No one has given more to the West and gotten less in return than the Poles. This is not disputed.
It is for reasons like this that Poland, having suffered so much at the hands of villainous regimes, should be willing to help those in need. There is no place for violence.
And I do not object to a people wanting to maintain its identity. We in the US do it regularly on St Patrick’s Day, Columbus Day, Puerto Rican Day, Kwanzaa, etc. Arguably even for Mardis Gras.
I encourage pride in heritage and shared history and culture. These things can be done without hatred, violence, and excluding people as “not us.”
Additionally, I would refine your opening statement with the fact that no one has given more to the West than Africans and received the least. Here's why:
"Although it was true that southern countries owed debts to foreign banks and lending institutions, it was also true that in the colonial period—the first wave of globalization—the wealth of the North was built, in large part, on stolen indigenous land and the free labor provided by the slave trade. Many...argued that when these two debts were included in the calculus, it was actually the poorest regions of the world—especially Africa and the Caribbean— that turned out to be the creditors and the rich world that owed a debt. All big U.N. conferences tend to coalesce around a theme, and in Durban the clear theme was the call for reparations. The gathering’s overriding message was that even though the most visible signs of racism had largely disappeared—colonial rule, apartheid, Jim Crow–style segre- gation—profound racial divides will persist and even widen until the states and corporations that profited from centuries of state-sanctioned racism pay back some of what they owe...By the spring of 2001, reparations had become a hot-button topic on talk shows and op-ed pages. And although opponents consistently portrayed the demand as blacks wanting individual handouts from the government, most reparations advocates were clear that they were seeking group solutions: mass scholarship funds, for instance, or major investments in preventative health care. By the time Durban rolled around in late August, the conference had taken on the air of a black Woodstock...If you want to end racism, pay us back for what you have stolen. The demand for payback proved contagious, and it took many forms. Indigenous peoples wanted broken treaties honored. Brazilian peasants, many descended from slaves, said racism would not be addressed without redistributing land to them. And the South African protesters outside, tired of waiting for the ANC to make good on its promises, wanted reparations for the crimes of apartheid. In all these different but connected ways, anti-racism was transformed in Durban from something safe and comfortable for elites to embrace into something explosive, threatening, and potentially very, very costly. North American and European governments, the debtors in this new accounting, were vastly outnumbered and in the months before the conference tried to steer the negotiations onto safe terrain...There was one hitch. Six months before the meeting in Durban, a few Islamic countries requested language in their draft of the Durban Declaration that described Israeli policies in the occupied territories as “a new kind of apartheid” and a “form of genocide.” Then, a month before the conference, there was a new push for changes that were sure to grab international headlines. Some references to the Holocaust were placed in lower case, pluralized (“holocausts”), and paired with the “ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine.” References to “the increase in anti-Semitism and hostile acts against Jews” were paired with phrases about “the increase of racist practices of Zionism,” and Zionism was described as a movement “based on racism and discriminatory ideas.”
There is a strong argument to be made that Israel’s legal system— which has different laws and even roads for Israelis and Palestinians living in the West Bank, and which grants and denies citizen rights based largely on religious affiliation—meets the international definition of apartheid...the proposed clauses... gave the U.S. government the perfect excuse to flee the scene...most U.S. Jewish groups praised the walkout as a principled stand against anti-Semitism. The vast majority of delegates in Durban, however, saw things very differently: in their view, the U.S. had never wanted to be part of these discussions, and it had seized on the clauses about Israel...as “a flimsy excuse"...In the end, despite the walkout, Africa was not denied its rendezvous with history. The final Durban Declaration became the first document with international legal standing to state “that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and should always have been so, especially the transatlantic slave trade.” This language was more than symbolic. When lawyers had sought to win slavery reparations in U.S. courts, the biggest barrier was always the statute of limitations, which had long since expired. If slavery was “a crime against humanity,” however, it was not restricted by the statute...Nuremberg made it clear that crimes against humanity are not time-bound...That was September 9, 2001. Two days later, talk of reparations, along with so much else, was blasted off the political map. Africa’s “rendezvous with history” was all but forgotten."
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/HarpersMagazine-2009-09-0082642.pdf
You don't fear them.
