The Corrupting and Incendiary Danger of Words of Racial Enmity

I appreciate Eduardo Peñalver’s posting on a version of black liberation theology, which I agree provides about as good of a defense of Dr. James Cone’s rhetorical choices as could be made (while thoughtfully acknowledging that he may be needlessly inflammatory). As with others who have expressed concern here on the Mirror of Justice about recent racially-charged statements in the public square, I have been aware that some advocates of black liberation theology liberally invoke terms of violence and hatred against white people, which they then insist should be understand to refer not to human beings of a particular ethnic background but instead as proxies for opposition to oppression. But I don’t think we can give people a pass when they deliberately choose words of hate, especially in the context of race, even if they try to distance themselves from the force of those words by qualifying and explaining. Humpty-Dumpty’s claim that words may be redefined to mean whatever the speaker wishes is always a doubtful proposition, because words belong to an entire community. But the claim of facile redefinition is especially dubious when the words are used in an incendiary manner, not to be more precise in categorization, but to be provocative and confrontational.

If a person regularly speaks about the evils of “white people” and the need to work for “the destruction of the white enemy,” he or she cannot legitimately plead innocence when the words are taken in their plain meaning. In fact, I’m not convinced that every one of these speakers are really all that surprised or upset when their words are taken so plainly. In any event, a person who uses such hateful rhetoric, even if he or she begins the journey by redefining terms in a particular way, may find that resort to such language is corrupting of attitude. Let’s look again at the words by Dr. Cone that I quoted: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. . . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.” Dr. Cone did not speak here about “whiteness” as some generic representation of an oppressive system, although the presentation as a whole spoke of oppressors (without suggesting a more narrow definition than "white people"). He spoke of opposing “white people” and then followed up by characterizing them as the “white enemy.” Whatever may have been originally intended when the theological terms were being defined in the quiet of an academic office, such rhetoric cannot be contained, especially when introduced to the public.

Moreover, am I being unfair if I worry that the explanation of precise redefinition offered to justify shocking words of hate toward “white people” may be, at least on occasion, something of a sly wink by people who are well aware of how their words are being received by the audience? Despite having said on a number of occasions that his critics have no standing because they haven’t carefully read the black liberation theology of Dr. Cone and others with the diligence he has devoted, Rev. Jeremiah Wright appears to have understood the message quite plainly, quite crudely in fact, without any clever qualifications. Pronouncing himself a serious discipline of black liberation theology, Rev. Wright then chose to rant about AIDS being created by government scientists to kill black people and white supremacist government conspiring to sell drugs in black neighborhoods to oppress minorities. If the linguistic manipulations of this version of black liberation theology lend themselves so readily to this extremist nonsense, even by a supposedly sophisticated and well-educated church leader, doesn’t that suggest this approach is dangerously irresponsible?

Greg Sisk