The schools teach kids to suspect the motives of capitalists. They are supposedly motivated strictly by greed. Being careerists themselves, teachers give a pass to other careerists. However, what the great socialist Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” certainly applies to do-gooders as well. The motives of those who are forcibly resettling unassimilable foreigners in American and European communities are as suspect as those of the slavers of three centuries ago. The damage they are doing is at least equally great. Let’s compare.
African slaves were tribesmen who had been captured by other Africans and transported to the coast to be sold. They were people with no control of their lives, in desperate circumstances. Had they not been sold to the white man, they could well have been sold to Arabs, as had been going on for centuries, or might have become victims of cannibalism or human sacrifice.
Today’s African refugees from Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan are equally desperate. Tribal and religious warfare, and their own uncaring government, force them into camps where international “humanitarians” can pick them up for relocation. Refugees from sectarian fighting in Syria and Afghanistan are coming as well. The aid workers’ salaries are generously funded by an assortment of nongovernmental operations, the United Nations among them. They receive fawning accolades from the governing classes – well enough fixed that they do not have to live alongside said refugees.
Slavery did not begin with the availability of Africans. European law and institutions were in place when the Portuguese discovered slaves for sale along the coast of Africa in the fifteenth century. Roman law, which had defined the position of a slave in society, still applied. Elsewhere in Europe institutions such as serfdom filled the same role. The Barbary Pirates had been enslaving Europeans for centuries. Russia finally emancipated its slaves, fellow Slavs, only one year before the United States freed the blacks.
Descendants of the slaves appear to have done better than the beneficiaries/victims of today’s humanitarians. Though their ancestors ran a deadly, brutal gauntlet of transport and hard work, along the way they learned the white man’s language and ways. As Tocqueville noted, those who were able to learn, who were of economic value, were generally treated with dignity. Just as in Jesus’ day, intelligent slaves were used as teachers and bookkeepers. Their civil status did not greatly detract from the quality of their lives. Booker T. Washington lamented the passing of the generation that had grown up in slavery. Their white masters had taught them trades, whereas Blacks growing up after emancipation had less to offer in the workplace.
Today’s so-called humanitarians are not able either to turn Somalis and Ethiopians into anything like white people, or enable them to reestablish their own cultures in rural Vermont or small-town Sweden. On the one hand they foster a sense of entitlement, raising the expectation that refugees can rise to the standard of living of their host country. On the other hand, the do-gooders’ commitment to multiculturalism leaves intact all of the cultural hindrances, including favoring native languages, that prevent them immigrants from finding jobs and assimilating.
W.E.B. Du Bois’ arithmetic was approximately right when he called on the “talented tenth” of black people to compete on a par with whites. The top 10% of Blacks are statistically smarter than the average white, and should be encouraged to exploit their abilities. On the other hand, when today’s humanitarian demagogues insist that Black and white populations are equal in average ability, they do everybody a disservice. They create unfulfilled expectations and resentments among Blacks. It is not just America. In just the couple of decades since the humanitarians introduced large African populations, Sweden and Finland are being called racist societies. The problem is with the immigrants, not their hosts, but nobody can afford to tell the truth.
Neither the slavers nor the modern “humanitarians” take externalities into account. Southerners who could not afford slaves resented them. The wealth they created led to a two class society, aristocratic slaveholders and white trash “crackers.” Today’s humanitarians willfully neglect the impact that the refugees and asylum-seekers they dump on unsuspecting town in America and Europe have on school, police, prisons and other social services. They likewise ignore statistical evidence indicating that crime rates will rise and property values will fall.
The secretive tactics they use indicate that they are well aware of the impact. If the locals know what’s going on, they will understandably, rightly resist the settlement. Therefore there is a concerted effort, from the President of the United States on down, to keep the targeted local communities in the dark until the last possible moment, and to grease them up with the propaganda of multiculturalism before slipping it to them. The press is complicit. One never reads about immigrant rapes in the New York Times. “The Sweden Story,” “La France Orange Mecanique” and similar books document how immigrant crimes are ignored overseas.
The Christian church has played a significant and morally ambiguous role in both slavery and modern resettlement. The Jesuits led the parade as Spain and Portugal colonized South America. Initial efforts to enslave the Indians didn’t work. The Indians simply did not respond, even to the most brutal exhortations, to do slave work. The twin goals of enslaving the Indians and making good Christians out of them were not compatible. Missionaries made some deep compromises, accepting the importation of African slaves, primarily to Brazil, and tolerating the encomienda system in Spanish colonies.
Today’s Christian church, in particular the militant leftist successors to the formerly mainline Protestant churches, are leading the charge in resettling refugees and asylum-seekers. Multiculturalism forbids them from proselytizing. They actively support the refugees’ perpetuation of their own religions and customs. They support them even when they are in flagrant conflict with the mores, values and even laws of the host country. Christ’s message has been interpreted in a vast number of ways over the past two millennia, but this may be the first time it has been so forcibly directed against Christian populations. To what end? It appears to be out of contempt for traditional Christianity. The militants have a Marxist contempt for American society, as well as the everyday Americans who populate the heartland. With an absolute dearth of examples to demonstrate that their resettlements work, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, they simply impose their will on their fellow citizens. The functionaries collect their salaries. Advocates of the welfare state collect new voters. When it all collapses, they will cry that nobody could have seen it coming.
In the end, salaried humanitarians funded by transnational institutions, governments, churches and philanthropists will have done more harm than the slavers of yesteryear. When slavery died, the Blacks were able to take their part in the most prosperous nation in world history. After the humanitarians have destroyed that rich society, there will be nobody to pay the benefits, and no place to seek asylum.