Medium 10/7
Although I was familiar with Dr. Martin Luther King and his support of civil disobedience in the fight against racism in the United States, I was less acquainted with different theories that existed including the works of Mather and Dr. Cone. In past discussions, I have engaged in the debate behind the benefits and challenges of nonviolent vs. violent protest, yet I did not fully consider the detailed reasoning behind each different form. I still struggle to answer the question of which mode proves most effective.
The most thought-provoking aspect of the different theorists involves the divergent viewpoints on assimilation. Mather argues that equality never becomes possible in the earthly life, but that slaves can achieve success once they enter Heaven. Mather condones Christianizing black people in order to maintain order but does not suggest improved rights. On the other hand, Dr. King and Dr. Cone demonstrate the urgent need for participation in social justice, yet each has their own stance on how to achieve progress and what life could become for African Americans. Dr. King contends that civil disobedience can lead to social change once negotiations are removed from the conversation and that true Christians will engage in this work. His vision upholds the notion that blacks and whites can coexist in an equal society where both cultures blend in harmony. I believe that King’s ideas rely on civil disobedience because if two conflicting sides engaged in violence to solve an issue, I cannot imagine their peaceful coexistence following the revolution. Tensions would inevitably remain which would make complete inclusion nearly impossible. Does this fact hold true in society today following the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement? On the contrary, Dr. Cone explains how blacks have an obligation to fight oppression by whatever means necessary because God actively supports their resistance. His future requires the breakdown of white systems and rejects the idea of inclusion. His illustration suggests that because the black experience is only attainable for oppressed individuals, complete assimilation into white society will never occur and therefore must be destroyed. If violent rebellion against oppression is the solution to social justice, does this suggest the complete removal of systems of hierarchy? I find trouble imagining the aftermath of this example and how people would choose to organize political, social, and economic systems. I suppose that choosing which method of resistance is “correct” proves to be impossible and one can only compare the benefits and consequences of nonviolent vs.violent protest
Each material highlights the importance of understanding the past and bringing that information to the table when determining the purpose of the present. Christina Sharpe’s idea of “wake work” upholds Cone’s notion that seeking inclusion is not an effective answer, but rather the more successful solution is embracing black identity to reimagine what life could become. One pillar of black theology is “a community which looks on its unique past, visualizes the future, and then makes decisions about possibilities in the present” (27). Cone’s statement demonstrates that one must fully understand and undergo an experience to fully participate in the movement and goals for the future. This directly pushes up against white allyship, because technically white individuals will never endure white oppression. Therefore, participation in social justice requires a new form of support, one in which whites recognize this point and fight to break down the systems that benefit their lives and maintain the hierarchies of power. These alternatives are already occurring in social justice movements today, such as defunding the police in order to disrupt current systems of dominance. #relg102
