GLR Forum
GLR News and Information => Geography, Economy & GLR Politics => Topic started by: donClark on Thu, Apr 28, 2005, 00:22
-
Hey Guys as I am doing Research Into land Options,if any of youhave any ideas Please post them here and I will look into them, also if you have any research on them please do the same
Don
-
Here we should gather our old posts from the "old kingdom" group and other fora. This re-posts become slowly "historical" but still are worth of looking onto them :)
-
Folks,
Jaix Broox from the GLK recently posted an idea to populate the Clipperton Island instead of Cato. The Clipperton Island is said to have sweet water resources and is and not inhabited overseas territory of France.
Mr. Jon Matlick brought some considerations about Clipperton Island being a part of UN's projects related to environmental protection and doubded the prospectives of getting independence on a legal way.
I commented the idea in one of the GLK's forums as follows:
"Hi everybody,
now we begin to think before we proclaime something premature, CONGRATULATION! This is the way we had to start the whole project: think what can be done, what is legally rightfull and whether we could be able to survive on the specific place at all...
Jon, I do not think that your arguments are wrong completely, but please consider that MANY people of this earth do not care much about nature when the national or local economy is concerned, including US, France, Germany etc. Think about all the boreal and tropical forests
and coral reefs which are destroyed daily in the progress of human race. The change of any wild nature into civilized area can be discussed controversally but it has never been a reason to prohibit
any nation from declaration of independency. However, nothing would restrain us from environmental protection and sustainable development, should we ever populate the island.
Generally, I would propose to go through 6 phases:
1) make a list of island or areas in question;
2) send expeditions to the most interesting "candidates";
3) choose the one which is most appropriate for sustainable developement and most likeable to gain independency;
4) populate the area and instal at least a kind of self-administration under the law of the country the island belongs to;
5) start NEGOTIATIONS with the government of the said country and consulting the UN on the topic of independency;
6) upon success of such negotiations declare a more or less independent country, maybe under military protection of the former power.
While I am not sure whether the Clipperton Island has sweet water on it (Jaix, where did you take the informations?), you have to admitt that France as a power is not a bad shot for our efforts. If you look onto the recent history, France dismissed many of its colonies into independence upon NEGOTIATIONS. Some of the colonies preferred to stay in good relationship with France and receive developement help. If we would actually populate the island and have functioning settlement there, it would be possible to achieve REAL independency and maybe win France as protective power (no need to say how a conflict with any fundamentalistic christian/islamic country would end for us without such a protection).
So, I think the idea is worth discussion. It is better than install an "absolute monarchy" (with an usurpator as REAL regent) and declare silly war to highly industrialized country with 18.000.000 inhabitants and powerfull armed forces. Why the hell not get a democracy and take a peacefull way?
All the sounding titles like Emperor, Lord Protektor, Lord Chancellor and the like are not worth a penny, if you are even not able to bring your (or someone else's) ass to the country you pretend to be real. In modern world such titles are just historic names for jobs, which a person executes as service to the community. Boys, any local chief of any indian tribe has more real power than each of the honorable Lords and High Priest you are playing in. Particularly, Mr. Freeman and Mr. Grande have habits, which are more royal then those of Queen Elisabeth! Indeed, Mr. Freeman seems to be very fond of Ludovic XIV understanding of the state: "L'Etat c'est moi". I would recommend the
Baron de Montesquieu, who introduced the idea of separation of powers and is one of the grandfathers of any modern state system. Once again, why some individuals do insist on being mediavial at the beginning of the 21. Century??"
Well, I personally appreciate the idea of buing a small unpopulated greec island, but I think the Idea of Jaix is not bad, too. We should take the island into our considerations.
Regards, Vicky
-
Hi folks,
That's the job we have to do first: make a list with "Candidates" for the Homeland and discuss what do we actually WANT. As there was already mentioned on other places (gaykingdom yahoo group
etc.), the distant islands have one immense political advantage: they can be hardly controlled by an overseas colonial power, therefore we could have more freedome to do what WE think is the best and there is a real chance to get self-administered and eventually independent. Unfortunately, the economic prospectives of an isolated island are not good. All industrial goods will to be imported, the local economy will need a long-term support from the western community.
A colony incorporated into the mainland of an existing country would offer much better economic chances, but it will most likely NEVER get independence and the mother-country will surely not tolerate any not sanctioned immigration into this area. This colony could become an important cultural area for gay people but it cannot offer shelter to our people suffering oppression somewhere in the world.
Any island near to the shores of the mainland would probably also have big difficulties to get independent, however the chance is not exactly zero. The supply and economic developement would be less difficult that these of an isolated island, however still be a source of certain worries.
So, WHAT do we actually want? If we want an culturally and economically high-developed gay-owned area, ANY landscape in Australia, USA, Mexico etc. would do. If we want INDEPENDENCE, the simple de-facto colonization of a suitable uninhabited island like
Clipperton Island seems to be the way. A midl-thing could be a pretty greec island somewhere on the greec-turc border (the easy way, but with uncertain result).
Personally, I favor the idea of a self-administrated island which is far enough from the mainland to be safe from bothering, but be potentially frequented by some trade marine. On an island like
Clipperton we could start settling without buying the area and just create facts, as this is not a private property. Just use the natural right of any creature to populate any free area. As long as no
premature declarations are sent to the UN or to the colonial power, who will care??? Once we are there and have a really functioning self-administrated settlement, negotiations could be initiated. Of course, the settlers would probably face sever difficulties and the life there would be far from being comfortable. An expedition for 6-8 weeks and a crew of 5-7 people would investigate the area and install an elemental infrastructure.
You see, there are some more options on the desk. We would be well-advised not to led internal wars about which is the only one true. Instead, we shall keep together and try to check out this
options and see which one would function. No one should be enforced to give his time and money for a project he does not believe in. Maybe there will exist more of this "colonies", each trying to find its way to the independence.
Rationally, however, we better keep together and try realize at least ONE of our projects. :)
Kind Regards,
Vicky
-
Dear all, there is a french scientific group present on the Clipperton Island at the moment, please look to this site (in french language):
http://www.jeanlouisetienne.fr/clipperton/
There are some interesting data about the geography, flora and fauna and a detailed map. The overall dry land is about 2 qkm, not really arable and the water inside of the lagoon appears to be not of the best quality. Unfortunately for us, France regards the reef as a strategic territory. On the other hand, the french marine is visiting the island not very often (last time 2 years ago), and upon the said expedition is gone, they probably will come back not that soon. However, Clipperton is just one of the suggestions. At this stage, we should collect as many informations as possible and make no overhasted fixations on some specific territories.
As my French knowledges are rather poor, we would need someone to translate basic informations then (hopefully we do have some skilled person) :)
Regards,
Vicky
-
Don, that's great! I will look for some greek island for our effort, Peter (Vizier) seems to favor some mexican island and also a Clipperton Island was in discussion as far. I will gather our older posts from other groups and then look that I contribute some new ideas to the discussion.
Hugs, Vicky
-
I have also started looking into athe clipperton island idea. also I am researching some stuff in french polynisia.
-
hey everyone,
I have read the posts on here and I agree with everything that has been said. we need to keep in mind that it would be easier to gain independance from certain countrys then others. I believe it would be easier to gain independance from France, then it would be from the USA, The USA tends to hold on tight, and also with the current administration IE President Bush, there would be no way to gain independance, do you agree?
I have looked at Clipperton Island and At least in my opion as a Geologist this island is truly not a real good idea, there would be no way to really grow any food, and we would have to rely on importing food, which we would proably have to do no matter what island but in varying degrees. I have found no evidance of sweet water on Clipperton but I have yet to tap into my sources at the USGS or my other sources.
You see guys you have a great resource in me since I am a geologist I have resources for lots of things, like info on land, oil and other natural resources. so bring on the ideas guys I will tap into any source I have.
-
Yes, I agree to you, Don. In my view as well, Clipperton is not really suitable for economical growth on its own. But we still should keep it in mind, as it could suite due to its "geopolitical" positition :) As to independence, unfortunately no one can certainly make a forecast... It would be already a big win, if we could entertain a self-administrated settlement and the "colonial power" would let us in peace for a while.
You see guys you have a great resource in me since I am a geologist I have resources for lots of things, like info on land, oil and other natural resources.
That's true! ;)
-
Hi Don, I agree with you too. Generally, I think the area selected by the GLK serves but one purpose - to be accessible to the founding members from Australia. I don't find Cato much to write home about (I'm not a weather balloon even though I feel like one at times) and I doubt the choice of Clipperton would be any better...
I still think that raising cash to buy acreage/real estate is the most viable approach. Obviously an island merits most consideration there, largely because it is easy to "pry" out of the hands of its owners, but why down there? The Caribbean comes to mind, as do the islands in the Greek Sea, many of which are either uninhabited, deserted or so sparsely inhabited that we might be welcomed with open arms. I'm going to post a few here and would love it if Don could go look at them for a cursory geographical viability assessment.
Of course, what happens if the GLK tries to beat us to the punch? Well, I doubt it, actually, I don;t think they are financially that much better off then we are right now... (and of course we are not doing all that well! Join, people! We need to get founded so we can start collecting our >ridiculously low< dues and get the ball moving!!!
-
Here is one of the candidates in Greece I find attractive - http://www.privateislandsonline.com/greecerinia.htm
This is some 550 acres, so not the world's largest, but bigger than Cato, in a MUCH better place and accessible. Read those details! ;) Now, who has 2 Million Euros lying around? :D
-
Here is a bigger (and of course more expensive) example of what we could do in the Bahamas! http://www.privateislandsonline.com/longcay.htm ANybody have $27 Million lying around?
-
Or how about Brazil? This one is already populated - 200 cows! :D We can export our own milk right away! (Or drink it, at least we won't die of thirst...!) http://www.privateislandsonline.com/santosbay.htm# There's also 50,000 cocoa trees, a large area of Atlantic bush trees and mangroves. The island's white sand beaches and abundant coral reefs are perfect for scuba diving. The main house is in perfect condition and includes 15 rooms, a chapel, 4 common rooms, a dining room, and a large kitchen. There's an additional house next to the main house. So we'd even have infrastructure to start colonialization with and we could make chocolate for export! Wow - all this for "only" $3.5 million. Everybody must now play the lottery! It's a must! ::)
-
A $30 million, pricey, but this is my No. 1 proposed candidate: Uninhabited, privately owned island is located off the east coast of Baja in the Sea of Cortez. It is approximately 60 miles east of the city of La Paz. 16 miles long (ca. 26 Km), with an area of approximately 35,000 acres (14,000 hectares). The landscape features a mountainous ridgeline and peaks with altitudes of up to 2100 ft (640 m). The ridgeline runs north-south, with streams draining east to west to coves and beaches along the Sea of Cortez and the Cerralvo Channel. The ridgeline runs closer to the east shore, with high bluffs and steep cliffs overlooking the Sea of Cortez. The west coast consists of intermittent headlands, with westerly draining streams flowing into beaches and sandy points. The sea drops off to 300 fathoms within a mile on the channel side and down to 800 fathoms off the east side, provide the necessary ocean currents and the sea habitat for big-game fishing. With one of the best, most consistent climates in the world, the natural landform of Cerralvo Island should allow for development. A slope analysis was performed to identify the natural areas with relatively steep slopes and those with gentler slopes that will allow development. The southerly portion of the island offers the most potential, and is in area approximately the size of La Paz. Development of Cerralvo Island will require installation of a power generating plant, a desalination plant for drinking water, and a sewage treatment facility for reclamation and re-use of treated effluent for irrigation of golf courses and greenbelts. Solar energy should also be a consideration in the development of Cerralvo Island. In addition, there is the possibility of using deep water temperature difference to supplement the generation of electricity. The island is blessed with continuous spring-time climate, balmy nights and gentle breezes.
Far enough off the coast of Mexico to claim independence eventually, and seemingly supplied with fresh water. Don, your eval please???
http://realestate.escapeartist.com/P-26975 (http://realestate.escapeartist.com/P-26975) See also http://www.lapaz-realestate.com/Property/65
-
Aso nice at $10 million but "petite" by comparison is Caille Island off Grenada in the Caribbean - 400 acres. LOCATION : In the Caribbean Sea, approximately 3 miles off Grenada's northernmost point near the coastal town of Sauteurs. Lat. 12 deg 13’ N, Long. 62 deg 35’ W. PHYSICAL FEATURES : The island consists of two volcanic knolls separated by a flat valley or plain. Island has lush green vegetation including coconut palms and fruit trees. The coastline has beaches to the north and several small bays and stretches of beach in other places. CLIMATE : The Climate is tropical with an average Temperature of 82 Degrees Fahrenheit during the day and 78 Degrees Fahrenheit during the night. Rainfall averages about 46mm in the in the driest month, to 250mm in the wettest month. IMPROVEMENTS: A 40,000 gallon water storage tank is located on the island to supply the island with drinking water. The tank is fed from the roofs of 4 uninhabited houses. A private docking facility also exists. TRANSPORTATION : Island Road is constructed to make the access easy to the dwelling houses. This island is 15 miles from Grenada Airport. Who could ask for anything more? With some creative building, we could probably squeeze several thousand on this island! Can you say "Gay Republic made to order"???
Take a look: http://www.tropical-islands.com/Grenada.htm
-
Chile, anyone? Here's a beauty which has had historic visitors and is truly magnificent. The pricetag? Only a paltry US$ 5,300,000 and at 16,000 acres, it's a bargain. Details: San Pedro Island is a relatively untouched area which totals more than 16,000 acres in size. With two large natural lakes and great views of the lower Andean mountains, this island is one of a kind. The British explorer Charles Darwin visited this island on his "Voyage of the Beagle" which he details how he could not reach the over 1,000 foot summit of the island. Map, photos, more: http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/07_sanpedro_1.html
-
Then of course, there is Ireland, the aulde Sod... here we have several candidates, this being the largest and best (although subject to the ho-hum Irish climate): Carberry Island, Ireland, ca. 28 acres, EUR 1,000,000. An island with a 2-storey cottage, white sandy beach, breathtaking views over sea and mountains. In the middle of the sheltered Dumanus Bay which is 20 miles long, ideal for sailing and fishing. The water in the bay is absolutely clear and clean - seals and otter on the islands prove that here is a paradise for fishermen and divers. The beauty of the bay and permanent gently western winds form an ideal region for sailing as well. Go see the picture! http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/02_carberry_1.html (http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/02_carberry_1.html)
-
Hm, not really cheap but probably worth every penny... Ok, maybe a bit too close to the coast: bad for a de-jura independency (but surelly good for the economic developement).
A $30 million, pricey, but this is my No. 1 proposed candidate: [...]
http://realestate.escapeartist.com/P-26975 (http://realestate.escapeartist.com/P-26975) See also http://www.lapaz-realestate.com/Property/65
This candidate is to be kept in observation, I think. At least it appears suitable due to its size and good climate...
-
I will look into all this islands as soon as possible. and then I also will check into the situation with all the natural resources, oil,natural gas etc. this will be important to know as well.
Don
-
also guys, I will be on a plane Monday to India, but I will check as soon as I land in Mumbai. I will be in Mumbai until Wednesday, and then I fly to Dharmasala where I will not have internet access, I will be in Dharmasala until Friday then I fly to Dheli, where I will be until the next Monday, I then fly to Wellington New Zealand for four days then Ifly to Cape Town, south africa, and then I leave to go to the Mali Mali game preserve for a four day game viewing safari. I will not have internet access in South Africa either, so please be patient with me guys. My partner and I are going along with My AUnt. This is something I have always wanted to do, and I thought do it now while I still can I will take lots of pictures so that I can share my adventures with you guys
I will look into all this islands as soon as possible. and then I also will check into the situation with all the natural resources, oil,natural gas etc. this will be important to know as well.
Don
-
Congrats, Don - what a trip! Hope you have a digital camera with lots of memory cards for this one! Amazing itinerary. Have fun, don't worry about a thing here. The "store" will be in good hands while you are gone. :D
Maybe I will have time to experiment with establishing a few photogalleries by then. My copy of FrontPage is totally screwed up making many normally simple actions on the underlying website a major pain in the butt, so I am still learning to deal with pHp with the help of sscherokee...
Happy landings and bon voyage!
-
This candidate is to be kept in observation, I think. At least it appears suitable due to its size and good climate...
Yes, I agree. Obviously if it were out of Mexican territorial waters, it would be better, but hey, it is viable and large enough to allow a somewhat significant population. So start playing your respective lotteries, people! :D
-
Hm, it seems to me that we are fixed on tropical islands... Have you ever thought about a really big island like Kerguelen? OK, the wheather is rather trying (mostly +5°C to +7°C and rain with strong wind 300 days a year), but the Island is really huge one and could be populated with rather big amount of people. Unfortunately, the agriculture seems impossible and the island is known as the "Island of Despair".
Here is what I found on the Internet:
Kerguelen Archipelago is situated at 49°20' South, 70°20' East, midway between Africa, Antarctica and Australia. Kerguelen is a French possession, lying some 13,000 km from France in the Southern Indian Ocean. The main island occupies measures roughly 120 km by 140 km, occupies 6,675 sq km and is surrounded by around 300 other smaller islands, reefs and rocks, forming an archipelago of 7,215 sq km.
The coast of Kerguelen is deeply indented with fjords, whilst the interior is heavily glaciated. The highest point is Mount Ross, at 1,850m, in the south of the island.
Scattered French possessions in the Southern Ocean contribute to it's position as the country with the largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world. It is one of the four parts of the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises, which include Terre Adelie (Antarctica), the Crozet Islands and the islands of Amsterdam St-Paul.
Climate
Kerguelen's weather is harsh, with rain and snow most days of the year. Winds blow continuously from the west, as the islands lie in the path of the "Furious Fifties". Winds of 150 kph are common, and gusting up to 200 kph has been known. As Kerguelen lies on the Antarctic Convergence where upwelling cold water from the Antarctic mixes with the the warmer waters of the Indian Ocean, birdlife and marine mammals are abundant. The state of the sea reflects the high wind speeds, with wave heights of 12 - 15 m being common. The sea around Kerguelen is, however, ice free.
As a compromise maybe Amsterdam and St Paul Islands could be taken into consideration, with a little bit better climate (+11°C to +17°C).
Amsterdam and St Paul Islands are located in the southernmost Indian Ocean at 37°50' South and 77°35' East, and are amongst the most isolated in the world. They are located more than 3,000 km from any continent, approximately halfway between South Africa and Australia. Both are volcanic island, rising from the fault separating the Indian Ocean from the Antarctic Ocean. Amsterdam is broadly oval in shape, measuring 8 km wide by 6 km across, with a maximum altitude of 881 m.
The two islands lie on a narrow ridge which falls to great depths. Of very recent formation, Amsterdam is a relatively simple volcano made up of deposits of lava and basaltic slag. From the successive eruptions of the various craters on the island. There are more than ten different craters. The principal craters, believed to have created the island, are those of Mont de la Dive (867m) and La Grande Marmite (730m). Lava flows radiate outwards from these craters, forming low cliffs where they meet the sea.
Youngest of the craters is the Dumas crater which dates from the last century. No sign of volcanic activity has been recorded recently on the island. Paleomagnetic data suggest that the bulk of the island was made during the last 690,000 years.
The only remaining evidence of the original eruption is one caldera of 2 km in diameter.
Martin de Viviès base is the only inhabited place on Amsterdam. It has about 30 inhabitants, including administrative staff, a doctor, technical personnel (power station, plumbing, joinery, kitchen, store, station and telecomms) and scientists (studying the weather, ornithology, physicochemistry of the atmosphere and geomagnetism).
The island of Amsterdam forms part, with the island St Paul, of the District of St Paul and Amsterdam.
Climate
Amsterdam and St Paul have a moderate oceanic climate. The Antarctic convergence lies approximately 500 km south and the temperature of sea water on the surface varies from 12.7º in August to 17.4º in February.
Air temperatures vary from 11.2º in August to 17º in February, the annual average being 13.5º. Relative humidity's are generally high and range from 80% in March to 82.9% in November. This is due to the frequency of low cloud ceilings.
Fog is relatively rare, occurring on only 11 days per annum. Rainfall is high with an annual average of 1,114 mm distributed over 239 days and mostly falling as rain. Falls of hail or snow are sometimes observed in winter but seldom at low altitude. December to March is drier (78 mm per month against 100 mm per month from April to November).
The wind is a persistent with 150 days per annum having strong winds above 55.6 km/h: the most frequent directions being the WNW and the NW.
There is no other population than crew of scientists of 40-100 people, on Kerguelen even a doctor is available.
The information are from http://www.btinternet.com/~sa_sa/kerguelen/kerguelen_islands.html there you can find also detailed maps.
-
Hello all, pardon my long absence. I have moved from one side of tiny Vermont to the other and one would think I had moved cross-continent or internationally, but such is life here in one of the smallest, least-populated and least-known states in the U.S. It took me nearly 3 weeks to get DSL (instead of cable, which is not available in my new digs) and am still waiting for satellite so I am not limited to 4 crackly, snowy tv channels the way we were when I was a little boy many many moons ago.
I find the idea of anything owned by the French government rather difficult, I am afraid. The French government has at times been absolutely homophobic and the idea that they might simply cede any speck of territory to a "bunch of fags" (or whatever they might secretly call us) is anathema, to me at least.
I must admit that the reason why I have been looking in the Caribbean is the climate, which is far more attractive to me than the weather on Karguelen or the others listed, and I find Clipperton, which is smaller than anything mentioned in my posts about the Caribbean islands, much less attractive still. Further, the idea of possibly buying something as a precursor to independence seems more logical than hoping that France will allow any of its overseas territories to be taken away. After all, St. Pierre and Miquelon are still an overseas "departement" even though they have almost nothing in common with the "home land" and have in recent years several times decided to explore joining Canada only to be severely taken to task by "mother France."
So what do our resident geologists think about the islands mentioned over in the "old ideas" area as far as habitability is concerned?
My other thought is that these Caribbean islands, all of which are much bigger than either Cato or Clipperton, would probably provide sufficient land mass for the first "wave" of inhabitants. After all, I doubt that any gay nation, whether republic or "kingdom/empire/fantasy freeform government" will need to have a land mass that is overly large to begin with. Anything that could realistically sustain a population of several hundred to a few thousand to begin with will probably be more than sufficient, no?
Let's be realistic: While we endeavour to help many flee oppression and live the free life we all yearn for, we will have to establish an economy and a way to survive, and rather than doing so by ourselves setting up another financially stressed "third world" nation with one sole benefit - freedom from oppression for GLBTs - we must considera system closer to that of the EU, where some citizens who are able to will be instrumental in setting up the initial economy while others who wish to will work and live there and enjoy benefits they previously have never experienced. In other words, some of the residents will naturally be contributors while others will be in need of assistance and contribute in other ways. Ergo, no matter how we might like to throw the doors open for all comers, there will need to be some sort of immigration policy designed to create and secure a stable, viable country/government/economy, which means that in the initial stage (and perhaps thereafter) a huge landmass would (in my opinion at least, and I stand to be corrected if you can convince me I am wrong) be unnecessary.
-
Here is another possible site in the Bahamas which seems ideal, provided of course we can come up with $20 million (nothing to it, play Lotto everyone!)
http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/05_ragged_1.html. Nice photos on this page.
From the ad: This well wooded island boasts thousands of Lignumvitae trees, elevations to 40 feet, over 30,000 feet of water frontage, year round prevailing winds, a good sheltered harbour, an abundant supply of good fresh water, two fairly large ponds, excellent fishing, good soil and numerous mature coconut trees. Little Ragged Island, Ragged Island Cays, approx. 700 acres, US$ 20,000,000
-
Yes, a good climate would be nice. I also would prefere a tropical paradise if there would be a free choice. ;D But please consider that we are looking for a territory, which could realistically gain independence by peacefull means and be able to sustain groving population. This means that the area in question shall be large enough and possibly not of an overwhelming importance to the initial power. It is clear that this would be not the best piece of land, because otherwise there would be already a population and economy there. We cannot expect such a territory to be a land of milk and honey, which we could bye for a couple of dollars.
What we need (in my eyes), is a rural territory of considerable size with a potential to develope an urbanity within the next 40-100 years. The area should have sources of water, clay, wood and enough territory suitable for agriculture. The rural character of the area would allow the initial inhabitants to provide at least with food and houses, without being excessively dependent on the help from outside. Yes-yes, the beginning will be humble and more of an agrarian nature, though the future government (or whoever responsible) will have to do a great job while encouraging industry to settle there. The proceeding of urbanization would go hand in hand with increasing population, but the land mass as such must be big enough to enable this developement. What shall we do otherwise, when the initial village of 700 gay nationalists stting on 2.8 km² will grow to a city of 100,000? The area must be larger.
I am not afraid of beginning building up a "national economy" right from the scratch. Most problems of the so-called third world countries result from breaches of traditional society structures, uncontrolled population growth and a generally low level of education. Not every poor country is automatically to be considered as a "third-world-country" in the narrow meaning we usually believe it to be (half-naked starving people without any medical supply). We shall take (one more time) Israel as an example of a state, which is successfully utilising manyfold talents of its citizens and turning a desert into a flourishing land of gardens with healthy economy.
These considerations moved me to inspire the focus of debate be moved avay from tropical islands to different, less paradisic but probably more suitable regions. Of course, Kerguellen was just a provocation to make you think about something different than a coral beaches and long drinks. ;) Though we have an considerable amount of cooks and restaurant managers among us (Vizier, Feral, Lord Karnickel and even the LP from the GLK!), there are also a lot of people with professions related to the heavy industries as well. If we would be able to arrange a deal with a friendly government about a larger piece of land located somewhere in a moderate-climate area or even a bit colder, we should take it without further hesitation. Remember, our primary goal is political independence in order to enable unrestricted immigration of GLBT people and a safe life in freedom there; a possibly agreeable climate would be of course a highly welcomed bonus, though.
Gaining political independency (beginning with a kind of self-administration, I think) will be a difficult process at any terms, be it an overseas territory of France, a territory in Canada or Brasilia or an islet in Bahamas. The process will be very complicated and to be performed in a legal way which will secure our proprietary rights and the right to reside on the territory which we would bye one day. Just imagine us having spent 15,000,000 EUR for an islet on Bahamas and become imprisoned there for secessive activities with complete confiscation of posessions. Sounds weird but could become a reality pretty quickly. Besides, the neighbourhood is rather hostile against homosexuals there, our defence spending could become extraorbitantly high there. ;D ;D ;D Of course, we should keep this island on our list (it is not that bad!).
I would like to encourage the discussion to take into consideration preferably this 3 points:
1) What do we want to get in the ideal case,
2) What is the worst still acceptable offer, and
3) What possibilities do we have to develope any solution (2) towards (1)?
For example: we could buy a very cheap tropical island of 10 km² but without any infrastructure and no fresh water on it. Shall we sign the deal or not? Solution: We can install a water desalination plant and do pretty well!
The larger Mexican island you suggested before is still my favorit. Alternatively we could look for a cheap area in Canada or Brasilia, as well. These nations would surely not bomb us in the case.
-
Just do develope the idea of a land-buying in a colder region, but with prospects to a better economical developementt:
There are many Islands available in Canada in the big lakes between USA and Canada. Though it is not necessery that the gay state is an island, it seems that the isolated area is psychologically important for us (don't ask me why!). The Canadian government is rather gay-friendly and (regarding the huge territory of Canada) it seems not entirely improbable that we could gain independency over our tiny state by negotiations. We could gain a status similiar to that of Vatican in Italy, with the difference that the area available would be much bigger and suitable for economic developement. It seems that the prices for the km² are rather low, there is plenty of water and enough building materials (wood) to create accomodations. In Ontario the same-sex marriages are recognized and no difficulties have to be expected for travels to and from Canada. Even during the process of gaining independecy step-by-step our people would enjoy benefits of an existing gay-friendly legislation. Economic prospectives are rather good as well, due to possibility of export to the US and Canada.
For example, the Frechette Island in the Lake Huron, ca. 457 acres costs only :) CAD 999,000: http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/3a_frechette_1.html
There are also many smaller islands available in the lakes which we could buy without even having won in a lottery. - Little La Mouna Island, Nova Scotia, Lake island, approx. 30 acres, CAD 280,000: http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/3a_lamouna.html
But, as already mentioned, it is not necessery that the territory is an island. A large coastal area could surelly also be bought for a good price.
The only drawback would be the rough climate, and the tourists will surelly stay away in winter. ;D But hey: people in Canada live in the same climate and they do pretty well!
-
Or this one in Chily: San Pedro Island, Patagonia, approx. 16,000 acres, USD 16,000,000:
http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/07_sanpedro_1.html
The climate is also rather less agreeable, but the territory is at any case suitable! ;D
(http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/medien/07_sanpedro_map.gif) (http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/medien/07_sanpedro_1.jpg)
All pictures Copyright of © Vladi Private Islands GmbH, Ballindamm 7, D-20095 Hamburg, Germany
-
Have you considered Samoa? Probably NOT American Samoa (Pago Pago) as western civilization may have contaminated them to the point where they've adopted the "American" view towards sexuality, but Western Samoa (currently known as the Independent State of Samoa) consisting of two large bodies: Savaii and Upolu, and numerous smaller land masses surrounding them.
Traditionally, Samoans didn't have hate-issues for homosexuality. They don't today, to my knowledge, but they are rapidly assimilating many "Western Ways". Samoa being small enough where many folks know just about everyone, or the parents of that person is common, and it's always been this way. Homosexuality in small nations like this never had a need to hate within their own community. That's what Tonga was for. *wink* Being occupied for twenty-five generations by another island nation reinforces national ties, leaving other issues as they are... irrelevant.
If you like, I'll look into it, but I just assumed Samoa is too out of the way and many stipulations apply like, the airport is open once or twice a week and no more. The locals don't like the idea of heavy air traffic and the pollution that comes with accomodating lay-overs and such. There's a ton of other cultural practices in place as well, but if you're willing to consider it, I'll do the research. Let me know! ;D
By the way, Solo IS my real name. A Samoan name.
-
Why not? :) The population is slightly higher than 177 thousands of people, decreasing as many people leave the country - seeking for a better future, I suppose. Do you know something about the Samoan immigration policy and what their exact views on homosexuals are? As far as I understand, the law system is derived from the british common law with elements of tribal democracy. Can you make a search for more informations?
There might be just one little problem: Do you think the Samoans would let us take over their country? ;D ;D ;D I also would be rather unwilling to steal land from some poor people...
Some informations are available on the CIA Factbook via internet:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ws.html
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/ws-map.gif)
Copyright: CIA, www.cia.gov
Personally, I enjoyed the report on this website the most:
http://www.merriewood.com/pacific/wsamoa1.html
-
Well... I've been thinking since suicide is HIGH among my 'other' people... let's just move now. They'll start dropping like flies and we won't have to pay a dime. *cackle* I'm KIDDING!
I will look into the surrounding land masses. What if we proposed to lay claim to a land mass to-be-formed from volcanic activity? I wasn't thinking Samoa would be too keen on our doing them "American" style and just pushing them over to one island.
I found the Merriewood.com site to be fascinating. Thanks for that. I learned a couple things that i didn't know before, but trust the logic behind it. I suppose I've been spoiled on my trips over there, as a "Euronesian". Upolu has two German mansions on it. My family owns them both. One, in fact, is the house my grandmother was raised in and raised her family of thirteen children in. Uh huh, thirteen. Anyway, I'll check with some family officials and see what they say before I decide to do whatever it is I do, since I rarely listen to my family's advice, which is typical for one blessed/cursed with my name - as it is Chief's Name/Title. [/color]
-
I suppose the reason why islands are desireable is indeed, the sense of isolation, which indicates a "just leave us alone" attitude, as well as the fact that they are detached land masses. Detached=already physically separated=halfway there?
Further, with the exception of Great Britain's rather Brobdignagian defense of the Falklands and that place called Cato Island, most islands which have declared their independence in recent times have largely gone unchallenged and eventually even achieved diplomatic recognition.
Samoa sounds wonderful, but again, as Solo points out - will people just welcome us with open arms?
Here's probably the nicest locale I have found to date: http://www.tropical-islands.com/Grenada.htm. Water? Check. Acreage: 400. Location: Caribbean. Uninhabited? Check. Infrastructure already on hand: 4 uninhabited houses. Vegetation: Lush. Let's go! :R More views: http://www.privateislandsonline.com/caillecbgr.htm#
Then again, some people don't like the tropics, so here is a new location off pro-gay Canada which might be interesting. It's larger than the preceding (1000 acres vs 440) - 3.5 Km x 1.5 Km, about 1.5 Kms from the mainland with land holding on the mainland (which could be sold or used to establish a ferry dock and "welcome center").
More, quoting the web ad: Approximately 1.9 kilometers of roads were built on the island a few years ago...The island is nicely treed with cultivated areas where white tail deer roam (Food!? :=SU) The northern end of the Island has a 40' x 80' metal building and four cottages that were originally built for maintenance staff... Nearby is a government national park with 15 kilometres of oceanfront and sand beaches. The town of Liverpool is approximately 15 kilometres by boat and approximately a 30 minute drive away. The property is a two hour drive from Halifax International Airport with daily flights to many destinations in the USA and Europe. In addition, the Yarmouth airport is only one hour away--great for private planes or connecting flights to Halifax. Yarmouth also has two ferries operating to the USA: one from Portland and the second one from Bar Harbour. Both trips are just under three hours." Anybody have $11 million to spare? Photos for this one: http://www.privateislandsonline.com/southshoreisland.htm
-
What about South America?
There are some interesting low-populated countries with a medium level of political stability there. The land is rather cheap and large areas for any agricultural colonies could be purchased to dream conditions. E.g., in Paraguay there were some farms of 350 hectar available for 250.000 USD. Sure, it would be not very clever to come there and proclaim independency from one day to another, but functioning gay communities with a high level of self-administration were possible, I think.
Another country worth of discussion is Suriname - the former Dutch Guayana. The country is low populated (3 / km2), most of its 438.000-population lives in or around the capital Paramaribo, and at the Atlantic coast in general. This means, large areas deaper into the country are practically uninhabited. Now, the interesting part: Suriname has a boarder both to Brasilia and to French Guayana, which is part of France and can be visited by Europeans and US-Americans without problems. We could locate our legal basis in French Guyana and operate from there enjoining all the advantages of political and economical stability. The border between Suriname and French Guayana is (as to my best knowledge) the river Marowijne. Now, if we legally establish a colony in Suriname somewhere on the rivercoast of Marowijne, there should be no problem at all to deliver supplies to this colony. Neither it would be a problem to ship supplies from the Atlantic, should we ever come into posession of an own marine. Though I am not familiar with the immigration policy of Suriname, it is probably not that much restrictive. As long as we don't undertake some stupid illigal activities like premature secession or alike, there should be no problems with visas. We can establish our own rules in our settlements, with our local marriage customs and so on. What does it matter the official government in Paramaribo does not recognize our marriage certificates? Our local communities will. We would be just another tribe of indians there, but hopefully with better infrastructure and a higher life standart.
Alternatively we could negotiate with France to sell us some part of French Guayana (population: 196.000) on conditions that we have unlimited gay immigration into our territory but remain associated with France for military and economic purposes. Without such an agreement it would be rather difficult to get visas for our people from poor countries, as French Guyana is a departament of France and subject to french and european law with restricting immigration policy. Of course, no one would probably control our illegal villages somewhere in the jungle, but we don't want to mess with French Foreign Legion, do we? Btw, France recognizes same-sex relationships at least at the level of civil partnership, a further progress is likeable. Those, who prefere the "island solution" could be probably satisfied as well, when the territory would be located at the riverside or at the Atlantic coast. In case there is a wish for a water ditch, the isolationists could easily dig one. :)
The prospectives for an economical developement appear limited, but sufficient at any case. There are basic natural ressources in both countries in excess, including agricultural products and building materials. And this is what we would need most, right? Some touristic industry is located in Kourou, as well as the the European space center. We could expand our economical activities for gay tourists, who could attach some trips to Kourou and into jungle with visiting our facilities.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Suriname-map.png) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/French_guiana_sm04.png)
Informations could be achieved here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana
Official representation of Suriname to the UN: http://www.un.int/suriname/
An interesting page about Suriname with many infos: http://www.surinam.net/
-
Falkland Islands
[/color]
(http://www.falklandislands.com/images/map/0/insert.jpg)
Copyright (picture): Falkland Islands Development Corporation ©2004
This solution appears more and more suitable to me. I remember my conversation with Peter (Vizier) who actually suggested Falklands for us to settle on. Initially I was rather sceptical about Falklands, as the climate was reported to be a bit harsh and I doubted that United Kingdom would grant the islands some souvereignity. But facts prove I was wrong.
The islands enjoy certain level of self-administration though HIM Queen Elizabeth II. remains the formal head of state. Britons provide solely for the defence and the foreign policy, the internal administration is executed by the Falklanders themselves. The economy is not very strong but sufficient, and there is much potencial for developement. The main source of income is fishery and sheep farming, but some vegetables for locals and the fishermen are produced in glass-house hydroculture as well. Electric power may be provided by wind power generators thanks to permanent winds in the area - this is important as the countries economy may be completely independent from oil supplies.
The temperatures are reported to be from 0°C to +14°C, the local flora being rather poor therefore. There are some small trees and extense areas are covered by grass - good for sheeps, of course. The yearly precipitation is about 600 ml/m2, more than sufficient I guess.
The immigration policy is not restrictive, however the applicants have to provide proves that they have a job contract and an accommodation on the islands. What is required to receive the citizenship, should be investigated.
As there are less than 3.000 citizens on the islands, it would be easy to achieve political influence on the islands interior politics - we just would need a steady immigration and pursuing our interests by legal means. The islands are protected by the UK, we would just need to keep the status quo while pursing our specific interests. The population density is 0.27/km2 so it's rather unlikely to meet some hostility from the native citizens, especially when we cooperate with them while establishing infrustructure and bring more capital, working power and know-how. The basic infrastructure is already there, we will solely need to buy land, build dwellings and establish busines activities of some kind, and negotiate with local autorities for visas for our people, wich we would recruit in our agencies spread all over the world.
To avoid some hostilities, we should not proclaim some "takeover" as our primary goal, this would just couse hard feelings against us from the locals. The primary goal would be to establish functioning gay-lesbian communities there in peacefull co-existence with the locals and make the Falklands a homeland welcoming gay immigrants. With time, the political majority can be achieved by simple increase of population through gay-lesbian migration, but it would be rather unfair to pursue any mistreatment of the natives in case this should be actually achieved. Simple political majority would suffice, and the immigration structure will do the rest. If you look on the birth rates, there is no serious danger that the heterosexual population might endanger the GLBT-majority if our people take the call for immigration seriously. In beginning, we can formally establish our communities there and help our people with jobs, education, business credits and social services - here we can learn from the catholic church a lot (they really are good in such things). We even could issue marriage certificates before the local legislation recognizes them - our people will. Open up a locall MCC office and a buddist temple and you will have all your religious privileges. >:)
As to the bad weather: hey, we could build glass-houses and make there tropical paradises inside - the energy supplies can be secured by the modern wind power stations. Even Swedish and Norwegians are enjoying high level of comforts, so why not? It will be solely in our hands to actually make this place a near-by-paradise. And don't tell me our people would not come there as they are mostly overeducated and oversensitive - all these sissies can work very hard if they wish, believe in me.
There is surelly also a serious touristic potential there - not the usuall sun-bathing, but rather an interesting nature-oriented tourism. There are lots of pinguins (and sheep) there, so some interested youth and pensioners could spend good time in observation of their habits and enjoying the landscapes.
The more I think about the topic, the more Falklands appear a suitable solution for us - a realistic step-by-step approach with a very good outcome possible, if we really want it. No need to suffer hunger and abolish the civilisation, no need to vegetate somewhere in the jungle. And still a realistic prospective to make it a place for our people for all times, with a strong military guardian on our side for the next 50 or 100 years. As the case of Falklands is still in discussion between the UK and Argentina, it is entirely possible that at the end we indeed might gain the entire souvereignity, shall we wish it. However, it would be smart to stay with the UK so long - as member of the European Union it is likely to be the best choice for economic and social developement for the next future. Any forecasts for long-term developement lack real sense, but the government would be always well-advised to seek cooperation with democratic and powerfull partners to protect self-determination of the Islands.
Quotations from the various websites:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The Falkland Islands are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, lying east of southern Argentina at 51°45′ S 59°00′ W. They have a total land area of 12,173 km², approximately the same area as Connecticut or Northern Ireland, and a coastline estimated at 1,288 km.
Much of the land is part of the two main islands separated by the Falkland Sound: East Falkland, home to the capital of Port Stanley and the majority of the population, and West Falkland. Both islands have mountain ranges, rises to 705 m at Mount Usborne on East Falkland. There are also some boggy plains, most notably Lafonia, the southern half of East Falkland. Virtually the entire area of the islands is used as pasture for sheep.
Smaller islands surround the main two. They include Barren Island, Beaver Island, Bleaker Island, Carcass Island, George Island, Keppel Island, Lively Island, New Island, Pebble Island, Saunders Island, Sealion Island, Speedwell Island, Staats Island, Weddell Island, West Point Island. The Jason Islands lie to the north west of the main archipelago, and Beauchene Island some distance to its south.
The islands claim a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles (22 km) and an exclusive fishing zone of 200 nautical miles (370 km), which has been a source of conflict with Argentina.
The Falkland Islands have a cold marine climate with strong westerly winds. It is generally cloudy and humid; rain occurs on more than half the days in a typical year. Snow is rare, but can occur at almost any time of year.
From Falkland Islands Development Corporation's Website:
"The Falkland Islands are located in the South Atlantic approximately 300 miles east of the South American coast.
The majority of the 2,379 people that live in the Falkland Islands (excluding an estimated 112 residents temporarily absent and 534 civilians based at Mount Pleasant military base) are of British descent. 1,989 live in the capital, Stanley, and the remainder live in settlements or on family farms around the islands. English is spoken on the Falkland Islands.
The economy of the Falkland Islands was traditionally based on revenue from sheep ranching. However, with the creation of a conservation and management zone around the islands in 1986, income from a major offshore fishery has become the driver of economic growth. The Islands are now economically self-sufficient and investment in new facilities and services has brought about major improvements in the standard of living."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Falklandsmap.gif)
(CIA Factbook)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/FalklandIslands.jpg/320px-FalklandIslands.jpg)
Copyright: NASA/MODIS Rapid Response System
Links:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
Government: http://www.falklands.gov.fk/
Falkland Islands Development Corporation http://www.falklandislands.com/
The Falkland Islands Company: http://www.the-falkland-islands-co.com/
Tourism: http://www.tourism.org.fk/
Pinguines: http://www.falklands.net/
Falkland Islands Holding: http://www.fihplc.com/
Telephone & Internet: http://www.cwfi.co.fk/services.html
-
Viktor,
Has the GLR crossed Clipperton totally off your list? It has a lot going for it. Yes France has the title, but the island is vacant, can support colonists for sure, and has the potential for development. You need not worry about living with Commonwealth people....I think that except for minor window dressing we share the same aspirations. I was hoping to include GLR people in an expedition in a couple of years.
Besides wearing a thong in the Falklands just insn't practicable!
Clipperton has wind, fresh water, palm and coconut trees, and I understand the cruise ships and tuna fisher ships go right by it. The lagon used to have a connection to the sea but it got blocked. If we divided the lagoon into a fresh water 2/3 and a harbor 1/3 it would have about everything.
We could possibly work out something with France like Andorra.
Just a thought....
Jaix
-
Well, at the moment things are in discussion - and Clipperton is of course on the list, like many other proposals.
The good thing about Clipperton is, of course, it's instant availability: we could fly over to Mexico, rent/buy a transportation vehicle (water/air) and occupy Clipperton for us. With some boldness we could stick there and declare it our property and declare it the seat of the "Gay Government" and build a little palace within a week - this even won't cost much. The tropical climate, sun and water would make Clipperton not that bad a place for a residency or a holyday trip.
But, there is a big drawback with Clipperton - it's too small. It's limited size makes it suitable for the seat of a micronation, but it's not big enough for a long-term developement. If we really do want offer refuge for persecuted GLBT-people, there will be need for actual place for them to live and work on.
At the end, no one can (at the present time point) say with certainty, what is the actual need of the gay people. Do we really need an own country like Israel, or would a kinda gay Vatican serve our needs the best? Depending on the answer to this question, either Falklands or Clipperton would probably be the best solutions. My personal belief is, that we need a rather large place to make it an actual sanctuary, but my personal belief is not necessarily the one which would turn out to be the true one. Within the group there are certainly also some different opinions about this subject.
As far it's in our power, we would be of course supportive to any serious attempt to establish a gay homeland on this Earth - be it a functioning democratic micronation, a colony within an existing nation or a mass migration to a thin-populated area to establish a real gay self-administration. Shall Commonwealth really establishe something on Clipperton, we of course would send a representative officer there - when we will be actually able to do so. :L
-
Vicky!
I don't think you are going to find anyplace on this planet then! If you just consider the numbers alone. I think a good estimate of Gay and Lesbians on this Earth is 500 million. I believe that is conservative. If you take another very conservative number, 1% of those need sanctuary from actions as diverse as plain harrassment to execution, you'd have to accomodate 5 million! So I see any state as more of a "vaticanesque" mouthpiece for our people. I think given some of the peculiarities of the American justice system, citizenship in the GLCK could be used to an advantage here.
Perhaps in time, with a robust economy, and a national will, we might make more land like the Palm Islands of Dubai, or enclose areas of the Palmer Penisula under glass, or even (I'll not live to see it probably) colonize the moon!
But it greatly hinges on nation consciousness building, a coalesance of a national identity for Gays and Lesbians the world over. That is why the Commonwealth prefers to do things the way it is doing them. (Duarchs and some pomp and circumstance)
Your way, with a board and incorporation, by laws and such, makes excellent sense, if you were starting a new car company. But it doesn't fire hope and imagination and loyalty. Don't get me wrong. I respect the GLR, and a Gay Nation will need you, to actually make it run, nuts and bolts, economy and business. I wouldn't think of going to Clipperton without the GLR!
Jaix
-
I don't think you are going to find anyplace on this planet then! If you just consider the numbers alone. I think a good estimate of Gay and Lesbians on this Earth is 500 million. I believe that is conservative. If you take another very conservative number, 1% of those need sanctuary from actions as diverse as plain harrassment to execution, you'd have to accomodate 5 million!
Jaix, as I already replied to your message in general at the "Gay Homeland"-board (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=17.msg453#msg453), I would like to treat solely the issue of potential immigration conflux in this posting. If we disregard the "Vaticanesque solution" on this place and concentrate on a tiny but territorial country, what will be the amount of refugees and how much place is required then really?
If we assume the overall amount of gay/lesbian population to be 500 million people, we should take into consideration that not all of them are really conscious of being gay/lesbian. As the homosexuality is a taboo in most oppressive societies, young people often can not understand the signals of their bodies and their hearts. Many would not admit even to themselves that they are "gay", as this category mostly is unknown to them as the only descriptions they know are equivalents of "pervert", "faggot", "cock-sucker" and "bum-fucker". Therefor we should count only those who know what they really are and are ready to emigrate. Even if we take a more conservative percentage of refugees to be 0,1 % of our over-all population, there are still 500.000 individuals to be accomodated.
Well, 500.000 is a large number. On the other hand, all these people would find place in one single city. If we assume that all of them choose an urban life style, the minimum space required can be estimated at 100 km2, better 400 km2. I don't think we need to escape to Antarktic or to the moon to acquire an area of 10*10 km or even 20*20 km. Indeed, a larger farm in the US, Canada, Russia, Australia or elsewhere would suffice, if we would only manage to achieve independence. Our difficulties are in the politics, not that much in the territory.
What is predestined to fail in small, can succeed in large. Why on earth should somebody go to a barren rock in the ocean, if there is no food, no job oppurtunities, no library or internet, and only 100 or 200 other people who probably will bog down in quarrels out of boredom? If we shall dare this enterprise at all, we must offer people a vision of a normal life with usuall comforts and civilisatory achievements. Having the prospective to achieve some economic wealth and not only political indipendence, our people would be more willingly to actually emigrate to the gay country. The most difficult part of the project is to achieve guaranties for free gay immigration to the area and to establish a settlement of at least 2.000 inhabitants - this would suffice to make the project more than a pipe dream and draw serious attention to it. Once there is a city of more than 300.000 inhabitants, the material and social incentives could become that much attractive, that the countries population probably would burst to the said 5 million in a short time.
:=SU
-
There is an island called "Isla del Coco", which belongs to Costa Rica and located 600 km off the coast. The island encompasses 23 sq km and is covered by rain forest. Though declared to be a National Park, it seems that the government of Costa Rica does not have much interest and money to exercise effective control about the island. Some informations can be found also here:
http://www.isladelcoco.com/theisland.html
I do not know how far this "Isla del Coco" is away from Clipperton, but in case of necessety both could belong to one state rightfully...
-
Chatam Islands
[/color]
Another candidate is the group of the Chatam Islands, belonging to New Zealand and located 800 km to the east of its coast.
Only two major islands are populated: Chatham (750 persons / 90 km²) and Pitt Island (38 persons / 6,2 km²), the others are very small. The islands have a local government and are not entirely unlikely to seceed from NZ.
(http://images.gayrepublic.org/geography/chatham_islands.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Islands
-
For those after land carved out of States in a process of disintegration,there is Colombia.Part of it,some say up to one third,is not controled by the colombian government.Colombia is like a cross between hell and paradise.It is a very dangerous place.But it also has the most handsome and horny young men I have ever met.I have travelled twice to Colombia,and I remember fondly of its yound men,its Puyana cigars and its Tres Esquinas
white rhum.
K6
-
After reading all the posts on this subject I decided to voice some concerns I think are being over looked such as: Montserrat’s volcanic disaster in the Carribean; Rising sea levels are flooding low level islands leading the abandonment of the island nation of Tuvalu in the Pacific and the devastation of poorly planned settlements such as New Orleans.
Just some extra criteria to consider when choosing a homeland so far I like the 35K acres in the Sea of Cortes or the Falklands but the climate of the Falklands does give one pause :E
-
After reading all the posts on this subject I decided to voice some concerns I think are being over looked such as: Montserrat’s volcanic disaster in the Carribean; Rising sea levels are flooding low level islands leading the abandonment of the island nation of Tuvalu in the Pacific and the devastation of poorly planned settlements such as New Orleans. [..]
Yes, the "reef solution" bears severe risks of beeing overflooded by the rising ocean level or even by a higher well. If we had the possibility to choose freely, a 100 km2 - 400 km2 area in mild climate would be nice - e.g. the islands of Lesbos or Cyprus could be an ideal place for our republic, from the geographical point of view. Of course, all such nice places are already occupied by some people or other, so the only realistic methode to gain political control over such areas would be the step-by-step migration and buy-out of property.
Politically, it will be easier to purchase/occupy uninhabited territories with less fortunate geographical tokens - lacking ressources, having no fresh water or located in harsh climate. With sufficient will and financial ressources it is possible to create safe and comfortable environment - thanks to engineering and electrical power. It is technically possible to find a satisfying solution for every of the described problems - but where shall all the money come? At least the land mass should be stable.
Though, hand upon heart - wouldn't we take any offer? E.g. if Clipperton shall fall into our hands, we could put buildings on stocks to prevent overflooding, the agriculture can be based on swimming islands in the lagoon, etc.
-
$35.000.000 US will buy a 35.000 acre (141.63996 square kilometers or 54.6875 square miles) private island 60 miles west of Baja California (Mex) Keep in mind Andorra is 175 square miles/ca.453.25 square kilometers Liechtenstein is 62 square miles/ca.160.5 square kilometers Luxembourg is 998 square miles/ca.2.584.8 square kilometers Malta is 122 square miles/ca. 315.9 square kilometers Monaco is 0.6 square miles/ca. 0.155 square kilometers San Marino is 24 square miles/ca.62.2 square kilometers.
Sounds good to me but the Falklands have over 12.173 square kilometers/ca.4700 square miles with a population of 2,967 which translates into ca. 0.6 persons per square mile compared to the Azores 2,333 square kilometers/ca. 900 square miles with a population of ca. .237795 translating to 264.2 people per square mile. :E
-
Navassa Island
(http://images.gayrepublic.org/geography/Navassa_Island.gif)
Background: This uninhabited island was claimed by the US in 1857 for its guano. Mining took place between 1865 and 1898. The lighthouse, built in 1917, was shut down in 1996 and administration of Navassa Island transferred from the Coast Guard to the Department of the Interior. A 1998 scientific expedition to the island described it as a unique preserve of Caribbean biodiversity; the following year it became a National Wildlife Refuge and annual scientific expeditions have continued.
Location: Caribbean, island in the Caribbean Sea, 35 miles west of Tiburon Peninsula of Haiti.
Geographic coordinates: 18 25 N, 75 02 W
Area: 5.4 sq km
Climate: marine, tropical
Terrain: raised coral and limestone plateau, flat to undulating; ringed by vertical white cliffs (9 to 15 m high)
Elevation extremes: unnamed location on southwest side 77 m
Geography - note: strategic location 160 km south of the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; mostly exposed rock but with enough grassland to support goat herds; dense stands of fig-like trees, scattered cactus
Dependency status: unincorporated territory of the US
Source: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bq.html
This is a very small location, but it has probably slightly better economic prospectives than many other candidates; while the political prospectives are less promising ("strategic [..] unincorporated territory of the US"). There are two questions then arising:
- Does "strategic location" mean a piece of land with some real military value, or is this solely an euphemismus for a "useless, but prestigious posession?"
- What exactly does the expression "unincorporated territory" mean in the US legal lexics?
-
5.4 sq.km. = about 2.085 sq miles. That really isn't that large of a land mass, so it would make it very difficult to create a viberant economy; also another concern I have about an island in that part of the caribbean is the frequency of hurricanes. A hurricane hitting that small of an island would be extremly devistating. I will however admit there are parts of the caribbean that are not hit by hurricanes and this land mass might be in that area however the land mass in question being 35 miles from Hati makes me think it is in the hurricane affected area of the carribean. :WN
-
I just realized that we also have to consider the effects of global warming and the possibility of rising sea levels; so elevation should also be a factor in choosing a land mass or area :WN
-
There are two questions then arising:
- Does "strategic location" mean a piece of land with some real military value, or is this solely an euphemismus for a "useless, but prestigious posession?"
- What exactly does the expression "unincorporated territory" mean in the US legal lexics?
"Strategic location" in this instance is a military term. The island's strategic value comes from its closeness to Guantanamo Bay. Given recent changes in the region, that strategic value is probably seen as even greater now. In the current diplomatic climate, I would disqualify this location on that basis. While the reasoning of the US may at times seem suspect, the word "strategic" is never used euphemistically -- there are always guns, missiles, and warships behind this term.
On its own, without other factors, the status of "unincorporated territory" is quite positive.
"Incorporated and Unincorporated Territories" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territory)
An incorporated territory of the United States is a specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States, over which the United States Congress has determined that the United States Constitution is to be applied to the territory's inhabitants in its entirety (e. g. citizenship, trial by jury), in the same manner as it applies to the citizens of the U.S. states. In contrast, an unincorporated territory is an area under U.S. jurisdiction, to which only certain "natural" protections (e.g. freedom of speech, due process) of the Constitution, as well as any specific parts Congress has added, apply.
The term "incorporated" in this sense does not refer to the act of creating a civil government entity (e.g. a city or a town).
Incorporation as it applies to territories is regarded as a permanent condition. Once incorporated, an incorporated territory can no longer be de-incorporated; that is, it can never be excluded from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution.
These incorporated territories form a federacy with the United States.
(The emphasis is mine.)
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.
Examples of unincorporated territories (http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporated-territory):
Unincorporated organized territories
* Guam
* Northern Mariana Islands (commonwealth)
* Puerto Rico (commonwealth)
* United States Virgin Islands
Unincorporated unorganized territories
* American Samoa, technically unorganized, but self-governing under a constitution last revised in 1967
* Baker Island, uninhabited
* Howland Island, uninhabited
* Jarvis Island, uninhabited
* Johnston Atoll, no indigenous inhabitants, only military personnel and contractors
* Kingman Reef, uninhabited
* Midway Islands, no indigenous inhabitants, currently included in the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
* Navassa Island, uninhabited (claimed by Haiti)
* Wake Island, no indigenous inhabitants, only contractor personnel (claimed by the Marshall Islands)
It should be noted that the United States does not admit to the possibility of even the smallest scrap of its territory being severed from the country. While legally unincorporated territories might be disposed of by an Act of Congress, it is peculiar for it to happen. The Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Kiribati, and Commonwealth of the Philippines all managed to escape unincorporated territory status with little trouble. The removal of the Panama Canal Zone from this status roused considerable nationalist passions, but was accomplished all the same.
These places have all largely lost their strategic value to the US. In many instances the US retains its military interests as if nothing has changed and the independence of these islands is largely a matter of words on paper.
Certainly incorporated territories of the United States are out of the question. Unincorporated areas can be (and have been) peacefully negotiated for. The US takes its strategic interests very seriously, no matter how trivial that strategic value might be. It is unlikely that the US retains any unincorporated territories that do not have at least strategic value.
-
Navassa Island is also claimed by Haiti. Further, California businessman Bill Warren has a claim against the island (using the Guano Islands Act) :Y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navassa_Island
-
Climates do change, over time. Indeed they have changed. It is a geological certainty that Cato Island, for example, did not exist as an island as little as 6000 years ago. It used to lie under the surface of the sea. It takes no great leap of imagination to envision a time when it will again be entirely under water.
No prospective site will be without claimants or entanglements. Dealing with these is a matter for diplomacy.
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.
I would recommend a brief study of Ekistics (http://www.ekistics.org/) (oekistik in German), in particular the writings of Konstantinos Doxiadis.
Small can be entirely satisfactory if it is physically connected to the world around it. Three hundred miles (or more) of ocean does not qualify as "connected." Larger is, of course, better if any attempt at modern urbanism is to be contemplated.
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. Otherwise, it must be large enough to provide the majority of the inhabitants' needs from the substance of the island itself. I would jokingly suggest Cuba, or Haiti.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorry, guys -- you were digressing... 8[
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. ;D
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
-
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.
-
From the Wikipedia artcle about French Guyana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=304.msg1561#msg1561) 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 (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=126.msg623#msg623) 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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
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).
-
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.
I very much agree about the extreme temperatures! The whole point of the project would be to improve the quality of peoples lives!!
Going through the UN processes is a little naive, I have to say. It would never be taken seriously in a million years...
Also I am going nowhere, NOWHERE! Near Africa... It would be a massacre for sure!!!
-
Africa is big, and there are several regions with moderate climatic conditions (mountains, sea shore). The political situation is, of course, more hostile to Gays than in Europe or Canada. But politics change (for better or worse). Not to forget, Europeans were the ones who imported both the Bible and the homophobia to Africa.
-
Africa is big, and there are several regions with moderate climatic conditions (mountains, sea shore). The political situation is, of course, more hostile to Gays than in Europe or Canada. But politics change (for better or worse). Not to forget, Europeans were the ones who imported both the Bible and the homophobia to Africa.
Yes I get your point about the space.... but no way! Except maybe South Africa which scores highly on gay rights etc... Plus there is a gay culture there among the cape couloured people.
We certainly imported the bible but I'm not so sure about the homophobia?
-
Liberia? Really? Is that really a country some of you think you should model yourselves on?
-
Liberia? Really? Is that really a country some of you think you should model yourselves on?
In terms of acquiring a souvereign territory - yes. In terms of shaping a society - no.