Land Ideas (new and old)

[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]

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.

If political control, rather than influence, is the objective, migration to large cities is about the very best way to guarantee failure.

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.

  Investigating other successful secessionist movements
  Select an approach that would suit our circumstances

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. 

1)  Whats that foundation of the current ‘Gay economy’?

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. 

2)  Where and why do gay people live where they live currently?

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]

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.

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. 

[Feral]

One of the things that I have noticed in my research is that there is a consistent pattern, in the UK at least, of rural to urban migration of gay people.  Gay people are likely to always be outnumbered in these spaces for example the largest gay population in the states is in New York but proportionally its dwarfed so is politically dampened.  The city with the largest proportion of the overall population that is gay is San Francisco and there is certainly a greater political influence there but they only make up 15% of the total population. 

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.

[joe90]

Nation building is a complicated long-winded and potentially painful process. 

The two things that stand out for me the most are

1)  The project would have to be based on existing successes.
2)  The project would have to be a series of small steps over a long period of time.

Basing on existing successes would mean answering these questions. 

1)  Whats that foundation of the current ‘Gay economy’?
2)  Where and why do gay people live where they live currently?

The first couple of small steps that I would suggest are

  Investigating other successful secessionist movements
  Select an approach that would suit our circumstances



Any project initiated would need to be based on existing successfully functioning foundations so a bit of further analysis of existing ‘gay economics’ and migrations is needed.  From this we will be able to see how/if this could be transplanted to another location and discuss the potential suitability of the economics in this new location.  This can obviously grow and develop over time but there is no point starting from scratch entirely.

Making a crude guess I would assume the core of the currant 'gay economy' is a mainly service sector economy specifically with the majority of spending being on, for example, recreation e.g. in bars, on the arts or on other consumer products.  Theres obviously not going to be any secondary (manufacturing) or primary (mining/agriculture) industry.  I would be pleasantly surprised if there was. 

One of the things that I have noticed in my research is that there is a consistent pattern, in the UK at least, of rural to urban migration of gay people.  Gay people are likely to always be outnumbered in these spaces for example the largest gay population in the states is in New York but proportionally its dwarfed so is politically dampened.  The city with the largest proportion of the overall population that is gay is San Francisco and there is certainly a greater political influence there but they only make up 15% of the total population. 

I am personally excited by the idea of a territory that can be politically controlled by gay people and think it makes no odds if its an island or in land.  I do however think the idea of striking up negotiations is pretty premature.  Maybe in a hundred years when the government of that territory has become unfeasible otherwise.  Being from the uk I know how resistant states are to grant independence and their violent realities.  To me it makes sense to aim for an autonomous political region that could wrestle for increasing its control then it will have its own momentum. 

Thoughts on the above are welcome please. 

[Leoroc]

The more and more I think about it, the best way to start it up would be to find a parcel of land and open up a hotel/resort aimed at GLBT clientele. The rest of the community would spring up around it as more services are needed (construction jobs, travel jobs, tourist jobs, infrastructure jobs)

[Mogul]

Still, the islands have their advantages: 1) the surrounding water area is an additional space which can be exploited for economic purposes (without being paid for); 2) islands are more easily defended. Of course, a sea-side location on the mainland, preferably not too far from civilization, would be even more advantageous for the economy.

Get investments, build up a banana farm or something and relocate GLBTs as the employees. The rest will follow on its own.

This is certainly the way to go when accomodating real people on some patch of land. Travell agencies and ship ownership would be helpfull as well. 

[Feral]

I think people become entranced by the aura of "separateness" that islands have. People who actually live on islands rarely find that aspect of their home all that enchanting. Islands are problematic... maybe even extremely so. Their small size, as you say, is one of the problems.

Five million acres seems to me to be a bit overzealous. Of course, who doesn't like spacious accommodations? Two hundred thousand acres would be more seemly.

Of course, two hundred thousand acres on the mainland is inherently expandable while a two hundred thousand-acre island  just isn't.

[Leoroc]

Also, the islands mentioned earlier in the thread are waaaay too small. We'd need something like 5 million acres and the biggest islands there are ~36000. I'd recommend doing something mainland, where you can buy a small patch and expand outward. It'd be better in the long run, and cheaper as well.

[Leoroc]

I think the best solution is to find something developmentally viable. In other words, we need something to go there for, like an oil venture in Colombia or Peru or something. Develop it as that, and relocate GLBTs as employees to the region, build up a community/economy around mining or agriculture and then work on independence.

For example, pick a spot in South America, Africa or Southeast Asia, and find another reason to go there. Get investments, build up a banana farm or something and relocate GLBTs as the employees. The rest will follow on its own.

[Mogul]

From the Wikipedia artcle about French Guyana:

A chronic issue affecting French Guiana is the influx of illegal immigrants and clandestine gold prospectors from Brazil and Suriname. The border between the department and Suriname is formed by the Maroni River, which flows through rain forest and is difficult for the Gendarmerie and the French Foreign Legion to patrol.

 

[bryanc1290]

I know a place that we can settle in. It is a French Colony in South America. It is called French Guyana. It has resources that can help us start an economy. If we ever settle there, I do think we would get support from the U.S., the U.N. and the European Union.

[Mogul]

Sorry, guys -- you were digressing...

I moved 3 posts from this thread to different areas of the forum. The posts by themselves are entirely OK, but were not on topic -- this thread it is reserved for new land suggestions . Land as rock and soil. 

I have splitted and merged your contributions to more fitting htreads, they can be found now here:

Floating islands & critics: http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php/topic,391.0.html
Climate change & consequences for the Gay Homeland Movement: http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php/topic,17.0.html

[Athrael]

Holland answered the problem of land with dikes, levees and the application of a new technology - new way back - wind power. Most, not all islands have barrier reefs which can be extended upward making a levee system, then it is a process of pumping out water. Of course in the age of melting ice and ocean rise your island may not be an island for long

Desalting ocean water is difficult, even with modern methods - There are other ways to secure fresh water and power. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven.html has a tried and true method.

Distance from the rest of the world is not a problem. Humanity has found ways to travel all of the world rapidly and with ease, in the form of aircraft and ships.

If the energy resources are too much for you the blimp and zeppelin are great methods - with today's materials and knowledge we could build them far, far safer than the Hindenburg filled with hydrogen and covered in flammable cloth. Perhaps that could be one of the industries developed and sold from the nation? An export item?

Or if you do prefer ship travel wind power is still there. We gave it up for the "faster" steam, however we have come along way since the days of the cloth sail, there are other options such as fixed wing designs: http://www.wingsails.com/cetiri.html The only reason why these are not being applied to larger cargo type craft is because mankind is lazy or because we are an oil based economy that doesn't care to invest the time and energy? There are a lot of different designs out there, a few innovators who due to lack of funds and no market closed up shop. A few years ago a man designed a sail boat which used an aluminum wing and was piloted from the cockpit with throttle controls and steering wheel. He closed shop because he couldn't sell the boat.

He couldn't sell the boat because when it comes to sail power people want whipping sail cloth and are trying to harken back to the day when... Not because they are looking at an economical and modern approach to transport across the water.

Need energy? We all know of solar and wind power - again I point out http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven.html same basic technology this time converting the energy into electricity.

How tall can a building be built? Now days soil and geology does not stand in the way of impressive structure being built. We know how to sink pylons deep down to stabilize the foundation. There are some very tall structures build on reclaimed land, sand, and other geologically unstable materials that start off with deep pylons which reach down to bed rock.

Miami is a good example, all of those tall hotels do not set on stone, they are set on stand with pylon supports making it possible for them to sit and not sink into the sand/coral of Florida as close to the beach as possible. Resorts, got to love them.

Food. If you are thinking of crop lands that stretch out into the horizon, using lots of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and requiring irrigation either through canal or pipes then yes, it is a problem.

But we are kind of smart, as apes go. We choose the old methods because it it cheap and there is land available, however there are methods that can be instituted where vertical acreage can be had. Hydroponics comes to mind, many organic successive planting methods are also intensive growth methods, meaning each plant is place closer together maximizing the soil area.  If you think about it lettuce only needs two feet of vertical space - if you tray and stack or "shelf" lettuce you can on the same amount of land area triple or quadruple the land area. This can be done either through artificial lighting, or through narrow "shelves, which maximize angled light. Since the sun moves across the sky spending little time directly over head your plant can get its required 8 hours of direct sunlight. BTW many vegetable plants have small root systems, the requirement of land us usually for the top growth (leaves and fruit) and for the ease of presently use machines to cultivate and harvest the field. In which I add that those machines are so 20th century - we can do better.

Considering that most islands will not have a natural supply of fresh water, then you are going to have to irrigate the crops anyways - might as well move the water up as well as out.

Further, and Island is surrounded by water, in that water is fish and algae, and kelps - plenty of people eat these sorts of foods on a near daily basis. It isn't too difficult to farm the ocean surface either.

Any other problems? I'm willing to bet that any problem you think of there is already a solution, maybe not being used due to present economic systems in place, but a solution nonetheless.

[Mogul]

Unincorporated territories have yet to make this permanent transition into the territory of the state. Consequently, they may be legally transferred to some other national entity. [..] The US takes its strategic interests very seriously, no matter how trivial that strategic value might be.

Good to know. I think the US of our days is a rather unequal partner for us to mess with, especially about territories which are of some value to this (world's most well armed) nation.

My chief concern is both the smallness and remoteness of locations suggested thus far (both here and by others). If we are discussing a homeland for tens of thousands of people, if not millions, we are talking about a rather large patch of dirt. Even if we are talking about a symbolic city-state, we are still talking about a rather large patch of dirt.

The sucess of a settlement to become a polis depends on several variables, among them the size of the area, moderate temperatures, availability of fresh water and food, building materials and the physical connection to the rest of the world. It is obviously, that we will have to make compromises in respect of one or other criterion - the prize question is what can be substituted and what is more essential. On the other hand, the area in question must not be doomed to failure because of some cumulated disadvantages.

The sea water can be transformed into fresh water through inverse osmosis (or destillation) and be used for agriculture. The lacking size of the area can be overcome if the ground is sufficiently solid to carry very high buildings (population densities of 20,000 per km² are not uncommon in modern cities) and/or a limited expansion (e.g.into sea) is possible. Nevertheless, for a city of 500.000 inhabitants, at least an area of 25 km² seems necessary. Neither Clipperton, nor any other insular suggestion we had so far, seems really suitable for such a plan: Clipperton has certain charm, but one can't build very high buldings on coral material.

Quite another question is where to start. Can't we consider some temporary solution and in the meantime gather our ressources for the next step? This would on the one hand give us some immediate advantages (e.g. for our refugees), but on the other hand it might endanger the project entirely because we than "would already have some territorium" and the readiness to grant us additional place would decrease severely. I do not know the answer - we only must consider that before we can take over responsibility for a large partition of land, we must be organizatory ready to make this step. 

Naturally, some have discarded the idea of urbanism. I think this unwise, but they are welcome to live as they please. No matter how isolated, the Gay people will not be well-served by a primitive village. [..] If an island is to be chosen, it needs to be within a reasonable, economically viable distance from an inhabited, non-hostile mainland.

Some Greek island would suit well, but the political prospectives for a secession are currently not exorbitantly high. The maximum we can hope for, is to buy/rent an entire island on conditions of extraterritoriality, while at the same time leaving the formal souvereignty with Greeks. This concept formally equals the concept of a military base, with the exception that we would gather refugees and not weapons there.

Urbanism as a life style seems attracting the most people of this earth - even if they have sufficient territories. We being short on territory should naturally choose this form of living together - we simply have not much choice.