Liberal individualizing and messianic group-rule modes of racial governance ultimately converge.

Evidence

The missionary modality served well a political economy of the Protestant ethic and the social self-discipline of labor, contribution, and charity. The messianic, by contrast, mirrored the spirit of group rule and racially driven domination. The Anglicans turned out to represent false promise. Intent on self-sustenance and self-direction, the boers would manufacture the messianic in the spirit of segregation. The second coming would later be codified as apartheid. The differences between a liberalizing historicism and a more strident rationalizing scientistic racial naturalism, in the wider scheme of things, assumed the form of a family squabble over the legacy of the racial estate. — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 1436

Categorization

• XREF: Feeds the reader’s split between imposed dominance and emergent self-determination — the two theologies are both dominance modes, differing only in whether assimilation or segregation is the control channel. — connects to: Efforts to be different routinely converge into uniformity. — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 164