In the popcorn-bite portion of debates that happen on-the-fly in social network sites, on Twitter, and on college campuses, replacing legitimate debate, criticism of mass immigration from Mexico is usually compared to the past immigration of Europeans. The argument basically says that those who oppose Mexican immigration should remember that they themselves (the target audience being white Americans) are also immigrants.
The problem with this is that there is a difference between immigration and colonization. Essentially, when people immigrate, they are leaving behind their nation and culture to become assimilated into another nation and culture. When people colonize, they bring their nation and cultural with them and transform the nation and culture they find to confirm to their own.
If a man leaves Germany and moves to Japan and he leaves behind his culture and language to conform to the culture and language of Japan, that is immigration. If a man leaves Germany, moves to Japan and brings with him his language and culture then expects Japanese citizens to conform to his culture, that is colonization. This analogy is not perfect because colonization is directly related to the original British colonies founded in North America, but the application is the same.
English-speaking Europeans did this widely for a few centuries. They brought their language and culture with them and wherever they lived, expected the native cultures to conform to their language and culture. When the Pilgrims landed in the “new world,” they learned from the natives, but did not conform to their culture. They still spoke English, practiced an English form of common law, and lived by Christian expectations. They were colonists.
Some of the oldest recorded history of one ethnic group and culture colonizing another can be found in the biblical accounts of Israel colonizing Canaan.
What drives progressive thought is a fundamental hatred of the European history of colonization of North America and the nationally of the people involved. Why? The given reasons are because the American colonies expanded west-ward and displaced native populations and African slaves were imported and exploited, among other reasons.
Regardless of the justifications, the motivation is self-hatred. Liberals are, for the most part, men and women of European descent and history who hate themselves and their history. To assuage the pain of their self-inflicted guilt, they advocate for any ethnic group and culture that directly counters their own culture and history.
Peter Hitchens, brother of the late Christopher Hitchens, tells of his own national self-hatred.
When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible … It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.
Progressives advocate for the mass immigration of Mexican citizens in hopes of re-colonizing the majority Anglo population, a recolonization that they wish to include all non-Anglo nationalities. They believe in and are attempting to construct a culture of democratic inclusiveness that they hope will unite non-Anglo groups into an economic and secular cultural powerhouse that will bring about the downfall of Anglo Western Civilization. Liberals believe themselves to be guilty of Anglo colonization and are trying to recolonize what they colonized through others. It is a strange sort of self-penitence, though to whom they feel they will have to answer to remains a mystery.
Of course this sounds like some far-fetched conspiracy theory, yet, when the United States elected its first African president, Newsweek published a cover showing Barack Obama wearing over his modern suit and tie a nineteenth century coat and carrying a sword and scabbard. The meaning was clear. Where Anglos had colonized non-Anglos centuries earlier, they were now being colonized themselves by those they colonized.
Already, though, their purposes are failing. The mass immigration from Mexico has sparked Latino nationalist pride and caused other minority groups to be displaced. Ethnic and culture identity has been vilified as “racist” and “hate” among Anglos, but as it emerges among Mexican colonizers, progressives will have no power to stop it, nor stop the possible rediscovery of ethnic pride among Africans and Asians. It is easy to call a white man a “racist” and shame him into abandoning his ethnic identity because of past “wrongs.” Mexican immigrants and those with Latino ethnic and culture history have no such “wrongs,” because they are heralded victims of racism by Anglos, along with other minority groups. There is no reason for them to not have strong nationalistic identity and pride.
Liberals look on minorities as their allies in the war they are waging against their own ethnic group and culture, but they will find that they too will be counted as enemies of minority ethnic groups pushing for ethnic autonomy. All their “civil rights” and “white guilt” will not save them from being counted as part of the Anglo heritage. They can tear down the Constitution, denounce America’s founding, besmirch the integrity of English history as measures of atonement and reconciliation, but it will not make them any less guilty.
When Anglos are a minority in the United States and the dangers of a new era of racial division and violence emerge, liberals will have two choices. They can accept the new status of Anglos as second-class citizens, accept the discrimination, and anti-Anglo violence (the very same things they spent decades fighting on behalf of minorities), or they can rediscover their ethnic and cultural history and defend themselves.