It is ironic that refugees are now heading from the lands that were colonised to the lands of their colonisers.
The nations of Europe, which colonised the world, are now in fear of being colonised by their former colonies. European citizens complain that they are being "over-run", or colonised, by Africans, Arabs, Indians - people of their former colonies.
In the United States, there are similar complaints as migrants (legal and illegal) enter from Latin American countries which were first colonised by Europe and then exploited by the US government and many of its corporations.
In Australia, citizens (predominantly of European heritage) complain about being colonised by hordes of migrants. Ironically, this is exactly what their ancestors, European settlers, did to the indigenous peoples of Australia.
Those who complain about being colonised, who fear that their way of life is under threat, fail to see the irony. In fact, rarely do they have sympathy or understanding of what indigenous people lost because of European settlement.
No wonder, people of European descent are so paranoid about colonisation. They effected it for centuries. They know the sinister motives of the colonisers, namely their ancestors, and fear that migrants will have the same sinister motives.
During colonisation, the "host" country is exploited for the benefit of the foreign country. India for instance, suffered significantly under the British. Instead of the local Indian population reaping the benefits of foreign trade, their market economies were raided by the British, their earnings sent back to Britain. The British East India Company exploited and effectively demolished India's robust steel and fabric industries. As a result, India was unable to embrace the industrial revolution as many European countries did and so the Indian economy regressed to relying on on agrarian markets, well behind the rest of the "civilised" world. By the time Britain left, India was a shell of its former self. Bangladesh, formerly the rich area of Bengal, was ridden with poverty, as were many other areas of India and Pakistan, partitioned as a parting gesture by Britain.
Similar stories, following the same script, occurred throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas: subjugate and enslave the local population for cheap labour, ensure they have no political or economic power, pillage their resources and production and send the profits back to the mother country.
Colonisation, whether at the hands of Great Britain, Holland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and so on, left countries and their people brutalised, their resources plundered, their economies destroyed. Then the Colonisers left. Following this, many of the colonised countries had independence thrust upon them suddenly, with little time to prepare as the colonisers rapidly withdrew. A lot of these countries have never recovered. Rather than paying for their sins and providing funding to rebuild the countries, the Colonisers offered minimal aid and large loans. Many of these nations have no chance of paying back the loans as most can barely meet the interest repayments.
The extortion waged on these nations by their former Colonisers amounts to a second pillaging and is responsible for the deaths of millions of children who are unable to be fed as their governments struggle to pay the interest owed to Western nations.
It is genocide by usury.
Are the Colonisers actually being colonised by the large number of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees?
No.
That would require a coordinated, government sponsored program aimed at taking over western countries. This is not happening. What is happening, is that centuries of decadent colonialism destroyed these countries, leaving them poverty-stricken, resulting in citizens fighting for land and food. At times there were ethnic or religious differences, however, these rivalries have been inflamed by poverty.
Centuries of pillaging have resulted in the colonised leaving their plundered lands and migrating to richer and safer nations of their Colonisers. These nations are richer and safer for one reason: they were built on the wealth of the colonies and they are not poverty-stricken. Safety has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or politics, but quite simply because of less poverty - most of their citizens do not need to fight for food.
The fear of being colonised by the colonies is driven by the guilt of having raped these nations of their riches. The argument that the migrants are "economic" refugees implies that the migrants have no claim on the wealth of the country they are moving to. However, as most of those countries in Europe were built on the wealth of the colonies, then the citizens of the former colonies have a claim on that wealth.
Is it bad to be colonised?
Just ask a former colony.
The West expects their former colonies to pay their debts.
With such a large increase in migration, perhaps, now the former colonies expect the West to pay their debt. A debt earned through the blood of the colonised.
The nations of Europe, which colonised the world, are now in fear of being colonised by their former colonies. European citizens complain that they are being "over-run", or colonised, by Africans, Arabs, Indians - people of their former colonies.
In the United States, there are similar complaints as migrants (legal and illegal) enter from Latin American countries which were first colonised by Europe and then exploited by the US government and many of its corporations.
In Australia, citizens (predominantly of European heritage) complain about being colonised by hordes of migrants. Ironically, this is exactly what their ancestors, European settlers, did to the indigenous peoples of Australia.
Those who complain about being colonised, who fear that their way of life is under threat, fail to see the irony. In fact, rarely do they have sympathy or understanding of what indigenous people lost because of European settlement.
No wonder, people of European descent are so paranoid about colonisation. They effected it for centuries. They know the sinister motives of the colonisers, namely their ancestors, and fear that migrants will have the same sinister motives.
During colonisation, the "host" country is exploited for the benefit of the foreign country. India for instance, suffered significantly under the British. Instead of the local Indian population reaping the benefits of foreign trade, their market economies were raided by the British, their earnings sent back to Britain. The British East India Company exploited and effectively demolished India's robust steel and fabric industries. As a result, India was unable to embrace the industrial revolution as many European countries did and so the Indian economy regressed to relying on on agrarian markets, well behind the rest of the "civilised" world. By the time Britain left, India was a shell of its former self. Bangladesh, formerly the rich area of Bengal, was ridden with poverty, as were many other areas of India and Pakistan, partitioned as a parting gesture by Britain.
Similar stories, following the same script, occurred throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas: subjugate and enslave the local population for cheap labour, ensure they have no political or economic power, pillage their resources and production and send the profits back to the mother country.
Colonisation, whether at the hands of Great Britain, Holland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and so on, left countries and their people brutalised, their resources plundered, their economies destroyed. Then the Colonisers left. Following this, many of the colonised countries had independence thrust upon them suddenly, with little time to prepare as the colonisers rapidly withdrew. A lot of these countries have never recovered. Rather than paying for their sins and providing funding to rebuild the countries, the Colonisers offered minimal aid and large loans. Many of these nations have no chance of paying back the loans as most can barely meet the interest repayments.
The extortion waged on these nations by their former Colonisers amounts to a second pillaging and is responsible for the deaths of millions of children who are unable to be fed as their governments struggle to pay the interest owed to Western nations.
It is genocide by usury.
Are the Colonisers actually being colonised by the large number of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees?
No.
That would require a coordinated, government sponsored program aimed at taking over western countries. This is not happening. What is happening, is that centuries of decadent colonialism destroyed these countries, leaving them poverty-stricken, resulting in citizens fighting for land and food. At times there were ethnic or religious differences, however, these rivalries have been inflamed by poverty.
Centuries of pillaging have resulted in the colonised leaving their plundered lands and migrating to richer and safer nations of their Colonisers. These nations are richer and safer for one reason: they were built on the wealth of the colonies and they are not poverty-stricken. Safety has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or politics, but quite simply because of less poverty - most of their citizens do not need to fight for food.
The fear of being colonised by the colonies is driven by the guilt of having raped these nations of their riches. The argument that the migrants are "economic" refugees implies that the migrants have no claim on the wealth of the country they are moving to. However, as most of those countries in Europe were built on the wealth of the colonies, then the citizens of the former colonies have a claim on that wealth.
Is it bad to be colonised?
Just ask a former colony.
The West expects their former colonies to pay their debts.
With such a large increase in migration, perhaps, now the former colonies expect the West to pay their debt. A debt earned through the blood of the colonised.
No comments:
Post a Comment