Talk:Black liberation theology

Content Forking

This page looks a lot like the Black Theology page and seems to fit the description of a POV fork as described in WP:CFORK. Switzpaw (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One editor at Black Theology keeps removing any reference to Black Liberation Theology as it was largely created and practiced by Cone and Wright, basically stubbing the article by deleting large amounts of material reference from notable sources. He appears to reject any reference to this topic as not relevant. Rather than debate whether inclusion of this topic constitutes a violation of NPOV, almost all references in the press and on the web is to BLT as practiced by Cone, Wright, and TUCC, so this topic certainly is notable enough for a topic. Bachcell (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

'blackness' and 'whiteness'

As the quote from the Salon article has been spun into something far from what the author ever intended, this is a chunk to remind everyone what we are summarizing here. The part I bolded is what was (purposely, I assume) left out. Only the bits before and afterwards, the bits that are inflammatory without the explanation, were left in. I find it very disturbing that anyone working in good faith on an encyclopedia article would do that. I've put this article on my watch list because of this, and because of the comment left by the last anonymous editor.

Can you discuss the meaning of some excerpts from Cone's writing, such as when he refers to whiteness as a "a symbol of man's depravity"? Is it fair, in your view, for Cone's critics to characterize those statements as racist? If not, how would you characterize them and what do they mean?

James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression.

Now it is important to remember how culturally loaded the terms "whiteness" and "blackness" are as racial categories. Martin Luther King Jr. argued in his final book, "Where Do We Go From Here?": "The job of arousing humanity within a people that have been taught for so many centuries that they are nobody is not easy. Even semantics have conspired to make that which is black seem ugly and degrading."

Cone also said that Malcolm X was "not far wrong" when he called the white man "the devil," and "if God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."

When Cone employed the terms "whiteness" and "blackness" in his theological interpretation of the Gospel narratives according to the lived realities of African-Americans in the American context, he was referring to them not as a physical descriptive category but as a cultural notion and spiritual concepts, [such as] when Cone says that "whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity." So for Cone to say that Malcolm X was not "far from wrong when he called the white man the devil," Cone is not talking about white persons as innately evil. He is referring to the "white consciousness," of which many whites have embraced, which perpetuates white supremacy and power. For Cone, white supremacy is akin to what the New Testament refers to as "principalities and powers."

When Cone wrote that "if God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him," for Cone, "white people" signifies the "white consciousness" that is constructed upon black marginalization.

Now it is only fair to say that the black theology of liberation as an academic project cannot be reduced to James Cone. There are many variants and multiple trajectories of thought by an abundance of scholars that build upon, move beyond, critique and expand Cone's early writings. And, naturally, Cone's thought has even developed over the course of the past 40 years. Black theology of liberation is not static. As the condition of blacks in America has changed since 1969, so has black theology of liberation. Flatterworld (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Article focus

Please remember this is an article about Black liberation theology and not James Cone, who already has his own article. I have again removed the quote section as it belongs only in the Cone article. Flatterworld (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All James Cone quotes are now in Wikiquote under James Hal Cone, where they belong. Most were already there. This is an encyclopedia article, covering the topic of Black liberation theology, not a place to list a collection of quotes. Some indeed sound as if they were taken out of context, but that's not my concern here although Wikipedia is NOT a red-top tabloid, striving to be as titillating and ooh!ooh! as possible. We are attempting to give well-rounded, full and balanced information about various topics. That means avoiding POV. We explain the topic, we don't just list a few lines copied from a couple of books and say that's it. Particularly not when all those quotes about the entire field were from one person (Cone). This argument apparently began as a difference of opinion with the authors of Black theology. It may be that discussion should be re-started. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I seem to be talking to myself here, despite repeated invitations (see edit comments and User talk:Bunintheoven), I've requested help fromWikipedia:Third opinion Flatterworld (talk)

Being a new user, I have finally found the discussion section. There are quotes taken from Cone and used throughout the entire article. If the goal is to not use quotations or quotes to discuss a topic then I suggest all quotes from Cones be removed. Why can't they be removed? They are essential in the understanding of BLT. To pick and choose quotes from Cone that are only more favorable and not as controversial is being biased in and of itself. You go on to say, "some indeed sound as if they were taken out of context." This is yet another biased comment. Bunintheoven (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading my comments very closely. We are an encyclopedia. We write articles. We use quotes to support an explanation of a topic, not to substitute for them. That's why a list of quotes, taken out of context (some more than others - they all are taken out of context by definition), isn't helpful in Wikipedia, and belongs, if at all, in Wikiquote. See the section about blackness and whiteness I wrote earlier on this talk page. I don't care how many wild claims you make, anyone who reads about this theology can see you're trying to spin it into something it isn't. Three days before the presidential election, I would note. Flatterworld (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see that by refusing to incorporate some of these quotes, you are putting your own spin into the article. I have suggested using some of the quotes and putting them within the text if you do not want to just list the quotes. However, right before a presidential election, I can see why an Obama supporter would want them omitted. Bunintheoven (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think your job is to 'suggest' that work be done instead of doing it yourself. If you think you understand the subject well enough, then why haven't you been working on it? Instead, you're spending your time criticizing a Wikipedia guideline: no lists of quotes. If you think calling everyone who disagrees with your spin on black liberation theology can be dismissed as "an Obama supporter", you better think again. Flatterworld (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(Comment: I've modified the listing on WP:3O per the page's guidelines; I've also added a {{3O}} tag to this section. I am otherwise recusing myself from this. Another third party should be along soon... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

It is apparent that almost every single quote in this text is used to convey this ideology in a positive light instead of remaining neutral. By picking and choosing the most positive and uplifting quotes from Cones and other literature the text misleads the reader. It is biased if other pertinent information is not included. I will work on the editing of the text to convey a more fair and balanced assessment. Cheers! Bunintheoven (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm not highly optimistic about the likelihood of all parties listening, but this would be my take on the matter: The article needs to be more about BLT, and less about Cone. It comes across as being strongly ad hominem. Bunintheoven - we're not here to judge how good or bad our subjects are, we're here to describe them factually from an outsider's perspective. arimareiji (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This has become a fork of the Cone article. I suspect the POV being reflected here was not allowed at that article, so attempts are being made to change this article instead. Flatterworld (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. One of the problems with this subject is that it is inherently opposed to the dominant American ideology which is historically a racist patriarchy. As a counter-cultural movement, it is hard to talk objectively about BLT without a subjective voice interfering. It's a polarizing subject, which makes it critically important that we try to maintain objectiveness. However, because Cone is the founder of BLT, it is very hard to extricate him from the discussion. According to his interview with Bill Moyers, Cone's original intent was to find where Martin Luther King and Malcolm X found middle ground. Perhaps, that is a good place for us to start. (Jack Dutton (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Criticism (Howard Kurtz)

The section on Howard Kurtz's views had no references, and seemed quite a strange 'summary' of Cone's beliefs. I found an article Kurtz wrote for the National Review on BLT and summarized that as it's available online to everyone. In that article he refers to something else he wrote for the print edition, which isn't available online except to subscribers. I doubt it was much different in what it was criticizing. Flatterworld (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Howard Kurtz criticism as it currently stands is not a criticism of Black liberation theology. It quotes two criticisms of traditional American evangelicalism BY black liberation theologians. Why is that in the criticism? Does Howard Kurtz belong in the article at all? He does not appear to be an expert in theology, and primarily writes for partisan pundit columns, as far as I can tell. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cone's Black Jesus

The article states "Cone’s view is that Jesus was black, which he felt was a very important view of black people to see." The problem is, it is followed by a quote of Cone's saying Jesus "was not white" and that God is whatever color his parishioners need him to be. The quote contradicts the claim, Cone seems to be saying that Jesus is not white (not necessarily black) and that it is a necessity for the community's empowerment to teach him to be whatever resonates with the flock (ergo, not necessarily black). Either you need to characterize the claim differently (my preference) or find a quote that supports it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.115.82 (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed the language to say "Cone objected to the persistent portrayal of Jesus as White," which better reflects the content of the accompanying quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)