“But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved,…And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority.” Dr. Marc Faber
But Dr. Faber is merely echoing and expressing sentiments, nearly universally held by “white America” even less than a hundred years ago.
In our extremely effeminate, emotionally driven and facts bereft society, what he says makes us more than a bit uncomfortable. However, as someone who is from the Caribbean, a “black” majority region; and as someone who has read a little history, I can attest to the fact that not only is what he said true but also that the only thing that really offends people about what he said; is the colour of his skin.
“Whites” are the only ones denigrated for any views about race that aren’t self deprecating. If a Jew jokes about Jews controlling the world, in a self deprecating manner, the A.D.L. issues a censure, stigmatising that person as a self-hating Jew. Other colour groupings; (since the colours we are assigned to are not our actual races) get similar treatment.
However, so-called “whites” are praised for self-deprecation; which is not only universally acclaimed but has come to be expected. If you’re not to be seen as a “racist white”, you ought to put down your own race.
When a “white” like Dr. Marc Faber comes along and chooses to forget and break from that accepted social norm; and expresses any sort of pride in his own (in this case colour) identity, then the mainstream sheep begin bleating once more; about the need for a “conversation” about “racial injustice”; which has no end and never seeks any resolution. It is merely a means of perpetuating an endless racial dialectic. A dialectic that sadly, is only sated whenever so-called “blacks” feel that “white” people care about their “plight”.
How such a massive number of people can live and think like that is beyond me. They are too blinded by their emotional outrage, to be convinced of the truth.
And the truth is, that from George Washington to the early 20th century Presidents, the views on race of U.S. leaders were very similar to those held by Dr. Faber.
President Lincoln for instance, is often seen as the “racial equality” hero who “freed” the slaves. However, he did so to help him win the Civil War. His public opinion prior to that war, and after it, was that though he opposed slavery on principle. But if a group of people had to be the masters in the U.S. he would prefer that it was the race to which he belonged.
This is why Lincoln invited a group of “blacks” to the white house to implore them to leave the U.S. Also, he did not dare interfere with the social and economic make-up of the South, (slavery), wary all along of the dire social upheaval such a thing would cause; social consequences which are currently being played out in the U.S. and have never been resolved. (As I mentioned earlier, because a resolution isn’t being sought after.)
What Dr. Marc Faber wrote about slavery, is consistent with history. The vast majority of the “blacks” sold into slavery, during the 16th century to the 19th century, were already slaves of either their “black” or Moslem rulers. The Moslems ruled over several Spanish kingdoms for almost a thousand years. And the people often referred to as peasants in Western Europe or “serfs” in Eastern Europe, were for all intents and purposes, slaves or Slavs; doing much of the same work that the so-called chattel slaves did in the New World. In the East, the Japanese daimyo dominated their peasants as well, whose role in Japanese society, labour wise, was very similar to the so-called chattel slaves in the New World.
There wasn’t a single corner of this Earth, where slavery was not found. However, because of current day political expedience, the enslavement of “blacks” at the hands of “whites” has been placed into its own category; either through the monopolisation of the application of the term “slave”; or by relegating the slavery of every other race, to some form of servitude; while the “white” enslavement of “blacks” is elevated to its own category: chattel slavery; a form of slavery unique in history.
But all of that is false and done and taught to manipulate the masses; while we “blacks” are bound to the idea, that we were specially oppressed beyond any other group of people.
However, like Dr. Marc Faber wrote, slavery is an institution that has been in place almost as long as men have existed. It is not an institution invented by “the white man” to oppress “the black man” during the 16th century.
The second majorly controversial thing Dr. Marc Faber wrote is “thank God…” etc. Although to our 20th and 21st Century sentimentality this sounds bad; it is in essence something that has been borne out in history. The “blacks” in the U.S. often times forget that slavery in the Caribbean preceded that in the U.S. and that Caribbean islands today, for the most part, are countries led by “black” men, whose countries gained their “independence” from their “oppressive Colonial masters.” In other words, Caribbean countries are similar to African countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa, in that they were formerly ruled by “whites” but are now ruled by “blacks”.
What have the results shown? Although South Africa is still respectable economically on the World stage, compared to its Apartheid past, it is a mere shell of its former self. Due in large part, not to “greedy white farmers”, but to the horrible economic mismanagement of the country by Mandela and now Jacob Zuma. All of this loss accomplished by those two in a matter of 25 years or so.
Zimbabwe of course speaks for itself. President Mugabe’s economic policies, which include the mass transference of land from “whites” to “blacks” (actually to the central government) have been a disaster. And to be fair, it isn’t as if “whites” have not mismanaged their countries’ affairs as well (see Henry VIII’s similar land grab leading to similar disastrous results), its just that when you look around you, developed nations are usually “white” majority and “white” ruled countries: the exceptions for the most part are Asian countries, not “black”. South Africa’s “developed” status, which is under threat, is owed in large part to Apartheid rule not ANC’s. Uncomfortable yes, but true.
My own Caribbean region, though generally more stable than “black” ruled African countries, has economically mediocre countries at best, ruled mostly by incompetent “black” leaders. Most of our economies are almost completely reliant, not on food production (as under “white rule”) but on tourism; which is an extension of the general “beggar” manner in which these islands are ruled. A significant portion of income for these Caribbean countries comes from foreign aid, almost exclusively from “white” countries or “white” blocs like the EU. The exceptions once again coming from Asian countries.
Hardly any of our islands have any military at their disposal, and whatever paramilitary police force that is maintained, is for the most part trained by the U.S.; a significant piece of leverage the Americans are not afraid to use. Just ask the St. Lucia Royal Police Force.
Historically speaking, a country without an army, can hardly be considered sovereign. Since most of our Caribbean countries, don’t even have armies of their own, the Independence that is shouted about from the rooftops, is merely a status provided for by majority “white” countries like the U.S. and the U.K.
To summarize, given the largely inefficient economies of the largely “black” ruled Caribbean, combined with a military weakness that is unrivaled, it is fair to say that “black” rule has not gone very well there either. So to come back to what was said by Dr. Faber; “…thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe…” His words are for the most part proven true by empirical data.
Of course the hope is that “black” led countries can do better economically and socially, but to denigrate someone who has merely pointed out the facts, simply because the facts contrast with that hope, is a reaction guided by emotions and not by any desire for the truth. And this failure to acknowledge this uncomfortable truth, no matter the source, is perhaps a major reason it continues unaddressed. How can we fix a problem, if we don’t acknowledge it?