Seamus Campbell is a graduate of Queen’s University Belfast.
One argument by the “liberal” masses is that we are obliged as a society to take in scores of migrants from the third-world due to Europe’s colonial past. Now, one may be tempted to respond to such an illogical claim with the timeless, “I personally never colonised Africa, thus I have no obligation to take in migrants from that continent”. However, while this is true, it is not the best response. Instead, one should proceed to elaborate on how colonialism in the majority of cases actually improved the countries in question. Furthermore, one can proceed to show how despite experiencing genuine cultural enrichment, we have in turn received crime, censorship and cultural erosion from such migrants.
For example, a common claim made against the British Empire is that it was one of the most genocidal empires in world history. Firstly, this statement is inspired purely by anti-white rhetoric, and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt. Secondly, while there were indeed several cases of inexcusable violence used against the native populations of the colonised territories, these instances pale in comparison when placed against Asian and Arabic counterparts such as the Ottomans and Achaemenid empires. Furthermore, when one cultivates another’s land, improving it, and introduces a sustainable political infrastructure, one cannot refer to them as an “occupying force”. To merely occupy another territory, one must do so through the use or threat of physical violence, prime examples of such being the state of Israel, the various Nazi-occupied territories of World War II or the vast areas now controlled by ISIS.
Therefore, when the British Empire cultivated the lands of Rhodesia, they were enacting measures that were far from genocidal. For example, under Ian Smith’s government, Rhodesia in 1975 became the world’s number one producer of crops, ranking second in the world for crops such as maize, wheat, ground nuts and soya beans and third in the world for cotton, thus earning the title of “Africa’s breadbasket”. Currently, the country produces but a mere fraction of its crops, with maize production plummeting from 1.5 million tonnes to a mere 500,000 tonnes. With regards to race relations, Rhodesia provided the perfect example of an ethno-state, where despite being ruled by a government who vowed that blacks would never rule “in a thousand years”, native blacks willingly served in the military, making up the majority of overall personnel.
Similarly, South Africa under apartheid was by no means equal but it would be completely and utterly disingenuous to argue that blacks are currently better off. Under apartheid blacks enjoyed similar levels of economic and academic prosperity as their Rhodesian counterparts, with over 4.7 million black South Africans living without any education whatsoever as of 2005 compared to just 4.2 million in 1996, just 5 years after the collapse of the Apartheid regime. Now, on a symbolic level one can excuse liberal praise of both modern-day Zimbabwe and South Africa, as without looking into the actual realities of both nations one may see it as the reclaiming of lost territory. However, the reality is much darker. South Africa is now officially the rape capital of the world, a horrifying accolade supported by an equally repulsive statistic showing that in 2013 over 36,000 African schoolgirls needed abortions. Furthermore, as a result of the complete breakdown in law and order following the ascension of Mandela’s government, South Africa has witnessed an immense surge in kidnappings, with a child going missing every 5 hours, perhaps an after effect of South Africa having the highest rate of unemployment in the world with over 40% of its black population being unemployed, despite the ANC legislation pushing affirmative action legislation.
In fact, affirmative action measures actively contribute to the racial tension, for under the South African Employment Equality Act, work personnel must reflect the national demographic, meaning companies such as Eskom who employ more whites in proportion to blacks are forced to fire skilled employees purely to coincide with equality laws. Furthermore, following the collapse of apartheid, inequality in South Africa has never been as explicit, with the gap between the elite and the poor being colossal in size. Further still, those of mixed race backgrounds, labelled “Cape Coloured’s”, are quickly becoming the targeted minority of both workplace discrimination and overt racism from the country’s ruling black population. As a result of such division coupled with chronic levels of crime within the rainbow nation, the average life expectancy for blacks has plummeted from 61 in 1992 to just 51 in 2005, less than two decades after the collapse of Apartheid.
In neighbouring Zimbabwe, the situation is arguably worse. Following the rise of individuals such as Robert Mugabe, black on white violence has exploded, resulting in the ongoing murder of the country’s white farmers. In fact, the rate at which such farmers are being killed and the motivations behind such killing’s both meet the requirements set to meet genocide as set out by the Geneva Convention. For example, upon gaining power, Mugabe stressed that they would push the remaining whites off the land as a form of revenge for previous centuries of colonisation.
The ensuing violence has been unparalleled in that despite over 4000 white farmers being murdered since the 1990’s, neither Mugabe’s government nor the international community seem to care, with Mugabe declaring this year that blacks who kill white farmers will not be persecuted. In fact, it is now statistically more dangerous to be a white farmer in Zimbabwe than a United States marine in Afghanistan. However, such racial violence has come at a price, for the once glorious croplands of Zimbabwe are effectively barren, a reality produced by the killings of those who cultivated it for generations. Furthermore, the ZANUP have adopted the same ill-fated socialist tactic of borrowing money, rendering their own currency worthless, demonstrated by the printing of a 1 trillion-dollar note. Therefore, while one cannot objectively claim that both Rhodesia and apartheid south Africa were bastions of total equality or examples of paradise, one cannot defend the subsequent bloodshed, starvation, crime and violent racism that has come under the banners of “reparations” and “equality”.
However, when outlining the current barbarity present in these former colonial territories one must equally condemn those colonial powers who inflicted devastation and devastation only: Belgium. Under King Leopold II, Belgium annexed the Congo and its surrounding territories during the latter stages of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century and proceeded to exploit both the native population and the vast amount of natural resources, especially rubber. In doing so, the Belgians utilised slave labour, torture and frequent executions, often a result of severe mutilations as a form of punishment.
In fact, such violence was perpetrated on such a regular basis that by the time the Belgians left the Congo, over 15 million dead lay in their wake. Another example would be the short-lived German-occupied African territories under direction of Wilhelm the Second, a scramble for power that contributed largely to the outbreak of World War I as well one of one the first genocides of the 20th century in Namibia. However, such despicable acts repeated consistently over a prolonged period in the name of colonial expansion have not been witnessed since Belgium under King Leopold II and to a lesser extent German Southwest Africa. Yes, various empires have committed heinous crimes against their colonial subjects but what sets them apart is the fact that the Belgian Congo witnessed zero progression, in fact the level of sheer violence and exploitation has arguably broken the country, leaving it void of both resources and political stability. Furthermore, while such an example should be universally condemned, it would be an error of judgement to liken both the rhetoric and practice of all European colonial powers to those exercised by powers such as Belgium.
For example, Portugal and Southern Spain were absorbed by Moorish Muslims as part of the vast Al-Gharb caliphate, a powerful Islamic empire that lasted from the 7th to the 13th century. During this period natives of both nations were subjected to Islam, despite both nations being strongholds of Roman Catholicism. As a result, the Reconquista materialised, groups of Spanish and Portuguese knights who revolted against their Islamist occupiers, aided the lack of trust between the Moors and their Arab allies, with the former group having only recently converted to Islam during this period. Thus, going by the logic of reverse colonisation as a means of reparations, the Portuguese empire which far outlasted any of its European counterparts, disintegrating as late as the mid 1970’s, was completely justified in its expansion into Angola, as it was “they” who seized Portugal first.
However, I am not asserting the view that Portuguese Angola was anything close to a paradise, in fact it was far from it. The native black population were treated poorly for much of the country’s history, having been bound by slavery until Brazil’s independence in 1822 and subsequently used as cheap labour up until the mid-20th century. However, it would be inaccurate to deem this a deliberate measure of the colonial government as a means of keeping their colonial subjects in serfdom. For example, as recently as 1930 over 68% of the native population of Portugal itself were illiterate in their own language, with this figure only dipping in the 1960s, the result of education being extended to all subjects both ethnically Portuguese and Angolan, a far cry from the previous centuries where it was reserved for the elite minority. As a result, both ethnic groups benefitted enormously, with the level of native Angolan’s receiving secondary education reaching an all-time high in the 1970’s, just prior to the empire’s collapse.
Thus, aside from Belgium, Germany, and, to a lesser extent, Portugal, colonial powers proved not to be entirely “evil” either in practice or rhetoric. In fact, without such powers modernised territories such as Zimbabwe, South Africa and Angola would have never existed. Therefore, one is justified in arguing that if European countries are to be subjected to reverse colonisation, there should at least be some positive aspects to it. Unfortunately, there are quite simply none.
Take Sweden for example, a country that never colonised the third-world and has been hailed by The Guardian as a “humanitarian superpower” for taking in more alleged refugees than any other European state. What exactly do the Swedes get in return for such kindness? It has become the “rape capital of Europe”, with 66.5 rapes per 100,000, and over 77% of these sexual assaults and rapes being committed by the Muslim refugee community who only account for 2% of the population.
Similarly, this relatively small group comprise over 95% of those responsible for the national increase in “violent crimes”. In fact, so much so is the epidemic of violence in Sweden that the liberal Scandinavian nation has seen a 550% increase in grenade attacks in just 3 years, with 2014 being the year in which they took in over 100,000 third-world refugees.
As shocking as these figures may be, the sad truth is that they are replicated to a certain extent in many other European states. For example, in the Netherlands crime committed by second generation individuals of “non-Western” origin accounts for 4.54%, with over 7.36% of these individuals being of Moroccan heritage, whilst western criminals account for only 1.16%. Furthermore, Moroccans in the Netherlands account of 15% of individuals on welfare, with just 2% being of native Dutch origin. Finally, let us look at France, where per 100,000 only 34 incarcerated criminals are of a non-Muslim background, whereas an astounding 727.2 are of a Muslim background. Note at this point that I am merely citing averages and statistics, as it would be incorrect to tar all third-world immigrants’ as criminals; nonetheless, such figures speak volumes of culture we are actively importing.
Lastly, regardless of any emotional attachment to the colonial reparations argument or how many excuses one may make for their violent behaviour, a “refugee” loses this status upon reaching an area completely unaffected by the issues from which they flee, a fact laid out by the Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. Yes, it may be an incredibly simplistic clause but when one considers the geographical makeup of both the Middle-East and African continent, it becomes highly significant. This is because almost all leaving the third-world will at some point inevitably pass into Turkey or Greece. Therefore, a refugee no longer becomes a refugee once they land on Greek or Turkish soil. This effectively nullifies any claim that nations such as Sweden should take “refugees”, as by the time they get to Sweden they are economic migrants. Indeed, it is understandable why anyone from an impoverished nation would seek to experience life in a developed nation, as self-preservation is more appealing than self-destruction. However, what is not acceptable is the actions of our own elitist politicians who ignore all precautions and seek to expose their own people to large groups of mostly young men of an incompatible culture, all in the name of “political correctness”.
Therefore, to claim that we owe the third-world and its inhabitants anything is at best an obsolete one. If anything, the only legitimate candidates worthy of seeking European refuge are the Coptic Christians and Yazidi, two groups actively being subjected to genocide courtesy of ISIS and their Sunni affiliates. Other than that, those affected by the “Syrian crisis” whose borders appear to have reached the west coast of Africa and the upper reaches of Pakistan, simply have no valid reason to be brought into Europe in vast numbers.