We will keep it a secret – which country or countries we are talking about, that is – though in the interests of diversity – let us say: all countries concerned. At any rate, this is merely, let us say, a philosophic reflection.
At my university, in the 70s, a proposed reform had the protesters putting up signs and posters, “Is Wright Right? Is Wright Wrong? Anyone recognize the geographical area? Such protests may have been extended throughout the “Wright” territory. Wright privilege!
We mention the preceding in the context of asking a similar question, to which the reader probably already has an answer, which we do not believe could be changed except under exceptional circumstances. For this reason, we try to keep our specific political beliefs out of the question. But if anyone wants to think about the question(s) here, in the same vein, we ask …
Is Trump right? Is Trump wrong? On the question of immigration, that is. Reworded, more in line with the sloganeering presented above, Will Trump trump? Will Trump luck out?
The immediate incentive to what we here pose is something that came to our attention the day of this writing. We had thought of using the extract, textually quoted, or perhaps slightly modified, “bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers”, as our title – duly giving the required capital letters, of course. That would have been a bit misleading for two reasons: it makes the writer definitely look like he favors such a policy, and the English is a bit dated.
It is, in fact, from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the full quote is “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”.
The “he” referred to was on the throne of Great Britain. In so many ways did the United States, through its revolution, presage antifa movements, anti-Trump protests, pro-PC, etc. Tar-and-feathering, riding ‘em out on the rail (but just compare taxes then with taxes now!)
The colonies rebelled against “privilege”. Why, this scion of George I, who hardly spoke English, who had his wife imprisoned, took over the English throne in spite of 50 contenders with stronger claims, who were refused, because they had the wrong religion. On the diversity side, he was bilingual. George III was the first of the Hanoverian line to speak the English language correctly. Not PC, eh!
So, revolution usually being something done by the Left, do we consider the Fathers of American Independence to be in that mold?
Whether we do or not, their accusation is saying that this traditionalist – the foreign king – was fomenting the Indians against the Colonists.
Unfortunately, the accusation might not go down well in Native American circles. But that has, or will have, its counterpart. Those accused of invading will not take insults lightly.
The second question to pose is this: Who now is bringing the inhabitants on the borders of countries to come inside; and, according to the accusations of the non-PC people, destroy a nation? And are not their complaints most often couched in racist terms?
Could it just have been that George III was a precursor of putting a bit of diversity into a country which was mostly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant – even though he himself was one?
In light of the above, which side of these arguments would the reader be?
May 9, 2017, Paul Karl Moeller.