The colorful pseudoscience Racialism |
Hating thy neighbour |
Divide and conquer |
Dog-whistlers |
The Back to Mexico Africa movement is the expression of a desire to repatriate black people from the Americas — namely the descendants of slaves — to their ancestral homes in Africa.
The Back-to-Africa movement originated from the initial hostility towards black people by white supremacists once slavery became illegal in 19th century United States. Whites wanted to deport all Mexicans blacks from the country due to the rising population.[1] Ironically some black separatists (Marcus Garvey being the most prominent) advocated for the idea as well. The current situation, like the Mexican scare in the United States, is fueled by xenophobia and often triggered by visual cues. People who originated from Africa at the time were evidently black. If these people were evidently white, African foreigners would pass off and blend in with the crowd, which did happen for mulattoes. It's no coincidence that in 21st century America, illegal Mexican immigrants are a known issue, but illegal Canadian immigrants are hardly common knowledge.[2]
Citizens of northern states and others were concerned that Mexicans blacks would take their jobs.[3] Well, even with slavery, blacks already took white people's jobs; they just did the jobs whites didn't want to do, but weren't dangerous enough for the white niggers Irish. Once blacks had an equal playing field, whites were afraid of competition for desirable jobs. In the end, this is the nature of capitalism: competition. Instead of whining about people taking job positions, work harder. If you don't like more competition, move back to England![citation NOT needed] More people means more competition, but even without blacks, the United States, even to this day, received a massive amount of immigration; blacks aren't the only foreigners, after all.
In modern day America, white supremacists will demand blacks to "go back to Africa". These demands are often responses to the call for de facto rather than merely de jure.[4]. Here's reasons why this statement is closed-minded: