I’m reading the Wikipedia article on Eugenics.

In case you may not know, its the study of how to pick your favorite genetic features for, say, skin color, eye color, physical ability or mental ability. Its been historically applied to immigration policy (especially from the mid-1800s to the 1960s), and was most infamously applied by the Germans during the Third Reich, which resulted in an academic backlash against it and subsequent marginalization of it in institutions of power, even though a noted number of academics have pushed the idea to this day, risking public beration by their fellow academics and the general public.

Yet, the intended effect was pretty much achieved wherever it was applied: Argentina completely obliterated its population of slave descendants within at least four generations by encouraging heavy European immigration (even today, books on Argentina will sometimes describe Argentina as a country full of “displaced Europeans” with E.U. passports in their pocket), and Brazil nearly achieved this objective (especially through the state promotion of Gilberto Freyre’s myth of Brazil as a “Racial Democracy”). However, while Argentina, Brazil, and other Southern Cone states were busy attracting Europeans from mostly Roman Catholic areas of the continent (i.e., Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Poland), the U.S., Australia/NZ, and Canada were busy attracting as many Protestant Europeans as possible (i.e., from Great Britain, Scandinavia, Germany), even though exceptions were made for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxers (and Ashkenazi Jews). Germany, unsurprisingly, was dropped from official favor following WWII, and only in the 1960’s (the years of African independence) were ethnic/religious preferences finally dropped in the immigration policies of most European nations (in fact, Western Europe began taking in immigrants from their former colonies in Africa and Asia much more so than ever before in European history).

But look at the world today. It resides strongly within the favor of the English-speaking Anglo-Saxon Protestant: English is the most ubiquitous language in usage today (hell, the way that you and I are communicating, the vast majority of computer languages out there, everything is in English, while everything else is stricly illiterate), Anglo-American culture has been exported all over the world (McDonalds, anyone?), and Evangelical Protestant Christianity is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world (both in number and clout).

That, of course, has been seen in the U.S. as coming under threat with the constant flighting of Spanish-speaking, Mestizo, Roman Catholic Mexicans across the border into the Southwest. It has also come under threat in Europe with the growing minority of Middle Easterners (Turks, Algerians, etc.) and sub-Saharan Africans (Senegalese, Congolese, Nigerians, etc.) fighting for entry into Italy, Spain, France, Germany, NL, and the U.K., be it through the Mediterranean or the Canary Islands or the Sahara desert. Reasonably, Europeans and Americans alike are starting to take to a fortress mentality: even the liberals in both areas read from the same hymnal as conservatives in regards to illegal immigration.

I, for one, understand the point, but I don’t sympathize.

Why?

Because this is the backwash (yes, backwash with a “w”), the what-goes-up-must-come-down effect of the Western world’s foreign policy.

When the Europeans took over their colonies in Africa and Asia, they promoted the emigration of their own citizens to these colonies more so than when they promoted the immigration of the native residents of the colonies to the ruling countries. However, Britain, in its colonial policy, sponsored the establishment of self-governing “mini-England” dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) that would eventually obtain their own policies on immigration (and other foreign affairs), whereas Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany, and France decided to keep the colonies – all of them – on an equally colonial level (Portugal would have done better with Brazil, and was almost there….but then Lisbon had to rescind self-governance at the last minute, thus leading to the declaration of independence and the accession of Dom Pedro I as head of the Empire of Brazil. Then they fucked up Angola and Mozambique pretty badly.). Furthermore, all of these countries maintained the flow of these colonies wealths to the ruling countries (even though Britain did devolve a lot of that to their mini-Englands), thus resulting in a pitch-black gap between the ruling colonial elites and the native majority (South Africa, btw, was pretty much a “white” country in its dominion status from 1910-1961, as the resident Africans weren’t usually considered as citizens or, if they were, were denied suffrage, even though they were in the clear demographic majority; the Afrikaners, despite being the majority in white South Africa, were effectively treated as second-class citizens by the dominion regime, which ultimately led to their redemption at the polls in 1948 [the year that the National Party came to power in parliament] and again in 1961 [when South Africa voted out of the Commonwealth and from dominion status, becoming a republic]).

Because of the historical concentration of that colonial wealth into the countries of Europe, today you’re seeing Africans braving the sands of the Sahara and the waters of the Meditteranean and Atlantic to reach the shores of Spain, Italy, and even Malta, if just for the reason of a simple stepping stone for higher heights in France or Denmark.

The United States did the exact same thing, beginning in the late 1800’s with its expansion into the Pacific (Hawai’i, Guam, Marianas, Philippines) and Caribbean (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama Canal). Today, its attracting Mexicans and Caribbeaners like crazy, and is trying to fight them off like its fanning flies (or so it seems).

Meanwhile, the Southern Cone nations in South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay), who were trying to attract Europeans by the shipload prior to WWII, are losing their own back to Europe, or onward to the U.S., Canada and Australia/NZ.

Why the change?

It wasn’t because of WWII, but rather because, before the war, these countries didn’t develop an expansionist foreign policy like the U.S., Britain, and the mini-Britains did. They focused, instead, upon simply hoarding immigrants to help farm the plantations that the African ex-slaves had abandoned following emancipation.

Now we see the Southern Cone as a bunch of Third-World countries, and their presidents (Lula, Kirschner, and company) are joining with Chavez, Morales, and the “New Left” of Latin America.

…..

OK, that’s it. Took two-or-three whole days to get that done.