In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Send ‘Em Back to Africa

Nah, this guy isn’t racist, just realistic.

The assiduously courted invasion usually rests on a curious idealism that I find hard to credit in adults. The notion is that we are all just people, brothers under the skin, that all we need is love and understanding, black and white together, kum bah ya; only a few reactionary forces need to be stilled to bring about universal bliss. This happy thought doesn’t surprise me among students in high school. Politicians aren’t.

Has no one noticed that diversity doesn’t work? Putting together peoples with little in common begs for trouble, usually with success. It is the chief source of the world’s bloodshed and enmity.


Now, this is interesting, given that the United States was built by people with a whole lot of differences. I’d be willing to bet that the things Mr. Reed is saying here were said about the parents and grandparents of lots of us — and probably about the parents and grandparents of a lot of the xenophobes at Men’s News Daily.

Moslems in particular are poison. A failed civilization, Islam sends its unsuccessful, thus double failures, to Europe. They gravitate to slums because they can do nothing else. Cohesive, angry, ineffectual, with no loyalty to their new home, they neither flourish nor assimilate. Resentment grows among them. And so the cities burn.

Which is interesting. In the United States, the hostility of Islam is often attributed to American support of Israel. Beyond doubt, there is truth in this. It does not explain the riots in Paris, the papered-over violence in other European countries, the Islamic terrorism in Russia and in southern Thailand, the anti-Christian fighting in East Timor, or the terror in Kashmir. Moslems are trouble.

But he’s not racist!

Immigration is not prima facie a bad idea. It depends on who you let in. Some immigrants can assimilate. If for example the United States allows the entry of moderate numbers of reasonably educated Chinese, nothing untoward will happen. The Chinese share such crucial European traits as studiousness and respect for law. In fact they are superior to the white population in both respects. Consequently they arouse little hostility and not a little admiration. They may congregate for a generation or so in Chinatown, but the term designates a place where a lot of Chinese live, not a hostile ghetto.

Other immigrants cannot assimilate. Most especially practitioners of Islam cannot prosper in Europe. Watch.

…because it’s not like anyone ever said these same things about Chinese immigrants. (And let’s just throw it out there that relying on positive racial stereotypes is still racism).

What the French need to do, but won’t, is to send the army into the Islamic slums, round up the whole lot, and put them ashore on the beaches of North Africa with a box lunch and a coupon for three free Dunkin Donuts. It isn’t a pretty answer. It’s a lot prettier than what seems to be coming down the pike.

Yes, he actually said — in a few more words — “Send ’em back to Africa.” No mention of the fact that the French walked themselves into areas of North Africa not so long ago and “civilized” the population there. But I suppose a bunch of white Europeans taking over an African nation, sucking up its natural resources, throwing a wrench in its social structure and generally leaving a huge mess behind isn’t the same as some brown people trying to make a better life for themselves.

This guy’s argument is racist and xenophobic to the max. Does he represent the mainstream right? Of course not. But what’s scary is that there are lots of conservatives in this country who are probably nodding their heads in agreement with him.


46 thoughts on Send ‘Em Back to Africa

  1. What’s just as scary as the underlying racism is that this idea of exporting the Other to an alleged “homeland” was the basic idea behind Grand Apartheid.Oh No, I could not live through another Verwoerd.

  2. But Fred, how do you tell the good, hard-working immigrants from the dirty, slum-dwelling welfare sponges? Let me guess: you recommend comparing their skin color to a brown paper bag.

  3. What the French need to do, but won’t, is to send the army into the Islamic slums, round up the whole lot, and put them ashore on the beaches of North Africa with a box lunch and a coupon for three free Dunkin Donuts.

    I guess it’s because the French “civilized” North Africa that there are so many Dunkin Donuts there.

    Wow. Such utter disregard for human decency.

  4. “If for example the United States allows the entry of moderate numbers of reasonably educated Chinese, nothing untoward will happen. The Chinese share such crucial European traits as studiousness and respect for law.”

    The ignorance displayed here is astounding. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the most superficial history of Chinese immigration to the US would know better than to say something this stupid.

    Who is this idiot?

    Answering my own quesiton —here’s his website. Wear Hazmat geer if you visit.

    http://www.fredoneverything.net/

  5. Hey, don’t worry about Fred. Once we get Hillary elected, she’ll be a-cleanin’ up the Internets but good. No more swill from Fred.
    …but you guys have answers for this problem, right? Snarky snark aside, maybe give em some more free shit, like de Villepin says, is the solution, eh? That always works, right?

  6. Uh, no Rob. France’s policy towards it Muslim immigrants is not liberal. It’s not what you think it is. Look it up. Just because you have some silly prejudicial notion of what France is like doesn’t make it so. Do some damn research.

    France treats it’s muslim immigrants much like you would like to treat them. They isolate them, they treat them like outsiders, they scorn them because they will not assimilate, they don’t practice affirmative action–in fact they openly discriminate against them. France does not do mulitculturalism. You either become French or you’re a dirty african.

  7. Just because you have some silly prejudicial notion of what France is like doesn’t make it so. Do some damn research.

    I did, Sparky. Just because you have a prejudicial notion about me doesn’t mean I don’t know what’s goin’ on. ‘Course I coulda planted that story. Still doesn’t mean de Villepin didn’t say it. Pull your head out.

  8. Oops, sorry, Jason. I’ll save you the frustration and tell you it’s toward the bottom of the article.

  9. Last year, 17.4 percent of immigrants were unemployed, compared with 9.2 percent for non-immigrants

    Youth unemployment reaches almost 40 percent in some areas,

    Do you not see the relationship between unemployment and racism with the outbreak of these riots? Sounds like France, or at least DeVillipin is finally trying some “liberal” policies.

    They have already tried your conservative ones. And to quote you, “[t]hat always works. Right?”

    Oh wait, it didn’t.

  10. And by the way. I know your are lamost creaming yourself because your jihadist fantasies are, in your mind, merging nicely with your hatered of France. But, If you really care to find out what is going on in Europe you should probably read the BBC or http://www.lgfwatch.com

  11. Do you not see the relationship between unemployment and racism with the outbreak of these riots?

    Look, just being liberal doesn’t mean you’re contractually obligated to see racism in everything. You’ve been programmed by your Friendly Neighborhood Race Hustler to do this and it’s unnecessary and counterproductive, as millions of middle-and-upper-middle-class blacks will now attest in our country. What you should be seeing is the relationship between unemployment and… wait for it… failed socialist policy. They simply cannot sustain the numbers they’re taking in. The “liberal” policies have been tried and found wanting. As Chomsky might say, “can they see that? No, they can’t see that.”

    They have already tried your conservative ones.

    You’re high. You mean Chirac, right? Stop it right there.

  12. In turn, your overwrought language is duly noted. As is your ignorance of current events and where one goes to get reliable coverage thereof.

    I’d be willing to bet that the things Mr. Reed is saying here were said about the parents and grandparents of lots of us — and probably about the parents and grandparents of a lot of the xenophobes at Men’s News Daily.

    Yup. Hell, in the 19th century, lots of Protestant Americans really believed that Catholics were incapable of democratic citizenship and wanted to introduce Spanish-inquisition-style despotism to the U.S.

  13. Hell, in the 19th century, lots of Protestant Americans really believed that Catholics were incapable of democratic citizenship

    And Jews and Asians and Italians and eastern Europeans and…

  14. Jeez Rob,

    I informed you that France has treated it’s muslim immigrants more like you and your conservative bretheren would like, not like liberals advocate. Your response? The sound of someone who only listens to his own voice echoing (as well as FOX news directives):

    You’re high. You mean Chirac, right? Stop it right there.

    Chirac is considered more of a right-winger than a left-winger. Why do you think it took him about a week to respond to this crisis? Remind you of another conservative’s response to a crisis? I know this information must blow your mind. So I’ll let you research this yourself. Unless you’re boycotting information about France as well as its wine.

  15. >No mention of the fact that the French walked themselves into areas of North Africa not so long ago and “civilized” the population there.

    Also no mention of the fact that the United States is in Iraq living by the bomb and trying to convert all the Muslims to Christianity….

  16. The fact is much of Europe is very liberal compared to the US. They are even liberal compared to Canada and that is saying something. They are strong believers in multiculturalism (which is a liberal theory) but they way the apply it is like apartheid-light. The US, and to a lesser extent Canada, are melting pots where people are expected to assimulate. They may hold on to parts of their native culture but over a period of generations they come to see themselves as Americans first, XXX second. In Europe (it varies between countries but is present everywhere), the “foreigners” are kept separate and never truly seen as belonging. They never become French, German, etc; they live in Ghettos and they are prevented from moving up in life. Instead of being a melting part, Europe is a pressure cooker.

  17. No offense, but are you under the impression that you can just make shit up and it becomes true?

    It may seem to you, working from a North American framework, that French leaders should be strong believers in multiculturalism. But they’re not. On the contrary, France has a long history of asserting that immigrants should immediately assimilate and that it’s offensive to immigrants to acknowledge that they are culturally distinct from the majority. France’s response to the actual multiculturalness of French society has been to ignore it or treat it as a problem to be overcome. France’s response to racism has been to say that it’s racist to talk about race, so there can’t be any racism in France, because there’s no such thing as race. The French are much more like North American conservatives on this one than like liberals.

  18. I’m in Quebec, the only French culture in North America. We get fed so much French and British news (Canada still has the Queen as head of state) that I have a pretty good idea of what is going on over there. They talk about multiculturalism (the need to value and respect different cultures and the added value that different cultures bring to the mix) while the reality consists of racism against anyone whose ancestors haven’t lived in France for 200+ years.

    On immigration, the French might be more like the right-wing of the conservative movement but being good liberals, they wrap it in lies. Please don’t assume that all conservatives want to keep immigrants in ghettos. Many just want them to accept and embrace North-America culture.

    Being middle of the road, I don’t think it unreasonable that if they want to come to our countries, that over a period of generations, they should accept and embrace our values. For example, I see no reason to that we should accept some cultures’ forcing women into subservient roles.

  19. Two problems:

    First, emphasis on multiculturalism leads to ethnic pride, then to feelings of cultural superiority and segregation, then to cultural tension and often violence. In contrast, assimilation leads to, well, assimilation.

    Second, the common thread through much of the modern world’s unrest and conflict stems from the millenia-old animosity between Christians and Muslims. The significant point is, however, that in most of the civilized world, Christians aren’t preaching death to all Muslims, while many Muslims see Christians as infidels who must be destroyed. Subsequently, in the eyes of Muslims of that mindset, any nation that isn’t an Islamic theocracy is a Christian nation, and therefore must be destroyed, as Islam claims the world for the Prophet.

    I’m not intending this to be a “devil’s advocate” comment, as the broad generalizations and condemnations as were made in the passages quoted in the original post are inarguably “over the top” (although I would speculate that the author meant it in that vein).

  20. Interesting posts.With regards to people disliking “other” groups,I’d
    recommend Jack Vance’s “The Languages of Pao” for a wry take on this.
    RE’ #5.The US was very anti Chinese about100 yearsago(TR was very upse twith Western state governors about this),but I’ve
    seen little about this lately.I do feel Orientals are viewed as net asset because of their academic and economic success.
    I do agree with Eric P about conservatives want immigrantsto embrace Western culture.Good for themMulticulturalism is somewhat vague to me..Ifit means every culture has something of value,I can agree with it.If it means cuktures are about equal, I disagree.

  21. First, emphasis on multiculturalism leads to ethnic pride, then to feelings of cultural superiority and segregation, then to cultural tension and often violence.

    This isn’t a generalization? Reads like one to me.

  22. We can argue about whether assimilation is good or bad, but I think that it does tend to happen, especially if immigrant groups don’t face high economic or social barriers to full participation in mainstream society. It’s not a complete or a straightforward process: for one thing, mainstream society is constantly changing, too. But if you look at the “unassimilatable” immigrants of the American past, they aren’t folks who most people angst about anymore. Catholics didn’t destroy democracy. Jews didn’t unravel the fabric of American civilization. Chinese people didn’t drive down wages. The sky has yet to fall. Catholics are still kind of different from Protestants in some ways, but those differences haven’t killed American institutions, the way nativists thought they would in the 1850s.

    The problems happen when groups have high structural barriers to full participation in society. And that’s a problem whether the groups are immigrants or not. It’s a problem whether they’re racialized or not. Structural inequality causes problems. If you don’t want those problems, you need to address the structural factors that keep people from participating fully in society.

  23. And loss of distinct cultures which have value in and of themselves.

    Loss of the cultures? How so? The host country continues to exist. Italy still makes opera and wine, even though my grandparents came here and none of us do either.

    (Well, if you get me drunk, I might start singing…but it isn’t pretty.)

  24. Lauren, an interesting study on the effects (long-term) of cultural preservation, assimilation, separation, etc., can be seen on any Indian Reservation.

    Despite the government’s best efforts to separate the Native Americans from the general population, they assimilated into western culture quite well, while preserving the traditions and heritage of their own culture. Did they lose some elements of that culture on the way? Yes. They no longer practice cannibalism, inter-tribal warfare, or trading wives for bearskins, among a few other changes, but the valuable aspects of their culture (arts, music, language, etc.) are still alive and well.

    Sally, I wouldn’t contend that barriers don’t exist to assimilation, but the barriers are not the biggest hindrance to advancement by foreign immigrants–it’s a lack of any desire to assimilate, coupled with a lack of need to assimilate because of our devotion to “multiculturalism.”

    Harrison, do you see no difference in a generalization that’s based upon observable history being applied to a process and generalizations based upon and furthering caricatured stereotypes assigned to an entire race or culture?

  25. Despite the government’s best efforts to separate the Native Americans from the general population, they assimilated into western culture quite well, while preserving the traditions and heritage of their own culture.

    Bo, you have your facts wrong. The federal government generally forced Indian kids into English-speaking schools, split up community property and held the mineral rights in trust, etc. in order to pressure Indians into assimilation. So, the policy went from forced removal to isolation to forced integration back to isolation. Read any biography of Jim Thorpe — you did know he was a Native American Indian, right?

    I know some folks who are trying to resurrect their original language now, from a low of less than a dozen speakers. It’s a remarkable effort.

  26. And, no, BoDiddly isn’t racist….not at all.

    Multiculturalism is a form of allowing for difference within a national identity. Where it becomes a problem is when police power is repeatedly used against one sector of the population unevenly and unfairly.

    In every example of ethnic strife that I have studied, there is a more powerful group that has been imposing its will on a less powerful group.

    Few people know that Italy is multicultural, for example. There is, in the northeast corner, a substantial population of German-speakers. They have not been forced to speak Italian. They speak German and have been allowed some German customs. Likewise the Frisian Islands have been allowed to retain their culture and language. You don’t hear about these revolting because, well, multiculturalism is practiced in those countries.

    Let us also not forget Canada which, with the rise of Quebecois identity, has compromised to allow both French and English.

    And it can happen elsewhere if bigots get out of the way and allow for some needed reform. Yes, it can happen even here in the United States….

    You can call me a proud Euro-American anytime.

  27. The United States is going to be, by our nature and history, much more multicultural than other states. We simply don’t have as long of a tradition as, say, the European states do. France has been making good wine and cheese for centuries. We do have a common culture–but it’s more of an amalgam of cultures.

    I agree with Sally. It’s the structural barriers to participation, not multiculturalism itself, that leads to failed “assimilation”. Just because an 80 year-old Chinese-American doesn’t speak english doesn’t make her any less of an American. You try teaching an 80 year old english speaker Cantonese. She’s American if she has access to our society and government and takes part in it. So what if our DMV forms come in Cantonese also, or our ballots have Cantonese, or if you walk through Chinatown it looks and smells and sounds like China. The only way I wish Chinese-Americans would be more American is if they didn’t violate my space on the bus and be so pushy! 🙂

    I guess I just don’t understand why “assimilation” means adopting english as the primary language as well as adopting “mainstream” American culture. Sally’s examples are right on. Eventually, these cultures become mainstream. Where the first waves of catholics or Italians or Asian or Irish immigrants didn’t assimilate, they are now mainstream. The same will happen with Muslim-Americans. As long as we don’t make them feel like they don’t have access to our society, or access to jobs, or that the system doesn’t support them, and actually treats them unfairly. That’s a sure way to get what we is going on in France.

    Diddly, assimilation is not speaking only english (extra points if it’s with a twang!), reading People magazine, and eating fast foood–basically being white-bred middle-american. I think being American is identifying yourself as American. It’s taking part and believing in our form of government. After all, America has always been multicultural.

  28. And, no, BoDiddly isn’t racist….not at all.

    Nope. He’s also not deeply, deeply confused about Federal policy towards American Indians.

    I don’t know if anyone here has read the work of Will Kimlycka, but I tend to agree with him that there are real differences between what he terms “national minorities,” like the Quebecois, and immigrants. And I tend to agree with him also that most immigrants, if given their druthers, choose to assimilate in many ways to the mainstream culture, because they want to take advantage of the opportunities that mainstream society has to offer. That doesn’t mean that they want to become indistinguishable from other people, but it does mean that, over time, immigrants almost always come to some sort of workable accomodation with the host society, unless there are serious barriers to their participation. If you respect people’s cultures and make sure they have access to education and job opportunities, they’ll generally figure it out. You’d think that after a hundred and seventy-five years of panicking about new immigrant groups and then having them end up just fine, Americans would have figured this out.

  29. Allow me to make myself perfectly clear, because a couple of you have a really fucking hard time reading what I write without automatically shoehorning every word into the “angry white male” template.

    Simply put, the immigrant must take at least a little initiative to assimilate into his host country, not surround himself with others like himself and wait for Big Brother to come and take care of him. With free education, and a host of other benefits at his disposal, this isn’t a huge “barrier” to assimilation.

    There was a time, not so long ago, when people of different cultures proudly had their own areas, largely devoid of pressure to allow those from other cultures to influence their customs. Back then, we called it “segregation.”

    But of course, I’m a racist for pointing out that we’re headed right back to that damnable situation, all the while calling it “multiculturalism” in order to be fashionable.

  30. “Segregation” is not the same as separatism. “Segregation” is what happens when different nationalities, ethnic groups, and races, are kept apart in any equal interaction and allowed to come together only when their interactions preserve unequal hierarchies. A black woman under Jim Crow could not use the same public restroom as a white woman, but she was welcome to scrub the toilets in that white woman’s home.

  31. Piny’s got it right. Italians and Irish lived in their own neighborhoods. It didn’t keep them from assimilating. Chicago still has a Greektown. There are Mexican-American neighborhoods all over America, but Mexican-Americans are more integrated into the American mainstream every day.

    Segregation is when the ethnic minority can’t get served at the lunch counter. It’s a system of enforced second-class citizenship. We are not returning to that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the public accomodations cases that the civilized world rammed down the throat of the South made sure of that.

  32. The problem for European countries is that they don’t view being French or Italian as simply a cultural thing. It is in their blood. Genetically speaking French and Germans are the same “race” but unless both your parents were French, you aren’t fully French. When your outlook on life prohibits others from ever really be part of your country, you’ve got a problem.

    Here in Quebec it is the same. In the rest of Canada, you are Canadian if you live here for a while and that is about it. Not that there aren’t racists, but the culture itself accepts immigrants who put in a some effort. The US seems to be even more like that. In Quebec it is different. My family has lived here for generations and we all speak French to one degree or another. You always know though that you aren’t really one of them, especially if you have an English-sounding name. Sometimes it is subtle, some times it can be quite blatant.

    Certain cultures that believe that belonging the culture requires a blood-tie will probably never be able to figure out a solution to this problem.

  33. In other words, Segregation is when separatism is maintained by the majority, and the minority is actively prevented from meaningful interaction with and integration into society.

    Multiculturalism is when separatism is maintained by the minorities, and the minorities choose to avoid meaningful interaction with and integration into society.

    There, that’s a lot clearer.

  34. The problem for European countries is that they don’t view being French or Italian as simply a cultural thing. It is in their blood. Genetically speaking French and Germans are the same “race” but unless both your parents were French, you aren’t fully French.

    I really don’t think this is right. There is no single “European” stance on whether citizenship is a matter of race or culture. Germany has generally held that citizenship is a matter of race; France has generally not held that. There are some real problems inherent in France’s model of citizenship, I think, and some real failures to live up to its promise, but the model is different from what you think it is. You might want to check out Rogers Brubaker’s book Citizenship and Nationhood in France and German.

    There was a time, not so long ago, when people of different cultures proudly had their own areas, largely devoid of pressure to allow those from other cultures to influence their customs.

    When I read this, I thought, he’s on the right track. He knows about Five Points. He’s aware that there were German-language bilingual schools all over the Midwest in the 19th century. He’s aware of the existence of ethnic parishes, athletic clubs, foreign-language newspapers, etc. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There’s hope for him.

    Back then, we called it “segregation.”

    And then I realized that he’s just another ignorant reactionary.

  35. Multiculturalism is when separatism is maintained by the minorities, and the minorities choose to avoid meaningful interaction with and integration into society.

    No. Like I said, you’re referring to separatism here. Multiculturalism, involving as it does acknowledgement of all cultures by the whole, is bound up in meaningful interaction with society.

  36. I agree with your distinction between separatism and multiculturalism, piny, but that’s not what we’re currently moving towards. What has been (thinly) disguised as multiculturalism has been an excuse to foster some sort of deeply factioned cultural mix, rather than the historical “melting pot” that made America great. The difference is in the level of interaction, and we’re at a point where the animosity towards Western Civilization precludes any impetus towards assimilation from the majority (their culture is just as valid–leave it alone) and there’s a dearth of any initiative towards assimilation from the minority, happily dwelling in a relocated version of their homeland (see Miami).

    Sally, just for the record, I take significant offense to your characterization of me as an “ignorant reactionary,” but I tip my hat to you as well, recognizing an artful and well-executed putdown when I see it. 😉

  37. France has generally not held that. There are some real problems inherent in France’s model of citizenship, I think, and some real failures to live up to its promise, but the model is different from what you think it is.

    Having met and dealt with many French citizens over time and having friends who have lived in Franch for years, I’d take any book with a grain of salt. Not to mention that French history is taught in the schools in Quebec and French television is easily available.

    A scholar visiting France would most likely spend time with their educated elite (as much as the right-wing complains about the liberal elite in the US, it really exists in France). Talking to these people would give you very little knowlege of the real France – keep in mind that the elite of all parties and all major newspapers supported the EU constitution but it was overwhelmingly voted down by the people of France.

    As with my own personal experience in Quebec, there is a difference between legal French citizenship and actually being considered a “real” citizen by the larger culture.

  38. You know, and yes this is almost entirely off the topic but relates to your heading, I always found that Nas line ‘I’d open the gates of Attica and send them to Africa’, in the song ‘If I ruled the world’, to be quite racist. I mean, if a white person said we should open up one of our most violent prisons and send the inmates to Africa, it’d be an uproar, right? Ok, no, sorry, this comment is more than almost entirely off topic.

  39. I have to comment here because Bo has really piqcued me in an uncomfortable place with the comments about segregation vs multiculturalism.

    Why does it hurt me so? Because I am a Cajun.

    We are French settlers to Canada who were kicked out by the invading British in the French & Indian War, who settled in the swamps of south Louisiana. Later, in the Louisian Purchase, we became Americans. Everything went just fine from there, more or less– we worked as farmers and shrimpers, partially isolated, and keeping our own traditions alive.

    In the 1920s-30s, the US government came in and forced our children to speak only English in schools and public places– including corporal punishment for those who spoke a word of their native language. They enacted programs designed to forcibly assimilate us, and 70 years later, only a very few of us still speak French. Fortunately, some people discovered we had good cooking, and that has managed to survive a bit. But our culture itself is almost entirely dead– and for no reason.

    Would you suggest that as a Cajun-American, I’m less American than, say, an Irish immigrant who was prejudiced against in the previous century before assimilating? What about the Chinese immigrants who built our western railways? What about the hispanic workers who currently keep our cheap food crops going? Which of those represents “not real American culture” exactly? We are all Americans, even when we keep our neighborhoods and languages distinct.

    The problem in France, as I see it, has already been stated quite nicely by other commenters here– they are isolating those who aren’t part of “real” French culture. Remember, this is a nation that has a language Academy to maintin “proper” French, to prevent it from absorbing elements of other languages, as English is prone to doing. Tres uncool! It’s not hard to see how the practice of isolation, prejudice, and laws that create economic and social second-class citizens would result in this kind of unrest when police brutality is used to maintain the status quo.

    We had the same thing here not long ago– look up the Watts riots. Then look up the people who wrote about how “savage” the blacks were for rioting under unfair circumstances.

    The key to getting through all this is to stop pretending YOUR way and culture are “the one right way to live”, and stop asking others to join it. When you encounter someone who talks about the one right way, correct them. Sharply. Understanding that being a different kind of American or Frenchman, even a newly-imported one, does not make you less of a person or less important, is the key to a harmonious society… REAL multiculturalism and real social harmony. Not just buzz-words.

    And, as my people say, “laissez les bon temps rouler!”

Comments are currently closed.