The Colorline Essay Outline

1288 Words3 Pages

places where reconciliation is deemed impossible. For Cone, whiteness is an impossible place of reconciliation but identifying with blackness is to identify with God.
The Colorline The great intellectual and sociologist W.E.B. Du Bios wrote in 1906, “The problem of twentieth century is the problem of the colorline…” The colorline was a term deployed by Du Bios in order to describe the changing scenery of America, where racism was embrace in every facet of life.. Du Bios was not a black nationalist but he stood vehemently against any form of white supremacy. Cornel West describes Du Bios’ colorline concept as “the major litmus test for the country.” Du Bios understood that the only possible route for America to be great was to address America’s …show more content…

The proverbial denial of white theologians to engage color, at least from Cone’s analysis, revealed how deeply embedded racism was in the thought forms of this culture. The need for a God of color proposes a shift in defining “being concerned.” Cone appeals to the generosity of some white Christians and their wanting to lend a helping hand to the poor. He does not view this as a tangible effort of solidarity but more as a “white way of assuring themselves that they are basically [a] “good” people.” In contrast, Cone’s idea of “being concerned” is “being on the side of the oppressed, becoming one with them and participating in the goal of liberation.” The end result is that the colorline becomes obsolete if everyone is identified as black. This is the motive behind the notion that everyone must become black: blackness becomes the centrality of the love of God. If blackness is removed or deemed to have no value, then those who are making concerted efforts to remove blackness must be titled …show more content…

Yes, unequivocally, there are limitations, as there are limitation to all things. Xolani Kacela speaks of such a limitation in his paper, Towards a More Liberating Black Liberation Theology. What he proposes is that the failure of Black Theology of Liberation to name anger is a limitation. He recognizes that anger is present but it is more on “display” rather than actually named. By not actually naming anger, he contends that it hinders the angered community from being able “to develop appropriate responses for the Black church.” The lack of naming the anger misses the chance to render viable solutions, it only succeeds in “suppressing the anger.” Kacela clearly sees the need for Black Theology of Liberation but he thinks that it sells itself short by not naming anger and also makes it dangerous. He

Open Document