gay settlement could establish a couple of manufacturing plants, whatever final customers supplied. Quite another question is, of course, how to generate additional income for the residents of the settlement - there we will have to hark back on the "for-Gays" economy like tourism, film art and literature.
--- Quote from: joe90 on Sun, May 30, 2010, 12:46 ---2) Where and why do gay people live where they live currently?
--- End quote ---
There might be a number of reasons for living somewhere:
1) No other place to go;
2) Job/study is there;
3) Big cities offer better chances to find a boyfriend and a job;
4) Big cities give more freedom and a chance to escape from social control by family/relatives/authorities;
5) Western democracies provide more freedom, better jobs, and give a chance to meet a boyfriend to live with.
In fact, many Gay people live where they do by the simple reason that they have no other (better) place to go. They have their jobs or businesses, their friends and families, are involved into diverse social/political activities and basically have no idea on how their live might be significantly improved.
Those Gays who actually move in quest for a better live, are usually motivated by the urge to find freedom, a job and a boyfriend. Gays from underdeveloped archaic societies attempt to escape to modern Western countries at the first chance; within any given society they move from villages and little towns towards metropoles. Of course, personal freedom can be also safeguarded by a fat pay check to a certain degree, therefore a better job might provide sufficient motivation to move away from a Gay-friendly area to a repressive, unpleasant place.
It is clear that if Gays shall move, they will do so only if they will find:
1) Better jobs;
2) Significantly better supply with cultural and material goods;
3) Significantly better chances for boy-friending;
4) Better secureness;
5) Sufficient medical attendance;
6) Freedom.
Whereas points 1 and 2 initially might turn out as difficult to attract Gays from Western countries, there should be no huge obstacles to ensure the points 1-5 for Gays coming from less saturated societies. With time, the infrastructure would be developed to a level where it might become interesting for Western Gays to look for jobs and a residence there.
joe90:
--- Quote from: Feral on Mon, May 31, 2010, 19:27 ---New York is a peculiar example because the estimates of its Gay population vary so widely, as does the definition of "New York" (some demographers simply refuse to believe the city's boundaries have importance). The most conservative figures suggest that Gays make up between 3.25% and 4.5% of the city. Considering the national average for the US is 4.1%, this suggests to me that either the more conservative figures are grossly inadequate or that New York just isn't all that Gay... despite it's millions of inhabitants. Certainly if you could persuade even half of the Gays in New York City to leave in favor of just about any other city in the US they would find their influence considerably magnified.
If political control, rather than influence, is the objective, migration to large cities is about the very best way to guarantee failure.
--- End quote ---
Thats interesting. I didn't know that detail about the demographies of NY.
I think we all agree that cities are the best way to guarantee failure. Essentially if you look at the evolution of cities from the beginning of the industrial revolution they have often been migrations of displaced disempowered people to often to equally or even more acutely disempowering settings.
So the discussion on this thread seems to have reached that a rural option would be the most viable and there seems to still be debate about whether or not to aim for an island or inland. I'm still undecided but there are some clear benefits and failings of each option.
To a certain extent it doesn't matter it just needs to be started in the best possible setting available now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version