Rauser's radical chic racism

According to Randal Rauser:

Of course it is a stereotype of a certain ethnically Indian warriors that is being invoked. You make all these inane comparisons with things like Steel workers as if the genocidal oppression of first nations people across North America is completely irrelevant.

i) This builds on the false premise that Rauser constantly imputes to sports fans: the assumption that naming sports teams after Indians perpetuates a negative stereotype. But negative from whose perspective? By definition, sports fans admire sports. They name a team after Indians because that carries a positive connotation for sports fans. His imputing to sports fans motives they don’t have.

ii) It may have negative connotations from Rauser’s perspective, given his faux pacifism. He doesn’t approve of violence. Male aggression. But that’s just a reflection of his effeminate ideology.

iii) Why assume that’s a negative stereotype from the viewpoint of American-Indians? Take a film like Dreamkeeper. That’s a film by, for, and about American-Indians. Among other things, it glamorizes Indian warriors.

iv) Rauser, as a paternalistic liberal, prefers to stereotype Indians as victims. He likes Indians as long as they are as weak, passive, and powerless. Demote them to the victim class. Domesticate them. Patronize them. He doesn’t like strong, aggressive Indians.

But, historically, Indians fought each other. “Oppressed” each other.

In the book Ellul argues that Christians have one primary allegiance. It is not to a nation state, not to a political party, and not to a social movement. Instead, it is to being a disciple of Christ who labors to see God’s kingdom of righteousness come in its fullness. This will potentially involve the participation in various nation states, political parties and social movements.

i) To begin with, Rauser routinely singles out the U.S. for criticism. So he’s not even-handed. He seems to suffer from penis-envy about the U.S. hyperpower.

ii) In addition, Rauser doesn’t make Christian identity the primary point of reference. To the contrary, he typically frames the issue in terms of national or ethnic identity.

iii) This, in turn, generates an amusing tension between Rauser’s theologically liberal disbelief in original sin, on the one hand, and his politically liberal belief in corporate guilt, on the other hand.

He blames entire nations, as well as the white man, for real or alleged injustices committed by individuals. In many cases, the “perpetrators” died long before we were born, yet somehow we’re responsible for what they did. 

Why should I feel responsible for the past? I didn’t create the past. Like everyone else, I was born into the status quo. I didn’t create the status quo. I’m the effect, not the cause. 

iv) Another problem with his argument is that corporate solidarity cuts both ways. If I should really think in terms of white identity, then shouldn’t I side with whatever my white ancestors did to non-whites? 

Corporate solidarity doesn’t imply that we should feel guilty for what our ancestors did. Just that we identify with what they did. Does that mean I should sympathize with Custer and the 7^th Calvary?

v) This is also complicated by the fact that it wasn’t just white on Indian aggression. Some Indian tribes were traditional enemies of other Indian tribes. As a result, some Indian tribes allied with the white man to defeat other Indian tribes. For instance, Crow and Arikara scouts rode with the 7^th Calvary to defeat the Cheyenne and Sioux tribes. So who’s committing genocide against whom?

vi) Why is Rauser so preoccupied with what one dead group of people did to another dead group of people? Why this obsession with the past? The past is over and done with. Why not focus on real-time atrocities in the world today? For instance:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/rights-so-divine/2012/jan/17/worst-form-human-trafficking/