GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Colonies/Communities  (Read 4211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Athrael

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 50
    • Oceanic Project
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #9 on: Tue, May 01, 2007, 03:47 »

Well Jeff that is an idealistic Utopian notion. God bless your heart I take you it haven't been exposed to real human beings. 

The truth is if you are gay you are hated. In fact you are hated by over 56% of the "western" world which touts equality and tolerance.  The rest of the world, well more like 75 to 80% would just love to hand you off a fence and let you die.

The reality is that no community in the world will ALLOW you to build a gay community. Granted there are Gay communities like the Castro District in SF Ca - that was created during a time when economic and political situations left a neighborhood open to being bought by just anyone and the residents, um, drug addicts, criminals, chronically poor rented from Slum Lords who didn't care who owned the next building as long as they still turned a profit on the misery of others.

Same thing applies to other known gay communities where the gays moved into "bad districts" took over by sheer force of buy-out power and built a community.

Needless to say the Castro and other like communities are loathed and despised and would, if push comes to shove be burned to the ground if the people surrounding them thought they could get away with it.

I lived there, I knew my neighbors, I also heard all manner of slights and sayings and the mutterings of dark thoughts and dark dreams to bomb the Castro to et rid of US.

So what you are dealing with is not an internal "gay" problem - you are dealing with a majority that hate you and I - hate us so much that they secretly and not so secretly want us to die.  Thus so many are actually thrilled when in the 1980s the Gay Disease was taking care of our numbers and why, even though AIDS targets far many more heterosexuals globally than homosexuals it is still called the "gay disease"

Placing us in to open concentration camps surrounded by the enemy will only make matters worse. It will open the doors for targeted hate crimes which I fear are still not as big of a concern if your a faggot compared to being a nigger or a kike.

Aside from other logistical and related problems.  Gay communities or colonies are already here, unfortunately they do not afford the same rights and freedoms as the straights get, they do not actually protect gays from bashing, if anything it makes it easier for gays to be bashed - these colonies are loathed and hated and barely tolerated.

As for opening up your colony for investors - only if they are gay and if they live there.  See others will if not on purpose then through accident attempt to destroy this thing. Economy is the best way to destroy a community - target and destroy the economy the rest falls. Detroit is a good example, at one time she had a strong economy due to the mills and car factories - all of that was taken away and the city is in financial ruins, the rich and middle class moved away leaving behind the poor which resulted in higher crime rates as the poor sought anyway out from poverty including illegal methods. 

The best way to go is a single colony or a region which can be called a nation - with national defenses and an open door immigration policy perhaps one that allows if not insists on duel citizenship of its citizens and is quick to call out other nations that allow the abuse of our sisters.
According to obituary notices, a mean and useless citizen never dies.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #8 on: Fri, May 20, 2005, 00:22 »

Dear Jeff,

of course you didn't say that having straight kids would be a problem! Sorry, if my clumsy sentences have produced this impression and have lead to a misunderstanding. :)

What I mean by the term "straight kids problem" is the demographic change in an (isolated) gay society with a 9:1 ratio of gay:straight kids. This is just a biologic reality and would turn any (isolated) gay/lesbian state into a "normal" state within few generations. As we do not want to create a perfect "normal" state (with said 9:1 ratio straight:gay), this demografic change is a phenomenon which would endanger the idea and the nature of this gay state. The devolopement as such would be nothing bad or problematic, but the state would cease to be a gay/lesbian state, that's all.

Now, as we seek a solution for maintaining the gay majority in the population of the said hypothetical state, the discussions about mechanisms of such regulations are absolutely legitimate. There are more problems connected to the idea of a gay state, than the matter with kids, e.g. the question about parents and relatives which stay abroad, possibly less qualified jobs, less comforts and less opportunities to go to musea, zoo etc. I am well aware about this problems, and that's why so many people are sceptical against the idea of the gay state. But, once again, there are also serious arguments pro an gay/lesbian state, and this would be not an isolated society but open for letting gays in and straights out (if they wish so!).

Your argument about no nations known to grow through immigration is not really a good one ;) because the US itselfe grows through immigration to a high degree. Novadays even old european countries like Germany as well maintain their population through immigration. Indeed, the "gay people" as such has an immense demographic potencial worldwide, even if only few percents would decide to leave their birth countries. As gays are born year for year probably till the end of the world, this demographic potential would not vanish but supply the gay state with new citizens for future.

The problem which I see is rather the founding than the maintanance of the "gay state". In the very first decades it would be difficult to persue people to leave their highly industrialized countries and move to a kind of bare land scape, be it a tropical paradise itself. This problem is closely connected to what you call the "three-dimensional developement" and was observed by the early attempts to establish the state Israel. Most people are not just "gays" or "jews", they are highly complex individuals with a lot of different interests and they are used to a high level of culture. That's why it was difficult to bring jewish people to move to Palestina in the early twenties of the past century, and that's why we would have difficulties to bring many gay people to any landslape far from civilisation. Only the future can show, whether the whole attempt is worth the energy invested into it, and there are different estimations for such a project to succeed, that's true.

The fact is also, that most gays and lesbian would stay in their native countries and there is a lot of work to be done for the gay liberation worldwide. No doubt, the cultural developement of gay people is as much important as the improvement of their political rights, alone, gay artists are not really under-represented among their collegues! ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: Mon, May 30, 2005, 19:03 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #7 on: Thu, May 19, 2005, 16:06 »

Hi Vicky,

Thank you for your post. I just wanted to clarify that I don't consider the presence of heterosexual children (or gay or bi ones for that matter) to be a "problem." As far as I know I have never used the phrase: the "straight kids problem." I strongly regret and apologize if that's how my statements have come across. What I was trying to point out was the effect child bearing and child rearing would have on the demographics of any state or community which aspired to become, or remain, gay-majority.

I think most people would agree that gay procreation (in whatever form it might take) and gay adoption are increasing, and will continue to increase as more gay folks desire and discover the joys of family life. And this is not just gay females pursuing this. Many gay males desire this as well. It is a natural, human impulse.

When I wrote in my first post of homosexuals becoming a more three-dimensional people, I suggested that this would entail three elements: the sexual, the social, and the cultural. By social I meant the conscious and organized encouragement and promotion of gay marriage, family, and community. While marriage and family life will certainly not be the goal of everyone, these three institutions still form the foundation of any viable community; and without them a demographic group can hardly be considered a people (or at least not a fully developed people.) This process of three-dimensionality is happening today, slowly but surely. Everything I suggest in these posts is meant to encourage and advance this process.

There is an 'old-school' definition of homosexuality (largely put forth by our opponents past and present) which attempts to define us as an essentially sterile people. This is one of the harshest criticisms against us. But this historical lack of procreation had - and has - far more to do with our isolation from ourselves (though the fear of being open and out) than to any largescale lack of desire or ability we might have to form families. The rising rate of gay-parent households is evidence of this. We are clearly a people in transformation.

This ongoing development of homosexuality needs to be taken into consideration, for it represents the future. It is the new-school definition which will obliterate not only the old-school definition, but a large part of the stigma itself.

In my opinion, what this means, is that in any state, colony, community, ect. that results in a gay majority (or significantly larger gay minority) homosexuals will feel much more confident, and have much more opportunities, to pursue family life. And this will result in an ever increasing amount of children from gay parents. And, unless some fundamental social or biological change occurs, the vast majority of these children will be non-gay. While the immigration rate might be larger at first than the birth rate, in time this would most likely reverse. No nation I know have has ever sustained an immigration rate larger than its birth rate.

Now I don't view this as a 'problem.' It is simply a demographic fact. There will be a lot of kids, and a lot of them will be heterosexual. They will not have any problem finding other heterosexuals to eventually date or marry. Hopefully, the homosexual children won't either. And this might be perhaps the greatest (and more realistic) potential of any nation-building project such as this: to create a country where all people are treated equally and respectfully, so that no one feels the need to hide who they are.

That would not be an insignificant achievement, no matter which sexuality ended up in the majority.

Jeff

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #6 on: Thu, May 19, 2005, 07:10 »

Dear Jeff,

thank you for posting your interesting concept in this forum. Whereas it is true that this group's primary interest lies in the creating of a gay state, we appreciate any fresh ideas concerning developing of the global GLBT community as such. It is understood, that the said GLBT state would be only a part of the whole, and a cultural and economic exchange whith the gay and lesbian people from all over the world would be not only appreciated, but a matter of survival. The flow of ideas and cultural achievements would become a very important process for both the "Gay state" and the "Diaspora". The interesting aspect for us is especially, in what way connections to such "colonies" and already existing GLBT structures could be established for mutual benefit and how our proposed state could adopt experiences from other projects.

The second reason why I think it is good that you present your project in our forum is the simple fact that unconvential ideas bring "fresh blood" into discussions. Things, which seem first a bit "unearthy", can turn out to be fertilizing for our project. For example, the future gay settlement which we are considering, would surely start rather as an agrarian settlement than as an artist colony; but your idea of promotion gay culture work can be adopted as well, once the initial phase of the project has passed.

I would like to make some remarks in order to explain why we think that a "Gay state" is actually necessary, notwithstanding the good prospects of the "colonies concept" presented by you. :)

The "self-administrated GLBT settlement or territory" which we are thinking about, should have the legal and physical ability to enable unrestricted immigration of gays and lesbians and allow the same-sex marriage and adoption of partner's children. Though it's true, that in Canada and some countries in Europe and in few states in the US same-sex marriages are allowed, the rest of the world still remains VERY hostile towards homosexual people. Gays in countries with progressive legislation and civil society have no sensible reasons for complaints and feeling oppressed, but unfortunately these countries are also the ones with most restrictive immigration policy. An oppressed homosexual individual has rather but a tiny chance to leave his country and start a new existence in a better place. Indeed, gays and lesbians are even purposefully kept out of borders of a rather liberal country like Australia by a deliberate point system which is giving additional points for the (heterosexual) spouse. Even countries, which give sanctuary to gay/lesbian refugees, are performing very restictive policy against (all) refugees, as most of them are not allowed to work in their profession, if at all; they never get full citizen rights. Therefore a gay state with an immigration policy on its own would be the last chance for many of our brothers and sisters (and those in between, too). But, of course, you have right with your statement about gay rights propagation in countries, where it is possible.

[...] I have to admit I'm not fully convinced an independent gay nation is either workable or necessary. [..] on the whole, I believe it's in our best interest to remain in our native countries, and to focus on reforming them from within. Central to this is achieving equality for gay people. Since this would effect every gay person on the globe, it will ultimately have more of an impact than starting an independent nation - which at its best can only impact a relatively tiny portion of us. [...] Now for those who seek independence for the sake of independence, I realize that these types of communities won't be enough. And I understand that and respect that. But if the goal is to pursue happiness, freedom, equality AND integration, these are about the best option we have. [...]
I also want to add that I understand not all countries are ready for these types of colonies. I'm sure if one were started in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, it would be wiped off the face of the earth in a matter of days. As our standing grew in the more progressive countries, perhaps we could pressure our governments to make gay rights a foreign relations issue. But in any event, because of this fact, I do think that perhaps some sort of a gay sanctuary could be started. A place where gay refugees from these countries could flee to if necessary. It would not have to be an independent entity. It could be land leased to us by a friendly country or countries. Refugees could be allowed to stay there for a certain amount of time, and then settled in a friendly country - perhaps even in a colony. I say this because if no time limit were set, the sanctuary might fill up fairly quickly. In this way, room is freed for additional refugees.
Perhaps, too, as friendly countries began accepting significant numbers of gay refugees, their governments would become more inclined to pressure other countries to treat their gay citizens better.

Your treatment of the "straight kids problem" has initiated a process of considering agreeable solutions for this "problem". Well, the kids as such, with no reference on their later sexuality, are highly welcome and a source of joy to any kind person, their existence in the GLBT communities and in a gay-lesbian state would be rather a win than a problem. As the proposed gay state would hopefully grow through gay immigration, the gay majority would be probably preserved without any further regulation. The problem which I see, is rather of a different nature: what these poor heterosexual kids will do when they discover their own sexuality and will find no adequate partners? This is something which would be a source of discomfort for them and probably drive them to look for a better place in the world, without any pressure or harassment. This would cause their parents and friends certain pain and grief, but this is something what all parents go through, as the kids are generally looking for fortune far away from mama's home. We should keep in mind, that the democratic wealthy world is growing together economically and socially, and the chances for a straight kid to study and work abroad are pretty good. Those who will stay, will be treated heartily and hopefully become "usefull members of society", as all adults expect kids to be. ;D ;D ;D

You see, straight couples in "civilized" countries usually have not more than 2 children, and lesbian women are not always inclined to get pregnant as well, therefore I do not think there ever would arise a threat of an "overpopulation" through straight minority. As to the name of the country: well, in "Germany" a lot of Turks, Russians and other nationalities live peacefully side by side with the Germans and not a single one came to the idea to rename the country... As far as we would understand our people to be a "nation", the straights shall accept it, especially as they would be taught at school, why the creation of a country became necessary in this form.

[...] I have to admit I'm not fully convinced an independent gay nation is either workable or necessary. For instance, it would be impossible to sustain without either limiting or excluding children. In a colony, for example, once children reach adulthood, most would probably move to another town or city. This is normal, since few of us remain in the same location we were born in. This would leave the original colony with roughly the same demographic makeup. In an independent state, however, even if grown children moved away from their home town, they would still remain within that nation's borders; thereby effecting its overall demographics. Now I'm not saying I would want non-gay children to move away from either colony or nation, but unless they emigrated from the latter (and in massive numbers) they would inevitably come to form the majority - or at the very least, a very large minority. Which brings up a further point; namely, how could one label a country which consists of homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals a ?gay' nation; especially without the non-gay inhabitants feeling somewhat agitated by this; and eventually, and rightfully, demanding that such a label be dropped? [...]

Honestly, the problem what I see is of a different nature: how will the queer kids find their way to the gay country? The gay colonies which you are proposing, would be an ideal place for them to come into contact with gay sub-culture and find an appropriate partner and friends. Indeed, such colonies could become a kind of "recruitment centers" for our gay state! ;D ;D ;D
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #5 on: Thu, May 12, 2005, 00:38 »

Hi Gunnar, I read your post with great interest. I would say though, from some of your comments, that I don't think my message is quite getting through. I'm probably not writing it as clearly as I should; I know all this stuff is a lot to cover in a message post. I think part of the misunderstanding may be confusion over the word ‘colony.' You, for example, have apparently interpreted colony to mean an agrarian colony, filled primarily, I imagine, with farmers. There might be great merit in an agrarian colony, but it's not what I'm suggesting.

It's because of other misunderstandings that I've encountered in the past, that I've been trying to veer away from the ‘colony' term; and replace it with community; which seems to more closely resemble my idea.

I don't want to be repetitive here, but I need to state once again that the communities I'm proposing would not be - nor would they aspire to become - independent entities. They would, in time, more likely become incorporated towns. They would have jurisdiction over most events within their borders; but not all. If the inhabitants desired to have immediate rights to gay marriage, these communities could always be started in a location that recognizes gay marriage: such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, etc. As far as the social security issue you brought up; folks in these communities would still be citizens of their state and nation; they would still be paying state and federal taxes, and so would be eligible for social security.

The overarching idea is to continue working for gay rights in all nations. My personal opinion, and it may very well differ from yours, is that the best way to achieve gay equality is to remain in our native countries and continue fighting for these rights. How would moving away help improve the nations we'd be moving from? And since this is where the vast majority of gay people live, that is where the main focus should be. That, however, doesn't mean that all gay people have to remain in their native lands. A gay-based nation can certainly be pursued, but I just don't think it should be expected to do a whole heck of a lot as far as improving the lives of most gay people. These colonies, on the other hand, by remaining integrated within their borders, as well as integrated with the surrounding communities, could serve as ideal models of how a community should treat all its citizens. You need to remember, these colonies would not be existing in a vacuum. Media coverage would probably be fairly high. It would be the most public platform we've ever had.

As for the economic details of the communities, as I've written before a significant portion would be open to investors and entrepreneurs. They would provide much of the job opportunities in the community. The corporation, meanwhile, would be focusing on setting up the gay social and cultural venues. Public service areas would most likely be overseen by the elected community legislative body, who would, I imagine, hire qualified people to run the various things: schools, police dept., fire dept., etc. This would be paid for the way any community pays for such things: through community taxes. The corporation might be able to help out to a degree, but it's best for the community to be as economically self-sufficient as it can be. This would free more corporate resources for the purchase of additional land.

I also wanted to clarify another point. I do not visualize these communities as artist colonies. I merely meant that since the corporation would be focusing on gay culture, artistic people would most likely make up the largest part of the initial inhabitants. But the community would certainly diversify far beyond this.

In your post you asked who would feed the artists. My answer is the artists would feed themselves. This is not a charity colony I'm proposing. The corporation would help provide encouragement, development, and promotion for gay creators; it would help provide them with a potential audience; but in the end the artists will have to be talented enough to make a living on their own. This project would simply make it easier for them to do that.

You see, these communities would be fundamentally gay hubs, or cultural centers. And as more were started they would form a network of hubs. Every major city has a significant gay population as well, and these would form additional hubs in the network. A gay band, for example, could then schedule a tour with these colony and city hubs as gigs; knowing they'd have a more welcome audience. Gay film makers could use this network to assure their films get a more widely distributed screening. And of course, every other creative field as well could take advantage of this network.

And I'm not saying that only this network could be used; it's meant as a foundation, not the entire spectrum. It would be an ideal way for the best - or at least the most popular - gay creations to rise to the top; and these more popular items would have a better chance of crossing over into the mainstream. And that is where the change in heterosexual attitudes will begin to accelerate. As I mentioned in a previous post, it would be a mistake to underestimate the power of art and entertainment to change people. In fact, I would say it's absolutely essential.

But it's got to be quality; and it's got to be easily accessible. I am absolutely confident that if given the opportunity, there would be fair-minded heterosexuals who would travel to a nearby colony to see one of these films, or catch one of these plays. Or just walk around, get a bite to eat, and check out the sights.
   
Diversity is very stimulating. And a lot of heterosexuals truly want to understand us.

By the way, I hear what you're saying about the intolerance of some gay people. I suspect this is due in some degree to insecurity. For instance, for years I would hear gay people disparaging heterosexuals as ‘breeders.' Some gays still use this term. I always thought this was ridiculous. Procreation is the creation of life. It's a miracle. What is there to disparage about it? Nothing. We don't really disparage procreation, we envy it. And because of our insecurity, that envy takes the form of hostility.

It all ties in with being under-developed. Right now we're focused on the political, on equal rights; and that makes it seem more important. But it really isn't. Until we start addressing our cultural and social under-development, we will remain (in general) an envious and incomplete people. And, I would add, in far too many cases, a lost people.

Jeff

Gunnar

  • Guest
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #4 on: Wed, May 11, 2005, 11:36 »

Jeff and all others concerned:

You have made some good points. Very good points indeed. But I see some, one could say additional, problems.

In a colony we are bound to the state's law we live in. We would not be free to decide if gays could marry or not. We would not be able to decide who is a "refugee" and who is not. This would be state law. Or, if such a colony would become a province, it would be federal law.

The next problem we would face are not the heterosexuals. But the Gays. We all can't flee ourselves. We all take our individuality with us, wherever we go. And gays are not that tolerant. I know more (in numbers) tolerant heterosexuals than gays. This to notice - well, walk through this forum and just look for some suggestions made here, which have reminded me of the Apartheid Policy made in the past in South Africa (no political posts for non-gay people and so on).
I don't think the world would appreciate such a "gay" Nation.
As far as I know, very most gays are demanding things (like tolerance towards them) without being willing to give the same to other groups. That's a problem of the very most minorities.

Another question arises here: Will the hate-crimes stop in such a colony? I don't think so. Human beings are human beings. There will be crime. If one can call it "hate" crime still, is another Issue. Also the social Issues: Can we afford social security in a gay country or in an more or less independent province or colony? Are we to take all the benefits we can get from the "straight" countries, but avoid or deny everything what we don't like?

You are right with your thoughts on the population and the demograpic Issues. Perhaps the Heterosexuals will be a Minority in the beginning, but this will change pretty soon. Why does San Francisco have a very large gay community? This is not because the residents have been that tolerant - the opposite applies. In the early 20. century the City majors have warned the population because there were some gays known in Frisco. But this warning was a shot in the foot. Gays from all over the states have read that as well - and decided to move ...
However, the gay part of the population will become smaller and smaller (in percentage) as the colony grows. Or the Nation or whatever it will be called - in my eyes, these are just names, because the main problems are the same.


Important Issue. If there are kids, they need education at some points. Again, could a colony, could a gay nation afford this? It will cost money. Much money. And there is the problem of jobs you have mentioned. Well the first time we have to earn our living by being Farmers. At a later stage, there will be more. This implies a power struggle (sorry if that isn't the right word, but I can't express myself properly in English, feel free to correct my mistakes) between those with a higher ore more needed education and those whose education does not fit the colony's needs. Talking about artists: It may be that gays are more creative than others, I will not judge that. But in the first time, they can plant trees in an unusual pattern (in a shape of a heart, for example). A colony of artists is a nice imagination, but not more. Who will feed the artists? This can take place at a later stage, at a stage decades away.

In the meantime, more and more countries may allow gay marriage. And more "gay" rights. What reason for such a colony would remain then?

The answer is, that I see a worldwide mainstream development (or reincarnation) of archconservative way of thinking. This development is, in my opinion, the only reason to put up such a colony. With all of it's consequences. There are a lot of reasons to put up some security force (if you will call that *ilitary or police, is of lesser importance). But there are some who did not like that idea. As if Gays are always peacefull, always nice, always high level educated, or even willing to do the right things.
Which brings us too the law. What kind of law would be needed? Are we to prohibit some kind of sexuality (pedophelia or such) or not? what about the taxes, what about crime in general, what about all other areas of law? What kind of Authorities do we need? What about relationship to others?
Most of the above applies to a gay nation. In a gay colony, I mentioned already, we can't pick-and-choose the laws we like. What now?



 

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #3 on: Mon, May 09, 2005, 00:47 »

Hi Vizier,
   
I would say that the type of colonies/communities that I'm advocating would probably not be the first step towards a nation; if anything, they would more logically be the first step towards officially incorporated towns. Which would be perfectly fine with me.
   
I have to admit I'm not fully convinced an independent gay nation is either workable or necessary. For instance, it would be impossible to sustain without either limiting or excluding children. In a colony, for example, once children reach adulthood, most would probably move to another town or city. This is normal, since few of us remain in the same location we were born in. This would leave the original colony with roughly the same demographic makeup. In an independent state, however, even if grown children moved away from their home town, they would still remain within that nation's borders; thereby effecting its overall demographics. Now I'm not saying I would want non-gay children to move away from either colony or nation, but unless they emigrated from the latter (and in massive numbers) they would inevitably come to form the majority - or at the very least, a very large minority. Which brings up a further point; namely, how could one label a country which consists of homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals a ‘gay' nation; especially without the non-gay inhabitants feeling somewhat agitated by this; and eventually, and rightfully, demanding that such a label be dropped?
   
This is part of the reason that, on the whole, I believe it's in our best interest to remain in our native countries, and to focus on reforming them from within. Central to this is achieving equality for gay people. Since this would effect every gay person on the globe, it will ultimately have more of an impact than starting an independent nation - which at its best can only impact a relatively tiny portion of us.
   
The question then becomes how best can we achieve this type of change within each nation. It was after giving this some thought that I came up with the colony idea. But where my concept of colonies differs from most other people's is that I'm not advocating a colony as a gay hideaway, but as a gay showcase. They would be stages where we could both discover who we are as a people, and show ourselves off to the world. And therefore they would be open to the world, to all sexualities to come and visit, and even stay if they wished.
   
With the corporation ensuring a large gay cultural presence, there is no need to worry about how to maintain any sort of majority. The corporation will ensure that gay creators come. With the creators will come their lovers; as well as lovers of gay culture. This will create a foundational atmosphere of tolerance, openness, and freedom. This in turn will attract other gay people, those who aren't necessarily creative. The presence of all these people then creates opportunities for small businesses: restaurants, service stations, construction crews, clothing stores, and on and on and on. So this becomes not just some sort of a housing development, but a fully-functional, economically diverse community. And it's important to remember that rather than simply being an urban neighborhood (which is what I believe most people refer to when they use the term ghetto) these would be largely self-run entities, with an elected legislature, making their own local rules - again, within the bounds of the previously stated limitations.
   
In your post you ask what colonies would achieve. I would say that first of all, they would give us a literal explosion of gay culture; far surpassing anything we have today. Not only an improvement in quantity, but in quality. There are a lot of struggling gay creators out there, who are having trouble getting noticed in the heterosexual mainstream. This would give them a much-needed boost of attention. The best of this work would cross over into the straight world; and in the process help humanize us in heterosexual eyes.
   
This is no minor issue. Art and entertainment can have a powerful influence on people. One hit gay movie, one great gay pop song, could create more positive change than thousands of civil rights speeches.
   
A second thing colonies would achieve is to supply us with the opportunity to experience all the benefits and joys of being in the majority: all those million and one things heterosexuals take for granted. I don't want to go into super detail here (my book covers much of this) but I'll just say this would make it a lot easier as well to meet a compatible mate; and to most of us, that's the most important thing in life.
   
A third thing they would achieve is to give us more respect politically. For example, imagine a couple thousand (or more) gay people, bisexuals, and progressive heterosexuals converging in some rural area in Texas, or Oklahoma, and starting a colony. Suddenly, the local politicians in those areas will have a large, strong, politically-aware, gay-friendly presence they have to answer to. If they don't provide the right answer, they might very well find themselves out of office; replaced by a more progressive politician.
   
Even if this fails to occur immediately, the process will have been started. As citizens local to that area begin seeing gay people in large numbers; observing them living openly and proudly and decently; as they begin interacting with them more and more, talking to them, listening to them, joking with them; they will alter their views. Not all of them, no. But enough of them. The moderate middle. And ultimately, this will have a political effect.  It will be like waves of reform spreading out from each of these colonies. They will be epicenters of change; day after day, sending out incredible images of positive, confident gay people: creating, building, living, and loving. And in time, they will change the nation. I'm not saying this would be an overnight process, but these communities would certainly speed the process up.
   
A fourth thing I would say is that these colonies would give us an opportunity to engage the world as a people; to participate on a more visible and significant level. Certainly more significantly than if we didn't start them at all. And by doing this we'd be taken more seriously: our opinions and our views - as diverse as they are.
   
A fifth thing (and the last I will mention) is we'd be creating some of the most exciting, colorful, artistic, liberating, innovative, and diverse communities the world has ever seen. Gay people are famously creative. Just think what we could do with a colony-size canvas. It would be a blast!
   
And these five items are just a part of what these type of colonies have to offer.

Now for those who seek independence for the sake of independence, I realize that these types of communities won't be enough. And I understand that and respect that. But if the goal is to pursue happiness, freedom, equality AND integration, these are about the best option we have.
   
The last thing I want to add is that I want to make it clear I don't expect mobs of gay people to move to these communities. I'm not sure myself if I would go, it would depend on the location, climate, job opportunities, etc. The vast majority of gay people will remain in the non-colony world. And that is ideal. Because whether people wanna live there, visit there, or ignore them entirely, these colonies would still be helping them.
   
Observing the free and open way gay people act on a colony, will give gay people off-colony the desire to act the same. And perhaps it will give them that extra boost of confidence to actually do it. This will force heterosexuals to become increasingly used to seeing open signs of gay affection. In time, they will become accustomed to it; and it will be no big deal. Open signs of homophobia, on the other hand, will become increasingly unacceptable.
   
I also want to add that I understand not all countries are ready for these types of colonies. I'm sure if one were started in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, it would be wiped off the face of the earth in a matter of days. As our standing grew in the more progressive countries, perhaps we could pressure our governments to make gay rights a foreign relations issue. But in any event, because of this fact, I do think that perhaps some sort of a gay sanctuary could be started. A place where gay refugees from these countries could flee to if necessary. It would not have to be an independent entity. It could be land leased to us by a friendly country or countries. Refugees could be allowed to stay there for a certain amount of time, and then settled in a friendly country - perhaps even in a colony. I say this because if no time limit were set, the sanctuary might fill up fairly quickly. In this way, room is freed for additional refugees.
   
Perhaps, too, as friendly countries began accepting significant numbers of gay refugees, their governments would become more inclined to pressure other countries to treat their gay citizens better. Just a thought.

Jeff

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: Colonies/Communities
« Reply #2 on: Sun, May 08, 2005, 18:41 »

Jeff, I find your ideas fascinating and definitely worth looking into in terms of providing a "first step" towards achieving a GLR, as detailed on the main website. Obviously, going out and buying a country or creating one through (ridiculous) secession, as the GLK is trying to, just won't work and unless someone wins a huge amount of $$$ in a lottery, the prospoects of establishing a nation for us through purchae and subsequent political action is remote at best.

My only concern with the colony approach is the fact that such efforts frequently degrade/deteriorate into the "ghettos" and all the stigma attached to them.  I was very interested in a little outfit in Plantation, Florida, which was bent on creating a GLBT colony there, but really turned out to be just another GLBT gated community and, while financially not unsuccessful, is not the same as an actual nation (some day) which is designed to meet all of our specific needs and address them successfully without being subject to the whims of another government, especially one such as the current U.S. regime (Death to Bush!).

That is, as far as I can see, still the only major drawback to the "colony" approach - it will function in harmony with our notion as a "first step" towards establishment of an eventual gay homeland and subsequent gay nation, but I don't think it goes far enough... letting it lie at "colony" status means we don;t actually end up achieving more than we have now. Am I missing something?
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Colonies/Communities
« Reply #1 on: Fri, May 06, 2005, 22:44 »

   Greetings to everyone. I have been invited into this group to participate in the ongoing discussion; as well as to outline my own particular ideas on the topic and associated topics. Though I do have some misgivings about the need and motivations of starting a gay nation, I do strongly believe that gay people need to keep in mind that although it's extremely important we pursue integration with heterosexuals, it's equally important that we pursue integration with ourselves. It is this sentiment which has led me to the idea I outline below.

The Rationale:
   As gay people, there are more issues facing us than improving relations with the heterosexual majority. That is a worthy and necessary goal; but at least as important is the further development of ourselves as individuals, and as a people. This will not be brought about solely by the attainment of equal civil rights. It will require energy and initiative, and the ability to focus on and address the issue on its own terms.
   If we, as gay people, hope to develop ourselves to our full potential, we must first recognize that there are three dimensions to sexuality identity: the sexual, the social, and the cultural. It's the intermeshing of these elements which brings a three-dimensional structure to life. The sexual aspect provides the furnace; it's the driving force, the engine. The social aspect is the community and family organization; how we as a people interact. And the cultural aspect incorporates the arts and entertainment; it's the civilizing force, the creative and intellectual exploration of oneself and one's people. If heterosexuality seems to some a deeper sexuality it's simply because it has a more developed identity. Its social and cultural dimensions, in particular, are far more developed than they are in homosexuality. Homosexuality is in no way inferior, it's simply less developed. The good news about this, of course, is that it can be easily altered by further development; consequently, it is the greater development of these social and cultural dimensions which will bring us to our full potential.
   It is with the intention of achieving this goal as quickly and effectively as possible, that I propose the startup of developmental colonies.

The Definition:
   Now I realize that the term colony often triggers a pre-conceived notion in many people's heads; and frequently it bears little resemblance to what it is I'm suggesting. Therefore, it's important that I clarify exactly what I mean by the term.
   The colonies I'm proposing would not be isolated communities; they would be non-gated, open-bordered, integrated communities whose corporate element would promote gay social and cultural development - both inside the colony and out. By social development I mean the promotion and encouragement of gay marriage, family, and community. By cultural development I mean the seeking out of gay talent in the artistic and entertainment fields. Once found, these individuals would be nurtured and promoted, so that they might more easily find an audience, and their audience more easily find them. This would not only help gay creators make a living from their creativity, but hopefully assist them as well in expanding into the mainstream culture.
   These colonies would not be exclusively gay. They couldn't be, even if this were desired. With an increasing amount of gay people having children any such policy would create endless problems and conflicts, especially as these kids became teenagers and began dating. A ban on heterosexuals would most certainly drive gay parents away, ultimately dooming a colony to either failure or insignificance. Straight adults, supportive of the cause, may choose to live on-colony as well. Though the bulk of the inhabitants might, no doubt, be non-heterosexual, these straight allies would be most gratefully welcome. No colonists would be mistreated. No colonist would be discriminated against. All colonists would be allowed to stay unless they proved disruptive to the community. All colonists would be eligible to hold any community office; including political.
   These colonies, though run as much as possible by the inhabitants themselves, would still be subject to surrounding local, state and federal laws and regulations. The formation of these colonies in no way should be interpreted as an attempt to secede, withdraw or disregard any state or nation in which they are established. They are not sovereign nations, but private communities. Their purpose is peaceful, meant to promote a positive social change. Any authority they have would be based on the legal position that they exist on privately-owned property. As such they will pass their own rules and regulations provided these directives do not conflict with any local, state or federal statutes.
   These colonies would have open borders. They would be communities, not prisons. Inhabitants would be free to travel on-colony and off any time they wished to. Anyone would be welcome to visit. A security force would be on hand to ensure order. Most colonists would probably still travel off-colony to work, and certainly all would go off-colony to visit or travel. It's hoped off-colony folks would want to visit on-colony as well, and perhaps more than a few of them choose to work there. Tourism might prove to be one of the colonies' most lucrative businesses. All cultural, social and economic ties would remain between on-colony and off-colony communities. These colonies are meant to expand the human experience, not to limit it. It's hoped that, in time, these colonies will have become so integrated into the social fabric that crossing a colony border will be of no more consequence or complication than traveling from one town to the next.

The Formation:
   As far as how these colonies would be formed, there are probably countless ways of doing it. The following is one possible way.
   In order for any colony to start, land will have to be purchased; and in order for land to be purchased, money will have to be raised. This necessitates that some sort of legal organization be put into place not only to collect and allocate the money, but to plan the overall strategy.
   I suggest that a non-profit corporation be started. In most states in the U.S., three people are all that's required to start a corporation. Therefore, it can be up and running in a relatively short time. Also, by being non-profit, not only may the corporation be eligible for tax-exempt status; it will help assure that its mission not be undermined by any pressure from stockholders.
   Once formed, the corporation would get to work spreading the idea of developmental colonies. New members would be recruited. Money would be raised through a combination of membership dues, donations, and fund-raising events. When enough was collected, and a proper location had been settled upon, land would be purchased.
   A portion of this land would be either resold or leased to private owners and entrepreneurs. This will allow these portions of the colony to be used for the development of private homes, apartments, businesses, ect. Anyone of any sexuality will be allowed to purchase or lease these lots. The remainder of the colony will be retained by the corporation; and it will be this corporate element which will put in place the venues to promote gay social and cultural development. These would include movie theaters, performing arts centers, music halls, bookstores, art galleries, universities, recording studios, perhaps even local television networks and radio stations - all geared, primarily, towards promoting gay culture. Independently-run entertainment venues would be free to start up as well - and most likely would, offering colonists further variety. But it would be the corporation-owned venues which would be fixed on the colony's core purpose; and it would be these venues, and others, which would attract gay and bisexual people to the colony. And as the colony grew, as more people moved there, the free and open social atmosphere would become an additional attraction in itself. In this way, the colony would be able to achieve its desired purpose without having to place any discriminatory quotas or conditions on its citizens.
   In addition to the above, the corporation would most likely retain control over public infrastructure areas: such as parks, roads, schools, water supply, electricity, etc. Though responsible for oversight of all these areas, the corporation's Board of Directors, and various officers, would leave much of the running of the colony to the colony itself. This would necessitate the need for some form of colony legislative body, democratically elected, which would handle much of the day-to-day operations of the community; though they'd still be required to remain within the overall guidelines set by the Board. By leaving such local matters to the individual colonies, the higher-ups in the corporation would be free to focus on the larger view - such as formulating ongoing strategy and acquiring land for additional colonies.
   All of this, of course, is just a brief outline of how events might proceed. Countless details would need to be added. But it's sufficient to show the overall concept. A project such as this would allow gay people to remain integrated while simultaneously developing ourselves into an increasingly vibrant and confident people. It will allow us to participate in the world in a much more significant and visible manner. And through the startup of these colonies, perhaps throughout the world, we would be fundamentally improving the living conditions of gay people everywhere - whether they lived on-colony or off.
   This is the potential these colonies offer.


   If this topic is of interest to you, you might be interested in my book "Colonies & Super-Familes: A Vision For Gay Civilization;" which covers the topic in much more detail. You may purchase a copy, or view the entire text online for free, at my website: neondolphin.org
                Thank you.

                             Jeff


Pages: [1]   Go Up