While I certainly sympathize with your line of thinking here on the conversation between Barth and Cone, I don't find myself wholly convinced by this argument. To ask why Barth didn't think of God in terms of blackness and/or white supremacy seems to be as contextual as asking why Barth didn't ask questions about floppy disks or large-language model AIs. Was the concept of "White supremacy" even a relevant way to think about global race relations in the first half of the 20th century for a European academic? I would be curious about a scholarly investigation of the term and some speculation on its relevance as a point of reference for evaluating thinkers from this time frame. I could be wrong, but my understanding of terms like "white supremacy" and blackness as they are used here are more recent than Barth.
I take your point about Kierkegaard and Hegel, but it seems the language is different in that debate than using terms like "white supremacy" or "blackness". Did Barth never speak or write of the condition of peoples in the global south/third world contexts? Did he never say or write anything about the brewing civil rights movement in the United States prior to his death? I ask those questions earnestly, because I legitimately don't know the answers, although I would be surprised if he did speak extensively on the latter, considering he was European and not American.
I could be very wrong here! I'm not trying to be dismissive of your claim in this essay; again, I'm highly sympathetic and generally very pleased with your work ("Reading Karl Barth", in particular, was a fantastic book, one I've been enjoying writing about myself.) Perhaps Barth's lack of critique of colonialism by itself would be a more fruitful argument. But when you bring in these other terms, I find I just am not totally convinced this is a quite a fair criticism of Barth.
While I certainly sympathize with your line of thinking here on the conversation between Barth and Cone, I don't find myself wholly convinced by this argument. To ask why Barth didn't think of God in terms of blackness and/or white supremacy seems to be as contextual as asking why Barth didn't ask questions about floppy disks or large-language model AIs. Was the concept of "White supremacy" even a relevant way to think about global race relations in the first half of the 20th century for a European academic? I would be curious about a scholarly investigation of the term and some speculation on its relevance as a point of reference for evaluating thinkers from this time frame. I could be wrong, but my understanding of terms like "white supremacy" and blackness as they are used here are more recent than Barth.
I take your point about Kierkegaard and Hegel, but it seems the language is different in that debate than using terms like "white supremacy" or "blackness". Did Barth never speak or write of the condition of peoples in the global south/third world contexts? Did he never say or write anything about the brewing civil rights movement in the United States prior to his death? I ask those questions earnestly, because I legitimately don't know the answers, although I would be surprised if he did speak extensively on the latter, considering he was European and not American.
I could be very wrong here! I'm not trying to be dismissive of your claim in this essay; again, I'm highly sympathetic and generally very pleased with your work ("Reading Karl Barth", in particular, was a fantastic book, one I've been enjoying writing about myself.) Perhaps Barth's lack of critique of colonialism by itself would be a more fruitful argument. But when you bring in these other terms, I find I just am not totally convinced this is a quite a fair criticism of Barth.