Saturday, 12 October 2013


Absolutely, bloody fascinating!! Two stories crop up at the same time and they dovetail beautifully. They both involve Africans, boats, and the "nastiness" of Whites, but in such odd, interesting, opposite and complementary ways that one can only rock back in one’s chair and let the wind whistle slowly between one's teeth.

The Daily Mail reports that fourteen Caribbean nations are attempting to sue Britain, Holland and France for the transatlantic slave trade; while over in the Mediterranean the main news is the terrible drowning of hundreds of immigrants sailing from Africa in the waters off Malta.

To paraphrase and condense things to their essentials: in the first case Whites are being blamed for historically putting Africans into boats and bringing them to their countries; while in the other, Whites are being blamed for not – repeat NOT – putting Africans in boats and bringing them to their countries. The ironic symmetry is almost priceless!

In the second case, the problem seems to be that instead of shipping Blacks themselves, Whites have allowed this to be done by unscrupulous and incompetent Africans with predictable results. Certainly, if the transatlantic slave trade with its vast distances had been run in the same way we could probably expect America to have much less of a race problem than it now does.

If it was wrong to have imported Africans into the fourteen Caribbean nations involved in this attempt at retrograde extortion, then surely it is equally wrong to import then now into modern Europe.

Of course, advocates of mass immigration will refer to the increasingly discredited idea of "cultural enrichment" and then move on quickly to talking about the humanitarian obligation of the West to allow these unfortunates to make a "better life" by accessing Europe's unskilled jobs and generous welfare, among other things. After all, they'll say, Africa can't support its fast-growing population, so why shouldn't we let their surplus population balance our low birth rates?

But, by the same logic shouldn't the transportation of Africans across the Atlantic then be redefined as a vast humanitarian enterprise, and even as the first true example of affirmative action?

If, as humanitarians claim, Africa is incapable of supporting its booming population today, when aid and some contraception is flooding in, how was it better able to support its population in the 18th century when birth rates were higher and food much less?

Clearly the transatlantic slave trade, despite its brutalities, was the very opposite of an act of genocide, providing instead an opportunity for millions of Blacks to survive who otherwise would have perished and leading ultimately to a vast increase in their living standards over those who had sold them to the White man.

For this reason, rather than Afro-Caribbeans and Black Americans seeking "compensation" that will only lead to their further dependence and degeneration, wouldn't it be better for them instead to admit their historical moral debt to Whites, and then develop the necessary habits and work ethic to financially compensate the descendants of their benefactors? Just sayin'.

No comments:

Post a Comment