Tag Archives: immigration

Racial Hatred Runs African American Family out of Dream Home

by Corina Knoll
Los Angeles Times
June 4, 2009

The house, a three-bedroom cream-colored residence on a peaceful street, even had yellow and red roses waving merrily from the front lawn. And while the backyard was cramped, there was a nectarine tree, a red swing set and a small gazebo.

This is it, Channise Davy thought. Home.

Happy to have found a place near her salon in Altadena and close to her fiance in Pasadena, the 31-year-old hairdresser moved her four children from North Hollywood into the one-story charmer on Broach Avenue in Duarte last fall.

Davy never thought about the fact that they would be the only black family on the mostly Latino block—until someone reminded her in a way that still makes her eyes tear and her stomach twist.

On May 8, Davy opened the door to her home and was greeted by a barrage of spray-painted racial epithets. The hardwood floors, the mirrors, the televisions, the dressers—the vandals had turned the entire place into a canvas for that six-letter word used for decades to scare and scar African Americans.

Shaken, she immediately left and called police. And aside from one trip back to pick up some clothes, Davy has refused to return to a scene authorities believe was created by members of a local Latino gang.

Read the rest at:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/06/racial_hatred_r.php

[Now, be honest: when you read that headline, you thought the story would be about blacks being persecuted by racist whites, didn’t you? That’s how conditioned we’ve become to think of whites and only whites as racist. The truth is, whites are probably the least “racist” race on the planet. In fact, if whites don’t become a little more “racist” and start standing up for their group interests, they are going to be displaced by races that have no such compunctions, as is already taking place in California. –IA]

(Also see South Africa: Blacks far more racist and xenophobic than whites)

Patriotard talk radio host Jason Bermas defends La Raza

“Determined conspiracy-hunters will accept practically any crackpot theory on which to base their futile speculations but the real conspiracy, which is staring them in the face, is taboo.” —Simon Sheppard

“For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.” –Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA)

Gringos Go Home

Patriotard radio talk show host Jason Bermas, filling in for Alex Jones today, responded to a caller’s suggestion that La Raza might be a racist organization* by stating that in his opinion, it wouldn’t be fair to classify most of La Raza‘s membership as racist. These were his exact words:

“What La Raza stands for at the upper echelons … is absurd. But at the lower levels, people don’t understand what it is. […] They don’t understand that it’s all corrupt at the top. They don’t understand what the real message is. I don’t want to say every member of La Raza is automatically a racist. I would say every member of La Raza that doesn’t realize that there’s race implications and race bias is ignorant. And there are some at the top that are openly racist.”

Race “implications”? Only “some” are openly racist? The Spanish phrase La Raza literally means “the race” and refers to Chicanos (mestizos of Mexican origin living in the United States). La Raza is an explicitly racialist organization and movement. Every member at every level fully understands this; I mean, their movement is called “the race,” fer crying out loud! How much more obvious can it get? Stop lying to your listeners, you gutless patriotard snake oil salesman.

Watch a video of La Raza in action.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Find out who pays Alex Jones’s bills.

Support real alternative media, like October Sun Films [link now dead] (who produced the documentary from which the video clip above was taken), New Century Productions, or the websites in my blogroll. Don’t give your money to hucksters like Alex Jones and Jason Bermas. Contrary to one of their slogans, patriotard broadcasters don’t think you’re intelligent enough to “handle the truth,” as evidenced by Jason Bermas’s whitewash of La Raza.

* La Raza can refer to the National Council de La Raza, but it also refers more generally to the La Raza movement to take over the Southwestern United States (or Reconquista, as its adherents call it).

Canadian social workers misuse power to punish parents’ political views

“Freedom is the right to live in one’s own homeland in accordance with the laws and traditions of one’s ancestors.” –Ernst Arndt, Catechism for the Teutonic Armyman

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” –Thomas Jefferson

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” –George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

“What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” –Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Keep this. It will bring you luck.

This is getting serious, folks. The Canadian government is giving itself the right to take away the children of whites who hold “racist” views. Either you go along with the multiracial agenda of Canada’s overseers and teach your children to be obedient, self-hating, race-denying, politically-correct lemmings, or risk having them taken from you. There is no other word to describe this but tyranny.

For years I’ve been telling people that while I personally wouldn’t beat my children, the government has no right to interfere in how people raise their kids, and that by allowing the government to interfere in cases of corporal punishment, parents will ultimately lose all their rights to raise their children as they see fit. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening. This is what you get when you let women, with their misplaced maternal instincts, get hold of political power*, and is yet another example of why freedom and democracy don’t mix, popular belief notwithstanding.

I can see it now — daddy uses the word “faggot” around his kids, social services gets wind of it and takes the children away, since under Canada’s democratic nanny state, exposing kids to “homophobia” is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. If they’re lucky, the kids may even be placed with a homosexual foster couple, in whose home they’ll have the privilege of hearing mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy getting it on at night in the master bedroom. You think I’m exaggerating? There’s only one degree of seperation between having your kids taken away because you used the word “nigger” around them and having them taken away because you said the word “fag.” If the government is allowed to get away with this, the precedent will be set for the government to act the same way in any case involving politically incorrect speech.

Canadians, like Americans, like to make a show of how politically correct they are in public, but how PC are they in the privacy of their homes? For their sake, I hope the statements they make in private, in front of members of their family, match those of their public personas, because if they don’t, social services may hear about it and take their kids away.

This brings us one step closer to the world of “thought crime” depicted in the novel 1984. Canadians have no idea how close they are to the society that sent men like Solzhenitsyn to the Gulags. (Don’t even get me started on how much the United States is beginning to remind me of Canada since Obama the Marxist mulatto got put in power.)

If the child in this case had been black rather than white and had come to school wearing a T-shirt that said “black power” or “Nation of Islam” or bearing the name of a rapper that advocates violence against whites, what are the chances that social services would’ve reacted the same way? Slim, I bet. We’re all equal under the law, but some animals, you see, are more equal than others.

In the religion of political correctness, only whites, by definition, can be “racist.” Expressions of hatred or acts of violence towards whites by non-whites are excused and even applauded by the politically correct (who are almost all white) as “payback” for white racism. Poor whites are looked down on as “trailer trash” and are regularly mocked in the movies and on television, while astronomically high crime rates in non-white communities are explained away as the result of “systemic discrimination” against minorities and the unwillingness of rich white men to share their “ill-gotten” wealth with the “have-nots” (of course, the upper middle-class sociology professors who get paid big bucks to make these types of analyses never offer to pay for the social programs they demand out of their own salaries). Expressions of racial pride by non-whites are tolerated and even encouraged, no matter how viciously anti-white they are, while expressions of white pride, no matter how mild, are always labelled “hate” and are greeted with calls for the harshest of sanctions. Such is the hypocrisy of political correctness and the sick minds that peddle it.–Igor Alexander

* Note that besides women’s proclivity to vote for left-wing/liberal politicians, they are also vastly overrepresented in the social services.


Parents put blame on daughter for racist remarks, custody hearing told
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-hearing-winnipeg.html

A young girl’s head was shaved, and her parents described themselves as a skinhead family, court was told on Day 2 of a child custody hearing in Winnipeg.

The case involves a girl, now eight years old, who went to school with white supremacist symbols drawn on her skin. Her mother and stepfather, who are accused of racist teachings and failing to provide adequate care for their children, began a court battle for their children this week.

The girl and her brother have been in the care of the government’s Child and Family Services agency since March 2008, when the girl showed up in school with a swastika on her arm.

Her teacher scrubbed it off in the afternoon but the girl showed up again the next day with another one, along with other white supremacist symbols drawn on her body.

Neo-Nazi symbols and flags in family residence

Caseworkers were alerted and went to the family’s apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took custody of the couple’s two-year-old son. CFS officials picked up the daughter at her school.

The case has garnered international attention and sparked debate over how far parents can go to instill beliefs in their children — and how far the government should go to protect children from those beliefs.

On Monday, the social worker who initially interviewed the girl after she was taken into care testified the child was well versed in racist and hateful propaganda. None of the CFS workers can be identified in order to protect the identities of the children. [Nice. The cowardly busybodies who are doing this get to hide their identities under the guise of “protecting the children,” and hence remain unaccountable to the public for their actions.-IA]

The girl spoke of this being a white man’s world and provided graphic suggestions of how to kill people of colour, the worker testified.

Girl famous for lying: parents

On Tuesday, another social worker testified about her first meeting with the parents — about three weeks after the two children were apprehended.

They told the social worker their daughter often makes things up, and was famous for lying, the worker testified. The parents also said the girl had likely drawn some of the symbols on her body herself.

When the social worker asked why the girl was able to talk about certain things, like hurting people or killing people of colour, the stepfather said it was probably something she’d heard in a private conversation and was probably a joke, the hearing was told.

According to the social worker, the mother said she had no idea why her daughter would refer to them as skinheads.

But the social worker said extended family members later told her that the parents had shaved their heads, and the little girl’s, and described themselves as a skinhead family. [So what? Is there a law against being a skinhead?-IA]

Girl said stepdad brought in neo-Nazi views

Then she met the girl, who the social worker described as bright and articulate, even chatty. They met in the girl’s new foster home, where the girl was eager to show off her room, and her brother’s toys. [I guess this part was put into the article to show us, the stupid readers, how much better off the girl is with a foster family than with her biological mother.-IA]

The girl told the social worker that her mother used to read her stories but had stopped when she met and married a new man, the social worker testified. [Break out the violins.-IA]

“She was not a nice mommy anymore,” the social worker quoted the girl as saying.

The girl said she started missing school because her mom and stepdad didn’t wake her up on time. She told the social worker that her stepfather made the rules in the house, that he was angry and would get drunk, and that he didn’t make meals, or change her brother’s diaper often enough. [So now the social workers are getting into character assassination to deflect attention away from the fact that they abducted these children for political reasons. How many black kids have parents who get drunk, don’t make meals or change diapers often enough, don’t read their kids bedtime stories, and talk shit against white people? Lots, I’m sure. Now, how many of those black kids are put into foster homes? None, I bet. Kids are going to have a tough time in any family where there’s been a seperation or divorce, but that’s generally not seen as a reason to break that family up even further. Bottom line: social services is abusing its power to punish politically-incorrect speech and ideas.-IA]

The girl said she used to have non-white friends before her stepdad came along, but after he was in her life, the girl’s mother told her, “If you have a friend who’s not white, I won’t be your mom anymore,” the social worker testified. [And since when don’t parents have the right to tell their kids who they can and can’t hang out with? It’s not only the parents’ right, but arguably, their responsibility, to make sure their kid doesn’t fall in with the wrong crowd, and in this case, I’d say telling the daughter to not hang out with non-whites was a good call. Let’s be honest: how many white parents would be pleased if their daughter started hanging out with, say, blacks or American Indians? Not too many, I’d wager. Not only because few people relish the idea of having mixed-race grandchildren, but also because anyone with any life’s experience knows what the problems associated with those racial groups are: crime, violence, drugs, gangs, precocious sex leading to bastardy/illegitimacy and single motherhood, etc. What parent in his right mind would want that for his daughter?-IA]

Parents separated, each seeking sole custody

Testimony from child welfare officials and lawyers will continue through the week.

The hearing will adjourn but resume in June, when lawyers for the parents will make their arguments.

The parents no longer live together, and each has asked for custody of the children. The girl’s mother is not living in Manitoba anymore and has not been in court. Her lawyer’s request for an adjournment Monday morning was rejected.

She has said she can’t afford to travel but will attempt to when the parents have an opportunity to make their case next month.

The stepfather is in court and has filed a constitutional challenge, saying his right to freedom of expression, religion and association were violated when the children were apprehended. [I hope he wins, and that if he does, he sues the pants off of Child and Family Services.-IA]

The girl’s biological father has also been attending the hearing, sitting in the gallery and watching the proceedings. He told CBC News he hopes the children’s best interests won’t be overlooked in the rhetoric of political ideology.

[Incidentally, as regular readers of the taxpayer-funded CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website will know, the CBC consistently slants its news coverage to fit a leftist/liberal agenda. In other words, the CBC isn’t in the business of responsible journalism, but rather, of disseminating propaganda. This story was a good illustration of that; notice how it subtly took the side of the social workers, quoting statements allegedly made by the little girl to tug on readers’ heartstrings, while villainizing the mother and stepfather. Is that balanced reporting? It’s not that non-state-funded media companies are any better, especially in light of who runs most of them, but it seems more overtly tyrannical when people are forced to pay taxes to be propagandized in this manner. But since the CBC’s biased news coverage is a rather large topic, perhaps I’ll leave it for another time.-IA]

Brazilian President blames financial crisis on “white people with blue eyes”

On the world financial crisis,

“Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva … charged last week that ‘this is a crisis that was caused by white people with blue eyes.'”

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090329/pl_mcclatchy/3200499

Three things cross my mind when I read this:

1. Da Silva, whose popularity ratings are plummeting, is pandering to Brazil’s non-white majority of voters.

2. How would Brazil fare if it kicked out all its white people? Only marginally better than Zimbabwe, I would imagine.

3. Why is a world leader like da Silva able to blame “white people with blue eyes” for the financial crisis without being denounced as a racist, but if a world leader like Vladimir Putin (accurately) points out that Africa has a history of cannibalism, or if former Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohammed (correctly) asserts that the U.S. is fighting a proxy war against Islam on behalf of Israel, the Western media immediately starts shrieking about “racism” and “anti-Semitism”?

Would a white Western leader be allowed to blame skyrocketing crime rates on non-white immigration with impunity, even if that assertion is, in fact, correct? It’s rather amazing that whites take statements like da Silva’s lying down.

Two finer points:

a. Isn’t da Silva himself white? He sure looks it to me.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. (Photo: Roberto Jayme)

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. (Photo: Roberto Jayme)

b. Aren’t a disproportionate number of the “white people” who have brought about the world financial crisis in fact Jews? If so, why doesn’t da Silva mention that fact? Is it OK to demonize “white people with blue eyes” but not Jews? Is da Silva scapegoating “white people” in an attempt to take heat off the Jews?

A Warning For America From South Africa

by Gemma Meyer

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America’s structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman — that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you’ve created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.

But woe to you if — or more likely, when — the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game — violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves — Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.

That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.

Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve “peace.”

Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.

The Third World is different — different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe — once the thriving, stable Rhodesia — is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.

Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.

It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the “politically correct” and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe “compassionate conservatism” will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.

White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.

We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of “oppression” and “racism,” and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles’ heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the “equality of man,” and his “love your neighbor” philosophy — none of which are part of the Third World’s history.

The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today’s tyrants were yesterday’s mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the “brotherhood of man.”

Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don’t want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn’t want to quarrel.

In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society’s laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings — as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge “white man’s justice”? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white “racists” and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?

Don’t laugh. When the “majority” took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing — invasions of private land by the “have-nots;” the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.

In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.

What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor’s backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for “medicinal” purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?

Don’t laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.

Don’t imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses — like the need to overcome generations of white racism — will be found to exonerate the guilty.

In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn’t exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.

When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa’s new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago. [Note: This article is a few years old. -IA]

Your tax dollars will go to those who don’t earn and don’t pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans’ services, are simply abandoned.

What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don’t expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.

Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.

Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.

To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don’t put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.

Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your possessions, your power, and your status.

And they already know that their allies among you, the “human rights activists,” the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.

They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.

They know what to do.

Do you?

—————
Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.

South Africa: Blacks far more racist and xenophobic than whites

[In just the last eight months, we saw brutal riots in Kenya, supposedly one of the more stable and Westernized of the black African nations, culminating in the mass murder and incineration of 50 people who had sought refuge in a church; we saw Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), which under white rule was so prosperous it was known as the “breadbasket of Africa,” hit rock bottom; and now this. How much longer are leftists and liberals going to continue pretending that blacks and whites are inherently the same and that when blacks revert to the savagery of their pre-colonization days, it’s the fault of ‘white racism’? -IA]

10,000 flee South Africa as army is called on to streets to end anti-foreigner violence
by Daily Mail Reporter

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1020512/Wave-anti-foreigner-violence-sweeps-South-African-townships.html?ITO=1490#

More than 10,000 Mozambicans have fled home from South Africa to escape anti-foreigner violence that has killed at least 42 people and left more than 30,000 homeless.

Their escape comes as President Thabo Mbeki ordered the armed forces to quell the unrest for the first time in the country since the end of Apartheid.

Air force helicopters were deployed to back up police in Johannesburg’s Alexandra township over fears the crisis could massively destabilise Africa’s largest economy.

Armed mobs, who have forcefully driven thousands of immigrants from their homes before looting and torching their shacks, accuse them of stealing jobs and fuelling crime.

The violence, which has since spread from Johannesburg to Durban, has also seen the return of necklacing – the brutal practice of filling a tyre with petrol and throwing it over the victim’s neck. [More on necklacing here, here, and here. -IA]

The deadly method has not been seen since the Apartheid era when black South Africans used it on “collaborators” with the white minority rulers.

Photo of a necklacing victim

Fears of attacks have led to thousands of immigrants, mainly from Zimbabwe and Mozambique, fleeing the country.

Mozambique’s Deputy Immigration Director Leonardo Boby today said: “10,047 returned home in buses provided by the government.”

The number is likely to increase in the next days as long as violence unfolds in South Africa.

The deputy leader of the ruling African National Congress, which ousted Mbeki as party leader in December, criticised the police delay in responding to the violence which erupted in Alexandra township on May 11 and spread rapidly.

“The delay encouraged people in similar environments to wage similar attacks against people who came from our sister countries on the continent,” Kgalema Motlanthe said.

“We are confronted by one of the ugliest incidents in the post-apartheid era.”

Mr Motlanthe also said the violence was an assault on the values of South Africa’s democratic society.

He is a close ally of ANC leader Jacob Zuma, who defeated Mbeki for the party leadership.

The attacks on African migrants have increased political instability at a time of power shortages and disaffection over Mbeki’s pro-business policies.

[Imagine if white Americans in the Southwestern United States were to respond this way to the flood of illegal Mexicans, if European-Canadians were to respond this way to the Asians who are colonizing Canada’s West Coast, or if Parisians were to respond this way to the Muslims who have taken over the suburbs of their city. On second thought, maybe this is how whites should respond, since apparently, politicians aren’t going to do anything to stop the invasion. -IA]

Canada: Are whites on the way to becoming a minority?

1 in 6 Canadians is a visible minority: StatsCan
South Asians top Chinese as largest visible minority group
CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/02/stats-immigration.html

One out of every six Canadians belongs to a visible minority group, thanks largely to the country’s growing South Asian population, the latest census figures show.

Statistics Canada, which released its 2006 numbers on visible minorities on Wednesday, said the number of people considered visible minorities topped five million (5,068,100) for the first time in census history. They made up 16.2 per cent of the total Canadian population, which was 31,612,897 in the 2006 census.

In the 2001 census, there were 3,983,800 people considered to belong to a visible minority, making up 13.4 per cent of the population.

The numbers were even lower in 1981, the year statistics on visible minorities were first counted as required by Canada’s Employment Equity Act. At that time, there were only 1.1 million visible minorities, representing 4.7 per cent of the total population.

Not only are visible minority numbers increasing, they’re increasing at a fast pace. Between 2001 and 2006, the visible minority population rose by 27.2 per cent, while the population as a whole only increased by 5.4 per cent.

Statistics Canada said that, at this pace, members of visible minority groups could account for roughly one-fifth of the total population by 2017.

Statistics Canada attributed the rising visible minority numbers to the high level of immigrants who have recently entered the country from non-European countries.

Sociologist Monica Boyd agreed with the theory.

“Immigration accounts for quite a bit, the vast majority, of that growth we see today,” said Boyd, a professor at the University of Toronto.

“Immigration counts for two-thirds of the population growth in Canada and if you have increasing intake of immigrants from countries other than Europe, you’re simply adding more and more diverse people into the Canadian population.”

Statistics Canada said that in 2006, 83.9 per cent of immigrants who landed in Canada in the five years prior to census numbers being collected were from regions outside of Europe. In 1981, the number was 68.5 per cent.

While not all recent immigrants who came from non-European countries are visible minorities, many are. When looking at all the recent immigrants in Canada in 2006 who hailed from both non-European and European regions, 75 per cent were visible minorities.

In 1981, only 55.5 per cent were from a visible minority group.

Statistics Canada defines a visible minority as “persons, other than Aboriginal Peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.” The definition is the same as that used by the Employment Equity Act.

South Asians, Chinese have biggest numbers

South Asians became Canada’s largest visible minority group in 2006, surpassing the Chinese.

According to the 2006 census, there are 1.3 million Canadians who identify themselves as South Asian, which includes countries like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They represent 24.9 per cent of the visible minority population, and four per cent of the total Canadian population.

The 1.2 million Chinese make up 24 per cent of the visible minority population, and 3.9 per cent of the population in general.

The other large visible minority groups are:

  • Black (15.5 per cent of the visible minority population).
  • Filipino (8.1 per cent).
  • Latin American (6.0 per cent).
  • Arab (5.2 per cent).
  • Southeast Asian (4.7 per cent).
  • West Asian (3.1 per cent).
  • Korean (2.8 per cent).
  • Japanese (1.6 per cent).

I am Canadian

The census asked Canadians to identify the ethnic and cultural origins of their ancestors, with people allowed to pick multiple answers. Respondents gave a total of 223 different answers, the most frequent being: English, French, Scottish, German, Italian, Chinese, North American Indian, Ukrainian and Dutch.

But the most popular answer of all was Canadian. A total of 5.7 million Canadians said they were only Canadian, while 4.3 million said that part of their origin was Canadian.

In total, 32 per cent of Canadians called themselves Canadian, a decrease from the last census, when 39 per cent listed themselves as Canadian.

Mixed marriages rise by one-third

The census also found that the number of interracial marriages and unions rose by a third between 2001 and 2006.

Most of the mixed unions (85 per cent) counted in 2006 involved a person who is from a visible minority group and a person who is not, while 15 per cent involved two people from different visible minority groups.

“It’s a sign of the fact that those barriers, those social barriers between racial groups, are being chipped away at a little bit,” said sociologist Wendy Roth of the University of British Columbia.

“The rate of increase of mixed unions is not huge, but it’s steady, and the fact that it continues to be steady in different censuses suggests that those barriers are diminishing.”