Black "Legal Scholar" Claims That Every Black Immigrant To Canada Is A "Victim of White Slavery and Colonialism"

I ran across an interesting article in an online publication called The Ricochet, which seems to provide National Observer-type progressive activist journalism. I saw an article entitled “Black People in Canada are not Settlers” by Anthony Morgan. “Wow, someone with a bit of common-sense writes for this site?” I thought incredulously. European Settlers created Canada, black people did not. I was eager to read about the obvious fact that there is a difference between a settler and an immigrant. I was disappointed to find that the article was actually about how the process of settling Canada was an act of evil white supremacy and that even in Canada black people are victims of slavery and colonialism. According to Morgan, there needs to be a new term for black Canadians that accurately reflects their victimized status in Canada.

Here I will review this article and illustrate how grievance-industry activist like Morgan, who are bolstered by the progressive Cultural-Marxist academic complex, use their victim-narratives to besmirch our ancestors and distort our history to meet their ends. I will also suggest that paradoxically, these activist writers actually bolster the argument that old-stock Canadians are the true builders and rightful heirs of the Canadian project.

Let us begin with some background on the writer of the article being reviewed:

Anthony is a lawyer who practices in the areas of civil, constitutional and criminal state accountability litigation. He has a special interest in anti-racist human rights advocacy, particularly in the area of anti-Black racism. He has appeared at the Divisional Court and the Supreme Court of Canada and has also represented the interests of African Canadians before United Nations human rights treaty bodies. Anthony is a frequent legal, social and public affairs commentator on issues concerning race and racism, critical multiculturalism and critical race theory in Canada. His comments on these issues have been featured in the Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star, Huffington Post Canada, and other major newspapers and broadcast outlets, including CNN. In addition to holding an LL.B. and B.C.L. from McGill University, Faculty of Law, he holds an Hons. B.A. from the University of Toronto in Ethics, Society & Law [https://ricochet.media/en/contributors/303]

Gee, he is pretty accomplished. To be honest his article read like an undergrad school newspaper piece, so I was surprised to read his bio and see so many accomplishments. Makes me wonder if black privilege had anything to do his success? But I digress.

Settlers Vs Immigrants

His article is interesting for a couple of reasons. For starters, it states something that should be obvious but is rarely acknowledged: immigrants are not the same as settlers. Settlers built this country. They came here long before there was any sort of welfare state, thousands died of disease and starvation, they lived harsh lives in harsh environments, oftentimes living in hovels made of dirt while they accumulated the time and money to build a house (check out “Drylanders” and the work of Sinclair Ross.) The Laurentian elite from which the Trudeaus were spawned lived fairly lavish lives selling supplies and railway tickets to hardy pioneers. Beyond that the vast majority of Canadian were just poor people working the land.

Documentary “Drylanders”

Immigrants in Canada are a lot different. They came for the political system of opportunity, freedom and the social safety net that was built by my settler ancestors. Immigrants (these days) get put up in hotels, apartments rented for their families, access to world-class medical services, welfare money, easy jobs, a lucrative grievance industry, the list can go on and on, which is why so many people from loser-countries want to come here.

Basically, Canadian settlers cultivated the soil, built the house, made the meal and set the table. Immigrants arrived, sat at the table, ate the food, complained it didn’t taste good enough and told us to clean up the mess.

It is good that some minority immigrants realize that there is a difference between a Canadian settler and an immigrant. However, this brings us to the other interesting aspect of Morgan’s article. According to Morgan

The descendants of enslaved Africans absolutely cannot be considered settlers… “Enslaved peoples could not consent to being brought here, and their presence cannot confer upon their descendants acceptance into the settler colonial system, especially since, being inherently white supremacist, settler colonialism is virulently anti-Black.”

Ah, so according to Morgan they are not immigrants or settlers. Somethings tells me we are about to take a left turn down Whiny Road until we end up in Gimme-Gimmeville. Let us read some more of his brilliant article:

A term that more effectively captures the routes/roots of the Black presence in Canada is “forcibly displanted Africans.” The shorthands I use for this term are “displanted Africans,” “the forcibly displanted,” “displanted people,” or, simply, “the displanted.”

“Forcibly displanted Africans” replaces anachronistic and inaccurate languaging of Black presence and experience in Canada, moving us beyond the unuseful term of “settler.” It offers a description of Black people and presence in this country that is ultimately much more consistent with the factual histories and realities of Canada’s African heritage.”

Forcibly displanted Africans. Catchy. I guess the logic is that many Africans in Canada were bought from African slave-traders and forcibly brought over to the new world to pick cotton. They were also forced to choose to come to Canada so they could escape American slavery. It seems Morgan came up with a new term for refugee if anything, which is really just another word for immigrant.

But let’s play along, after all, it must be tough being a Forcibly displanted African lawyer living in Canada. So escaped African slaves are not settlers, immigrants or refugees, because those designations do not denote the victimized status that the correct term, Forcibly displanted Africans, does. Got it. But what about black immigrants that have come to Canada since the 60s or after the Multiculturalism Act? Surely, they are not also Forcibly displanted Africans since they came here of their own free will. Morgan has the answer:

Within Canada’s populations of African and/or Caribbean heritage, it is common to hear elders and newcomers alike openly express that they would have preferred to stay in the lands of their birth, but they left and came to Canada because their home countries couldn’t provide adequate access to quality health, education, housing and employment opportunities for them and their future families. The lack of such supports is a product and process of the colonization and neo-colonization of African and the Caribbean, which Canada is deeply implicated in and has benefited from.

I have been educated. African and Caribbean countries are not dysfunctional due to general ineptitude or malfeasance on the part of its citizens, its my fault that their countries are terrible places to live despite all the resources and good weather they have. So, because we got in the way of blacks creating a global network of Wakandas they are forced into “displanting” themselves into Canada and partaking in the benefits of my ancestor’s hard work.

Anthony Morgan: I am the captain. I have what it takes to be one of Canada’s premier intellectuals.

Mind-blowing word salads like Morgan’s work is clear proof that diversity is our strength. It is great to see that black people can come to the country that was formerly ours, learn and employ social justice terminology to climb the affirmative action/white guilt ladder and become a grievance industry lawyer that creates thought-provoking articles so that I can learn why blacks in Canada require their own identifying term that properly reflect their victimhood. As Morgan puts it:

Continuing to use “settler” to name Canada’s Black presence is not only ahistoric and intellectually lazy but it also prevents Canada from effectively contesting with the troubling truths of its history and heritage.

The real point of Morgan’s article is not to come up with an accurate term for black Canadians, but to define Canadian settlers as white supremacist agents of colonialism and to distance black Canadians from that milieu. This a notable pivot from less than a decade ago where Cultural Marxist academics and activists used to say that all Canadians are just immigrants, so therefore a Haitian who just crossed the border at Roxham Road is just as Canadian as the descendants of Selkirk’s Red River settlers of 1812.

Ricardo Duchesne’s Canada in Decay covers the process of how university history education began to change their discourse from “Canadian settlers and pioneers are distinct from Canadian immigrants”, to “All non-indigenous Canadians are immigrants”. Noting that:

The distinction between settlers/pioneers and immigrants, which was recognized (at least implicitly) by past historians, has been explicitly obfuscated by current historians. The two standard history textbooks I have referenced often in the preceding chapters, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation and A History of the Canadian Peoples, avoid the use of the words “settler” and “pioneers, but always use the words “immigrants” and “diverse immigrants” (Duchesne 65-66).

The history textbooks that Duchesne mentions above were the main texts for my own two Canadian history survey courses and I can attest to Duchesne’s observations. I recall noticing how the role of settlers and pioneers were downplayed in those texts compared to the my elementary school Canadian history lessons in the early 90s where the heroism of the fur-traders and homesteaders were celebrated. Canada in Decay’s chapter 4 “Pioneers, Settlers, and Discoverers” is the only work I have found that covers how and why this change in historical discourse came about in any depth and is worth reading and re-reading.

This academically manufactured change in discourse is to prevent old-stock Canadians from attempting to say that they have any sort of distinct history or special status as descendants of the people who built Canada. Many feel that this dynamic cost Stephen Harper the 2015 election. During the debates Harper had the temerity to suggest that old-stock Canadians might object to having to pay the medical bills for any non-citizen immigrant, and their families, that enters Canada. Justine Trudeau pounced on this “misstep” and attacked Harper with the line “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian!” Trudeau and the media attacked Harper for suggesting that those who have been investing and working in this country for a few generations deserve any special consideration at all in policy making. Immigrants and progressives knew who to vote for; Trudeau won. The Cultural Marxist ploy of obfuscating the distinction between settler/pioneers/ old stock Canadians and immigrants paid enormous dividends.

Now that progressive academic and minority activists smell blood, they are moving the goal posts. Now Haitians that crossed over at Roxham Road yesterday are not only as Canadian as any old-stock Canadian-they are actually better Canadians because are they not guilty of the original sin of colonialism, but they are also victims of it. Morgan’s article proposes an intersectional hierarchy of victimhood with the perpetrators at the bottom:

“First Nations”- The Real owners of the land.

“Forcibly Displanted Africans”- Noble victims of colonialism and slavery.

Immigrants- As Canadian as any Canadian even if they only arrived yesterday

Settlers- Perpetrators of white supremacy. Land thieves. Sinners.

It is obvious from reading Morgan’s paint-by-numbers progressive doublespeak that he is not creative enough to come up with the concepts within his article himself, which indicates that this intersectional hierarchy is a talking point in many of the government-funded workshops and conferences he attends. No one in their academic/community activist world will challenge them and over time this hierarchy idea will seep its way into our regular lives. Likely, we will end up paying for some ridiculous reparations to blacks in Canada, and South-African style race-based equity policies will become the new norm.

Throughout Morgan’s piece he sees nothing good about the settling of Canada. He sees nothing good about White Canada. He defines black Canadians as victims by defining old stock White Canadians as descendants of white supremacist land thieves. Cultural Marxist academics have made him a playing field where he can use his black privilege to say whatever he wants about our ancestors and people will either agree with him or be too cowardly to challenge him (especially because they can lose their jobs if they do). He, and those like him, will continue to have access to far-reaching platforms where they can spread their anti-White hate unchallenged. More and more confused EuroCanadians will accept their arguments and proposals. However, many EuroCanadians are starting to roll their eyes at these grievance-peddlers as they slowly but surely notice how the grievance industry agenda is limiting their freedoms and well-being. How they always find ways to demand more.

Paradoxically, Morgan’s argument supports a line of thinking that can be very useful to Dissident Right thinkers in Canada. His concern with separating people of settler ancestry from black Canadians is correct. It is good to know that black immigrants and their descendants are now concerned with separating their identities from the people who built Canada. This line of thinking gives old stock Canadians a foothold to regain the status of rightful inheritors of the Canadian project. How can black immigrants they say that they are just as Canadian as my settler -great-great-grandfather, but also that they are not? Obviously, they will try, but will their arguments stand up to any scrutiny?

The real problem is combatting the inaccurate portrayal of our settler ancestors as perpetrators of evil.

This is why it is imperative that we need to educate ourselves and others about the real story of our country and ancestors. How about putting pressure on “conservative” politicians to promote early Canadian settlers’ history and defend it. Playwriting theatre that conveys the trials and victories of Canadian settlers. Creating memes and imagery that portray our ancestors in a positive light. We need to cultivate and promote our own discourse on our identity and history to counter the envious and hateful progressive discourse. People are starting to wake up. It is up to us in the avante garde to provide an alternative discourse that will help newly awakened EuroCanadians sublimate their discontent into positive action.

Lastly, I would recommend that Dissent Right thinkers familiarize themselves with the work of progressive activist writers. Once you get past the nausea, their articles are usually simple and easy to read. It is useful to know their arguments before they trickle into the mainstream. So much Dissident Right intelligentsia is reactionary, oftentimes in disbelief at how audacious progressive activists and academics can be. They will always create arguments where they find ways to demand more for themselves, if we can create useful counterarguments to their views before they go mainstream we will be in a better position to influence public opinion against the outrageous claims of progressive Cultural-Marxist activists.

Their work can also be good for a laugh.

Anthony Morgan’s Scholarly Legacy

Mr. Morgan has some other poignant articles on Ricochet too:

“Hockey Was My Game“

A short personal story about how Mr. Morgan was going to become the next Eric Lindros until an opposing player called him a nigger when he was ten. He had to settle with becoming a well-off grievance industry lawyer.