In a more serious vein, those of you with Jesus on your minds might also ponder this post from awhile back on the white/Western whitening of him/Him: "recreate jesus in their own image."
And speaking of Jesus' own racial status -- why is it that nativity scenes with very likely inaccurate white characters pop up all over the place, and no one seems to consider that a problem, but when someone puts together a nativity scene with more accurate black characters, white people issue a call to arms? (Well, okay, the white complainers in that story are members of Italy's rabidly anti-immigration Northern League Party; I certainly hope that if someone in my own neighborhood ever decides to get a bit more real by adorning their front yard with a black nativity scene, none of my white neighbors would sneak over and desecrate it, or otherwise complain. Maybe most of them wouldn't even mind.)
And finally, what's up with this relatively new annual tradition, the wounded cries about some fictitious "War on Christmas"? Is that a "white" thing too? Why IS it that the people I see busting their blood vessels over that are always white people?
Anyway, all the best to your and yours, every one and all of you! Thanks for all the reading, the comments, the emails, the guest posts, the support, the challenges, and so much more. I'll probably be posting lightly for the next week or so, and then I'll be back in the saddle for the new year.
Jesus was brown and Middle Eastern, so were everyone else in the Nativity scene. I always laugh my ass off whenever I see pasty-white characters in Nativity scenes...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of innacurate Christmas descriptions, what's with all the blue-eyed, rosey cheeked Santas? Sorry guys the real St. Nicholas was Italian and had dark features and tan skin.
ReplyDeleteI also love nativity scenes decorated with lots of snow and evergreen trees. Who knew? Jesus was born in Sweden! Explains the coloring ;)
I always laugh my ass off whenever I see pasty-white characters in Nativity scenes.
ReplyDeleteJesus probably looked a lot more like what many Americans consider a terrorist and/or illegal immigrant than that White dude we see in all those paintings. I don't know who that mofo is. Maybe some painter's cousin or something.
I thought St. Nicholas was Greek. In any way, he wasn't rosy-cheeked.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jesus, yeah, the smart ones know and understand that he was dark and Middle Eastern, not hailing from Sweden or where the cold prevented color from occurring or whatever.
I do find it funny though that so many white Christians spout anti-Semitic sentiments despite worshipping a known Jew. Go figure. But then again, I am a Jew lover.
Carry on.
>> "Jesus was born in Sweden! Explains the coloring ;)"
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, you are so right. A good bit of modern Nativity iconography (including the Mary/Jesus-are-blonde bit) comes from the visions of a 14th century mystic from...Sweden. :o)
(Sorry; uberdork moment.)
>> "Why IS it that the people I see busting their blood vessels over [the "War on Christmas"] are always white people?"
ReplyDeleteWell, the war on the War on Christmas isn't actually about Christmas. It's about imposing the viewpoint of one chunk of society on all of society ("everyone must say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays"). The "War on Christmas" itself (the Happy Holidays Movement) is about the democratization of a holiday and its celebrations, a way to make something available to a broader chunk of the population. The Merry Christmas Fanatics, on the other hand, like the exclusivity, and the sense of superiority it grants to them as ones who belong to the main group. And they want everyone else to recognize that superiority. It has nothing to do with the "meaning of Christmas." The meaning of Christmas (for Christians) is the mind-boggling, capital-A Awesome humility that the omnipotent, omniscient God showed by coming to Earth as a frelling baby. That idea could not be farther from the minds of the Merry Christmas fanatics.
This is a perfect demonstration of the Whiteness mindset.
Cloudy said:
ReplyDeleteSorry guys the real St. Nicholas was Italian and had dark features and tan skin.
Menelik replied:
sorry Cloudy, I think you'll find that the real St. Nicholas, although as you describe him, was actually born in Turkey, and was, therefore, a Turk!
Perhaps we shouldn't be sorry about that!
Menelik Charles
London England
@Menelik:
ReplyDeleteAre you calling Santa Claus a terrorist?
I actually remember laughing the first time I saw black Jesus figurines next to the white ones. Then I stopped and reflected on why I found that so weird and thought even more about whether Jesus was even white (which, we all know, He wasn't). It was kind of sobering.
ReplyDeleteWhen I have children, I'm definitely gonna have a dark-skinned Jesus painting to offset all these images of uber pale Jesuses, disciples, children, etc. And if anyone buys picture Bibles, make sure you get one that at least shows the Ethiopian and the Egyptians as non-white. You wouldn't believe how many show them as fair skinned. Though maybe this blog's readers actually would haha.
I also find it kind of funny how adamant white people are about a pale Jesus/angels/apostles. I mean, even a white person in the Middle East today would get a pretty good tan, and they expect me to believe that Jesus was pasty.
I like this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYa3Q9WnA4Y&feature=channel
The whole thing is pretty good as a whole, but seems to insist on some Zionist conspiracy behind it all...
@honeybrown, I find these Christians to be odd as well. And they'll say stuff like "the Jews killed Jesus." Funny, I thought we all killed Jesus with our sins... Not to mention that the early Christian church was started by the work of Jews like Paul and James.
Hey Macon, have you seen this shit?
ReplyDeletehttp://contexts.org/socimages/2009/12/24/black-pete/
And here I thought the Krampus was bad!
Check out some of the pure white GOLD going on in the comments section:
Blackness commonly symbols evil and unpurity. All in all, the whole idea of interpreting tradition according to todays political correctness seems really fishy. This whole angle to this issue seems to come from people that have the USA´s social standards and ideas of how these things should be “correctly” portrayed based on the associations that are presented here. Isn’t that terrible? Let us hope that these america-minded misguided political correctness maniacs never get to have their way to tampering with our tradition. And why is this judgemental cultural standard imposed on these traditions from outside of this culture, again? Not your culture, you do not have any say on it.
and this idiot:
Yep, I agree with the Belgian and Dutch commenters (Belgian myself), Sinterklaas and Pete were portrayed as equal. There’s even a programme on TV in which you can see that they’re best friends. The racial tone of this is purely historical. Also, you might look into the fact that blackface is uhm, of American origin.
EUROPEANS CAN'T BE RACIST, K.
Well, it's not "more real" to have a black nativity. Yeshua bar Yosef -- Jesus -- was Semitic by ethnicity and was born in Palestine. An apocalyptic African-Jew would have certainly stood out in Ancient Jerusalem. The historical Jesus was brown. I'm all up for reinterpretation if that's your game, but it's definitely not historical.
ReplyDeleteThanks honeybrown1976 and Menelik! Sorry, I was mixed up. I just looked it up and you're both right, he was Greek and born in Turkey. :)
ReplyDeleteMy best friend is a Catholic convert. I am a Jewish convert. We are both black and were raised in traditional Protestant households. (We don't exchange pleasantries on the holidays, because we both think it's hypocritical to affirm something you don't believe in.) We went at it recently, although with no hard feelings, about what I call the "Christmas Supremacy" movement in the U.S. I said that as a Jew, if I volunteer to work on a religious holiday etched into the social fabric of a country actually founded by individuals who, in all truth, were religious skeptics and pluralists, then what's the harm if I ask for the same consideration in the workplace for major holy days important to me? ("Within reason," of course.)
ReplyDeleteShe balked, saying all manner of institutional chaos would ensue from every Ishmael, Dick, and Hannah wanting "special consideration." Then she wandered into the area of, "People who come to this country should respect its traditions." My family has probably been walking American soil as long as hers, I said. And of course it becomes, "Well, you're a special case." I said, "I am sooooo glad you aren't making laws on this."
Really, I hit the roof, mostly reflecting on how negatively Catholics were viewed in the U.S., at least until John F. Kennedy's administration. I also find it ironic that she's angered by slurs against depicting the Nativity outside of the Swedish blonde norm we're all used to. But I realized that this is how so many people exercise their privilege. As Willow said so eloquently, the Christmas fanatics enjoy the exclusivity of their position and how it's infused throughout our social fabric, whether you want to celebrate it or not, dammit. In all truth, the holiday is an amalgam of many traditions, with a strong dash of secular and pagan rituals for flavor. I find it interesting that the holiday's focus, Jesus, still isn't realistically portrayed as a Middle Eastern Jew in much of the common iconography of some Christian institutions that profess to speak "his truth."
What's disturbing is how the supremacists' fuss pushes beyond the cries of "Christmas has become commercialized," and trips into some strawman arguments about aggressive hoardes (agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, take your pick) seeking to H-Bomb their annual celebration entirely. I'll concede that there are some people who would like to see it end -- I've met a few -- but there are others who just want a little balance and less vitriol spewed at those who aren't invested in the event -- and have their own sacred, hodge-podge traditions. Garrison Keillor, who had been one of my favorite performers, tripped my trigger with his recent column on the subject, citing "lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year." (Actual quote.) Um, what?
Yes Commie Bastard, I have seen that, but thanks. The outrages are everywhere this year!
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this one? (You gotta wait til the end for the outrage.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVUnANaBlJE
And finally, what's up with this relatively new annual tradition, the wounded cries about some fictitious "War on Christmas"?
ReplyDeleteHere's some history: In 1959, a crank, far-right John Birch Society handed out pamphlets trying to convince people that Christmas was under attack, but they were not taken seriously. In 2004, Bill O'Reilly began running a segment called "Christmas Under Siege", and everything else came after.
Around 2004 and 2005, I've seen some people express that their newfound concern about the "War on Christmas" was evidence of Muslim lobbyists getting out of control, and of a Muslim agenda of establishing an Islamic theocracy in America.
Thank you Restructure! Hadn't heard that history, and I'm not at all surprised that the Birchers did that. I find it interesting, and dismaying, that they were were not taken seriously in the relatively repressed, conformist Fifties, and yet today, Bill O'Really and his ilk get all sorts of attention; even if most Americans don't believe there is some concerted threat/War on Christmas, a fair amount apparently do, and huge numbers of Americans have at least heard of it.
ReplyDelete"Liberal media"? LOL!
Stephen Colbert sometimes inserts whiteness-cognizant comments and asides into his shtick. Here he is performing "Another Christmas Song," which contains the line, "Who'da thunk the Wise Men looked so white?"
ReplyDeleteHuh. I'd never heard of white people actually objecting to black nativities. Even if you were going to, I can't imagine getting all the way through the sentence without realizing how stupid it is. Obviously, Jesus et al were no more white than they were black.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that Christianity in particular kind of invites believers to ethnomorphize the Biblical players. (Yes, I made that word up. I do that. Work with me.) The whole in-His-(our?)-own-image thing is built into the Abrahamic canon— it directly states that humanity looks like God.* If everyone looks like God, then Jesus looks like everyone. You can have a white Jesus; likewise, you can (possibly "should") have whatever Jesus you like.
Personally, I'm secular, so all that resonates with me is the "historical" stuff. It does nothing for me to think Jesus looked like me. The man was Middle Eastern. Still, I don't exactly laugh at the ridiculousness of a white Jesus, because those paintings and whatnot were created by people in— and for— believer mode, not historian mode. In theory. White Jesus only annoys me inasmuchas he's not just (if at all, these days) a function of religious belief, he's a function of white megaloblivion. IOW, I don't believe that he's ever whitened on a personal/individual level. (Not in the last several centuries, anyway.) He's white cuz he's been forcibly whitened for everybody, by white people. Which strikes me as both wicked and lame, on a number of levels.
______
*Which I gotta say, was a stroke of pure freaking genius on the part of whoever first wrote the "in His own image" in the first place. S/he clearly knew a little something about people. (Eat your heart out, Madison Avenue!) Because yeah, applying it in this way (ethnomorphizing God/Jesus) doesn't quite make "sense," but it's hardly surprising that people really really respond to that particular concept!
Of course, it also somehow doesn't surprise me that it's only white Christians who have a problem with other people's Jesi.
I remember a movie called, "The Color of the Cross" that had Jesus and the disciples as Black men. Unfortunately, it was not very interesting. Nobody even bothered to start a controversy over it (nary a Klan rally or conservative pundit detraction in sight - boo!).
ReplyDeleteIt had Ananda Lewis in it though.
There's a book I read ages ago called, "The Color of Water" by James McBride. His dad is black, his mom is Jewish. He was raised by his mom, if I remember correctly. I think he went to an all white school where they tried to make him dance. He can't. One day he asked his mom, 'What color is God?' Mom answers, 'He's the color of water.' I thought that was awesome.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this blond Jesus earlier today when I stumbled upon the article.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why most white Americans are scared of the idea of Jesus being black. And what about him also being a Palestinian? There are black Palestinians living in Palestine-Israel today. Its on record he was born in Roman occupied Palestine not Israel. The Palestinian Christians are regard as the indigenous Christians of the Holy Land and the first Christians of the world along with Ethiopian, Coptic and Byzantine Christians. Coming from Middle East, wouldn't Jesus have been a person of color, anyway and not blond hair and blue eyed?
Ironically, whites do not say a word when Jesus is portrayed as purple, Chinese, an alien, Indian, orange, etc. Even in Family Guy, little Stewie tells Brian that when he met Jesus in Petergeist episode, Jesus was Chinese. Both were shocked but their reaction was an "oh that's little strange but cool." But for anyone to suggest that Jesus could be black, dark skinned or had dreadlocks, many people give you "the Gods must be crazy" look as though you have insulted Jesus himself. He can be any other color in many pop culture tv shows. Some people get so mad at the idea too which is ashame because every other of image of Jesus as any other race is exceptable by whites.
As a matter of fact, there are so many depictions of Jesus as a man of color contrary to popular views of him. He is black and with an afro in many Ethiopian manuscripts, on walls in churchs, Ethiopian bible and even in Greek Othodox church icons some pictures of Jesus, Mary and Joseph show them with tan skin and dark hair not super pale. Why reject black Jesus or humanity's savior with dreadlocks, an afro and even dark olive skin? People often shoot down the idea by saying, "It doesn't matter what race Jesus was...His legacy and life teachings were more important." I find it interesting how even the traditional image of Jesus (in U.S.) is white. As a side note, I always thought all three wisemen were black and from Mali, Ethiopia and Southern Egypt.
Aan, the Three Wise Men are described as "from the east" and are generally accepted to be Persian, as there are Zoroastrian references.
ReplyDeleteI also don't understand how a black Jesus would be more accurate. Sure, in that area there was contact with black Africans (Ethiopians, Nubians) but there was also contact with Europeans (Greeks, Romans). The only "most accurate" depiction is of a typical Palestinian. Anything else is a bit fanciful.
["Black People Suffer From PTSD,"
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, but I refuse to refer readers here to a blog that's clearly run by either an extremely self-hating black person, or a white supremacist with a constant, sadistic hard-on for the "black" stereotypes in hir own fevered imagination. I highly suspect the latter. ~macon]
You never know, macon. Maybe this guy has a blog?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m5TMny3dQI
ReplyDelete@ziggy
ReplyDeleteAnd what makes a depiction of a "typical Palestinian"? What the hell does a "typical Palestinian" even look like?
Thanks for that clip, Cloudy! That show had some of the most penetrating satire of white supremacy that I've ever seen on television. And Ronnie Ray Gun is a perfect object of satire there, responsible as he and his administration were for upticks in all sorts of racism.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of Uncle Ruckus, here's a clip from a more seasonally appropriate episode.
ReplyDeleteI'm Eastern Orthodox, and, in our churches, Jesus, Mary, Joseph and most saints are portrayed with tan skin and dark eyes, I don't remember seeing any Aryan depictions of them. The first Aryan depictions I have seen were in American illustrated Bibles for children, I got two of them when I was a child.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against any culture/person depicting Jesus and the rest in a way that represents them. A Black Jesus figurine/statue/painting is no less of a holy depiction than a White one. Renaissance religious artworks with White characters are beautiful, so are the Black Madonnas of Montserrat or Czechostowa (sp?), and I can't see why an Asian depiction couldn't be beautiful too. Also, in our portrayal of the Three Wisemen, one of them is usually Black (I think Balthazar).
It's not just the graphic representations, but also the myths. Many peoples have legends about Jesus/Mary/St. Peter and others visiting their lands, most of which would have been impossible considering the travel limitations if those times. It's normal for people to want to bring their figures of worship closer to them, and I think that opposing these things is always due to racism, not to love for "historical accuracy".
Any speculations on Santa's racial make-up are just silly, since he is a commercial figure that has little to do with religion. He should be portrayed in the way that best suits the children who receive him. He is supposed to equally love all children anyway, no matter what he looks like. I don't know, I never really believed in him. Even if his myth derives from the story of St. Nick, the changes that he underwent are just too many to associate him with a religious figure.
St. Nicholas was born in Lycia, part of modern-day Turkey. Some countries (like mine - Romania) keep a separate holiday for St. Nick on December 6th, and, unlike Santa, he is supposed to always be invisible.
The real problem is - and this also relates to your comments vis-a-vis the "racist" t-shirt article - right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter why the person is wearing the t-shirt as it pertains to truth. Are Blacks in certain countries possessing slaves? If so then direct that haughty self-righteousness at said atrocity and leave the ingratiating sanctimonious glad-handing for children of a lesser God.
ReplyDelete1. Jesus wasn't White, Jesus wasn't Black, Jesus was from Israel and therefore he was (for a lack of a better word) a Middle-Eastern man. Depicting him as White or Black is of equal revulsion. One isn't worse or better, both are abhorrent.
2. Man is not to make "graven images" of the Judeo/Christian God (or any other "gods"). So, making a nativity scene complete with the baby Jesus is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. It doesn't matter if the baby is White, Black or Middle-Eastern... it's wrong.
3. As to the t-shirt, there is no doubt the guy is a bigot, though I don't see how you could call him a "racist" with this lacking amount of information. Too many young people today hurl the term "racist" with such ignorant, wanton abandon. This includes the prolific and currently white-hot proprietor of Stuff White People Do. A "racist" is a person who believes his or her race to be superior to any other race than one's own. A "bigot" is a person that holds certain ignorant or prejudiced viewpoints concerning members of a race other than one's own. You cannot call a person with this t-shirt a "racist" because you simply don't have enough information to do so. I understand that this distinction contains little credence for quick-to-judge, metrosexual 20-somethings, but it's the truth nonetheless.
It is, however, repugnant for someone of which words are their stock and trade to make such foolish and purposeful mistakes. As we can observe in the comments it results in many kudos and much obsequious back-slapping, but it doesn't make it any less grotesque.. or is that the point? Is the supercilious, multiplicity of congratulatory comments the goal? Be accurate, be truthful, be real or risk exposure as yet another people-pleasing purveyor of White guilt. Change won't occur by seeking to gain the good graces of persons of color or those of like minds. It won't happen anywhere except the balance. All forms of bigotry and racism must be rejected, including the reactionary and equally absurd White guilt-y commentary of the affable and benign. Make lasting change your business, or shut up.
To Willow:
ReplyDeleteNo, those that seek the holiday to retain it's moniker as "Merry Christmas" rather than the watered-down, liberal-friendly "Happy Holidays" do not seek to glorify themselves, but rather they wish His name (Christ) to remain in the title of the holiday where it belongs.
No one needs to "broaden" or "democratize" Christmas so it can be accessible to a "broader chunk of the population". These are the machinations of those that seek to drain all meaning from the holiday. This is similar to the movement that seeks to remove Christ as the only path to Heaven. As I Corinthians says, "We we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". So, keeping the "Christ" in "Christmas" surely seems like "foolishness" to some and it is a "stumbling block" to others, but it is of paramount importance that we do not allow the "democratizing" or "broadening" of the holiday so we can include more people at the expense of the true meaning of Christmas. What? Should we suck all identity from the holiday so more people can embrace a meaningless event? Careful, your words are sounding very much like the father of lies, he who seeks to wipe all memory of Jesus from our minds - to remove his fingerprint from the holiday.
Those that want to keep the Christ in Christmas aren't seeking to keep the holiday "exclusive", they are seeking to keep it pure and meaningful, complete with the author of our faith. The stumbling block that offends, that sets brother against brother, because nothing else matters but Him. Not inclusiveness, not togetherness, nothing but that which glorifies Him who humbled Himself for our sake - that we could be reconciled with God. Anything less is worthless, no matter how "broad" an audience you open it up for.
You cannot call a person with this t-shirt a "racist" because you simply don't have enough information to do so. I understand that this distinction contains little credence for quick-to-judge, metrosexual 20-somethings, but it's the truth nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteThis coming from a dude who likens Sea Shepherds to terrorists and Nazis. Ah-friggin'-mazing.
Thanks Macon, for setting up a space that never fails to unearth ye comedy GOLD.
...Because you have to laugh at the fact that the majority of this old douchebag's ranting is less semantic tirade than it is thinly-veiled jealousy that people actually read YOUR writing and not his own sad, masturbatory screeds. Commenting here will surely result in the most traffic he's ever gotten.
@DallasDeckard:
ReplyDeleteI am aware that you think anything that's about respecting other humans or treating them as anything but "worthless" is unimportant, because Christ is the only think that matters. Here in America, we're a secular country that put the First Amendment first because our Founding Fathers believed in religious pluralism. This means respecting and acknowledging everybody's holidays, at every time of year. Maybe in a despotic nation run by people who share your icky, bigoted beliefs, there'd only be a specially approved sort of Christmas. Here, we have Catholic Christmases and Protestant Christmases and atheist Christmases and secular Christmases and traditional Orthodox Hanukkahs and liberal-college-student strip-dreidl-and-pizza Hanukkahs and pagan Solstices and Eid Al-Adha and Kwanzaa. Happy Holidays to everybody, since all people and their celebrations are valuable.
Also, I'm totally not a Christian and I haven't had time to do much research, but didn't Jesus say some stuff about being nice to other people even if they had fun in ways you didn't think were totally awesome?
To Tangerine: I'm not a bigot or a racist. Once again, a quick-to-condemn someone shouts down from her high horse in judgment of another human being of whom you know nothing about. Christmas is not for atheists, it's for Christians. This isn't to say that atheists or others can't enjoy the holiday, I hope that people of all religions and creeds enjoy the holiday and I do everything I can to share that joy during this season, but that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the *reason* for the season. The reason is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God that gave His life for us so that we could be reconciled to the Lord. All those of us that wish for the Christ not to be removed from Christmas want is for that fact not to be lost, glossed over or erased. Worship how you wish, but don't pervert Christmas for the rest of us who consider it a sacred holiday, the second-most important of the year.
ReplyDeleteA word of fact: the founding fathers meant for us to have religious freedom, not "religious pluralism". This is one of the problems with freedom, it often does what we wish it didn't. For example, God gives us the freedom to choose Him, but that also gives us the freedom to sin. Does He wish that we sin? No, but as I said, freedom is a two-edged sword. It goes where we don't want it to go, it does what we don't want it to do, but we accept that because the alternative isn't worth having. Our founding fathers wanted for us the right to worship as we wish, and that no church would rule our government, but they did not want us to have freedom from God. They wanted a separation of church and state, but not God and state. That's not the topic of our discussion, but I think it bears mention. Check into it yourself, our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson - meant for our nation to be founded on the guiding principles of God - it's mentioned implicitly in the Declaration of Independence.
As to all celebrations being "valuable". Know this, I will fight to the DEATH for anyone to celebrate and worship as he or she wishes, even if that celebration and worship is disgusting and anathema to me. So I'm not sure how you find my views to be "icky". I'm not trying to force people to worship as I do, I support people worshiping and celebrating as they wish. However, Christmas - whether you like it or not - is about Christ. You want to worship a pagan god at that time, go ahead, I'll go to jail defending your right to do so, but don't try to change or pervert the meaning of the holiday for ME.
Freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can bastardize the meaning of someone's religious holiday. Doing that - in point-of-fact - is actually perverting the right of religious freedom that you so greatly adore. I don't tell someone to stop calling it "Kwanzaa" and to remove the distinct rituals that are sacred to that celebration. I don't tell someone to stop calling it the "Winter Solstice" and quit honoring their sun god. And I don't think it's too much to ask that people don't ask us to stop calling it "Christmas" and remove Christ from the meaning of the holiday.
I'm against racism and bigotry in any form, including the bigotry against Christians that seek to keep the *meaning* of Christmas pure against the continual and repugnant efforts to water it down and remove Christ from Christmas.
You've got me all wrong, Tangerine, and when someone falsely accuses another of racism and bigotry it's customary to apologize.
Thanks for bringing this up, macon d. I took a look at the nativity sets in my house (I have five) and was surprised to find all of them very pale skinned and Euro-featured. The notable exception was that the wise men of one set (the old one from my childhood) are very dark skinned, with black beards and turbans. Even the glued popsicle stick kind that my children made was pre-painted with little white faces and blue eyes.
ReplyDelete@ Dallas Deckard:
ReplyDeleteAh yes, "keep the Christ in Christmas." That is the core of what I am talking about. While we Christians should be striving to make our Christmas about Christ and what the Incarnation means, what the Merry Christmas Fanatics mean by "keep the Christ in Christmas" is actually "stores should be allowed to post signs that say "Christmas Sale" and "TV commercials for holiday discounts should specify that it's a Christmas discount." It has nothing to do with Christ Himself. They have made an idol of the word "Christmas."
Again, just like Whiteness.
DallasDeckard, Christmas is not for Christians. Everything except for the "Jesus was born" part was coopted from pagan religions, and no they are certainly not "dead" religions. Everything commercial that you're trying to protect is not Christian. Even the date and image of a divine figure being born was appropriated from the celebration of the birth of one of the Roman sun gods. It's not your holiday to claim.
ReplyDeleteLet's keep the Mithras in Christmas.
Cloudy,
ReplyDeleteActually, many of the traditions are based on Christianity. For example, giving gifts. They symbolize the gifts given to the baby Jesus by the Wise Men upon their arrival.
So, rather you like it or not, the holiday is Christian.
BTW---The founding fathers were not "Christians"--they were Deist. Check the "our country was founded on Christianity" bs at the door folks. Even Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran.
ReplyDelete@ Willow...
ReplyDeleteIf you keep tossing up straw men like that they'll be casting you in a production of the Wizard of Oz as the scarecrow.
No, I'm not talking about the mall, Black Friday, sales, department stores or getting your ears pierced with that gun thingy at the earring kiosk. I'm talking about (for example) cities passing ordinances that prohibit people displaying signs that say "Merry Christmas" on public property. That is what I'm talking about and it has nothing to do with "Whiteness".
@ Cloudy...
No, Christmas is not for pagans. Pagans have their own holidays (as I'm mentioned). Christmas is for those that believe in Jesus to celebrate His birth. It doesn't matter why it is celebrated on the 25th of December, the point now is that - it is. There are very good arguments as to why it is celebrated on that day, and it is only the assertion (yes, the assertion) of pagans that Christians appropriated that day. Christians will also assert that they calculated nine months beyond March 25th, which is considered the date of Christ's conception (which is also near another pagan holiday - the vernal equinox) and that date was December 25th. Is someone going to suggest that pagans planned the two holidays to be nine months apart in anticipation of Jesus' birth? Or are they saying that we made up the incubation of a human child to be nine months? No, I didn't think so.
Some holidays fall on the same date, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. As I've said before, I have no problem with pagans celebrating the Winter Solstice, but I do have a problem with people declaring that someone cannot post a sign in their cubicle that says, "Merry Christmas". It is a freedom of religion issue, not a contest between faiths. And, by the way, I said nothing about "dead religions". Please don't join Willow in tossing up straw men, argue what I write, not what you pretend I'm writing.
The bogus argument you gave about the "divine image" being stolen from a Roman sun god, is just that... bogus. I assume here you speak of Sol Invictus, and I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the celebration of the festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti precedes the middle of the fourth century. The same hackneyed arguments are often made about the so-called "mystery religions" and Jesus being a retread of Mithra and/or Horus. Anyone can claim anything is a copy or a appropriation or "parallels made plausible by selective description" as A. Schweitzer put it, if you stretch the truth far enough.
Again, Christmas is for Christians, but that doesn't mean that December 25th is only "for Christians". The same can be said of the Winter Solstice, this holiday is for pagans, not Christians and no Christian has the right to ask pagans to quit calling it the "Winter Solstice" and instead call it "Winter Holidays". I fight for the right of all religions to celebrate their holiday and call it whatever they wish, whatever is sacred to them, even if that offends someone's sensibilities.
To Hassenpfeffer:
No, all the founding fathers were not “deists” that is a falsehood. Some were deists, but others were devout Christians. You can find lists online, but this quote will suffice:
“I find that i can agree fully with my good friend Patrick Henry when he said it can not be emphasized too strongly or to ofter that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
~Edward Rutledge, youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence.
some dimwit wrote to the newspaper few days ago complaining about her grandchild's christmas concert. She lamented about how untraditional the concerts are these days - all in the name of being secular and inclusive, the real meaning of christmas is gone, the children were singing Silent Night in Japanese (as we all know, Christianity is only for English speaking people!), she'll need to teach her granchildren the real meaning of Christmas even more so now in this horrible sad world we live in..etc, etc..
ReplyDeleteThankfully another person wrote in to rebuke her. Its not like the kids were singing a britney spears song at the concert! They simply presented christian songs or skits with a cultural twist.
These are the same idiots who will partake in pagan rituals but complain about the "real" meaning of christmas being lost.
I wish they'd just come out and say it already > That they are upset about including other cultures and people who are not like them.
honeybrown1976, we also give gifts for birthdays and weddings and other occassions, and the magi certainly didn't invent gift-giving. There's nothing uniquely Christian about that. Christmas traditions are a pastiche of much older and varied winter holidays, so it's silly to say that anyone is being disrespectful by celebrating everything but the uniquely Christian aspect, i.e. Jesus.
ReplyDeleteI'm just so, so tired of hearing about how persecuted Chritians in this country are, it's the same garbage as when whites cry about "reverse-racism".
Cloudy,
ReplyDeleteThe "Jesus was born" part is also pagan. God's Son, hehem, the God-Sun is reborn into the world every year at the winter solctice. And of course the tree, the lights and ornaments on the tree (particularly edible ones like candycanes), the star, the wise men following said star, the yule log, ham for dinner, etc... are all pagan.
Actually, if Jesus was born during the time that shepherds were out tending their flocks, then he was born during the Spring, in March or April, not during the latter part of December. The Church did take over a Roman pagan holiday of Saturnalia for Jesus' birth, just like it took over pagan sacred places and built churches on them and even made pagan deities (Goddess Brigit became St. Brigit) into Christian saints.
ReplyDeleteAnd like others have pointed out, many of the Christmas traditions (just like the Easter ones) originated in paganism. This includes Christmas dinner. Folks often celebrated mid-winter simply to break up the bleak monotony of it. It was usually a time of reveling and there were rites to aid in bringing back the sun.
Heffenpeizer, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but decorating trees and yule logs absolutely are pagan in origin. Yule and its traditions are much older than Christmas. Candy canes are secular in origin. Ham is a family preference, every family has different holiday foods.
ReplyDeleteCloudy,
ReplyDeleteCandy canes were created by a German fellow who wanted to keep kids quiet during Christmas Mass. So, no, it's not quite as secular as you wish.
However, I must say that the old meme of "Everything Christmas is Pagan". It gets boring. Of course, all religions borrow from each other. Islam and Judaism intertwine with Christianity. So, whether you like it or not, God is everywhere.
honeybrown1976, stick candy had been around for some time before August Imgard altered the shape to hang it on his tree. And the red stripes and even the mint flavor didn't come about until the early 1900's.
ReplyDelete"So, whether you like it or not, God is everywhere."
I have a real problem with this logic. Replace "God" in your last statement with "white culture". Just because something is everywhere and pushed as normal, that doesn't mean it wasn't coopted and stolen. We don't have to pretend that Christmas is unique and special and untouchable to please people who are upset at those who take part in the holiday without the religious aspect.
@ DallasDeckard:
ReplyDeleteOh, I wish I were throwing up straw arguments. Unfortunately, I'm not.
The point is the same regardless of whether you are talking about posting a sign saying "Merry Christmas" or advertising a Christmas sale. Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it. When we say "Merry Christmas" to each other, we are not thinking about the Meaning of Christmas--about Incarnation, humility, majesty, sacrifice. We are thinking about in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis. To suggest otherwise is, as I said above, to make an idol out of the word.
Oh, and furthermore, along the lines of the Meaning of Christmas (i.e. the Birth of Christ):
ReplyDeleteThe birth of Christ is designed to be an ecumenical event. There are two Gospels that recount the event. Matthew, which overall is crafted for an audience of Jewish Christians, has the Gentile magi visit Jesus. In Luke, which on the other hand is aimed at Gentiles, Jesus' visitors are the presumably Jewish shepards.
The message? The birth of Jesus is for everyone, even if you're not in the primary readership of the (particular) Gospel. ^_^
honeybrown:"However, I must say that the old meme of "Everything Christmas is Pagan". It gets boring. Of course, all religions borrow from each other. Islam and Judaism intertwine with Christianity. So, whether you like it or not, God is everywhere."
ReplyDeleteI didn't see anyone saying something refuting that, unless you're thinking Pagan = godless. To which you're horridly wrong. What's being refuted is the belief that some people have of the Christian Christmas being first and everything else trying to muscle in on its racket as opposed to the other way around--as it actually is.
So, whether you like it or not, God is everywhere.
ReplyDeleteSo is Goddess. :D
Cloudy,
ReplyDeleteObviously, stick candy has been around prior to the candy cane. I was refuting your take on why the candy cane was invented.
If you are taking part of the holiday, you are thus taking part in the commercialism aspect. Why not take part in Hanukkah or other religiously geared holidays? It's because Christmas is the largest and most accessible holiday. So, yeah, some Christians have every right to get touchy when the secular aspects are celebrated. However, I wonder if you would pretend to please other groups' and their celebrations, which in a religious sense is less likely to happen.
Now, I'm not saying Christianity is under attack. However, I do notice how less likely people will condemn Judaism and Islam (which are based on many of the same principles of Christianity) and who are far less tolerant than other religions.
@Willow,
Speak for yourself. When I say "Merry Christmas", I am wishing blessings upon others. I am not thinking of the holiday.
@WitchSistah
Maybe, in your world, she does. But, not in mine. : )
Juan,
Where did I say that Paganism is godless? They have their gods and that's fine. I just don't accept them.
For the love of cheese, everyone should stop feeding the troll and just let him lumber off to his boring wasteland of a blog where he can sanctimoniously wank about this fundie neocon "YOU'RE A TERRORIST AND/OR NAZI!!!1" brand of drivel to the only audience that actually gives a hang - himself.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, honeybrown. There are other worlds besides yours. And here in America they are allowed to exist as long as they don't break any laws. The separation of church and state was meant not to condone the establishment of a national religion like the Church of England. I get to exist and practice my beliefs just like you do. And no, I'm not going to settle for doing it secretly and hidden while you get to proclaim yours from the rooftops anymore than I'm going to accept second-class status based on my race and gender.
ReplyDeleteTo me, if saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" diminishes your faith that much then it must not have been much of a faith to begin with.
@DallasDeckard: Regardless if some of them were "Christian"--
ReplyDelete"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" James Madison, Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819
""I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." -Benjamin Franklin
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society." George Washington, Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" Thomas Jefferson, Letter to von Humboldt, 1813
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (John Adams, 1797, Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts, 2:365).
However, I do notice how less likely people will condemn Judaism and Islam (which are based on many of the same principles of Christianity) and who are far less tolerant than other religions.
ReplyDeleteAre you serious?
Think I'm just gonna follow some of Commie Bastard's advice because I was stricken with a "... whut? *re-read* huh?" for a moment. Really might not be worth bothering.
ReplyDeleteHoneybrown, I think that is exactly what *most* people mean when they say Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, although I doubt that non-religious people would use the word "blessing" to describe it.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the people who complain about how we've taken Christ out of Christmas seem to operate with the understanding that every time they say Merry Christmas, the speaker and the hearer pause to cogitate on a sermon's worth of reflection on the Meaning of the Incarnation. Which is, of course, balderdash.
RVCBard,
ReplyDeleteI'm so sorry for having a difference of opinion. What did you not understand?
Witchsistah,
Stop the pretense. I honestly don't care who you worship to and I'm not telling you to do it quietly or behind closed doors.
Plus, for me, it would be a bit hypocritical to wish someone "Happy Holidays" when I don't recognize those days. So, I don't, which doesn't have any bearing on the strength of my faith.
(Juan, I honestly don't know who you are. But, slow your roll, you don't know me.)
honeybrown1976, When someone spray paints "take a shower you dirty Christian" on your property, or accuses you of being linked with terrorists and murderers because you're a Christian, or says "Man, she really Christianed me out of my money", or seeks to ban you from wearing a cross or virgin pendant, or all the other types of things Jews and Muslims live with in this country, then you can say that they're not attacked as much.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem saying "Happy Holidays" and wouldn't even if i was a Christian. Christmas and New Years are a scant week apart, so pluralizing "holiday" makes sense. And yes I would wish someone a happy holiday of their own religion because I accept that others have different faiths than I do and wish them well in life because no one, and that does mean you, knows anything for sure, and no one should get on their high horse claiming to. I really wonder about people who say a polite gesture is against their religion.
You are taking part in the commercialised aspect of pagan faiths, so don't complain when others do as well.
Cloudy,
ReplyDeleteI was referring to Anti-Semitic or Anti-Islamic speech by others is not tolerated. But, one has to admit, if he/she thinks logically, that Anti-Christian speech is growing (I'm not comparing it to the aforementioned groups) and while I'm not saying Christians can claim martyrdom by any means, it's not cool when any religious intolerance is utilized by anyone.
You can say "Happy Holidays" to the cows come home. Have fun. But, I don't. See? That's what tolerance is. I'm not knocking you by doing so as you did me. So, there's no need to wonder about me.
I'm so sorry for having a difference of opinion.
ReplyDeleteStuff like this . . .
Judaism and Islam (which are based on many of the same principles of Christianity) and who are far less tolerant than other religions.
. . . isn't just a difference of opinion. I'll leave it to Muslims and other Jews to tell you why.
"(Juan, I honestly don't know who you are. But, slow your roll, you don't know me.)"
ReplyDeleteAt first my confusion was kinda like RVC's "are you serious?" reaction. But now I think you're just leaving me lost & clueless. =/ *shrug*
Then I hope you had a Blessed Solstice, honeybrown.
ReplyDeleteMarianne thanks for your response you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for not ignoring how many people places Jesus' within their own image including Black, Chinese and Palestinian. I don't know how the comments went from article about idealizing Jesus to origins of Christmas.
ReplyDeleteBut if anyone is interested there is the Boondocks episode "A Huey Freeman Christmas" talks about Origins of Christmas, shows Uncle Ruckus as a black Santa Claus and Huey tries to create a navitity play with a Black Jesus. Enjoy link below!
Part 1: A Huey Freeman Christmas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph1itfEuzIw
RVCBard,
ReplyDeleteI was referring to their philosophies, tenets and attitudes toward others unlike them. Out of these three religions, Christianity is the most tolerant. Some of the followers are flawed and have issues, yes. I'm not debating that. But, anyone with a basic knowledge of Religious Studies knows this. That's all I was saying.
Once again, I stated that it's not okay to say anything Anti-Semitic or Anti-Islamic; however, for some reason, LATELY, one who is knowledgeable of things outside of their small reference pools will acknowledge the general acceptability for Anti-Christian speech.
Witchsistah,
ReplyDeleteI see what you are doing there. *wink and laugh* But, I'm folding my arms up and not budging, lol. You won't make me say it.
Out of these three religions, Christianity is the most tolerant.
ReplyDeleteAnd your extensive knowledge of Judaism (leaving off Islam since I'm not Muslim) comes from where?
Wasn't trying to get you to do anything (much less via the internet--cuz I mean, c'mon! Really?!). Just expressing MYSELF in my own way.
ReplyDeleteRVC,
ReplyDeleteMy Jewish grandparents, my dear. The same family that disowned my dad for marrying my mother, who wasn't just black, but aghast, a Christian. As, you know, we POCs don't come in the same packaging.
Witchsistah,
It's cool.
"I was referring to Anti-Semitic or Anti-Islamic speech by others is not tolerated. But, one has to admit, if he/she thinks logically, that Anti-Christian speech is growing (I'm not comparing it to the aforementioned groups) and while I'm not saying Christians can claim martyrdom by any means, it's not cool when any religious intolerance is utilized by anyone."
ReplyDeleteLets replace some of these words.
"I was referring to Anti-black or Anti-Asian speech by others is not tolerated. But, one has to admit, if he/she thinks logically, that Anti-white speech is growing (I'm not comparing it to the aforementioned groups) and while I'm not saying whites can claim martyrdom by any means, it's not cool when any racial intolerance is utilized by anyone."
Do you understand yet?
RVC,
ReplyDeleteMy Jewish grandparents, my dear. The same family that disowned my dad for marrying my mother, who wasn't just black, but aghast, a Christian. As, you know, we POCs don't come in the same packaging.
So you - someone who is neither a practicing Jew nor has affinity with practicing Jews - feel comfortable projecting your own prejudices onto the rest of us as a whole, regardless of what the Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, or actively Jewish people have to say about it?
Well, you succeeded in silencing me. I have nothing else to say to you.
"And finally, what's up with this relatively new annual tradition, the wounded cries about some fictitious "War on Christmas"? Is that a "white" thing too? Why IS it that the people I see busting their blood vessels over that are always white people?"
ReplyDeleteWell that's interesting. I guess Jews aren't white people, at least not according to Macon'd logic. Does that make Jews POC, or what?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, mensch spotter, but as I've often said on this blog, Jews in the U.S. who look white are indeed considered white (though in historical terms, their being welcomed into an ever-expanding notion of whiteness is relatively recent).
ReplyDeleteI guess Jews aren't white people, at least not according to Macon'd logic.
ReplyDeleteJewishness and Whiteness are not necessarily linked. The fact that I'm talking to you now is an illustration of that.
Honeybrown,
ReplyDeleteTo crown Christianity more "tolerant" than other faiths, to me, is a wholly inaccurate, if not delusional, statement. Given how the faith has been misused as a sacred shroud to amass political and financial power, and keep certain "undesirables" in line most prominently through colonialism, racism, and heterosexist oppression, I have to wonder if you're casually overlooking these glaring issues to make your point. Ask the indigenous peoples of the Americas, the three that are left, whether their ancestors were bathed kindly in that blessed "tolerance." Dr. Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" offers a great outline in the first couple chapters detailing (in letters) the ecstatic joy both Hernando Cortes' and Columbus' men had for their holy mission, and the slaughter of the native peoples they encountered. Oh yes: We haven't forgotten about the Crusades, right?
Of course, we can fast forward to the tight-lipped masses of mostly white Christian ministers and parishioners Dr. King appealed to in his jailhouse letter from Birmingham. Or we can now point to the rabid mouth-foaming over gay and abortion rights by many prominent evangelical Christians and their sycophantic political and think-tank toadies. Even with all of these disturbing examples of religionists gone wild, we all know not every Christian worshipper or denomination supports their positions or believes that atrocities committed in the name of the faith many years ago were morally right. Many have tried to right wrongs. Though they're not always successful, some people of conscience within the faith have found the courage at times to shout down the deviants, zealots, and opportunists. The same goes for other faiths. We are all really, really imperfect in our interpretations, with some shining examples of greatness. That's why so many of us, including this black Jewish woman, continue to chip away at this grand faith experiment.
I'm bothered that your comments rendered RVC Bard silent in this forum, at least for the time being, but I'll pick up here and reiterate that perhaps your views are strongly prejudiced by your deeply personal experience with your grandparents. I am truly sorry for the generational pain I suspect your family carries to this day. But, I hope you'd come to see how shortsighted it is to generalize their behavior to the entire Jewish experience and its varied, rich traditions.
Leah,
ReplyDeleteIt appears you are confusing the followers with the religious philosophy, which is often the case, when people argue religion. They take what some of the followers have done in the name of the religion (so often misplaced and misunderstood) as the overall framing of the religion.
RVC shouldn't feel silenced. Despite feeling silenced by her, at times, her opinions are actually food for thought, whether or not, I disagree with her. I think tolerance goes both ways. We can agree to disagree; but neither side is always correct. It's a learning experience for all. Maybe my experiences have biased me. That's a journey that I will have to venture through.
@Cloudy,
Regardless of whether or not, a group is in the majority, intolerance against them shouldn't fester. If that's the case, I'd hate 1/2 of who I am as well as so many others. But, I do have the right to say what I wish to say. Being a Christian shouldn't shadow that. That's prejudicial as well.
@RVC
My father's a practicing Jew, by the way. I don't want you to feel silenced. Maybe I was giving you a wee bit of a taste of what you give others that feel silenced. We can agree to disagree on some topics. However, you will find that we agree on far more topics than you think. I wish you peace, love, and many blessings in the upcoming year.
With all due respect, Honeybrown, I didn't confuse anything, though I appreciate your response. I provided those examples to make a point that followers of Christianity, in all of its denominations, can't claim the lion's share of "tolerance," in either philosophy or practice, within its ranks more than any other Abrahamic religions noted in this thread. I know perfectly well the difference between distinguishing the actions of we flawed human followers versus the actual philosophies underpinning our faiths. The question is what philosophy are we talking about, because there are many. You wrote:
ReplyDelete"However, I do notice how less likely people will condemn Judaism and Islam (which are based on many of the same principles of Christianity) and who are far less tolerant than other religions."
Later:
"I was referring to their philosophies, tenets and attitudes toward others unlike them. Out of these three religions, Christianity is the most tolerant. Some of the followers are flawed and have issues, yes. I'm not debating that. But, anyone with a basic knowledge of Religious Studies knows this. That's all I was saying."
Thus, your original comments indicate your view of a greater "tolerance" infused in Christian philosophy over other faiths. When RVC Bard challenged your statements, you referenced your searing personal experience with your Jewish grandparents and father, and your black Christian mother, to back them up. What I'm saying is your single experience to me isn't enough to justify the blanket assumption you've made here. I'm not asking you to become a religious relativist per se, but if you haven't studied Jewish ethics, grappled with the works of Abraham Joshua Heschel, Moredcai Kaplan and countless others, or entertained conversations with more than a few Orthodox, Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, or even Secular Humanist Jews (smile), then how can you possibly infer that Judaism is "far less tolerant than other religions"? Same goes for the philosophies, scholars, and followers of Islam.
We may have to agree to disagree on this, but your words impressed on me, at least, that you simply see Christianity as the superior faith. On my end, though I am a Jewish convert, I see a motley crew of people, both "good" and "bad" who, over time, shaped the philosophies and practices of the "Big Three" religions -- for both "good" and "bad." You are certainly entitled to your views if I've represented them correctly, but if I am wrong, which happens as often as I breathe, then please share how you define "tolerant." Thanks.
I don't know how portraying Jesus as white is "idealizing" him. Its simply confusing him for something he's not. Jesus was a Near Eastern Semite and his looks would have corresponded to an Isreali or Palestinian.Portraying him with lily white skin and blue eyes is simply innacurate.
ReplyDeleteThat being said,portraying him as black is innacurate as well.If you have ever seen Near Eastern people, they look no more like Africans than they look like a Norwegians.Olive-toned skin is neither black nor pale.
So when either blacks or whites paint Jesus as one of their own, guess what- from the standpoint of accuracy,they both just look plain foolish.
But I'm just wondering why anyone would have a problem with a white Jesus, or a black Jesus, or an Asian Jesus, for that matter. The whole reason there are so many different cultural representations of Jesus is that people always want to make divinity more tangible,more relateable-into something thats one of their own. And to me, thats perfectly understandable.
What isn't understandable is why anyone would make a big to-do over the color of the skin of Jesus, of all people.Jesus' mission on earth was to preach love, faith, understanding,and yes, that includes acceptance. If people are worried about the skin color of a man who did this, then they need to worry some more, because they have basically missed his whole point.
The whole reason there are so many different cultural representations of Jesus is that people always want to make divinity more tangible,more relateable-into something thats one of their own.
ReplyDelete"White folks only want to hear the good shit: life eternal, a place in God's Heaven. But as soon as they hear they're getting this good shit from a black Jesus, they freak. And that, my friends, is called hypocrisy. A black man can steal your stereo, but he can't be your Savior." - Rufus, the 13th Apostle
"The message is what counts.
But folks who build their faith
on that message should be colorblind."
Vienna said,
ReplyDelete>> "Jesus' mission on earth was to preach love, faith, understanding,and yes, that includes acceptance."
That's Hallmark Jesus. White Jesus, if you will--Jesus according to 1800+ years of mostly European male biblical interpretation.
To the extent of what we can know about what Jesus preached, he preached love of God, love of neighbor--and the radical overturning of unjust socio-economic and religious structures.
That is why WP resist portrayals of a Black Jesus so strongly. It's not just about wanting a God who is made in the image of themselves. To say that the historical Jesus was a Middle Eastern dude is one thing; in modern America, to portray Jesus as either white or Black is a deeply theological statement. (I mean, where's the uproar over Asian Jesus?)