Cone’s point is not that the eschaton has in fact arrived with the emancipation proclamation. Rather, he is pointing to proleptic glimpses of what the eschaton will be like—i.e. no more slavery.
Of course the situation after the “liberation” of American slaves was a complete mixed bag—the Jim Crow South is just one example. Also, Cone’s claims about resistance aren’t that different from something Foucault says about the dialectic of power. That is, power is *both limiting and en-abling. So even within oppressive structures and mechanisms, creativity can manifest from within such structures. This is Cone’s point, viz. the slaves developed their own ethical codes in contrast to the dominant group’s “ethical” practices, they subverted work routines and they developed black spirituals, thus creating beauty in the midst of the “ugliness of slave existence.” Cone is not at all sugar-coating the “Christianity” of the white slave-holders; he’s explicit that they were misguided.

Best,
Cynthia

First, I am fully persuaded by your claim that “…in the colonial situation where skin color defines in advance a person’s value and his or her place in society, abstract philosophical schemata—such as Merleau-Ponty’s corporeal schema and Hegel’s mythological master/slave dialectic—come up short because they fail to consider the existential reality of racial difference.” I think this is a good insight. Clearly MP’s corporeal schema assumes a privileged orientation and freedom of bodily comportment not afforded to African-Americans. However, I am less persuaded by your use of Cone. I wonder if Cone overstates the case when he claims that the abolition of slavery was experienced as an eschaton? Freedom was hardly achieved by the abolition of slavery. Blacks remained politically and economically disenfranchised for almost a century more. Why not acknowledge the narcotizing affect Christian theology had on slaves, where it mitigated against resistance rather than facilitated it? Was the Christian theology of the day emancipatory and subversive or does Cone read that into it anachronistically? Additionally, Cone’s statement “Resistance was the ability to create beauty and worth out of the ugliness of slave existence,” while noble and dignified, seems to bear the stain of acceptance rather than the sting of resistance. To resist is to refuse the “ugliness of slavery,” not to use it as raw materials for a more palatable existence.

This is a really great post and you make me want to read more of Fanon. I look forward to reading more of your reflections on his work.

John Macready