Board index ‹ Government and Politics

[Rhonda S.]

Yes, the USA does perpetuate a kind of elitist supremacy. White, educated, wealthy men are at the top of the hierarchy. It was that way at the founding of the colonies, being brought over from the mother country, England. It was that way at the writing of the Constitution and with the initial limitations on voting based on age, gender, and wealth (which presumed education). Over time, younger and younger people have been granted the right and duty of voting, as have women; as have people regardless of their ownership of land; as have people regardless of their historic status as slaves; as have people regardless of their ethnicity. We are still changing. With change comes resistance to change. We don't know what the culture will bear in any given historical season. How far will we go? How much will we resist? What will it take to make things better for the most? How tightly will we hold to what makes us feel safe and comfortable? This is the history of all peoples.

[Dr. John Crandall]

Audrey, the USA was not founded as a "Christian Nation" as you assert. The Founders were clear on that. Biblical principles inherent in the founding document, sure, but there is no such thing as a "Christian Nation" anywhere. Jesus clearly asserted that his kingdom is NOT of this world. Mind you, I am all for Christian influence and freedom, but reject the notion of your assertion.

[jimwalton]

I admitted earlier in the thread that, "A "Christian" is a person, and not an adjective. But what I mean (in context) is that it was founded generally by Christians, on biblical principles, and for purposes concordant with the Christianity."

Also: Rhonda S., I wonder if you can elaborate on your point of "elitist [white] supremacy." I think the definition has changed, and possibly your accusation of the Founding Fathers needs to be refined. During the days of Adolf Hitler, white supremacy took on the meaning of developing a pure Aryan race, achieving white supremacy by science and by violence, murdering competing ideologies and people groups, and characterized by intentional racial domination.

I wonder if the "elitist [white] supremacy" of the Founders was different than that: A socio-economic privilege of whites over blacks based in the cultural milieu of the times and social expectations of role and status.

When we use "white supremacist" to define the Founders, it makes them sound like Nazis, because the definition has changed in our era. I wonder if the Founders were instead products of their culture, but not trying to develop an Aryan race by ideology and violence.

It might be good to have a discussion in the same tone about women. Perhaps the same observations apply to their view of women. Were they products of their cultures and operating with gender bias, or were they women-haters? They were certainly chauvinists, which makes them "elitist supremacists," I guess. But I think it was more enculturation than a power play.

I wonder, though: Is there ANY culture ANYWHERE in history that complete steps out of its cultural context and out of its era to create a perfectly just and moral society of total equality and no partiality that stands the test of time? I would guess that even given the chance to create a society from scratch, however we wanted it to be, our structure would still be riddled with mistakes that would be changed in future centuries as culture and values changed. I'd be pleased to hear your, and everyone else's, thoughts.

[Dr. John Crandall]

Jim Walton I am certain you mean well in citing a "Christian" heritage for the USA. Certainly, the founders were within the mainstream of Christianity. However! There is little evidence that there is the "biblical principles" behind much of their decisions. The Founders were members, by and large, of orthodox Christianity, to be sure. To suggest, however, that they adhered to "biblical principles" is a bridge too far. They were colonists and committed to the crown. That "crown" had declared separation from Rome for personal and NOT theological or biblical reason. Further, the actions of the colonists leave much to be desired in "biblical" behavior. I, like you, adhere to the view that there was a significant "Christian" influence in our founding. However, that is a far cry from the view that this is a "Christian nation" or that the Constitution is a "biblical" document.

[Rhonda S.]

I meant elitist supremacy. The idea that those with land, power, and education were the ones best able to govern. Initially, these were the folk who could vote. Men, not women; landowners, not laborers. Land presumed wealth. Wealth presumed education. And since the founders were Europeans (mostly British) then, yes, they were white. I don't mean "white supremacy." I mean the supremacy of the elites. At the founding, there was the assumption that European culture was supreme over all other cultures. This assumption seemed to be verified by the fact that Europe went exploring and subduing for economic and political gain. The success of Europeans seemed to prove that they were supreme over other nations and races and religions. That line of thinking has been clung to by today's white supremacy groups, and even further defined and built up. Today's current white supremacy is in spite of the greater (and different) reality that has been proved: Women are not stupid, non-whites are not uneducable, color and ethnicity have nothing to do with the degree of one's laziness or industriousness, etc. Today's white supremacy resists the larger experience of the community and the recognition in amendments and laws that permit the people white supremacists would exclude to vote, sit on juries, run for office, and serve at all levels of government.

Why do you assume elitism equals hate? Philosophically speaking, caring more for one's self and one's own more than others and permitting a circumstance where one benefits on the backs of others is hateful. But I am getting the idea that you mean "hate" in this discussion as something visceral, intentional, and targeted. Elitism equals limited love. An elitist loves best those who are like the elitist, because they also are elite. Non-elites are not worthy. Yes, we all are tempted and even culturally trained to do this. I don't suppose for one minute that everyone who wants to close this nation to immigrants (undocumented, refugees, from specific nations) has targeted immigrants for hate. At the same time, many claim "me and mine first." That is elitism. I and those closest to me or most like me are more deserving than "them". Many of our founders were elitists because the un-lettered, laboring folk weren't trusted to make wise decisions regarding government.

Thus only those who owned land could vote. And only men could vote. And only non-slaves could vote. And non-slaves could own slaves. That is elitism, the belief that "we" know better and are better than "them." Active hate may not play into it, but a lack of unconditional love does. Hate is not the opposite of love. Not-Loving is. How do we know what love is? That one would lay down one's life for another. When any of us operate in me-first mode, we are saying, let them lay down their lives so that my life won'the be compromised or endangered and will even made better. That is elitism. And yes, culture does play a role in encouraging elitism. Jesus was not one to defend culture, but rather to challenge culture when it missed the mark. However one comes by elitism, elitism misses the mark.