June 13, 2010

Lessons we must learn from ethnic cleansing in other countries




75,000 Uzbeks flee ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan

There are many lessons to take from this kind of event. The first being that this is a clear illustration of how disenfranchised and disinterested ethnic groups can become explosive. The recent Arizona law that caused such furor is exactly the kind of law needed to prevent disenfranchisement within ethnic communities in America. This is because it requires full compliance with national laws rather than allowing illegal aliens to reinforce isolationist cultural values within Hispanic communities in Arizona. In short, it prevents disenfranchisement by enforcing legal immigration which reinforces the American value of the rule of law taking precedence over cultural loyalty.

Legal immigration encourages participation in society and prevents the kind of fracturing that leads to ethnic cleansing. Illegal immigration does just the opposite, as witnessed by the rising influence of La Raza and the predominance of MS-13 in Hispanic communities all across the United States. The policies and activities of La Raza are particularly problematic because they have positioned themselves in the public eye as defenders of an oppressed community while working feverishly to prevent that community from ever fully integrating into American life

If race riots come to Los Angeles this summer while Phoenix avoids them the Arizona law will be one very important reason. If there are race riots in Phoenix, then it will be important to pay close attention to where the instigators of those riots come from. If they come from outside the state, it reflects directly the hands-off approach far too many American cities have taken in their dealings with illegal immigrants, as well as the boycotts those same cities have called for in response to the Arizona law. Both of these actions encourage greater disenfranchisement within Hispanic communities, inevitably leading to explosive demands for greater recognition and more government assistance.

As David Codrea points out, a legislative climate that does not recognize the individual right to self-defense also contributes to rampaging violence along ethnic lines. As Clayton E. Cramer discusses in his paper "The Racist Roots of Gun Control", the earliest efforts to deny Second Amendment rights to American citizens began when southern blacks responded to KKK raids by shooting the men in white cloaks. Gun control began as, and today very much remains, a concentrated effort to disarm minorities. This is why mayors of cities with the highest incidents of minority-heavy violent drug gangs are also the loudest, most influential proponents of gun control. They are trying to disarm gangs which they themselves always associate with minority groups; therefore they believe that by disarming their city's minorities they can disarm the gangs. In reality, every attempt to restrict firearms ownership and usage among law-abiding members of the minority community only contributes to that community's disenfranchisement, leading to more guns in the hands of gang members, more fear in the lives of non-gang members, and a profound reinforcement of both that community's sense of isolation and their potential for explosive violence. Every time a city restricts gun ownership they empower the criminals. When those criminals target disenfranchised youth in minority communities, it creates exactly the kind of spiraling violence seen in Chicago, Oakland, and even Omaha, Nebraska. And that is why David Codrea took the time to point out that Osh, Kyrgyzstan is the kind of place the anti-gun campaign would love to create right here in America. There is only one problem, doing so makes it even easier for a majority population to oppress, or even slaughter, a disenfranchised minority.

"Multiculturalism" is the very mistaken idea that diverse ethnic communities can live side by side in perfect harmony within the confines of a larger, overriding social structure. There has never been a single historic example of this situation lasting for even one generation. If diverse cultural groups live under the umbrella of a single social structure, they must share a common language and a common assumption that the rule of law provided by the overriding society is more important than their community's cultural identity. They don't have to abandon that identity, but they must accept that the rule of law imposed between their community and their neighbor is greater than that identity.

The rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution of United States of America, particularly the First and Second Amendment, have provided the glue that has kept America cohesive for over two centuries. If we allow such travesties as the "Patriot Act", the "Affordable Health Care for America Act", and the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" to continue, along with the hundreds of other bills being debated and passed by the current Congress that fix non-existent problems by restricting American freedoms and destroying our Constitutional protections, then we will lose completely the social cohesion that has held us together this long. Once we arrive at a point where diverse ethnic, geographic, religious, and other socially isolated groups are no longer bound by the rule of law and subordinate to the Constitution, there will be nothing to prevent them from savagely rampaging over the civil rights and liberties of one another.

It is not the freedoms we enjoy that are causing our decline. It is, instead, the powerful social movement aimed at destroying those freedoms which is both contributing to and rapidly accelerating our transition into a country with the same internal problems as Israel, Greece, Kyrgyzstan, and eventually, North Korea.






Post a Comment