Blame the masters, not the slaves

US President Donald Trump’s allegedly bigoted statement made during a meeting with senators on the immigration reform issue, in which he summarily dismissed some immigrant-originating nations as “shit hole” countries, has struck a raw nerve in many countries and communities around the world, apparently even enraging some to by Trump.

I am a very pragmatically minded person, and in this column and others I have roundly criticized what I thought were some of the more egregious domestic and foreign policies of the Trump administration, such as the US’ unceremonious withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement just moments after Trump’s inauguration. But just as with that to understand the circumstances surrounding both the alleged statement and its acrimonious reception and reactions worldwide.

In particular, I would like to draw attention to the emphasis that as alleged, Trump utilized his offensive adjective to qualify countries, and not people or communities per se. “Country,” in the common but abstract sense of the word, refers to both the government and the people of a nation. While I agree that if Trump had indeed made that infamous statement, it would have been at least unstatesmanlike of him to negatively refer to the people of some nations.

Many of the more awakened citizens of many developing countries also aspire to good governance and personal development just like their counterparts in developed countries. However, very often they are essentially held hostage by ruthless dictators or autocratic juntas or both. Venezuela, which was allegedly one of those countries referred to by Trump, is one Venezuelan dictators held on and is still holding on to power by hook or by crook, despite overwhelming popular opposition. Its supposedly oil- rich economy is in shambles, thanks to the government’s mismanagement. I think it understandable that many Venezuelans would like to flee their motherland not only out of fear of political or other sorts of persecution ( which would have enabled them to gain refugee status in many countries), but also due to socio- economic hardships ( which would not have qualified them as refugees). I think it is only human nature that people would like to move to more advanced societies where at least the social system and the governance, not to mention the abundant welfare, are so much more superior and mature than those in their countries of origin. In my eyes, these latter category of people are victims of their twisted political reality and the ensuing negative socioeconomic circumstances, and they should be helped by the rest of the international community, so that they too could realize their dreams and aspire to develop their potentials more fully.

Some critics may argue that these potential “economic migrants” are not as “pure and innocent” as they are made out to be by many non- governmental organizations and individuals in developed countries who are “bleeding heart” liberals willing to open their countries’ gates to let in all and sundry. In the above- mentioned Venezuelan pointed out that at least the late dictator Hugo Chavez was initially voted in by a huge margin and went on to pursue an essentially populist agenda, bankrupting the country in the process and consolidating his ironclad hold on power over time with at least tacit, if not overwhelming though waning (toward the end of his life), popular approval. There is a sort of “you asked for it” cynicism being touted to counter the ordinary Venezuelan being innocent argument.

I think these critics either overlook or have never lived through the sordidly slogging lives that are the mainstay of many developing countries. For starters, many developing countries are still practicing what I would call semi-feudalism in the daily functioning of their societies, with solidly immobile social and the vast majority of the wealth is held in the hands of a few elite families or closed circle of politicians colluding with businessmen. The ordinary citizens would have to undertake backbreaking jobs to just barely feed their families. Life and future look - derclass, as can be gleaned from many sprawling urban slums. Imagine a populist or at least these downtrodden crowd and convincing them to vote for him so that he could break the strati “liberate” them, providing them with dreams and hopes of a better, more just society. Of course, these voters who usually number in the majority, would go all out in droves to vote for this charis fulfilled his ruinous promises or became more autocratic is secondary. He delivered dreams, and for the poor, that is often all that matters. Nightmares may come, but at least they are forms of dreams too.

And if Trump was referring to the governments or the leaders of those countries he allegedly offended, I frankly don’t think he was in the wrong. He was just speaking the truth, for as the demonstrates, these unaccountable regimes do not hesitate to prey on their own people to sustain their bloodsucking regimes. To blame Trump for summarily and negatively labelling desperate people around the world is arguably right, but if he were referring mainly to the heartless authorities of these countries, then he was also in the right.