re: #442 Dark_Falcon

I read Mark Kirikorian’s column, which RWW failed to provide a link to, and I didn’t find it to be racist at all. It was correct in saying that the deportation deferrals for illegal immigrants had had caused massive delays for those seeking a green card legally. Kirikorian did not defend Samuel Francis’ racism, but rather said that Francis had a workable definition of the result of the Obama Administration’s actions, which is not the same thing.

So I do defend Mark Kirikorian, wholeheartedly.

I hope that’s only because you don’t know Mark Krikorian very well, and not because you fail to recognize a racist when you see one.

He did not exhibit racism in that column, except by the fact of his casual quotation of a noxious man, regarding his very noxious, racist beliefs.

Direct links to this are broken, but I found multiple citations:

[F]or those actually interested in the point, here’s what I was trying to get across: While in the past there may well have been too much social pressure for what sociologists call Anglo-conformity, now there isn’t enough. I think that’s a concern that most Americans share at some level, which is the root of the angst over excessive immigration, bilingual education, official English, etc.

More racism:

But Krikorian says legislation like the Dream Act shouldn’t apply to people like Vargas — because he arrived in the United States at the age of 12.

“The moral case that you can make for the Dream Act — or something like the Dream Act … really only applies, it seems to me, to people whose identities have been formed here, who have no memory of any other country, who really are — as some of the advocates sometimes put it — are Americans in all but paperwork,” he says. “This doesn’t really cover a lot of the people who would be covered under the current version of the Dream Act, including Mr. Vargas. The man has real abilities and real skills, and he should go home to his country of citizenship, the country he grew up in for most of his childhood.”

Some from NRO in 2010:

My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough. The ancestors of today’s Haitians, like elsewhere in the Caribbean, experienced the dislocation of de-tribalization, which disrupted the natural ties of family and clan and ethnicity. They also suffered the brutality of sugar-plantation slavery, which was so deadly that the majority of slaves at the time of independence were African-born, because their predecessors hadn’t lived long enough to reproduce.

But, unlike Jamaicans and Bajans and Guadeloupeans, et al., after experiencing the worst of tropical colonial slavery, the Haitians didn’t stick around long enough to benefit from it. (Haiti became independent in 1804.). And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers. Sure, their creole language is influenced by French, but they never became black Frenchmen, like the Martiniquais, or “Afro-Saxons,” like the Barbadians. Where a similar creolization took place in Africa, you saw a similar thing — the Cape Coloureds, who are basically black Afrikaaners, and even the Swahili peoples of the east African coast, who are Arabized blacks. A major indicator of how superficial is the overlay of French culture in Haiti is the strength of paganism, in the form of voodoo — the French just weren’t around long enough to suppress it, to the detriment of Haitians.

His work at CIS and FAIR (founded by John Tanton) are enough for me to conclude where his heart lies.