'Spare the city of mostly infidels' to spare the few good

[FrankGSterleJr]

The following meeting/conversation occurred on April 24, 2011, almost three months before the Norway massacre on July 22, 2011.


‘I Know That It’s Not Politically Correct to Say It, But …’

“Have you heard about Norway? Its capital city?” the young, Caucasian man (early 20s) asked me, having noticed that I’d glanced at the image on his computer monitor (we were utilizing adjacent Internet-equipped computer terminals at a local library). I looked at him with a somewhat bewildered expression, for I hadn’t heard him clearly.
“One quarter of the population is [of] Iraqi [ethnicity],” he continued. He then went on to mention a blog he was just viewing, with an intense post by a Caucasian Norwegian resident who sounded quite upset at such a significant change in the ethnic make-up of Oslo upon his return from a long stay abroad: “[The blogger wrote that] he actually cried … Imagine, going back to your country of origin, to the capital city, and a quarter of the people are [ethnic] Iraqis!”
From his words and tone of voice, this demographic fact obviously considerably bothered both the blogger from the website and the guy talking to me. All that was missing was for him to blurt out the red-herring, ideological-diversionary disclaimer, cop-out terminology: “I know that it’s not politically correct to say it, but …”
Although not particularly desiring to get into an ideological discussion with him on a topic involving ethnicity and/or immigration, I nonetheless noted that Norway is a nation within a very liberal segment of the globe; thus, its immigration and refugee acceptance policies are also likely to be quite liberal. His response was that non-Caucasian nations of the planet, most notably China and India, “would never be as tolerant” of Caucasian immigrants and asylum-seekers overwhelming those nations’ dominant Chinese and Indian populaces, respectively.
Off a bit on a tangent, it was emphasized how so very many Caucasian women/families here in the West are choosing to have only one or two children (and that’s assuming if any), while simultaneously suggested was that non-Caucasian immigrant communities procreate prolifically (actually, fertility rates across the multicultural board have been falling, as well as globally, for some decades, now).
Intervening, however, I then mentioned China’s one-child policy; however, contrary to what’s frequently, stubbornly insisted by mainland China, the policy regarding procreation is only notably enforced, though with sizeable fines for breaches of this protocol, in the intensely-populated urban centres, such as Beijing—and rarely enforced at all in the much-less-populated farming regions where procreation often occurs until a male offspring is successfully conceived and delivered. But, also, I went on to admit that it’s true that well-developed, Caucasian-dominated nations’ young-adult, female citizens are most prone to choosing challenging, rewarding careers over procreation, at least until they reach their late 30s or even early to mid 40s (though the latter age is a time within a woman’s child-bearing years during which the odds increase considerably of conceiving offspring predisposed to being born afflicted with down-syndrome).
My words elicited no response from him, except to briefly relate that he supports the federal Conservative Party, because he assumed that their immigration and refugee acceptance policy would be conservative.
Very little time had passed before it was clear to me that the two of us, although in agreement on one basic factor of immigration, held conflicting perspectives regarding non-Caucasian immigration, especially that involving Canada: His views were plainly and specifically in regards to the racial/ethnic makeup of the populace of Canada—and apparently in this case, also that of Norway—while my concern was geared towards Canada’s immigrant family-reunification policy, for the sole reason of our currently considerably overburdened health-care system due primarily to a disproportionately-large increase in our elderly population. (FYI: Contrary to popular belief, Canada’s governments maintain though usually increase health-care funding every year, yet to no avail.)
It should, however, be noted that xenophobia is not just a linear, white-against-coloured-persons issue. Indeed, about a decade ago, The Vancouver Sun reported that some young, African men temporarily residing in mainland China as foreign university students, who were disapprovingly (by some) though consensually (by others) cavorting with some young, Chinese, female students—at least as far as many obviously-jealous, young, Chinese, male students were concerned. The African, male students were thus severely harassed, and they therefore decided (or, in essence, were forced) to leave China—all the while being referred to as “the black devils” by the Chinese, male students at issue (though I doubt that the latter-mentioned group represented the sentiment of the vast majority of their fellow male, Chinese students).
I then opined to the young man at the library that an ideal Canadian multicultural society would consist of a fairly balanced make-up of various ethnic communities, all of whom would contribute toward the prosperity of their home country. Also ideal, I added, would be a fiscally-efficient, family-reunification immigration policy welcoming and accommodating usually-new Canadians’ elderly and infirm parents and grandparents who are usually in no physical condition or health to contribute to Canada’s ability to adequately fund their health-care.
But it then dawned upon me, as an aside, how little chance a, for example, South Asian person with a fairly-serious mental illness—like that endured by an unemployable, Canadian-born like me—would have of, through normal channels, eventually attaining Canadian family-reunification-status citizenship. Although I am able to and thus do ‘contribute’ considerably via various volunteer jobs, mostly utilizing my post-secondary education and writing/editing skills, I’m nonetheless in no plausible position to productively contribute monetarily to Canada’s health-care system.
For those not already cognizant of the fact, Canada’s immigration situation up until the mid 20th century (though perhaps a bit further) was a totally different matter—socially, politically and less fiscally strained—than that of today.
When my (now deceased) father became a young-adult, new Canadian citizen (in the early 1950s) of eastern European origin—and of course receiving occasional verbal abuse, once even a physical attack, for being a “f——g DP [displaced person]”—he soon enough sponsored my mom’s mother in the early 1960s, through the immigrant family-reunification policy of that time. Mom’s mom was in her late 50s, fairly healthy, capable of learning enough English on her own and physically-able at acquiring employment within her first year here.
Overall, matters were satisfactory for them and, seemingly, also were for the Canadian government’s immigrant-labourer-acquisition goals.
Yet, interesting enough, fairly-recent survey results reveal that Canada is no longer a favoured destination of potential immigrants and refugees. Apparently, according to the survey results, we’re (at least perceived to be) not as accommodating nor, perhaps, even as accepting (politically/socially) to often-desperate asylum-seekers as we allegedly once were.
Those survey findings may have played a large part in why, according to the young man at the library (we really should’ve exchanged first names), an Asian-Canadian, English-language newspaper (in one edition, anyway) included a prominently-written anti-Caucasian rant by the editor, which only encouraged my library acquaintance’s anti-multicultural perception of ‘the problems with immigration in Canada.’
Although, in retrospect, the manner in which I’d prefer that he’d go about considering such scenarios involving such bitter individuals as the said newspaper editor, would be as the proverbial rare rotten apple in the very large barrel of good apples. More so, though, I realize that I’d prefer to go even further and propose to him a hypothetical scenario, while still utilizing the rotten-apple metaphor, although turning it upside down, so to speak—i.e., the iconic Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah: For those unfamiliar with the Biblical account, Abraham asks God if He’d spare the two cities and their morally-corrupt populaces if 50 “righteous” people could be found amongst them. God, doubtlessly already aware that such people could not be found there, answered in the affirmative. Abraham, perhaps himself doubting that 50 could actually be found or even existed, then asks God whether He’d relent if 45 righteous citizens could be located—again, God said that He would. Nonetheless, Abraham keeps ‘bargaining,’ going from 45 citizens, to 40, to 30, 20 and, finally, 10. And, every time, God agreed. Yet, it is written, that not even 10 moral citizens could be found.
Clearly, this story, be it fictional or not, emphasizes that God would accept and spare all of the ‘lost sheep’ within the two cities if even only a handful of righteous people were amongst them. Perhaps needless to say—I, one not given to belief in divine intervention, be it God’s blessing or His wrath—then gave myself a ‘wakeup call,’ realizing that this guy at the library was/is unlikely to be interested in what the Bible may dictate and moralize.
I aspire to seriously consider this theological concept whenever perceiving some negative aspect involving a member of an identifiable community: If I’m acquainted with one (or more) of that community’s members for whom I feel much fondness and thus respect, I then at least strive to give ‘the benefit of the doubt’ to his/her/(their) entire community. Surely, if the Creator could/would spare an entire very-large barrel of rotten apples for the sake of an unspoiled very few, then I should be able to resist rejecting an entire community because of the very few spoiled apples within it.
(NOTE: To not be misinterpreted, I’m not at all suggesting that there are but few members within each community who are worthy of fondness and/or respect. Contrarily, I’m certain that every socially-identifiable, ethnic and racial community is very much dominated by decent, moral people.)
I wanted to share the above-mentioned theological concept with the young man at the library, but I felt embarrassed about combining a Biblical, theological concept with a secular, political issue; thus, I remained silent on that front while simply sticking to the discussion at hand while it lasted.
When eventually saying our farewells, I, one with a psyche predisposed to bouts of self-hatred and shame, experienced a disturbing sense of guilt. I could not help but feel rather cheapened—that I had engaged in a fairly extensive discussion consisting of implicit, if not explicit, racial overtones and even intolerance, when I morally should not have done so. I felt ashamed—that discussing such a topic in such a manner had actually been counterproductive to the greater cause of humanity, one in which skin colour and ethnicity are not at all the sole, negative political/social focus; and one in which a discussion does not dwell upon ‘what is wrong with immigration in Canada.’
On my way home, I was uncomfortably aware that I had, at least in my hindsight opinion to a notable extent, disregarded my usually-progressive principles and felt rather lousy for it. Unfortunately, though, too many people worldwide—such as the very disappointed Norwegian blogger having just arrived back in his home country—would quite likely not feel such lousiness.

(I’ve since come across the same young man three times, all of which consisted of his still-vehement opposition to non-Caucasian immigration in Caucasian-dominated areas of the globe, though especially Canada. Perhaps most notable, however, he did not mention Anders Behring Breivik—the infamous, young, Caucasian-Norwegian man adamantly opposed to his government’s pro-multiculturalism policy as well as non-white foreigners migrating into Europe—who killed 77 mostly-teenaged citizens due to his zealotry. He did, however, attempt to argue that Jesus Christ was not almost-certainly olive-skinned like His Arab counterparts, as I argued in kind; rather, he insisted that Christ and other Semites were fair-skinned. It’s fairly well accepted amongst Biblical scholars that the Semites of, what’s now known as, Northern Africa and the Middle East could not have acquired fair skin until after they mass-migrated, during the centuries following the time of Christ, northward into what is now Anglo-Saxon Europe, where they soon mixed amongst the various peoples. As for contemporary Norway, in late November, 2011, a secondary school, contrary to the strict wishes of Oslo’s education commissioner, segregated white from non-white Norwegian students in order, according to a news-story, “to prevent a situation of ‘white flight’ developing”—i.e., white students leaving the school in troubling numbers, claiming that they feel overwhelmed by the dominating classroom numbers of non-white students and their practiced customs.)*


Frank G. Sterle, Jr
White Rock, B.C., Canada

[Bill Wiltrack]

.














......................................................................










.