Mandeville, LA – In my latest effort to lead by example and preach equality, I wish to alert judgement porn addicts, immoral Facebook moralizers, former editors of “conservative magazines” and fellow Catholics to the insufferable horror and scourge of racism, white supremacy and denial of basic human rights based on people’s skin color. Charleston, SC, meet your mac-daddy: Oregon.
[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]
That’s right say hello to the state who noted civil rights activist/historian Walidah Imarisha says:
“What’s useful about Oregon as a case study is that Oregon was bold enough to write it down,” Imarisha told me. “But the same ideology, policies, and practices that shaped Oregon shaped every state in the Union, as well as this nation as a whole.”
Matt Novak is an author and blogger and the author of “Oregon Was Founded as a Racist Utopia”. After checking Matt’s sources without using Wikipedia, I concluded his tale about the northern-South Carolina was true. This shocking tale of Inconvenient Truths about America Gone Wild begins with the Oregon Constitution of 1859, a document so driven by white racial preference and hatred of “negroes and mulatto” it is a wonder it hasn’t made a Southern Transvenger’s list of places to be ashamed of. Consider this gem of what must be an exported Southern Hospitality Article I, Section 35.
Article I Section 35.– No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such negroes, and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them. (Repealed November 3, 1926).
Oh but wait mitter Church, the Oregonians, unlike reb-magnon man (sorry Darwinists), have matured, lured an NBA franchise and are currently auditioning for fake canonization in CNN’s HEROES. Well, borrowing a card from certain bloggers and radio “hosts”, how do we square the 2010 census of the United States being 15% black and Oregon being just 2%? Wait, maybe it has something to do with the open arm welcome they gave civil rights crusaders in the 1950’s:
“We Cater To White Trade Only”
Or the Ku Klan Klan annual pancake supper in Portland. Or maybe the fact the if a negro were caught cavorting across Oregon “back in the day” he/she would be subject to “public flogging”. Or maybe it was the Petticoat Junction like affections of an Uncle Joe type who made it all the way to the big leagues of Congress, like John R. McBride, an Oregon “founding father” who rolled this gem out in 1899.
“Some believers in the doctrine of abstract human rights interpret this vote against admission of free negroes as an exhibition of prejudices which prevailed agains the African who was not a slave, but I have never so regarded it. It was largely an expression against any mingling of the white with any of the other races, and upon a theory that as we had yet no considerable representation of other races in our midst, we should do nothing to encourage their introduction. We were building a new state on virgin ground; it’s people believed it should encourage only the best elements to come to us, and discourage others.”
Let’s circle back to that VERY northern country of Oregon’s, Constitution of 1859 shall we, and see if white power was preached anywhere and thus received the enduring stain that is embodied in their “symbol of hate” (we’ll get to that in a moment).
Article II Section 6.–No Negro, Chinaman, or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage. (Repealed June28, 1927).
Article 1 Section 31. White foreigners who are, or may hereafter become residents of this State shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment, and descent of property as native born citizens. And the Legislative Assembly shall have power to restrain, and regulate the immigration to this State of persons not qualified to become citizens of the United States.
But Oregon has “changed”, and yes they have, I mean, look, way back in 2002 Oregon finally voted to remove ALL “racist language” from their constitution. I wonder where the “Southern Poverty Law Center” was on that one, missing a clear opportunity to win praise and a guest spot with Chris Cuomo on CNN’s “New Day”!
The reason I bring Oregon’s sordid, racist past to light (NY is next) is not to tit for tat vs. South Carolina or vilify Oregonians, but to make the point that xenophobic based-sin is not limited to the South and the symbol of the Rebel Battle Flag and it is lamentable everywhere. It wasn’t a Rebel Flag that flew on horseback during the Trail of Tears. It wasn’t a Rebel Flag that led the American Army to subjugate the Philippines. It wasn’t a Rebel Flag that flew over the despicable Japanese internment camps in WWII and it wasn’t a Rebel Flag that flew over New York’s Federal Hall when Washington and the first Congress were sworn in under the Constitution that BY STATUTE allowed the importation of new slaves into Union States for 20 years and then fell eerily silent for 54 years.
This hysteria driven emotionalism and exoneration via affiliation is being promoted as charity and that’s a diabolical lie. True Charity, which follows Faith then Hope, seeks no temporal (earthly) recognition and is performed before, during and after people are killed and inanimate objects are blamed. The “debate” over this is not “unifying” factions, it is driving them apart along error based ideological lines and causing millions to fall into grave states of sin via the diabolic social media’s greatest soul-killer: Scandal, defined thus by the Council of Trent via the 5th Commandment.
Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
Today I saw a Facebook “friend” castigating racist “flag waivers” (present company included) who were scolded to accept the scandalous charge of “racism” if they didn’t publicly repent and do away with their Rebel Battle Flags and any other symbol of “the racist South”. Thus, for having graduated from Ole Miss and wearing the alma mater’s colors and logo, one is automatically culled into league with Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh. Vast majorities are hurling the epithet “racist” more than they say “good morning” probably because saying and meaning the “good” part of “morning” requires far more Faith and Hope, theological virtues aimed at Charity than remotely, via internet, hurling the charge of “racist”. I’ll close with Chesterton, who saw this monster of modernity when all it had were phones and telegram boys.
“I am not Puritanic about drink; I have drunk all sorts of things; and in my youth, often more than was good for me. But in any conceivable condition, drunk or sober, I should be furious at the suggestion that I could not help it. I should have wanted to punch the head of the consoling fatalist who told me so. Yet nobody seems to punch the heads of consoling fatalists. This, which seems to me the most elementary form of self-respect, seems to be the one thing about which even the sensitive are insensible. These modern persons are very sensitive about some things. They would be furious if somebody said they were not gentlemen; though there is really no more historical reason for pretending that every man is a gentleman than that every man is a marquis, or a man-at-arms. They are frightfully indignant if we say they are not Christians; though they hold them selves free to deny or doubt every conceivable idea of Christianity, even the historical existence of Christ.”