New Action Alert on James Hal Cone and Jeremiah Wright
By • 3/24/08This week’s action alert asks readers to demand that Union Theological Seminary (UTS) repudiate the teachings of white-hating theology professor James Hal Cone, who teaches at UTS. Cone’s theology was one of the primary inspirations of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary sermons. Cone is a staunch defender of Malcolm X and once wrote, “Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man the devil.” Please do your part and send my sample e-mail or another of your own composition.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
Dr. D,
The point here is not to get them to repudiate Cone. Obviously, that’s never going to happen. The point is to get them to recognize that the sort of thing that Cone says offends and angers people. That might make them have second thoughts next time they make a hire.
The e-mail is, I believe, written forcefully and logically. I don’t think it will be easy for them to dismiss it as the work of rubes. I have no love for academics (I’ve spent a lot of time around them too), but I don’t think they are quite as simple-minded as you suggest.
My father is actually a religious studies professor who attended UTS in the 60s. He’s perfectly in tune with them ideologically. He’s likely the kind of person who would get hired at UTS. But even he recognizes that black liberation theology can become simple-minded white-bashing.
I know that academics live in a liberal echo-chamber. The point is to get them to recognize that there is something outside of that.
So I think you should send the e-mail. What harm could it do? It will take you one minute.
We’ve got to repudiate the cynical mentality that says people are just so bigoted that nothing we do will do any good. That’s an excuse for inertia and inaction. Once you let this attitude creep in, you’ll find you’re not sending any e-mails or doing anything positive for whites at all.
By on 3/24/08 at 8:43 pm
Great, Taryton.
Dr. D,
Also, so what if they do laugh at you and think you’re a rube? What do you care?
By on 3/24/08 at 9:06 pm
I have no doubt that you have spent plenty of time around academics, although I did not know you had one in the family. Further, I did not intend to imply any criticism of the way the e-mail itself is written; it is well done. Nor did I intend to describe the UTS faculty as simple minded, although narrow minded might fit.
You got to the root of the problem when you said, “I know that academics live in a liberal echo-chamber.” I was an engineering professor, and engineers are by nature very conservative people. But much of my career was in Wisconsin schools, and Wisconsin is one of the pinkest states in the US. It was a constant battle for sanity.
I think the more effect think to do is to find out where their money comes from and attack that. Without money, they wither and die. If they can be made to look foolish and even evil before the eyes of their supporters, then they will not be funded. Then we will have accomplished something. Very few people (perhaps a few) want to fund things that are manifestly perceived as bad for society. If we can make that case to their funding sources, then I think we can really get somewhere.
By on 3/24/08 at 9:11 pm
Dr. D,
You’ve got a point about going after the donors. I don’t see how it can hurt to send the e-mail to faculty too. You’ve got to have some faith in people. And you’ve got to have a very, very thick skin if you’re going to be involved in this movement.
It’s sometimes hard to find out who funds wickedness. I wanted to do an e-mail campaign against donors to the Southern Poverty Law Center, but, after much searching, I couldn’t find out who they were.
UTS makes it a bit easier, however:
Every year Union relies on annual funding from various foundations for scholarships: the Armour Lewis Family Foundation, the Carpenter Foundation, the Hagedorn Fund, the Magee Christian Education Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Francis Asbury Palmer Fund, and the Arthur Williams Residuary Trust. This year we were successful in obtaining a three-year grant from the Booth Ferris Foundation to enhance the Seminary’s Web-based communications and fundraising.
So there would be a possibility of e-mailing these people. I’ll see what I can do to set that up.
By on 3/24/08 at 9:52 pm
What you describe as “going after the faculty” is actually just feeding the collective egos of the faculty. That is the problem I see with this.
With respect to the SPLC, I presume you know that this is a front for Morris Dees. I think he gets a lot of money simply from deluded people who send him money voluntarily. The organizational name is sheer brilliance, I have to admit; it is a real come-on and money draw. It makes people think he is doing so much good, despite the evil that he actually does. About all I can see to do about that is a direct campaign to expose him. That is hard because he has such a well established organization and such a good cover.
Coming back to the matter at hand, you have said, “You’ve got to have some faith in people.” You don’t specify just what people you are suggesting that we have faith in. I cannot see any reason at all to have faith in the people at UTS. If they were people we could have faith in, they would have never let this situation come into being in the first place.
Please do not accuse me of inertia and inaction. I send lots of e-mails on many issues. I do, however, reserve the right to evaluate which ones are worth pursuing and which are not. I would be most please to see Cone fired tomorrow, but I don’t think this will do anything at all towards that end. It just might get him an “atta boy” and I don’t want that to happen.
By on 3/24/08 at 11:10 pm
Dr. D,
Yes, it’s true, there was no good reason to accuse you of inaction. I was taking out on you my frustration with all the people who read this site but who aren’t sending e-mails.
Here’s another thing to consider before you conclude that this action alert is an exercise in futility or masochism. Most people have no experience at all with a pro-white perspective and have never encountered anyone like us. Just realizing that there are people like us out there will change their perspective, if only a little bit. It’s not that they will approve of us, just that they will realize that we are human beings, not the supernaturally evil “white supremacist” demons of folklore. By forcing our views on these people, we will show them a new way of perceiving the world and open up new avenues for their minds to wander down in unguarded moments.
Before I became a race realist, I was a committed academic Marxist who listened to high-brow rap music and thought that the Democratic party was too conservative. When The Bell Curve came out, the book’s whole thesis made me ill. You would have considered me a hopeless case.
By on 3/24/08 at 11:43 pm
I like your Action Alerts, and hope you create more of them. I just wish there was more we could do to make you and your website more influential.
By on 3/24/08 at 11:57 pm
Well, it’s just a matter of constantly plugging and linking to the site on message boards and websites and among your friends.
By on 3/25/08 at 12:02 am
Taryton,
When I said “attaboy,” I meant to be affable, not patronizing. On reflection, I understand why you think the word struck the wrong note, though. I sincerely value your cooperation with my activism efforts and apologize for causing offense. I’ve now removed the word from my previous comment.
By on 3/25/08 at 8:19 pm
“When I said “attaboy,” I meant to be affable, not patronizing. On reflection, I understand why you think the word struck the wrong note, though. I sincerely value your cooperation with my activism efforts and apologize for causing offense. I’ve now removed the word from my previous comment”
Hey, no apology needed. I really take no offence to it. My skin is thick but my belly was full of beer at the time I reacted to your affable comment(beer brains!). I certainly hold no ill feelings at all. I still have the greatest respect for your work and will continue to support your efforts.
By on 3/26/08 at 7:03 pm
Dear Ian,
I am a student at UTS and have taken a course from Dr. Cone. You said, ” The point is to get them to recognize that the sort of thing that Cone says offends and angers people.” I just wanted you to know that Cone begins his introductory survey course by reminding people that the gospel is offensive, so if you are preaching and no one is offended, then you better ask if what you are preaching is the gospel. Union is not afraid of offending people—especially privileged people.
Jesus entered the world as a poor Jew in the Roman empire and was lynched. Sound familiar?
Geoff
By on 5/23/08 at 7:46 pm
Jesus entered the world as a poor Jew in the Roman empire and got lynched, basically by the Jews. Yes, that does sound familiar.
As I recall the story, it was the Jews, God’s chosen people who rejected Christ and engineered his conviction before the Roman governor and demanded his death. The Jews would have put him to death themselves if that had been lawful, but as a subject people, they did not have that authority. They had to manipulate the Romans to do that for them. Now, how does that relate to your point, Geoff?
You are correct to write gospel with a lower case “g” when referring to what Cone teaches because it certainly is not the Good News of Jesus Christ. God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not some one to be accepted or rejected because He supports your race against another race or He does not. He simply Is, his name is I AM, whether that suits the likes or dislikes of puny men or not. What Cone teaches is simply Marxism in a black guise. There is nothing new in that; that is an old heresy.
The Gospel of Christ is not a tool for man to manipulate. It does make people uncomfortable at times, but it is not a weapon for one man to use against another as BLT does. It is well to keep in mind Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
By on 5/23/08 at 9:15 pm
Jesus entered the world as a poor Jew in the Roman empire and was lynched. Sound familiar?
Actually, no, not really, as the last lynchings took place sixty years ago.
I admit though that Cone’s writings do upset me, expressions as they are of a crude and uncompromising racial hatred that casts whites as the devil. Of course, these “devils” have given blacks trillions of dollars of social services and made them a privileged class through affirmative action.
Now, you answer me a question. Can you give me one reason why I should take Cone seriously? How are whites holding blacks back today in 2008? Why should I think blacks have anyone but themselves to blame for their failures?
By on 5/23/08 at 10:02 pm
“Jesus entered the world as a poor Jew in the Roman empire and was lynched. Sound familiar?”
Not really, since Jesus was not lynched but crucified. That must be some class “Dr.” Cone teaches.
By on 5/23/08 at 10:03 pm
About lynching and crucifixion, what do you think the difference is? Both are ways people are executed, disgraced, and humiliated. Both are designed to invoke fear and terror in the masses, although crucifixion, which was not uncommon, was used as a way to punish insurrection against the empire. The Gospels were written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (except for probably Mark), and it is Jesus’ claim about the being able to rebuild the temple that founds him in so much trouble. Even before the destruction, the Christ-followers are kicked out of the temple, and they are dismayed and upset with the High Priests. So there should be little surprise that the crucifixions accounts employ anti-Semitism and pins it on the High Priests. Matthew makes the biggest deal of the High Priests relationships to the Roman Client Kings. Thus, it is not that easy to blame the crucifixion on the Jews. Earlier Christian writing—like Paul’s writings—are from within the Jewish community as a reform movement, and these writings do not blame the Jews for the crucifixion.
Cone is hardly a Marxist; I suppose he’d see Marxism—especially modern—as a Western philosophical farce that he’d want little to do with. Please stop conflating Latin American Liberation Theology (whose uses Marx as a source, but again not Marxist ( a Marxist would have nothing to do with God, rather it employs several Marxian tools and sociological analysis)) with Black Liberation Theology.
As for institutional racism, how about listen to Jeremiah Wright’s sermon about the Prison Industrial Complex and the Cradle to Prison Pipeline. People are making money off keeping other people impoverished and in jail. This is the lead into to his infamous: “Then they ask us to sing God Bless America.” This is just one of hundreds of examples.
I also have a lot of critiques of Cone, but I think we share very few. For one thing, I don’t particularly like his methodology in using the Bible (I’m on vacation, otherwise I’d dig up the page number and title), and I don’t like how he is concerned about the credibility of theology to reason as much as he is concerned with theology’s liberative capacity. I think God has worked harmony into both concerns.
By on 5/24/08 at 12:17 am
“About lynching and crucifixion, what do you think the difference is?”
It ought to be obvious. One was a legal means of execution, the other was not. Evocations of “lynching” are a cheap rhetorical gambit, calculated to make anything whatsoever relevant to the assorted black power movements whose advocate Cone is. Your clumsy parallels are of no relevance whatsoever to the question at hand.
“As for institutional racism, how about listen to Jeremiah Wright’s sermon about the Prison Industrial Complex and the Cradle to Prison Pipeline.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Do you really imagine we haven’t heard all this bilge before, from more literate mouthpieces than Cone? If Cone is concerned with this “pipeline,” he ought to figure out some way to keep blacks from committing crimes rather than comparing black felons to Jesus.
By on 5/24/08 at 1:34 am
In response to Geoff:
Yes, but some might be trying to make factually incorrect statements about Christ. Some Blacks might want to claim Christ was lynched, and say lynching is a crime of Whites. So, this in combination with goofy logic, would associate Whites with the killers of Christ, and Blacks with Christ. It would be a very “sick” analogy, but Reverend Cone is a very “sick” man. I heard from a source that he said something along the lines of “If God doesn’t side with us [Blacks], in our race-war [,even if it is caused by Blacks], against Whites, we should kill him.”
Also keep note, a small minority, but still some Blacks seem more than eager to make Christianity Afrocentric. To some, race is more important than even their own God (hence the close relationship between Obama’s church and Black muslims & even Louis Farrakhan).
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/528635/barackobamaschurchhonorsnation.html
“In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam.”
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/barackobamasc.html
Here is what Louis thinks of Whites:
“White people are potential humans … they haven’t evolved yet.”
“It is an act of mercy to white people that we end your world. … We must end your world and bring in a new world.”
[The above 2 quotes are from the latter hyperlink] Apparently, Louis wants us extinct.
I wonder if Abe Foxman and/or Morris Dees consider Jesse Jackson’s “Hymie” comment serious.
By on 5/24/08 at 3:11 am
I have to tell you I think this one is not worth the price of an e-mail stamp, Ian. They are simply going to laugh.
You say, in part, “It is incumbent on UTS, as a Christian institution,….” But UTS does not pretend to be a Christian institution and has not for many years. It would not want to be seen in that light. It is a sophisticated academic institution, and it is precisely for that reason that they have people like Cone on their faculty. They are far more concerned with “intellectual respectability” than they are with the Truth of Christ. Make no mistake about that. Academic prestige is a far more important factor than Christian faith could ever be for those folks, and that reason I think your e-mail will simply amuse them and they will find the senders rustic rubes.
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that Cone should go; I just don’t think that this will have any impact on achieving that end. (I should add that I am a former college professor, so I have a good bit of familiarity with how these things work.)
By on 3/24/08 at 8:26 pm