http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/when-minorities-discriminate
Essentially the Cherokee nation just decided, and their Supreme Court confirmed, to eject all of the descendants of slaves that were previously considered official members of the tribe.
No doubt this raises the reader's hackles. There is of course a substantial amount of money involved (their casinos earned the tribe over 25 billion back in 2009).
But this is what a group that has demographic hegemony can do. By their vote, they concentrated their share of the tribe's loot. It shouldn't surprise anyone that race is used as the point of coordination. It is, after all, one of the easiest Schelling Points to use in such games, and it has the most history of use. If another group has the demographic hegemony, you're at its mercy in such matters. Also, it doesn't matter what you identify yourself with---many of the freedmen doubtlessly identified themselves as Cherokees first. What matters is who the other identify YOU with. Groups that are heavily atomized and individualistic will always have a major handicap in such status competitions, and the stakes are often very high indeed. This case is just an abnormally clear object lesson. One can't even expect a constitution to take such issues off the table, because even if a constitution is abundantly clear, there has to be an official arbitrator, and that means somebody (i.e., not you) gets to vote, and such things are amendable anyway, even though the modern preference is to simply interpret them into uselessness.
I've heard it said that the Constitution is the White Man's Ghost Shirt. I tend to agree.
Oh, but I hear you saying, I'd NEVER do that to them, so they'd NEVER do that to me. Get this through your head right now---the Golden Rule is a command, not an if-then conditional promise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Oh, but I hear you saying, I'd NEVER do that to them, so they'd NEVER do that to me. Get this through your head right now---the Golden Rule is a command, not an if-then conditional promise."
Then we should get rid of Christianity, and fast!
Columnist:
Detecting irony in internet communication is tricky
Borrowing from the Usenet of the 1990s :-)
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file." ~ Bertil Jonell
I suspect of course that you're joking, but the sentiment you're expressing does have a lot of purchase in certain White Nationalist circles.
Here's my response to them, if, probably, not to yourself.
Ask yourself this, did Christians in previous eras generally feel compelled to give away the store in terms of demographic hegemony over the nations wherein they lived?
The answer of course, is no. You'd have to go to some pretty seriously non-mainstream Christian groups to find this sentiment in any quantity before the 1950s. In fact, even today opposition to race replacement is strongest among Christian evangelical Protestant whites. You also don't see promotion of racial replacement of ANY other group besides whites by Christians of any other group. So pretty clearly, its not Christianity that is the problem. You could say Christianity without Christ is the problem, but that's effectively the same as saying not Christianity. I'd invite my readers to review my old Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura post for more details on matters similar to these.
Post a Comment