Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Beedok, Jun 15, 2014.
I updated it with a link now.
And here we have the Black Belt, the proposed site for the Republic of New Afrika. This was a new country proposed by a group of black nationalists of the same, with the capital set in Hinds County, Mississippi. The group of the same name had three goals:
Creation of an independent Black-majority country situated in the Southeastern region, in the heart of an area of black-majority population.
Payment by the federal government of several billion dollars in reparations to African-American descendants of slaves for the damages inflicted on Africans and their descendants by chattel enslavement, Jim Crow laws, and modern-day forms of racism.
A referendum of all African Americans to determine their desires for citizenship; movement leaders say they were not offered a choice in this matter after emancipation in 1865 following the American Civil War.
Any idea what the numbers refer to? Is "I", "II" etc supposed to be the new provinces? And if so, were any names proposed?
III seems oversized as a province.
This is the US we're talking about. They don't do evenly sized provinces.
You English had your chance to keep New England together and Delaware consolidated with Pennsylvania. We got it from you!
(a) I'm Welsh, old chap, not English.
(b) You didn't have to keep it that way - you've had over two centuries to change the borders around. Besides, you colonials didn't like the way we arranged things, so we had to take the Dominion of New England apart again.
1) That's what I get for going with English-New England to roll off the tongue, so apologies. XP
2) You can always blame the Stuarts for that one, which somehow seems to work out and still actually have a point anyway.
Nope, we had to respect the sovereignty of our constiuents. Re-arranging the state borders would have been more like enlarging different members of the EU.
Or, like France rearranging its provinces into departments, or the UK reorganising its counties...
No, it isn't, because French departments and English counties are equivalent to American counties, which get re-organized all the time. The States are sovereign bodies unto themselves, or at least that's the idea.
They are first-level subdivisions. It's the Americans' own fault that they made it so difficult to rearrange them.
Actually, the English counties are the same level as the US states - the districts are the same level as the counties.
But are English counties intended to be sovereign? The American states aren't supposed to be just general subdivisions; they're supposed to be sovereign states, hence the name.
Then the United States shouldn't exist at all, and each of the states should be independent countries.
But they aren't - the United States is sovereign, and the states are its first-level subdivisions.
No more so then the constituent members of the United Kingdom should be.
Perhaps a better analogy would be the English-Welsh and English-Scottish borders, in which case see...
Flintshire (formerly the western part of Cheshire)
Berwick upon Tweed
There aren't any constituent members for the UK in the same way that there are constituent states for the US. The four nations are historical/cultural entities.
So were the 13 original colonies, and some of the further ones, and those ones (that have a historical/cultural backing) are really the only ones that are oversized/undersized - hence why most of the Western states are roughly equal-sized squares.
I’ll say this much, I’m from Indiana, thus I’m a Hoosier. I am no more an Ohioan than an Englishman is a Scotsman.
But you are still an American, as would an Ohioan.
Separate names with a comma.