Talk:Republic of New Afrika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was thinking about getting the map of the claimed States, but am a bit confused that Florida is not mentioned, when it might be logically included. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are there any other sources available to verify which states they claimed? --Gene_poole 21:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I editted a map of the Deep South. I was reading a up on the RNA and they listed the 5 states which is basically the Deep South where the majority of the cotton production was. I don't understand why Florida isn't mentioned either. -Eurytus

  • This is probably because Florida does not have as large an African American population as the other states.--Pharos 17:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Florida was added later. So it is the five states, plus Florida. Queen Mother Moore even suggested 13 states at the very beginning. This was symbolic of the beginning of the United States with its 13 colonies.--infoseeker560 03:50, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)


  • demographic map of the U.S. South
    Enlarge
    demographic map of the U.S. South
    The states chosen have the greatest demographic concentration of African Americans. This can be clearly seen in this 2000 Census map. The red band across the South constitutes what used to be called the "Black Belt". The Florida panhandle could be included, but not the whole state. There are historical variants on this idea. From the 1920's Communist Party USA favored self-determination for counties with African-American majorities, up to and including independence. They didn't include entire states, but the area was large and contiguous in 1930. Outmigration meant that the area of majority shrank over time. The CPUSA dropped this position in 1959. Later the New Communist Movement revived the CPUSA's old postion as apart of their anti-revisionism. DJ Silverfish 19:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This group is clearly not a micronation; does anyone mind if I remove this reference?--Pharos 19:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with removal of this category. Are there some relevant categories we could add? DJ Silverfish 19:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the removal of the micronation category. By definition micronations are entities that resemble recognised sovereign states but are neither recognised nor sovereign. This can range from 1-person web-based fantasies to legitimate realworld political organisations/secession groups like New Africa.--Gene_poole 22:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing "micro" about this group's claims; it claims sovereignty over five U.S. states. What other "legitimate realworld political organisations/secession groups" are categorized as micronations? Neo-confederates (who claim basically the same area) are considered a "sovereignty movement". Compare Category:Sovereignty movements and Category:Micronations, there is a real difference.--Pharos 23:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's a matter of basic legitimacy. If it looks like a sovereign state, behaves like a sovereign state, possesses instruments and symbols like a sovereign state, has the organisational structure of a sovereign state but is generally considered by most observers to make unenforceable, eccentric claims, and isn't recognised by any other country as a sovereign state (nor is there any likelihood of that happening), then it's a micronation. The claims made by New Africa are no more valid and enforceable than those made by Waveland, Aramoana or other micronations founded as a form of political protest - and they're a world removed from such groups as those actively seeking autonomy or independence in such areas as Western Sahara, Kurdistan, the South Moluccas and Aceh.--Gene_poole 01:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly there's room for something in between the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Waveland. I would say New Africa is about analogous to the Republic of Texas (group). These groups take themselves stone-cold seriously in a way that is quite different from what one might call the "micronation phenomenon".--Pharos 02:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you to a degree, but I think the distinction is a bit fine. I'd class the Republic of Texas (secession group) on about the same level as the Hutt River Province or Sealand. They all take themselves deadly seriously (at least in public), but they're still just micronations, because their view of their place in reality is decidedly eccentric. Don't forget that until a decade ago "serious" micronations were pretty much the only sort there were. The web-based "hobbyist micronation" phenomenon is a conbsequence of the internet, and is a recent development. --Gene_poole 06:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why include the Yahoo! Group? It is the only such group I know of allowed by the Wiki to exist as an external link, there are thousands of similar groups and this one holds no signifigance.

Good point. -Willmcw 06:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The Yahoo! Group was added because it is one of the oldest existing portal groups that has been discussing RNA and New Afrikan Independent Movement (NAIM) news and issues.--infoseeker560 03:55, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublic_of_New_Afrika_079e.html"