◄►◄❌►▲ ▼▲▼ • BNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
The narrative highlights that while Haiti exemplifies a desperate situation, it is essential to recognize that not all impoverished countries share the same level of degradation. The author distinguishes between different types of poverty, suggesting that some nations, despite their economic struggles, can maintain a level of civility and care for their communities. For instance, the author describes a hypothetical scenario in a remote Vietnamese village where children could thrive, contrasting it with the dire conditions found in Haiti. This distinction is crucial as it calls into question the blanket labeling of countries as “shitholes” based solely on their economic status.
Moreover, the author delves into the complexities of culture and governance in various regions, particularly in Africa, where he characterizes some areas as lacking effective governmental structures. He provides a personal anecdote about his experiences in Somalia, where he observed a complete absence of governance, further illustrating his point that some places do not function as coherent societies. The author challenges the media's portrayal of Africa, suggesting that it often overlooks darker realities, such as violence against marginalized groups, which contributes to the narrative of certain regions being chaotic and dangerous.
In conclusion, the author supports Trump's view on prioritizing immigration from countries like Norway, which he describes as orderly and civilized, contrasting sharply with the chaotic conditions of places like Haiti. He argues that immigrants from more developed nations would be better equipped to integrate into American society due to shared language and cultural values. The author posits that the challenges of assimilating individuals from significantly different backgrounds are substantial and may lead to long-term societal issues. Ultimately, the piece reflects a controversial stance on immigration that prioritizes cultural compatibility and socioeconomic conditions over humanitarian considerations.
## I. Introduction
A. Context of Trump's comments on immigration
1. Preference for immigrants from Norway over "shithole countries" like Haiti
2. Reaction from the media and public
B. Questioning the outrage
1. Speculation on the media's geographic ignorance
2. Commentary on the nature of media responses
## II. Definition and Context of "Shithole Countries"
A. Literal interpretation of "shithole"
1. Example of Haiti's conditions
a. Reference to NPR report on sewage issues
B. Figurative meaning of "shithole"
1. Associations with filth, poverty, and ignorance
2. Description of Haiti's socio-economic conditions
## III. Personal Experience in Haiti
A. Description of living conditions in Cite Soleil
1. Physical environment: slums with no infrastructure
2. Absence of law enforcement and social order
B. Observations of violence and neglect
1. Example of a dead man in the street
2. Indifference of passers-by
C. Conclusion of personal experience
1. Acknowledgment of the need for change
2. Suggestion that efforts should focus on improving conditions in Haiti, not mass immigration
## IV. Misconceptions about the Third World
A. Clarification of the term "Third World"
1. Misleading generalizations about poverty
2. Contrast with other impoverished regions
B. Example of Vietnam
1. Personal anecdote about a fishing village
2. Expectations of care and community
## V. Other “Shithole” Countries
A. Description of Somalia
1. Lack of government and social structure
2. Personal experience of absurd negotiations
B. Overview of Africa's challenges
1. Ignored issues such as violence and cannibalism
2. Media's selective focus
## VI. Argument for Immigration Preferences
A. Trump’s suggestion of Norwegian immigrants
1. Comparison of Norwegian society with chaotic conditions in America
2. Potential for easier assimilation of Norwegians
B. Critique of multiculturalism
1. Challenges in integrating immigrants from dissimilar backgrounds
2. Concerns about long-term implications of current immigration policies
## VII. Conclusion
A. Reaffirmation of Trump’s stance on immigration
B. Reflection on the complexities of immigration and cultural integration
1. Recognition of the dire situations in various countries
2. Call for realistic approaches to immigration and aid
This outline summarizes the article's main points regarding Trump's comments on immigration, the conditions of certain countries, and the implications of cultural integration. It reflects the author's perspective on the challenges faced by immigrants from impoverished regions compared to those from more developed nations. The discussion critiques media reactions and emphasizes a need for realistic solutions to global poverty.
Pop Quiz: Take out a sheet of paper. This will be fifty percent of your grade: Which of the above is the Norwegian? Which from Mr. Trump’s other category? With which would you rather have your children go to school?
Mr. Trump’s comment regarding his preference for immigrants from Norway instead of “shithole countries” such as Haiti engendered among the commentariat a great squealing. I cannot fathom this. Are they geographic virgins, and just don’t know anything of the world? Is it only the usual schadenfreudian gotcha pile-on? The if-A-then-B response to stimulus of a press corps with the freedom of thought I associate with a FORTRAN statement?
Shithole countries exist. Mr. Trump’s Haiti is one of them. Some other expression of more acceptable weaselhood might be employed: “hygienically-impaired conceivably preliterate ” or something.
If one takes “shithole” literally, Haiti is indeed excrementially challenged, I shamelessly steal this from John Derbyshire’s column on the Unz Review:
NPR: “A rainstorm on Good Friday last year filled the streets and alleys of one Port-au-Prince neighborhood with 3 feet of raw sewage.”
If unconvinced, try here.
However, Mr. Trump’s term is usually figurative, meaning something like filthy, backward, pitiable, poor, unspeakable, degraded, ignorant, and so on. This is Haiti.
I once spent a week in the slums of Cite Soleil, in Port au Prince with the US Army. It was godawful. Huts of corrugated iron, “streets” of packed dirt, actually paths maybe two feet wide between them, no sewerage, no electricity. No medical care or, so I was told, education. The impression was of an occupied garbage dump.
There were no guns, so the denizens went at each other with machetes, leading to missing limbs and exposed brains. Law enforcement did not exist. Witchcraft did. Haiti is voodoo territory.
One may sympathize with the inhabitants of such a Dantean sub-basement, and I did. One may imagine ways of helping such people, and I did, knowing that they had been tried without effect. Yet there is no point in whitewashing a disaster, in pretending that Haiti is not what it is.
One day beside one of the narrow street-side canals, ditches really, of filthy water I saw a dead man. He was of a rich mahogany color, clothed only in shorts, lying face down next to the ditch. Passers-by paid him no attention. Flies were beginning to gather.
Apparently he had been digging in the ditch–a pick lay nearby–and hit an electrical cable. The concussion seemed to have thrown him onto the bank. There was no sign that anyone was going to do anything about him.
No chance exists of integrating such people into the United States. It is insane to try. If you want to improve their lives, an impulse I commend, do it in Haiti. It won’t work, but you will have the satisfaction of having tried.
Those who have traveled little sometimes think that the world outside the developed countries is like Haiti. It is not. For all the talk about “Third World Hellholes” from bottle-blondes in New York, little of the “Third World,” whatever precisely that is, fits the description. (A phrase that includes Buenos Aires and Cite Soleil needs to be stood up against a wall and shot for fraud.)
Countries afflicted by poverty are not necessarily shitholes, and usually are not. If I inadvertently left my granddaughter of two years in a remote Vietnamese fishing village, I would be little concerned. Rather I would expect to find her a week later having become the queen of the village and being well cared for. The Vietnamese would not eat her.
It is a common pattern. Nepal is very poor. Yet in a remote Himalayan village above 12,000 feet, reachable only by days of hard walking or on tough little horses, you find civilized behavior. People are courteous, everyone is cared for, homes like rude American vacation cabins are clean and maintained, hygiene observed, children raised well. On the abandoned-granddaughter test, they would score an A. The only damage done would be that you would spend years trying to tell the tyke why she couldn’t have her own yak.
Another candidate for shithole status is Somalia, only barely a country. When I was there it had no signs of a government. Many people there lived in the wild in huts of thorn bush covered with cardboard or cloth. I once watched the absurd spectacle of a State Department official riding into the bush in a jeep, containing me, to negotiate road-building rights with puzzled nomads who didn’t own the rights but were happy to take payment. By comparison, Alice in Wonderland seems brutally realistic.
For whatever reason, the worst of the Trumpian apertures are in Africa. On racial grounds, the media ignore that cannibalism flourishes, that albinos are hunted down and killed for the magical powers attributed to their body parts. (Dead serious. LA Times: “In parts of Africa, people with albinism are hunted for their body parts. The latest victim: a 9-year-old boy.”)
Mr. Trump suggested that it would be wiser to admit migrants from Norway. He is of course exactly right. It is not clear why Norwegians would leave their ordered and civilized country for the social chaos, racial violence, and degraded culture of America, but never mind. Yet, however ill-advised, they would assimilate quickly. Norwegians speak English. They can count beyond ten. They only occasionally practice witchcraft or hunt albinos. Some authorities deny that they do these things at all.
How can anyone, unaided by the better grades of mushroom, expect people from such Trumpian–yes, hell holes–to fit into Iowa? They have nothing in common with Americans–not language, schooling, religion, morals, familiarity with civilization, European heritage or, it would seem, intelligence. Having imported them in the throes of the current fad for multiculturalism, the country will have them for all time. Splendid. Just splendid.


RSS










