I agree with your disdain for the eccentricities of the welfare state and the pathological “victimization” of minorities in the US political system. It’s almost like those in power wish to keep the victims of structural violence in the the category of victims, rather than listening to what they have to say, or trusting them to make their own way out (something that is epidemic of our international relations as well).

However, I do not think that “equal opportunity” is truly available to all. Take your example of black neighborhoods, for instance. These predominantly black neighborhoods have much higher crime rates than suburban areas. But why is this? There seems to only be two options: 1) for some inexplicable reason, blacks have a ‘natural’ aversion towards law-keeping, or 2) something systemic is perpetuating this situation in black neighborhoods. Obviously, no one will accept option 1, so it must be some variant of option 2. That means that we are doing structural violence to certain minorities that is preventing the idealized ‘equal opportunity’ from being realized. This is the problem that I am attempting to present.

I think the real problem we have right now is how we define “equality.” Do we define it as equality of opportunity, equality of circumstance, etc., or equality of OUTCOME. I think the current liberal mentality is to guarantee equality of outcome, and that is a startling scary prospect.

There currently is (near) equality in opportunity. Anyone can get into any school–if they meet the standards. It is illegal to discriminate in employment based on race–but you can (and should) discriminate based on ability. The same opportunities to succeed are available to everyone, but that does not mean that these opportunities are equally taken advantage of.

This is because of unequal circumstances. Something which I personally believe the government has NO business getting involved in, and that by being involved in it, they perpetuate the problem. There should be standards, and those standards should be the same for all people regardless of skin color or gender. This includes college entry requirements (blacks have the highest dropout rate and I believe this is from lowering these entry requirements to achieve increased “diversity” and allowing in students who are not prepared to meet the course requirements), job requirements (even gov’t jobs), and even legal standards.

Yes, legal standards. You mention that blacks are imprisoned in “droves”, but you forgot to mention one fact. Predominantly black neighborhoods have the highest crime rates in the country. Is it society’s fault that, statistically, one ethnic group commits more crimes than others? Should the standards be adjusted to accommodate? (You know, to account for *normal* pimping, pushing, and other “gangsta” activities). Or should that standard be RIGOROUSLY held to, and enforced, thus providing incentive for individuals to act according to the standard–you know, if they don’t want to go to jail.

This is another conversation for another time, but I would suggest that the “white man” has destroyed the black family by trying to force equal outcomes, rather than simply removing the barriers to equal opportunity. We created a welfare state which eliminated the need for fathers and personal responsibility, and this is, in my opinion, the greatest problem facing black culture in America. The bigotry of lowered expectations.

The distinction I was trying to make here was between a theology of liberation that begins with the church’s mission and proceeds from there, and a theology of liberation that begins with racial, political, or national distinctions, and only begins to theologize from there. It’s a matter of first principles. Cone and others, in my opinion, are using identity politics and masking it as theology. This is why I liken it to ancient Zionism - it wants to build up the walls that should be broken down in the church. Of course Gutierrez is radical (in the colloquial sense), but I find his vision to be very different than Cone’s.

As far as Marxism is concerned, Gutierrez seems to find it very compatible with Christianity. He even thinks that Christians and Marxists should work together in certain situations (another example of his revolutionary pragmatism).

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments concerning Wright. Rather than criticize his vision, white Christians should first seek to understand their place (as oppressors) in the black person’s struggle (hence my criticism of Hannity and Colmes’ reactions). However, a “pluralist utopia” where every race and creed has its own particular voice within the church is not the ideal situation.

As far as Jeremiah Wright goes, I think both those guys do need to read Cone before they’re going to understand what Wright is talking about. The first guy thinks that Wright shouldn’t divide churches by race, but what he doesn’t realize is that the “unified” church that he’s advocating for is one that is dominated by white language, experience, and ideals. What I think Wright is saying (and what Cone says) is that in order to have a Christianity that is not merely a white Christianity, we need churches that speak to the black experience. It is us whites, who see this black experience as divergent and abnormal that are really perpetuating the racism, because for us, only white Christianity is real Christianity. No real unity can be reached until the black experience (or Latino or Asian) is considered just as valid as the white experience. And so for now, in my opinion, it is necessary to have churches like Wright’s that speak to the black experience.