www.theblaze.com
Haitians transition from border victims to pet-theft villains
Haitian migrants have officially been cemented as one of the preferred political props in America’s culture wars.
Back in 2021, they were portrayed as victims of “racist” Border Patrol agents who were photographed “whipping” them while on horseback. The media ran with that story and had a line of politicians and pundits ready to add fuel to the fire by evoking our national history of slavery. For the left, this was another story confirming its claims about anti-black racism. A report came out the following year that stated agents didn’t whip anyone during the confrontation at the border. One agent who was investigated at the time won an award for his service earlier this year.
The same people who are quick to generalize and stigmatize when mocking a foe can’t start squealing like stuck pigs when the same standard is applied to them.
The latest political scandal involving Haitians is unfolding far from the southern border. Their role in the public imagination this time around is that of pet-eating savages terrorizing a small Midwestern town, not impoverished strivers victimized by racist law enforcement agents. Social media has been flooded with accusations that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, have been stealing and eating pets. Conservatives on X (formerly Twitter) have amplified the rumors, and President Trump brought them up at his debate with Kamala Harris on Tuesday.
And just like the fake “whipping” controversy at the border, the current controversy obscures real issues in that community and important questions we should be asking about broader issues related to immigration and assimilation. These issues are complex, and they are made even more challenging when there is a higher demand for explosive — and at times, unsubstantiated — claims than sober policy analysis.
Residents in Springfield have accused Haitians of causing accidents on the roads, while a PBS profile on the city featured an employer complimenting his Haitian employees on their work ethic and a church where Haitian families keep the pews from being completely empty. These firsthand accounts certainly paint a much more nuanced picture of life in Springfield than memes of pet theft and consumption.
Make no mistake, there are real issues here, especially when close to 20,000 people move in a short time to a small city of 60,000. Any municipality that grows that quickly will have its resources, including public services and infrastructure, stressed and stretched. That type of rapid growth would be complicated even more if the new arrivals were people from another country who speak a different language and have unfamiliar — or even backward, by local standards — cultural practices.
The people who have lived there have the right to ask questions and demand answers from their elected representatives. Change is never easy, especially when people feel they are being “replaced” by a new favored group.
You can see this dynamic at play in cities where “gentrification” is frequently derided as an intentional attempt to displace poor and working-class black residents with wealthy white newcomers. You can also see it in small towns when immigrants from Central America or the Caribbean move into poor and working-class white neighborhoods.
The challenges facing the people in Springfield are one issue. How they are discussed in the media, by politicians, and by social commentators is another. And right now, one question we should all be asking ourselves is how common a particular behavior must be among a group of people to describe the entire population generally.
For example, let’s say five people — all black Haitians — in Springfield actually have eaten cats this year. Let’s imagine another five — all white Ohioans — have performed sex acts on dogs. Would the same people claiming Haitians are devouring pets approve of corporate media outlets and political commentators running stories about the threat people from Ohio pose to puppies?
Perhaps they would. But given the sensitivities of most Americans — regardless of color or political party — I doubt it. I certainly suspect the “based” conservatives who have been gleefully sharing cat memes would have a very different reaction if Ohioans were being stereotyped on CNN with explosive claims based on shaky — if any — evidence.
As a Christian who engages in social commentary, I always try to practice the biblical principle of impartial judgment. Matthew 7:2 says:
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
This is not always easy, but I think it’s a good way to guard against the worst aspects of collectivism — both unwarranted pride in my “tribe” as well as unwarranted contempt for “outsiders.”
Most Americans, regardless of their background, are incredibly sensitive. People like Laura Loomer, one of President Trump’s most vocal surrogates, have no problem with stereotypes and inflammatory rhetoric as long as they are not aimed at their identity group.
I understand the impulse. People who want to be judged as individuals often indulge in group guilt with those they don’t know, understand, or like.
But this type of hypocrisy is unsustainable. The same people who are quick to generalize and stigmatize when mocking a foe can’t start squealing like stuck pigs when the same standard is applied to them. If there is one political animal that needs to meet a quick death, it’s anyone who has the tongue of a lion and the ears of a lamb.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
