In fact, while the Hispanics of the United States seem loyal to Mexico and all points south, American blacks are in a state of being permanently aggrieved. Even though this nation was one of the very first to rid itself of slavery, white people have carried the guilt of African slavery on their shoulders for generations, and now it's to the point where the whites are prepared to throw themselves onto their own swords to appease a seemingly unappeasable portion of this country.
And so, we are left with a question: How in the world could a Catholic Monarch possibly solve the race issues of America?
In An Ideal Situation, A Catholic Monarch Would Do This...
There are two ways to bring a people together under one common banner. The first method is to unite people based upon race. Since there are many races in the United States, that idea is out of the question, unless the king wants to have a balkanized and problematic situation on his hands.
The second way to unite a people is through religion. Even those on the hard Right will admit this. For this reason, I have always argued that the United States would do very well with a Catholic monarch. By uniting the country under the banner of Christianity, with Catholicism as its state religion, the people would be united in a way that this nation has never seen in its entire history, dating back to the colonies.
Should the people turn towards religion as their one shared and common uniting culture, then America can achieve the unity that the Marxist Left so desperately wants to prevent.
In such an ideal scenario, instead of focusing on the different weaknesses of the different ethnicities, people would instead focus on the different strengths that the different demographics would have to offer. As I stated in a previous post, the Catechism states that "benefits are derived from social commerce," that talents "are not distributed equally," and that differences between men oblige them to practice generosity and kindness, with a mutual enrichment of one another.
In a truly Catholic and unified America, the people would strengthen each other and the culture as a whole by offering one another their best traits and abilities.
Not only would Americans in this ideal monarchical situation flourish, but they would even lose interest in remaining a separated people. In fact, the king could even encourage the different groups of people to breed with one another, and under this ideal condition, the people would have no issue with this.
Fears of miscegenation would diminish. Unlike the current globalists and leaders of MultiKult--a group who makes an idol out of such a thing--such unity would not be artificially be pushed upon the populace in such a horrifically patronizing style. Rather, the citizens of the American Kingdom would naturally make such decisions, here and there, with the approval of the king--though not by an overt and demanding push, as we see in the major media today.
Just as the French intermarried with the different Indians and blacks of North America, so too did the Spanish kings encourage such intermixing. In fact, consider how the Spanish strove to spread Christendom among the wild unexplored continents and islands of the New World and the Far East. This is an excerpt from C.H. Haring's The Spanish Empire in America. The emphasis is mine:
The Papal Bull of 1493, which gave to the kings of Castile dominion over the Indies, imposed one supreme obligation: to spread the gospel and draw the pagans into the Church of Christ; and Isabella to the day of her death regarded the welfare of the American natives as a major responsibility. When, therefore, the new governor, Nicolas de Ovando, came out to America in 1502, he was instructed by Isabella to assure the native chiefs that they and their people were under the crown's special protection. They might go in entire freedom about the island, and no one was to rob them or harm them in any way, under severe penalties. They were to pay tribute only as the rest of the king's subjects. Only in the royal service in mines or on public works might they be compelled to labor. These orders were followed to the letter. But left to themselves, the Indians refused to work...They withdrew from all association with the colonists, with results that from the European point of view were disastrous. Within a few months Governor Ovando wrote to Spain protesting that the only effect was the falling off of tribute, lack of labor, and inability to carry forward the work of conversion to Christianity.
The soverigns replied with the famous orders of March and December 1503, which legalized the forced labor of free Indians but attempted at the same time to protect them from uncontrolled exploitation. The natives must be made to work, if necessary, on buildings and farms and in the mines, but in moderation and for reasonable wages. At the same time, to ensure their being civilized, they must be gathered into villages, under the administration of a patron or protector, and provided with a school and a missionary priest. Each adult Indian was to have a house and land which he might not alienate. Intermarriage of Spaniards and Indians was also to be encouraged. And in everything they were to be treated "as free persons, for such they are." Only cannibal Indians from neighboring islands if taken in war might be sold into slavery.
Up until the dysfunctional Puritains either killed off or drove off the Spanish and French, it is highly arguable that significant inroads were being made with the American Natives. Would only the Puritains have left them alone! We would have had less of a genocide lingering on our national conscience.
A Humble, Likeable, Successful Nation
Nevertheless, should such a Catholic Monarch arise in such ideal conditions, this nation could achieve a respectable stability among all of the tribes of this continent. America would be living out the reverse Babel--a scenario in which I previously went into detail.
Indeed, as I laid out in that previous post I linked to, should America undergo a period of repenting and praying for forgiveness (for the godlessness of the 20th Century, and perhaps for our Puritain rejection of Catholicism), we would overcome our differences, and our undertakings would succeed. Americans, en masse, could plead for God's mercy. In gratefulness and thanksgiving, Americans would sing praises to the God of the Universe for His benevolence and mercy, and we would be thankful that He didn't wipe us off of the map.
As the nation ages, and the citizens become more of a unified and singular people, sharing a common language becomes a reality. There are no tribal divisions within their society, nor does anyone seek to remember how they were once divided from each other. In time, the distinctions between Japethites, Shemites, and Hammites is erased. The Babylonian "Curse of Tongues" would no longer be such a reality in the United States.
There would be no more minorities. No more demographic differences. We would be united as a universal nation, all common to one another, worshiping the same Universal God of Creation.
And we would live happily ever after.
|In other words, if everyone agreed to get along with one another, we'd be fine.|
This, my friends, is what would happen to America if it heartily welcomed a Catholic Monarch to rule over it, and the people were unstubborn, compliant, and willing to work with such a king. If the people could put aside their differences and unify as one common people under God, this nation would know a peace of which it cannot conceive. We would be many times stronger than America ever was at its peak. Our achievments would be astounding, and we'd probably be colonizing outer space.
However, not everything works out in such an ideal fashion. More often than not, there are great troubles in bringing a people together. Which is why, in the next post, I will discuss the final scenario:
How a Catholic Monarch Would Deal With A Racist America