Monday, September 14, 2015

Thessalonica is on your side, Theodosius

Discussing the prospects for popular success of a "liberals against mass immigration" movement, a 'troll' wrote:
A few hundred years ago something similar happened. The situation in Europe was terrible and people mass immigrated to a place now called The United States of America... They immigrated with no concern for the people, culture and norms already existing there, and now the sons, daughters, grand sons and grand daughters call their immigrated land for "home".
Until I read through the reactions, I hadn't even realized the guy was trolling.

Intentions aside, his point illustrates the inherent difficulty the contemporary Western left has in dealing with situations like this, and why making a movement like this a thing is going to be a daunting uphill climb.

My first reaction to what he writes is, "Yeah, good rhetorical point". American Indians allowed massive immigration and they were culturally annihilated and materially dispossessed as a consequence. Why would any of us want the same thing to happen to Europe?

I don't feel any instinctive 'guilt' for what happened to American Indians because I don't operate from a harm-based, modern liberal perspective. I take a Nietzschean view--it's not good versus evil in some universal sense. It's good versus bad, where good is my civilization and the cultural values it embodies and bad is any challenge to the viability of that civilization. I have no problem at all "cheering for the home team" over time and space. To the contrary, I have a natural inclincation to do so. I'm glad Europeans won on offense in North America four centuries ago and I hope they win on defense today.

Parenthetically, the American Indian analogy can only be taken so far. European settlement in the Americas was an instance of a more demographically numerous, more technologically advanced civilization settling in a relatively undeveloped, uninhabited land--which, in the case of North America, couldn't really be considered a civilization in any meaningful sense of the term--and which the success or failure of said settlement was almost entirely determined by the invaders, not those being invaded.

The MENA invasion into Europe, in contrast, is characterized by far less advanced and less numerous (at least at this point) peoples coming into a civilization that can very easily repel their settlement and render it unsuccessful if they elect to do so.

A better analogy is the massive Gothic invasion of imperial Rome during the 4th century. The Romans had the capability to keep the Goths from crossing the Danube but chose not to stop it.


Sid said...

When liberals claim that white people are essentially the illegal immigrants to the Native Americans, I can't help but wonder if they realize that means...

1. Illegal immigration is bad, so what the whites did to the Native Americans was wrong.

2. Illegal immigration is good, so what the whites did to the Native Americans was right.

ADog said...

That is brilliant Sid. I actually cannot believe I have never thought about it those terms before.

Sid said...

Thanks ADog. When I've pointed that out to liberals, they get defensive and insist that I'm "overthinking it" or that "it's just a joke." But it's a relief to shoot their snarkiness dead.

Blact Death said...

Winston Churchill said:

I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place.
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

tanabear said...

Sid: "When liberals claim that white people are essentially the illegal immigrants to the Native Americans, I can't help but wonder if they realize that means."

I have always assumed that liberals mean that white people = bad; Indians = Good.

AE: "American Indians allowed massive immigration and they were culturally annihilated and materially dispossessed as a consequence."

What is often forgotten or never mentioned to begin with is how the Anglo-Americans not only replaced the Native Americans, but also the other European races in the new world, namely the French and Spanish. Alexis de Tocqueville mentions this in his Democracy in America.

"This destructive influence of highly civilized nations upon others which are less so has been observed among the Europeans themselves. About a century ago the French founded the town of Vincennes on the Wabash, in the middle of the wilderness;
and they lived there in great plenty until the arrival of the American settlers, who first ruined the previous inhabitants by their competition and afterwards purchased their lands at a very low rate. At the time when M. de Volney, from whom I borrow these details, passed through Vincennes, the number of the French was
reduced to a hundred individuals, most of whom were about to migrate to Louisiana or to Canada. These French settlers were worthy people, but idle and uninstructed; they had contracted many of the habits of savages. The Americans, who were perhaps
their inferiors from a moral point of view, were immeasurably superior to them in intelligence: they were industrious, well informed, well off, and accustomed to govern their own community.

I myself saw in Canada, where the intellectual difference between the two races is less striking, that the English are the masters of commerce and manufacture in the Canadian country, that they spread on all sides and confine the French within limits
which scarcely suffice to contain them. In like manner in Louisiana almost all activity in commerce and manufacture centers are in the hands of the Anglo-Americans.

Audacious Epigone said...

Blact Death,

Master morality, that.

Dmitry said...

Actualy the colonisation of North America by Europeans can be justified even in the context of utilitarian morality.... Huge masses of fertile land were settled by a very small number of people who culturaly and technologicly were extremly underdeveloped and could use the land only to a very limited degree. It would have (if possible at all) taken them centuries to rise to a suficiant level of development to use the land they lived on to any suficient degree thus massive potential for production would have been lost to mankind for the benifit of some
500 000 people! Now with millions of Europeans colonizing it this not just increased the hapiness and realisation of potential of millions of Europeans who otherwise would have been stuck in poverty or even outright starved to death but it also created masses of agricultural and industrial goods which enriched mankind as a whole and boosted humanities scientific advance which might have saved countless millions of lives!

Thus the comfort and life of a few hundred thousand of primitives were sacreficed for the greater good of hundreds of million of people all across the globe....the greatesr good for the greatest number of people was achieved!