C Stanley Jason: here's Ratzinger on Liberation Theology. The point you brought up is an example of what he refers to as the 'kernel of truth' of the theology which is what makes it believable- and that if the Church had been correctly living out its mission, then there wouldn't have been that opportunity for the kernel of truth to be coapted as a political movement.

C Stanley Here's the excerpt that I was referring to in the comment above: An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church. At the same time it must be borne in mind that no error could persist unless it contained a grain of truth. Indeed, an error is all the more dangerous, the greater that grain of truth is, for then the temptation it exerts is all the greater. Furthermore, the error concerned would not have been able to wrench that piece of the truth to its own use if that truth had been adequately lived and witnessed to in its proper place (in the faith of the Church). So, in denouncing error and pointing to dangers in liberation theology, we must always be ready to ask what truth is latent in the error and how it can be given its rightful place, how it can be released from error's monopoly.

David Schraub I think it's important to split Latin American Liberation Theology from Black Liberation Theology, as they actually developed separately and independently of each other (Cone is quite explicit about this). The former is the one that gets most of the attention of the Catholic Church (for obvious reasons -- far more Latinos are Catholic than Blacks. Cone himself is a Protestant theologian). It also, as far as I know (and I admit my knowledge of LALT is very limited compared to BLT), tends to be far more self-consciously socialist than BLT -- probably because the axis of oppression in Latin America is rampant class inequality, while BLTers are focusing on race inequality in America (hence why I noted that much of radical Black leftist politics in America has had a tumultuous relationship with Marxism). But again, just using common sense, how can racism be overcome with such a separatist attitude that basically says, "FU, white America, we’ll coexist with you but remain a separate culture" I think that hits the nail on the head. In my original Black Conservatism post (the "Large and Small Caps" one), I argued that Black Conservatives are not primarily concerned with "overcoming racism" per se, in the sense that they view their primary political project as transcending racism or engaging in this collaborative project to heal White souls and end White racism (the MLK-style vision of civil rights). Rather, Black Conservatives accept racism as a provisional reality in the lives of Black people, and then ask "how can we still live fruitful, productive lives in a polity where racism still exists and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future?" As George Schuyler (the deacon of Black Conservatism in the mid-20th century) put it in the opening of his autobiography: "A black person learns very early that his color is a disadvantage in a world of white folk. This being an unalterable circumstance, one also learns very early to make the best of it. So, the lifetime endeavor of the intelligent Negro is how to best be reasonably happy though colored." So the premise of your argument, the definition of what "success" means in terms of interracial relations in America, is the very standard Black Conservatives are rejecting as unrealistic. They're no longer interested in being "welcomed" into broader White society -- they think that's a suckers game at this point (Malcolm X: "Why would I want to integrate into a burning house?"). They have, to a large extent, abandoned King's dream, and focus now on the more basic concern of survival (achievement, discipline, excellence, uplift), rather than the airier moral dream of racial integration, inclusion, and egalitarianism. This is, in essence, the same debate that Booker T. Washington had with W.E.B. Du Bois. Cone, Stokely Carmichael, Wright, Shelby Steele, and Clarence Thomas are heirs to Washington's tradition. Obama, MLK, the NAACP, most of the Black political leadership in America are Du Boisites (I think you could make the case that Thomas Sowell and Ward Connerly are best called Du Boisites as well, but I'm not familiar enough with either to say for sure). Recall Washington's argument: if we concentrate on bettering ourselves (rather than directing our energies towards explicit legal/political challenge to White racism), eventually Whites will recognize our value. But the primary concern has to be self-betterment, not reliance on Whites. Carmichael & Hamilton made a similar claim: Blacks first must develop a strong political and economic base of support (unity and solidarity) so they can bargain in the political arena from a position of strength. Only from that unified front borne out of excellence (and the power it yields) will Blacks attain equal status in America. Cone holds that "love" in the Christian sense can only occur when one is willing to accept the Other on his or her own terms, hence racial "reconciliation" (also as a Christian term of art) can only come after Blacks manage to assert their intrinsic dignity as Black people autonomously and independent of White categories or influence. Another Black Power writer (quoted by Cone) argued that King “was trying to get us to love the white folks before we learn to love ourselves, and that ain’t no good.”  Clarence Thomas articulated his acceptance of conservatism in similar language to Cone -- that it was the expression of political autonomy from the (White/Liberal) orthodoxy that says Blacks have to think a certain way. He specifically identified the appeal of conservatism in its echo of the Black Muslim mantra: "Do it for self, brother." Carmichael and Hamilton might have put the critique most potently: The civil rights leaders were saying to the country: “Look, you guys are supposed to be nice guys, and we are only going to do what we are supposed to do. Why do you beat us up? Why don’t you give us what we ask? Why don’t you straighten yourselves out?” For the masses of black people, this language resulted in virtually nothing. -- Stokely Carmichael & Charles Hamilton, Black Power 50-51 (1967) Or as a different Black Power writer wrote: Too much love, Too much love, Nothing kills a n**** like Too much love.

C Stanley So the premise of your argument, the definition of what "success" means in terms of interracial relations in America, is the very standard Black Conservatives are rejecting as unrealistic. They’re no longer interested in being "welcomed" into broader White society — they think that’s a suckers game at this point (Malcolm X: "Why would I want to integrate into a burning house?"). Well, my counterargument to that is that many of us on the outside looking in have the perspective that the blacks who accept this ideology are actually being suckered by the black leaders who advance it, and the reason they've been successful in convincing blacks to follow them is that the ideas are basically a self fulfilling prophecy. If blacks continue to act as though all whites only want to repress them, even in the face of reams of evidence to the contrary, then the white resentment will push back against those attitudes and the black separatists use that to claim that racism is still rampant.

David Schraub even in the face of reams of evidence to the contrary I'm reasonably confident that Black Conservatives have a couple "reams" of evidence of their own as to the potency of racism (which does not require that every white wants only to repress them -- although I'm confused about the mechanics of this "pushback": "Blacks think Whites aren't interested in equality? We'll show them by being...really racist?"), as I'm sure you'd agree. There is, though, no evidence that Blacks adopting the "liberal" (hope, integrationist, unity) paradigm has a serious effect in denting racist belief (as Carmichael and Hamilton noted). Indeed, when that is the primary voice of the Black community, people criticize them for being insufficiently Washingtonian (why are you always demanding stuff out of the White community? Why don't you get your own house in order first -- try doing something for yourself rather than getting stuck in this dependency loop!). What we see now is a classic double bind: if Blacks are Du Boisian (trumpeting the moral case for equality), they need to be Washingtonian (solve your own problems -- stop asking so much out of Whites!); when they're Washingtonian (fine -- we'll stop looking to Whites and concentrate on self-improvement), they need to be more Du Boisian (what, you won't talk to White people anymore? Racists!). In the words of John Solomos and Les Back, racism is "a scavanger ideology" -- it can respond to nearly any interpolation of facts and still manage to rearticulate itself as coherent and sensible. But we are making progress. Now we've hopefully seen that BLT and Black Conservatism is not "Fuck Whites, I'm gonna burn this city down!" and more "stop caring what White people think -- concentrate on making yourself better." Now your argument in response is "that's a bad strategy -- if you engaged with White people you could get more for your people than you will via quasi-separatism." The argument, in other words, isn't that Black Conservatism morally wrongs Whites, it's that it doesn't effectively liberate Blacks. "Objectively" speaking, I agree, in that my entire political project is to convince Black folks that Whites are trustworthy and worth engaging with (for my benefit as well as theirs). So I want Blacks to believe that engagement with the White community is a good and valuable thing and won't come back to bite them. But, respect for Black agency means that -- within very broad limits (by which I mean, no genocide please. But I can't think of a non-violent stance that lies outside these limits) -- I ultimately affirm it is their choice to make as to what path they wish to take in response to White racism. It is Blacks, not Whites, who ultimately have the right to determine what constitutes "Black liberation" and what path is best to achieve that end. We can advise them and seek to pitch cases, but we cannot control them. Particularly, I have no standing given America's racial past and present to demand Blacks they trust me. I can only ask it, and seek by my own actions to demonstrate that it is a good move to do so. If they still say at the end of the day "sorry, but I'm not convinced", that's their prerogative, and I think it's spectacularly uncharitable and mean-spirited to then say that counts as "White-hating". Particularly given the aforementioned double-bind, it's tough for me to contest the right of Blacks to throw up their hands and say "I am so done with this shit," and retreat into themselves. My support of Zionism flows from the same principle. As a Jew, I can respond to an entrenched history of gentile (Christian, Muslim, secular enlightenment -- what have you) anti-Semitism by trying to engage with the gentile community, presuming that eliminating anti-Semitism in that community is an attainable goal and that I won't die in the process. Or I can say "sorry, but I just can't trust you folks anymore", and withdraw to an autonomous, independent Jewish institution (if you want to convince me of your new goodwill, you'll know where to find me). I live in America and plan to stay here, so I've clearly chosen the former as my principal tactic. But the latter has enough pull on me so that I support the existence of Israel...just in case. My thesis is that, if I were to switch stances -- say "you know what, I'm done trying to convince American Christians to incorporate Jews as full and equal members of the political community. They don't get it, I have no idea how to make them get it, and I just don't feel safe here anymore. I'm making aliyah" -- you'd have to support my right to do so even as you try and convince me that my dim view of American Christians is unwarranted. But you cannot demand that I view Christians as good faith partners if I'm unwilling to see them such. Tactical disagreements over what best keeps Blacks alive in America (or Jews, for that matter) a) do not justify the lazy charges of "racism" and "White-hating" that has been thrown about and b) implicate more than just "objective" right and wrong, but also important questions of political autonomy that are being dropped out in this discussion -- a silence which I can't help but note gets re-enacted when the debate is held without direct reference to the way the Black writers themselves are articulating the question.

Jason David, it is disturbing how you want to cherry-pick which pieces of black liberation theology you will discuss. Anyone who highlights the negative aspects (grotesque suspicion and outbursts of hateful language towards anything labeled as "white") is told, by you, that those elements are unimportant and that only the positive message of self-reliance that you are reporting is relevant. Might not BOTH positive AND negative aspects be relevant, especially when dealing with BLT as a social and political project that has implications far broader than the black community alone? When you sugar-coat and try to suppress or avoid engaging counter-points, you move out of the role of intellectual analyst and into the role of anti-intellectual spin artistry. And no reflected claims of expertise can save your credibility then. So far, your contributions to the discussion are very well-read and well-written, but fall somewhat short in intellectual honesty. P.S. It is highly rude as well as completely dishonest to imply, as you did in the quote below, that everyone who disagrees with or criticizes BLT is by definition racist. It is especially dishonest in light of your continuing failure to even respond to specific criticisms. Implications that everyone who disagrees with you is a racist by definition may be a staple of how you have grown used to handling disagreements on some other sites, but it is not acceptable here.

In the words of John Solomos and Les Back, racism is "a scavanger ideology" — it can respond to nearly any interpolation of facts and still manage to rearticulate itself as coherent and sensible.

Jason I actually think David might have a good argument to make saying that the positive aspects are the "core" of black liberation theology.  But I don't think he can credibly make that argument as long as he continues to pretend that the negative aspects either do not exist, are not influential, or are out-of-bounds lest the critic be accused of "racism" for even mentioning them.

David Schraub Jason: I did not mean to imply that "everyone who disagrees with BLT is a racist." Rather, I used that quote with reference to the historical "double bind" that immediately preceded it. Racist ideology can and has accounted for both the Du Boisian and Washingtonian manifestations of Black Political Thought -- generally, by getting angry that each is not the other. It was response to CStans point that Black Conservatism is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in that it generates White racism. The problem is that the alternative (Du Boisian liberalism) also generates White racism. White racism manages to be generated regardless of what Black people do, hence the argument that this is a uniquely problematic facet BLT is void. It was not an accusation of any specific person being racist, it was observation about the mechanics and evolution of racist ideology. Hopefully that's clarified now -- I really do, as a rule, not like calling specific people "racist" unless they're really explicit about it. I will, however, disagree that I am not responding to "specific" objections, if for no other reason than that nobody has made the specific objection you lay out ("grotesque suspicion and outbursts of hateful language towards anything labeled as 'white'"), well, specifically. If you said "James Cone (or whoever else) has said '[direct quote from James Cone or whoever else]', and that's bad," I could respond to it -- either by agreeing, or disagreeing, or contextualizing. But no quotes have been forthcoming; it's all hearsay. I don't disagree with you that there are aspects of Black Conservatism I find quite wrong (as I said, I "objectively" agree with the Black Liberals). Farrakhan's grotesque anti-Semitism and "orthodox" Nation of Islam anti-White mythology would be obvious examples. Wright's statement about AIDS would be another. Much (not all) of Clarence Thomas' race jurisprudence would be a third. Malcolm X's (recanted) statement that White people could do "nothing" in response to the problem of racism is a fourth. But these are all my contributions. They did not come organically from the discussion. MvdG: I repeat my earlier assertion. If you think Black people are obligated to trust American Whites, and that if they do not they are bad people (if you think Jews are obligated to trust Christians or Muslims, Israel must trust Iran, Holocaust survivors must trust Germans, and we are bad people if we do not), once again, "agree to disagree." And once again, "snort". It's spectacularly uncharitable and mean-spirited in my view, and not applied symmetrically (if only White people were as trusting when Black Power advocates say -- flat out -- "we do not want to dominate or oppress Whites. We want nothing more than equality."). If Wright must trust you, than why mustn't you trust Wright? (hold the first response: because he doesn't trust you! But you don't trust him! Oh what tangled webs!). * * * "Do you trust White people?" Du Bois was asked by a student: You do not and you know that you do not, much as you want to; yet you rise and lie and say you do; you must say it for her salvation and the world’s you repeat that she must trust them, that most white folks are honest, and all the while you are lying and every level, silent eye there knows you are lying, and miserably you sit and lie on, to the greater glory of God. -- W.E.B. Du Bois, Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil 102 (1920) (Humanity Books, 2003).

Jason

If you think Black people are obligated to trust American Whites

This seems a pretty obvious strawman. No one is suggesting that anyone has an obligation to trust someone else, but rather that they have an obligation to allow for the possibility that another individual might be trustworthy until individual behavior proves otherwise. BIG difference. Distrust of an individual that is based purely on skin color is quite simply racism. Let me ask you this: Would you endorse or condemn a general statement that whites are untrustworthy? I ask because this is what BLT advocates appear to be saying at more than just a few points -- that whites are as a people and as individuals untrustworthy. And I don't see any legitimate way to "contextualize" (aka spin) that away. Further, I read attempts to spin it away as intellectually less than honest, basically the same as any other form of ad hoc theorizing. And there seems no way to read the DuBois quotation you offer as anything other than bald racial prejudice to the effect that most, if not all, whites are untrustworthy. If anyone said the exact same thing about any non-white group, they would be condemned, denied tenure, fired, vilified, and expelled from polite society. Yet you ask that we have a different standard for BLT advocates. That's illogical. Your point about Wright is similarly contorted. You conflate beliefs about the untrustworthiness of an individual (Wright) based on his individual behavior with a generalized belief in the untrustworthiness of all white people. You assert that anyone who condones distrust towards an individual must also condone an automated and indelible distrust towards all people of an entire race. That's nonsense. By the way, a claim that history mandates perpetual distrust is denied by reality. France has been invaded by Germany numerous times through history, with the last time being much more recent than the end of slavery in the U.S. Yet today, French people routinely trust German people and the two governments are very close allies. Clearly, the idea that negative experiences between groups mandates permanent distrust is not coherent with reality. Indeed, I would argue that separatist rhetoric is what CAUSES continued distrust between groups far more than simply DESCRIBING it. I would point you towards nationalist/separatist projects in the former Yugoslavia as evidence of how rhetoric of historical grievance CAUSES new grievance rather than liberating people from it.

Jason

Jason, it seems to me - and it has constantly seemed to me - that this prejudice and even racism towards white is an intrinsic part of ‘black conservative thought.’ For example, the idea that blacks should rely on themselves seems to be connected to the idea that white whites can’t be trusted, etc.

I am not sure that is true. Certainly, when directly expressed as a directive to automatically distrust anyone who is white, such a directive is intrinsically racist. But to merely say that a community should develop the capacity to stand on its own is not inherently prejudiced because it can be based on the POSSIBILITY that others are untrustworthy rather than the POSITIVE ASSERTION that they are untrustworthy. I'm thinking of the Mormons' and Jews' strong cultural histories of self-reliance. (Israel, for example, refuses to join in any formal alliance even with the United States.) Anyone who has observed the Israel-U.S. relationship or the relationship between Mormons and their non-Mormon neighbors cannot reasonably conclude that they are prejudiced against those who they are trying to avoid being dependent upon. But when an assertion of untrustworthiness of an entire group is made explicitly, racism becomes intrinsic, not incidental or contingent. I am also not convinced that a coherent "black conservative thought" ideology is really present as being described by David. I think that David just might instead be practicing a technique I've seen in other areas (i.e. some feminist IR scholarship) to take everything the advocate (i.e. David) doesn't like (i.e. black racism and Clarence Thomas' judicial philosophy) and attach it to a label (i.e. "conservative") that the advocate has reason to believe will be accepted automatically as bad by his ideologically sympathetic audience (and therefore insulated from challenge). That way, everything good coming out of a black person is from a fellow "liberal" and everything bad is from one of those awful "conservatives". It is a way of putting a rhetorical thumb on the scales while pretending to be an objective analyst. We saw a great deal of this little trick when some members of the media would refer to hardline Communists during the fall of the Soviet Union as "conservatives" while anti-communists were suddenly the "liberals".

C Stanley White racism manages to be generated regardless of what Black people do, hence the argument that this is a uniquely problematic facet BLT is void. How so? Are you denying that white racism has lessened over the past 40-50 years? And if it has, what accounts for that, and how can you reconcile the two seemingly contradictory ideas that 'white racism is generated regardless of what black people do' and 'white racism has decreased?'

C Stanley As for the point about Wright and ‘me,’ Jason already answered that question. There’s, I am sure you understand, a difference between talking about specific individuals and talking about large groups of people, such as whites in general. I thought this was a pretty obvious logical fallacy too.  None of us would have any problem, I'm sure, in saying that black people have reason to mistrust David Duke, and similarly we might mistrust certain black individuals based on their actions and rhetoric. In neither case is anyone guilty of racism or overgeneralizing the mistrust.

Jason

I agree with that, but reading the writings of the people involved and thinkers, and listening to some of the things said, etc., I can’t help but get the impression that it is most certainly connected with each other in this ideology.

Sure. The question is whether the connection is intrinsic or contingent. There is room at least conceptually for an argument that the relationship is contingent -- that Wright is, for example, merely a racist who uses black liberation rhetoric rather than that Wright is an expression of an intrinsically racist black liberation philosophy. Of course, at this point in the discussion, that is merely a possibility. Before David can actually make such an argument, he's going to have to be less automatically dismissive of the troubling statements that people like Wright actually have made and, more importantly, less inclined to simply "contextualize" (spin) them. Instead, he is going to have to find someone within his BLT research that makes clear an individual/group distinction towards white people and further that that distinction is the real "core" of the movement. I think that I know of some evidence that might help make such a case, but since David has proclaimed himself the expert on this literature, I won't presume to do his work for him. This is pretty much the same critique I have been trying to get David to answer at various points for over a year now -- his failure to draw the individual/group distinction that is frankly ESSENTIAL to any truly "liberal" anti-racism. As long as he continues to tacitly endorse a purely group-based view of the race issue, I will continue to strongly dissent from his analysis and allegiances.

David Schraub Hold it ... am I a bad person because I give Black Conservatism too much respect (MvdG) or too little (Jason)? I find much that is compelling in Black Conservative ideology (including the writings of Clarence Thomas, whom I've written favorably about on several occasions; and I've already noted how Black Power has intersected and buttressed my personal defense of Zionism). I also have problems, which I've expressed, and I've noted an asymptote which would prevent me from identifying with Black Conservatism even if I wanted to (which I don't). It is neither something I adore uncritically, nor is it a compendium of things I detest in Black political thought. I think the response to the Du Bois quote is very revealing (Du Bois, to be clear, is not a BLTer by any stretch, or even a Black Conservative -- his statement on why he "trusted" Whites even when he in his heart did not is emblematic of a [very depressed] Black Liberal). I think that in 1920 it's pretty evident that Whites-as-a -class were exploiting/oppressing Blacks-as-a-class. Individual Whites might have done some good things, but surely Blacks would have justified in a facial stance of mistrust towards X unknown White person (there were German rescuers, yet nonetheless Jews in Germany circa 1942 probably could legitimately "mistrust" the unknown German). Yet even in 1920, I am led to believe, Du Bois' statement is intolerably racist. I simply cannot hear that sentiment and understand how it co-exists with even a vague nod towards the actual experience of Blacks in 1920 America. Had Blacks "trusted" Whites-as-a-class to the degree you demand in 1920, presuming they'd respond kindly to the assertion of equality, they would have been lynched (more than they already were, I mean). It is a lesson Jews learned the hard way, trusting the beneficence of Germans far too much in the 1930s [See Richard L. Rubenstein, “Homeland and Holocaust: Issues in the Jewish Religious Situation,” in The Religious Situation: 1968, Donald R. Cutler, ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968): 39-64, p. 49]. I would not demand anyone follow us down that blood-stained road. "Too much love..." as supra poem put it. Nevertheless, no Black theorists that I know of (or would defend) would say that there is some ontological quality to possessing White skin that makes you inherently untrustworthy (the conclusion of Cone's book discusses favorably the person with "White skin" whose "heart, soul, and mind" are with the oppressed). If that's what you mean by "positivism" (some metaphysical quality of White people) then the argument isn't being made (would there not be a serious performative contradiction in White ol' me making it?). Their argument is contingent, observational, experiential, and constructivist. They observe the White community writ large and, from that observation, do not believe the standard White person will ultimately line up with them and be their ally (sometimes they don't even say it's because of racism per se -- Carmichael and Hamilton simply observe that different groups have different interests, so there is no reason to believe that Blacks and Whites will magically be in accord all the time). It's not a commentary on any individual White person, who may well roxxor the anti-racist boxxorz. But when Clarence Thomas is asked "as a member of a group that has been treated shabbily by the majority in this country, why would you want to give the government more power over your personal life?" (My Grandfather's Son, at 73), he is not being asked to deal with Whites as individuals, but the White community as a class. As expressed through the voting booth, through the corporation, through colleges and universities, through White flight, through lynch mobs, through friendships, through families, through the whole gamut of being Black in White America (good and ill), Black people have to reflect: "is it wise to cede power over my life to this group?" To say no, to my mind, is a legitimate conclusion to draw from American history as it has been expressed to this point. Racism may have decreased over the past 60 years, but it has been staging a comeback over the past 25 or so (it has, in the words of Kimberle Crenshaw, "retrenched", and now we enjoy the "thrill" of "re-racing"). Racism has moved in cycles before, and whatever anti-racism momentum was picked up during the 50s and 60s has evaporated (if not been reversed) well before it actually eradicated racism. The reduction, after all, came from a pretty high baseline. Consequently, even today the expectation that Whites-as-a-class will ultimately act in the best interests of Blacks is, at best, superobligatory. Hence, rely on oneself.

David Schraub Hopefully then, Cone's favorable words for the "White skins" who have the right outlook towards the oppressed will answer his call for a theorist holding an "individual/group distinction towards white people." Farrakhan fails at this I completely agree, but Cone doesn't, and honestly I don't think Wright does either (didn't Trinity invite that White guy Rev. Pfleger to preach? Clearly they trust at least one White!).

Jason David, the exact same logic you use to justify and endorse automatic distrustful presumption towards an anonymous, identity-free white person is the logic condemned as "racist" when a cabbie refuses to pick up a black fare or a person crosses the street to avoid a black skinned person on a darkened street. Other than a purely arbitrary standard that says some race-based presumptions are ok while others are nefarious, I can't see any basis for condemning one while endorsing the other, as you appear to be doing. And I think racism can only be seen to be increasing over the last 25 years by analysts who are vested in an expanding (and politically instrumental) redefinition of what constitutes racism in the first place. As I've tried to discuss with you before, allegations of "racism" are often used in the last 25 years to suppress conservative dissent on certain topics ranging from affirmative action to academic promotion and tenure policies. Ironically, the fact that "racism" can be used as a way to discredit is proof of the opposite of your contention -- if it was really on the increase, it would not be rhetorically useful as a tar-and-feather brush. That said, I agree that most advocates of black liberation and black power would take the view of themselves that they are encouraging suspicion towards "whites-as-a-class" rather than an absolute and indelible prejudice against all white individuals. Thus, they cannot be fairly accused of being, as a group, willfully or intrinsically racist. I think some very serious problems remain, however, as the "as-a-class" approach tends to encourage ascriptive group-based thinking, thus making the rhetoric of liberation/power potentially a CAUSE of further racism rather than liberation, as it became in the former Yugoslavia (when it comes to constructivism as I am linking it in here, I think my claim of expertise in the literature may supersede yours ;) ). Regardless of whether it is willfully or intrinsically racist, I think there is good cause to argue that the BLT approach is productive of additional racism. I continue to be disappointed in your refusal (of many months now) to engage with this avenue of critique. You seem to take as given that treating people "as-a-class" is a valid, uncontroversial, and socially costless way to evaluate individuals. And you continue to do so even when repeatedly challenged.

C Stanley Yeah, the problem there David is that the default position is that whites are not to be trusted unless they espouse the right kind of ideology (and of course, that ideology also involves collective white guilt.) So there still, the idea is that all whites collectively are guilty of racism until proven otherwise. You wouldn't accept that kind of thinking in reverse (and to preempt, in case you were going to make the point that that's what we're doing- no, we don't assume blacks are racist until proven otherwise; we're simply noting that certain blacks have made it known that they are racist.) It's a matter of whether there's a presumption of innocence for the individuals even if one knows there're some guilty parties in the group. You made the point about the 1920's for example; even then, I'd say that the approach most amenable to progress would have been for blacks to presume innocence from each individual white that they met, though of course I think it would be reasonable for them to have felt mistrust on an emotional level. But leaving aside the 1920's, and moving to discussion of today's society, it's ridiculous and offensive to be told that all blacks ought to approach all whites with distrust unless the white person agrees with the collective guilt of whites and does a mea culpa by espousing this ideology.

David Schraub Martin Marty (arguably the most influential Protestant theologian in America today) makes two pro-Trinity Whites (he attends, though not regularly, with his wife "and, like all other non-blacks, [we] are enthusiastically welcomed."). Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister of the United Church of Christ is a member of TUCC.  And -- hold it -- TUCC is part of the UCC denomination: one of the more predominantly White Christian denominations in America! So really, they've got lots of White pals; specifically, those who don't find the idea of "Black and Beautiful" to be the equivalent of the Klan. Sayeth the head of the UCC: "Trinity UCC is rooted in and proud of its Afrocentric heritage. This is no different than the hundreds of UCC churches from the German Evangelical and Reformed stream that continue to own and celebrate their German heritage, insisting on annual sausage and sauerkraut dinners and singing Stille Nacht on Christmas Eve. Recognizing and celebrating our distinctive racial-ethnic heritages, cultures, languages and customs are what make us unique as a united and uniting denomination." Uh-oh, spaghetti-o! Seriously Mike. You have to learn how to throw down a bad hand.

C Stanley "pro-Trinity whites" You're pretty much proving our point, David.

C Stanley BTW, I also find it very offensive when the ethnic defense of Trinity is trotted out. NO ONE has objected to Trinity's celebration of African ethnicity, music, dress, or worship style as far as I know (except that peculiar worship style which is suspiciously like campaigning for a candidate.)

Jason Yes, I think Christine also has a point, David.  The idea that an individual white person is presumed to be a racist until they have somehow publicly signed on to a political proclamation written specifically for whites by non-whites is demeaning to whites as individuals, for it asserts that they do not become eligible to be treated as individuals until they have jumped through hoops set up by someone else. I am sure you can point to similar hoops set up that black people have to jump through every day -- accent, dress, behavioral norms, even art and musical choices.  But that only reinforces my point -- blacks legitimately resent when they are forced to "dance" to earn their right to be treated fairly.  Why shouldn't individual whites resent similar demands?

David Schraub Once again, you misunderstand my point (I assume you're referring to my quote from the head of the UCC -- and this time I do apologize because the framing was unclear). I thought that it might seem odd that a congregation like Trinity (with a "don't depend on Whites" mindset) would be part of the UCC (a largely White denomination). It is, indeed, in tension with their Black Conservatism as we've been discussing it. The quote was meant to help resolve that disparity -- Trinity apparently feels confident that the UCC has proven themselves to be trustworthy and respectful of their theological outlook. Which demonstrates that this issue of trust is based on particular ideological constructs: observationally, most Whites are not comfortable with BLT, the UCC apparently is, so TUCC is comfortable with the UCC (their Whiteness notwithstanding). But in general, I think that -- just as I as a Jew am "as a default" suspicious of Christians (and Muslims and atheists and... etc. -- but I interact with Christians more often) with regards to their propensity to be an ally in the quest for Jewish liberation (but quite happy to be proven wrong!) -- it is not unreasonable for Blacks to hold a facial suspicion of White people's commitment to active opposition to racism and racial hierarchy in America. I don't assume X random Christian persons I meet to be active anti-Semites -- just not necessarily folks I can count to stand with me in the darkest of nights or the hottest of fires. The category of "Germans who didn't actively dislike Jews" and "German rescuers" are not perfectly coinciding. Likewise, few Whites have shown that level of commitment to Blacks and Black equality. There are some who have put their bodies on the line -- to them I give my praise -- history has not given us many John Browns.  Those of us who have no shown that commitment (and I include myself) do not have the grounds to demand trust. I would hope that the Christians in this thread would not demand trust of me. And if they are hurt by my lack, I would hope their response would be to inquire why I feel that way, rather than to cast me as the reincarnation of Torquemada. For experience has shown the drastic consequences of assuming friendly familiarity too quickly -- for Blacks as well as Jews. Particularly when the subject of inquiry is always somewhat masked (as in the government, or a corporation, or any other large rather impersonal institution), there is no alternative to stereotyping (there's no alternative anyway -- cf. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion pp. 59-66 (1920) -- but the need is particularly acute where direct knowledge is nearly impossible). The risk you ask us to run by demanding this default of trust for those who have oppressed us is a dice roll with our lives (not yours) as the wager. I do not appreciate either the game or the odds.

Jason

The risk you ask us to run by demanding this default of trust for those who have oppressed us is a dice roll with our lives (not yours) as the wager. I do not appreciate either the game or the odds.

David, I would once again call your attention to my speculation that you would likely condemn the exact same logic you endorse here if it were deployed by a cabbie refusing to pick up a black fare or a person crossing the street to avoid a black youth.  (And you should note that it is not always whites doing it -- most D.C. cabbies are themselves black, but they were widely condemned for their "racism" nonetheless.) If my speculation is correct, I would ask you to explain WITHOUT appeal to special privileges attached to purely political and arbitrary categories like "the oppressed" how this is logically and morally justifiable. I also would correct for the last time your misrepresentation of my position. I am not saying that anyone can "demand trust", as you keep strawmanning it, but rather that they can legitimately demand the possibility of trustworthiness. Big difference. I would also continue to call attention to my points that you continue to ignore about how BLT can be productive of racism even if it is not intrinsically racism as well as your refusal to question the group-based "as-a-class" assumptions underlying your entire body of writing on these issues going back over a year now.  To see you responding to some more peripheral issues while ignoring my substantive criticisms is quite frustrating, especially since it has persisted across many efforts on my part to engage you on them. Coming from someone who purports to provide the "Debate Link", such "dropping my arguments" could and should be taken as tantamount to your conceding them, but I would prefer that you respond since this isn't just a debate game.

C Stanley For experience has shown the drastic consequences of assuming friendly familiarity too quickly — for Blacks as well as Jews. Once again, I'll mention my belief that it's often been the black leaders who haven't proven trustworthy in representing black interests. There seems to be a disconnect whereby the familarity (based on shared racial heritage) and/or signing on to a particular ideology is proof of trustworthiness, when in fact there are whites and blacks who have a vested interest in maintaining an oppressed black underclass.

David Schraub Jason: My computer just crashed (on the roomie's)  so I'm going to have bail. Quickly: a) On our cab driver, I would not condemn him personally assuming he has some well-grounded (empirical or experiential) reason to fear for his safety, but would identify the issue as part of broader disadvantaging nexus of being Black in America. My views closely parallel those laid out in Jody Armour's Negrophobia book, so I'd point there for more. b) I only wish being oppressed was but a "political category", and one day I wish to visit the unidentified planet you live on where that is the case. [/sarcasm] c) I believe I've answered a few times now this "possibility of trustworthiness" thing in agreement with you. BLTers do believe it is possible that Whites can be trustworthy (there is no ontological bar), but they don't think that represents the current standard setting of the average White on the street (experientially, there is no reason to assume any random White/gentile person to be a good ally). But they're happy when particular White folks show them to be wrong. Farrakhan obviously does not believe this, one of the reasons Farrakhan is risible, but both Cone and Trinity do. We seem to be in accord here; no need for hatin'. But MvdG, I think, seems to be "demanding" trust in his comments to this thread. d) "BLT can be productive of racism even if it is not intrinsically racism": I apologize for "ignoring" this point, but I have no idea what you're even trying to say. If it's "BLT can produce racism [amongst Blacks? Whites?] even if not intentionally racist in its own ideology" I say "so can every other thing Blacks ever do -- racism gets produced in American society as the default setting. 'Anti-racism' is the exception, and we've yet to bottle the formula that can produce that." If that "ignored the point", apologies again, but it was my best shot at a very bizarrely worded sentence fragment. e) "Group-based as-a-class" I think I've been far more solicitous of engaging why this thinking makes sense when talking about American racism than you have in responding to my justifications. Jim Crow was not a case of 1000 coin-flips in a row turning up heads (whoa, another case where Whites attacked and mutilated a Black man? That's some bad luck, that is). It was the White community qua Whites attacking Blacks qua Blacks. The attacks had little to nothing to do with one's individual status except that being White gave you the right to do it, and being Black made you vulnerable. Likewise for Jews and gentiles. I'm not sure where you've made any serious effort to undermine this reality, so once again, my apologies for "ignoring" phantom arguments.