The Last White Christian
A country having an explicit policy of racial discrimination is likely not for the good, especially if this policy is ever relaxed. It is a policy which, if not maintained in perpetuity, will make future blow back inevitable. It is far better to have an ancestral policy, by which I mean, persons not sharing the ancestral heritage of the native population can at best hold only some kind of second class citizenship, and are not able to hold public office at all. The racial, demographic effect on the population that this policy will have is a sign of sensible policy. An ancestral policy is also one which is more relevant to social concerns anyway. A population needs to have ancestry in common, not necessarily be racially pure.
But if its original discriminatory policy should ever be relaxed, and members of a previously-oppressed group should hold public office, it should be acknowledged without fanfare, as a proof that the previous discriminatory policy is now in the past. A single previously-marginalized person holding office is sufficient to prove that explicit exclusion is no longer practiced as a policy. One would expect to see a few headlines declaring "the first black politician," or "the first woman lawyer admitted to a state barr," or whatever, and only in the period immediately following the change in policy. This is what I would have expected in the United States.
But this has not been the case. The news is peppered with "firsts," and it has been for some time. In a system of true justice, there would been a single "first" declaration, and it would have been quite some time ago. A headline such as "First Black Politician Elected to Public Office" would have been printed on the front page of some newspaper in, say, the nineteen forties. If other similar headlines were reprinted, it would have been by a young journalist, decades later, who mistakenly thought he had a great scoop. Then, after a senior reporter informed him that there was no scoop -- that this milestone had actually been reached quite some time ago -- a retraction would have been printed.
After the original first milestone, antiracism might have become a minor part of good manners. Polite people would have been advised in the pages of etiquette books to not treat others with skin tones or hair texture different than your own in an especially rude way. The milestone of the first black politician, CEO, or whatever would have been followed by minor revisions to codes of personal conduct, and that would've been it.
But this is not what has happened. Too many times when some term comes to an end, the citizenry is now treated to another "first" headline and there is great celebration. "The first black mayor of K," "the first hispanic governor of L," "the first handicapped woman to serve as head of M." This Nonwhite-Milestone Template, which takes to form, "Hallelujah! The First Non-White X Will Serve as a Y," becomes so obligatory that it itself has become public policy.
This process of non-white firsts is clearly not ending. No one seems to be objecting to the constant cataloging of non-white firsts. So much so that it is only a matter of time before iterations of another template will enter the public consciousness, namely, the "Last White Template." You can guess the form of this one; "Hallelujah! The Last White X to Serve as a Y."
But of course, this last bit is not correct. Those at the helm will never adopt the second template. The process of white, Christian dispossessions is well underway through the first template. There is no need for a shift to the second one.
The society we reside in is absolutely not coherent or sensible, so it does not have any healthy sense of ancestral solidarity. The reason for the non-stop non-white firsts, instead of the single headline from decades ago is simple; we are undergoing a massive project of demographic displacement. The firsts will never end until there is, finally, the last white christian.