|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
http://www.alternet.org/dear-white-chri … page=0%2C2
Why is Jesus almost universally portrayed as white in American films, and why do Christians not speak out on the obvious historical inaccuracy?
You are a former Christian. Where do you stand now?
Films are rarely if ever like the book. They change details like that.
People always portray their gods from their own personal desires.
For example, I want God to look like Fred Flintstone. It makes it so much easier to forgive His incompetence and blunders.
Good question. But what evidence is there this is true. There is no description of Jesus anywhere. Biblical tradition has it that Noah's son Ham was black some kind of a curse. But the other sons Shem and Jepheth were not. Jesus comes from the line of Jepheth which is perhaps why nobody ever thought he was black.
Some of my Egyptian friends who are extremely dark skinned. Within that same family others are very pale and European looking.The same is true with Jewish friends. The Greeks and Romans and perhaps even Nordic people had been sailing around the Mediterranean, inter-mingling with the mid easterners for a long time before the birth of Christ. In the time of Christ people didn't run around the desert in shorts. The always covered to avoid sunburn and certain dehydration.
Most early artists had little exposure to dark complexioned people. That might even hold true until the late 60's when color television became common.
The long and short of the matter is what Jesus looked like is anyone's guess. Nobody knows.
Based on where he was born. Most biblical scholars already believe he wasn't white anyway.
It's just very strange many christians (not all) are eerily silent about this historical inaccuracy, but if a TV show or movie were to veer away from their conservative interpretation of Genesis, they would be criticizing.
I'm a Christian and I never thought Jesus was white.
I just always kind of assumed he was Arab... You know since he was born in an Arab country, to Arab parents, followed an Arab religion... and taught other Arabs.
I think someone would have mentioned it if he was glowing white... Or at least something along the lines of "Jesus saith: Father in Heaven, I ask most humbly for some SPF 60."
Lol. Well this doesn't apply to all Christians. But the majority of the time a TV show or movie about Jesus is made in the United States, he is always portrayed as white.
As Secularist10 pointed out, Jesus has been depicted many ways. It really has more to do with the marketing and demographic for the picture or production. Movies are made for dollars. Personally I have never had a Christian bring up the color of Jesus, or express concern over it. I don't believe I know any who care.
Why are you not upset at the historical inaccuracies of the Bible series on the history channel, the Passion of the Christ, and any other mainstream American depictions of Jesus?
It's disingenuous to claim because Jesus has been portrayed as different races in some parts at some times, white Christians have not been silent.
Conservative churches all around the United States pushed for their congregations to see the Passion, and said not a word about him being white! It's ridiculous.
Why am I not upset? Why do you assume? I have purposely never seen Gibson's movie or the current mini-series and have no desire to do so. I expect both to be wildly inaccurate and have no time for it. As for churches making fools of themselves buying into it, that just shows what they know about the bible. Low on my list of criticisms though, in terms of importance, would be whatever color they chose to depict him as.
Your response to my post shows that you weren't very upset about it. Instead of saying, yep, I agree, Jesus should be more accurately portrayed, you dodge and say, "well Jesus has been depicted in many ways." You missed the point on purpose. I do appreciate you openly saying two mainstream portrayals of Jesus are erroneous, but your tone suggests anything but annoyance.
Furthermore, if conservative christians were, as a whole, concerned about accuracy, there would high profile interviews and articles that criticized the Americanization of Jesus and were common knowledge to all. There is a dearth of them. All they talk about is abortion and gay marriage.
Again you assume. I am quite used to seeing Jesus exploited many ways, in many forums and media for people's own agendas, and am well past reacting to "defend" Him. I didn't say "yep...Jesus should be more accurately portrayed" because man has no hope of accurately portraying Him at all, so any effort to do so is a failure from it's inception. It is arguably blasphemous to try. I was simply pointing out people will exploit Jesus in whatever manner serves their purpose, and that includes what color or ethnicity they chose to employ when doing so. There are more fake Jesus out there than Elvis, and it would be a fool's errand to try and respond to them all.
The Mashyach (Messiah) comes from the line of Shem. Abraham comes from the line of Shem (Gen.11:26). Isaac comes from the line of Shem. Jacob (Israel) comes from the line of Shem. They were all Hebrew. The Jews and Gentiles come from the line of Japheth (Gen.10:3). The Egyptians come from the line of Ham (Gen.10:6). No curse.
It's true that we can't know for certain. But in all likelihood, he was certainly not European or Arab (there were not significant numbers of Arabs in the area until the 600s AD with the spread of Islam). He was an ethnic Hebrew and spoke Aramaic.
Europeans for centuries have portrayed Jesus with European features (including blond hair at times!) to cast him as one of them, and to bring their own race closer to "divinity" and holiness. This is common in other cultures and ethnicities as well, and in other religions.
There are artistic portrayals of Jesus as a black African, East Asian, and probably other types as well.
Source: http://truthfirstnow.blogspot.com/2007/ … black.html
Source: http://03varvara.wordpress.com/2010/07/ … ting-10-2/
This is my own ignorance here, and I admit it, but since Israel is on the Arabian peninsula, I assumed that it's citizen's were Arabs.
Not Arabs as in Arab Muslims or members of the "Arab nations" which were artificially drawn, but actual Arabs...as in from the geographic region.
Was I wrong?
Israel (or Palestine) is not on the Arabian Peninsula, either geographically or politically. The Arabian Peninsula includes Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, a few others. The region that encompasses modern day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria is called the Levant.
The Arabs and Hebrews are two sub-groups within a racial group called the "Semitic" peoples. Arabs speak Arabic, Hebrews speak Hebrew. Other Semitic groups include Akkadians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans and others. These groups are mentioned in the Bible and are (or were) found in the Levant and Mesopotamia.
If you call an Israeli citizen an Arab, you will risk stoking major arguments lol. The Palestinians are ethnic Arabs, the Israelis are (mostly) ethnic Hebrews or descended from ethnic Hebrews.
Well I learned something new today. Thank you.
What exactly would have been the difference in physcial characteristics... if any? The regions do border each other, was there much in the way of physical distinctions a couple thousand years ago?
My pleasure. Between Hebrews and Arabs? I'm not sure. There were probably some physical differences thousands of years ago, since the two groups were far apart from each other. But over time as the Arabs took over the whole region, there was so much intermingling the differences probably declined, at least among Middle Eastern residents.
However, since many Hebrews spent thousands of years in Europe, they acquired some of those characteristics like lighter skin or blond hair. Then after they returned to the region en masse with the creation of Israel, you have many Israelis who have white skin, for instance (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for example).
Trying to keep this short. Can we agree that at the time we are speaking of the Egyptians were known to be black-skinned people? 1)Joseph was govenor of Egypt and his brothers did not recognize him. If they and Joseph would have been caucasian he and they would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Acts7:2-13 shows that even Pharoah was unaware that Joseph was Hebrew. 2) Moses was in Pharoah's house for 40 yrs and Pharoah could not tell the difference between he and an Egyptian. He had ordered all Hebrew males thrown into the river. 3) Yahusha as a babe was whisked off to hide in Egypt from an employee of Rome (Herod) who had commanded the death of all children 2yrs or younger. It would have been no problem to check with the Roman authorities in Egypt to see if a caucasian child 2 yrs old were hiding there. 4) Paul was mistaken for an Egyptian. Being Hebrew, if he were caucasian...Deut.28:64-68 the Hebrews were sent to the four corners of the earth by ships just as Yah said they would be. This is condensed, but IMHO enough.
Assuming you are referring to thousands of years BC, no, the Egyptians were not black-skinned. The Nubians, to the south of Egypt, were black. The Egyptians, like the other Near Eastern peoples, including the Hebrews, were brown-skinned, neither "white" nor "black."
I said that Jews only acquired light skin (which is what I assume you're referring to by "Caucasian") over thousands of years of living among European groups. This happened later in history.
First off, I do not believe that skin color is essential for salvation. It is common knowledge that Noah's son Cham/Ham birthed the African/Black nations. The word Cham means tropical, burnt, and black. Ham would have been what we refer to has a black man. Notice Ham's children were Kush/Cush (Ethiopia, Matsraym (Egyptian), Phut/Put (Somalians), and Kana'an/Canaan (the original inhabitants of the land called Israel). The land we refer to as Egypt was originally called Khemet (land of the black) because the inhabitants the inhabitants were black-skinned people. The Greeks referred to Kush (Ethiopia) as Ethiopians. The Greeks used the term Aithiops (ay-thee-ops) to refer to Kushites because of their dark skin tone. Aithiops means 'burnt/black face'. Egyptians today look like Arabs and we refer to them as 'middle eastern', but Egyptians are the children of Ham and before the Muslims took over the continent known today as Africa, black people ruled the land. "The dignity is so ancient that the insignia of the Pharoah evidently belonged to the time when Egyptians wore nothing but the girdle of the Negro". Gerald Massey, English writer and author of the book, Egypt the Light of the World (pg251). "You are quite right about the 'African' origin of the Egyptians. I have 100 human skulls to prove ti". Sir Richard Francis Burton, a 19th cent. English explorer, writer, and linguist in 1883 wrote to Gerald Massey. "In their complex and many complexions and in physical peculiarities, the Egyptians were an 'African race'. Scientist, R.T.Pritchett states in his book, The Natural History of Man (pg 124,125). The ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt in the 5th cent. B.C.E., saw the Egyptians face to face and described them as black-skinned with wooly hair. Anthropologist, Count Constantine de Volney (1727-1820) paid tribute to Herodotus' discovery when he said "The ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood mixed for several cent. with that of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining, nonetheless, the imprint of its original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face (referring to the sphinx) is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest to or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of the people. What a subject for meditation! Just think about the race of 'black' men today, our slaves and the objects of scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, science and even the use of speech". No curse turned men's skin black. Yahuah gave the skin what it needed to survive in one of the hottest parts of the world - black skin was the norm. Contrary to popular belief, Noah did not have 3 wives that birthed 3 different races of people(Gen.7:7). Egyptians were Noah's grandchildren (Gen,10:1,6). This makes Hebrews the first cousins of these black-skinned Egyptians. Looks as though everyone else is related also Having taken so much time showig Egyptians were black, it was done to show the appearance of the people who were always mistaken for each other, Hebrews and Egyptians. Fellowship with Yahuah is not about race, it is about obedience, faith, and works. The only thing I have to say about Jews are they are not Hebrew. The word Jew came along around the 18th cent. It is a nickname for those who follow Judaism. It has nothing to do with Yahudah/Judah. They are Gentiles trampling on His land.
Dang, dude! That's nothing but creepy!
Gees, you amaze me that you are still trying to go down this road? You might need to look a little deeper beyond the surface of what you deem as reality, skin colour and race have nothing to do with anything.
What road are you talking about? The question was about the race of Jesus. In what manner, in any of my posts have I made this a racial issue? I have merely stated my findings from my research (and others) only offering a very limited amount of what is clearly there for all to see. You are encouraged to do your own. Whether you or anyone else agrees with me doesn't matter. Now I'm a racist? I find it amazing that when people find out (arguably?) about the true appearance of Hebrews, they are quick to get offended and shout racism. But it is ok to teach others that Jews or Anglo-Saxons are Hebrews, even if the Scriptures say they are not. I have witnessed this sad situation repeatedly. While you are digesting my posts, once again I state, skin color does not matter in the service of Yahuah. Nevertheless, we should not be ignorant of the fact that there is a forgotten nation that carries the promises of Yahuah (unfortunately? it's not the Jews). According to the Scriptures, is it not conceivable that we need to know who this nation is in order to be joined together as a family? One nation, one pure language, His laws written in our hearts and minds? This is racism, I'm sure, at its utmost. Shalum
How is Jesus race/colour relevant to you? How could knowing his race/colour possibly change any thing? Is it not the messages that are important or not?
Since Gods laws are written in our hearts and minds, that is where we are all connected as one nation. Geographic location, race or culture becomes irrelevant.
The question/thought posed,"The Race of Jesus". I gave my opinion along with the info to back up that opinion. You seem to have a problem with that. Now only a few posts before I responded to Vector 7 clearly stating that the race of the Mashyach in my opinion did not matter. You must have missed that Therefore there did not seem to be the need to say it again. I also said previously in this thread and in prior posts that race had nothing to do with service to the Father. That should have eliminated all thoughts of you thinking I thought the race of the Mashyach was important. The OP did not ask about any message. I'm sure (well almost) the OP and others had assumed everyone understood that was first and foremost. If according to Scripture, the Gentile must be grafted into the nation (Rom.11:16-18), I ask this question: How can you be grafted into something you do not know exists? Many assumed this nation was a Jewish nation. If you take the time to look at the genealogy of Noah (assuming you consider yourself a 'believer') you will see that the Hebrews and the Jews are not the same people. Is this important? I think so. This would mean, that the Jews are not the nation referred to in Rom.11:16-18. They even know it. Everybody in the middle east knows it. The Scriptures are very clear on this matter. I took this 2nd opportunity to show this. Agreed, geographic location at this time is not relevant. But the race, ethnicity of the people, of the nation spoken about in Romans is definitely relevant. How can you be grafted into something and you don't know who/what it is? Heb.8:7-12. in your (and others) opinion is in affect now. Then why are we still in dispora? Why doesn't everyone believe He is. Do you still have to tell your neighbor, know the Alahym? Do we still sin? That time (Heb.8:7-12) obviously is not here yet. Slow down Penny. Before you jump all over me, be honest, open your heart, mind, and eyes and do some research. If I am wrong, please let me know, show me the Scripture/s so that I can make the necessary corrections. IMHO, there's a lot riding on this. Shalum
A lot of what riding on it? Why do you ask how one can be grafted into something when you yourself stated Gods law is written in the hearts and mind of the people? Remember that things of the flesh IE culture, race etc does not concern God. It is things of the spirit which cannot be defined in terms of those aforementioned things let alone language that tends to separate what is by default. It is within ones own heart the Kingdom of God is found. The laws are not man made and are only tainted by perception when we choose to use language to attempt to describe the nature of God.
Are we talking about the same thing? Tell me, what do you think this thread is about? Maybe I'm wrong. I thought it was about the race (a great division of all human beings that passes on certain physical characteristics as skin color, facial form, or an eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups from one generation to another, a group of persons, animals, or plants having the same ancestors, far back in the past?) of Mashyach. No sarcasm intended. This is what I based my posts on. It got off into more than that because you asked for more than that. To make it even clearer, I don't believe in jesus. I'm not a Christian. Is that what you want to hear? If you want to talk about the coming kingdom of Yahuah, the "Good News" ( which was one of the main reasons the Mashyach was here) start another thread. Once again, I never said the Father or Son cared about the color of ones skin. I never said I cared about the color of ones skin. I just shared information that the Scriptures point out, following the OP's line of thought. This was not my personal opinion, but facts that anyone (believer) could see if they were interested in looking at them. All according to Scripture. I never said His laws were written in our hearts or mind. You did. I said, that has not happened yet and gave you reasons why I felt that way (my opinion). No one has to agree. I am not asking anyone here to agree with me. Just giving another viewpoint among many here. When we are talking Scripture, I back my statements with Scripture. If I am wrong, please show me. What Scriptual proof do you have to offer? This was a simple thread. One of us may be confused about what was asked here. It must be me. The language I use to express my beliefs, interpretations or whatever is plain English. Plain and simple like. I don't have the command, of the language, as some of the others here. I keep my dictionary handy, so I may grasp the meaning of the 13 letter words (and many more, I never heard before) that are used here frequently I don't have the intelligence of many of you here, so I have to ask for things to be broken down into laymen terms so I might understand what is actually being said. I am not a writer. I came to HP to share and receive what I hope is "food for thought" on what I am interested in, health (spiritual and physical). Hopefully , we have a better understanding. I patiently await your threads for discussion. Shalum
Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing?. On the one hand you say it is not about race. On the other hand you say it is, and these observations you have made are based merely on your understanding of the scriptures.
It makes no difference to me whether you are Christian or not.
I had hoped to gain a better understanding of your posts however it is pointless if you feel you need to be defensive. We will achieve nothing if you assume you need to defend your point of view.
We all have different views and clarifying ones view if another does not understand these views is why we normally discuss.
Defending my point of view. By all means. I see it every day on HP. I would defend yours if I thought it worthy. I'm saying the Hebrew people were black. The "chosen" people of the Book were black (now known widely as the " African American"). That eliminates (there are some blacks who follow Judaism) all those who consider themselves Jews. That means I'm saying Yahusha was black, Joseph, Pharoahs, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Paul, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew , Mark, Luke, John, Peter etc. were black men. I'm saying The Book is a history of the people brought over in 1619 (transatlantic slave trade). Read Deut.28:15-68; Lev.26. Who else do those verses ascribe too? That means all the black people ( where they were taken) of the South Atlantic ocean, the Carribean sea, Cuba, Jamaica, North, South. Central America, Haiti (get the picture?) and all their descendants. The mixture of skin color now becomes fascinating. From the deep dark purple, to the high mellow yellows, Hebrews,all. But the killing part about it, most and I do mean most, don't even know their heritage. They think they are 'Africans'. Are all blacks Hebrew? No. Once again, does it matter (or should it,we shall see)) what race, color of skin, physical characteristics, HaMashyach was? Does it matter if His skin color were red, orange, or white, if His message were truth? In my opinion, no. As I gain better copy and paste skills I will give you more evidence beyond ( but verifying the scriptural account) the scriptures if needed.
Briefly,the word 'Israeli' is not even mentioned in Scripture. Israeli only refers to a citizen or resident liveing in the modern 'state' of Israel. Israeli does not mean a descendant of Jacob. Neither can the word 'Semite' be found in the Book. It is of relative recent origin. It comes from the 18th century (along with the word Jew). One of its uses was to to designate those who spoke a certain language, such as Syrian, Hebrew, and Arabic. The name was given an extra meaning later to include all those people who were "supposed" to be descendants of Noah's son Shem (not Sem) which include a wide range of people from Arabs to Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews. Those who now inhabit the modern Israel. The suffix 'ite' is used in the English translations to help identify descendants of a certain person, tribes or nations, such as Hittites, Canaanites, Edomites, etc. Sem is suposse to be the English translation of Sham. Shem is the English translation. The 'ite' denotes descent from, so the Semites are descendants of Sem. Who is Sem? The name Shem is used in the English translations. It is never given the suffix 'ite'. To denote descent from Shem, the Scriptures use "the sons of Shem" or "the children of Shem", never Semite or even Shemite. Once again, Jews are not Hebrew. They are Ashkenazi (occupying 85% of the land known as Israel today), descendants of Japheth. The Hebrew are descendants of Shem (Gen.10:21). Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel), and Jacob begat 12 sons who became known as the children of Israel (Gen.35:23-26). As you can see, even in Scripture, Ashkanazi (Jews) are the sons of Japheth and not the sons of Sham/Shem. Sham/Shem an Sham/Shem alone is referred to as the father of all Hebrews, not Ashkanazi (Jews). These Jews were later known as Khazars and have no part of the inheritance of Israel (without repentance and immersion).
Yes, I always laugh at the portrayals. I did watch a documentary recently where they used the most advanced technology to lift an image of the face off of the Shroud of Turin. A very, very Jewish face, in line with the look of a modern Arab appeared. Logically, this makes sense. From the beliefs of both Muslims and Jews, being direct descendents from the same father.
Jesus Christ.. was not black nor white. And it doesn't matter what He looks like to those who love Him anyway.
But to appease curiosity. He is a Jew sent to the house of Israel, His own nation. Israel is the nation chosen by God to bring the Savior of the world into the world.
The simple truths seem to cause people to spend all their time contemplating what doesn't matter while all the while overlooking what does matter.
Look at Israel and you'll see His color.
-Just a fellow man
Arn't the Israelis caucasian? Don't we call caucasians white people? Or are we not satisfied with the term caucasian so we have to further divide people into smaller groups?
No, Israelis aren't all caucasian. Neither are all Jews. Even if you use the term caucasian to simply mean anyone with light skin as you appear to be doing.
No, caucasian doesn't mean white person. I've done a little reading on this and understand American's find the term caucasian to be offensive. I'm not sure why, they prefer to divide people up farther then most others.
Caucasian is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia/Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia. Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.
First, the first thing up on Wikipedia says caucasian are people descended from those from the Caucasus.
Second, the generalized use has everything to do with skin tone. We, in the states, divide it down because it helps reinforce that we are one people by choice, not by birth or ancestral heritage. It reminds us of our incredibly rich collective heritage. We are a nation of immigrants. It makes the concept difficult for many outside of our borders to understand.
That's interesting, but Canada is a land of immigrants also, but we never have a "white" box to check, European maybe. It's certainly not difficult to figure out at all.
All my Jewish friends have the same colour skin as Europeans. Where doesn't the definition of white stop? At what shade do we say, wait your not white? It's rather ridiculous really.
Have you every met a white person? Seriously. Ask a kid if they are white. They laugh and say no.
But, just because the people you know who are Jewish fall into the category you classify as white doesn't mean all Jews are white. Anymore than it means all Canadians are white or all Christians are black.
Whether speaking of Jews as an ethnic group or as a religious group they come in myriad skin tones. Your claim is akin to insisting everyone from Central America is Mexican.
You didn't click the link? Why are you attempting to clarify white from black. It's like saying all skin tones over a certain shade are people of African descent and forgetting that Caucasians come varied skin tones not to mention the aboriginal Australians. Skin colour has nothing to do with any of this. Saying Jesus wasn't white because he was Jewish is senseless..
The only comment I made concerning what Jesus looked like was an image I saw that was lifted from the shroud. The only reason I commented to your post was because you said he was caucasian and further clarified the term to mean white people.
The problem with that word is not that it lumps large groups together, but it separates large groups. It is all about skin tone, if your skin tone doesn't fall into a category to be labeled caucasian. I don't give a hoot what color his skin was. No one should. If his skin tone were more important than the message his name wouldn't have survived history.
Maybe this is simply a cultural clash we are having. Claiming him to be caucasian or white appears racist to me. As if his color mattered. Claiming him to appear similar in features to those indigenous to the area seems logical to me. His skin tone not really important.
Either way, his skin tone should be downplayed. Since many believe he was God in the flesh groups will attempt to show how he was the same as them. Thus, excluding others. As has been evidenced by at least one poster on this thread. What good purpose could be served by that?
Emile, You haven't read a single thing I've wrote and you certainly have not clicked on the link. Caucasian does not mean white. Caucasians come in every shade of colour. Generally speaking we aren't supposed to talk of race anymore, but forensics can and has to identify the different groups and caucasians are one of the groups. Only Americans don't like that name.
I should also mention we tend to use the terms African, European and Asian.
But, we don't (not around here, anyway). As I said, cultural differences. We are American. Some do preface that with a nation they like to consider to be the origin of their ancestors. But most of us who are lighter skinned would be somewhat offended if we were labeled European. I'm no more European than my neighbor is African.
Offended if your called European? You do realize that England, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Norway are part of Europe and you can't get lighter than that. And why would that offend anyone. Sometimes people have thought I was Italian, I didn't find that offensive.
I'm not European. Think about it. How would a Brit like to be identified as American? I'm not sure I understand the reason for labeling people things they aren't. It isn't a question of skin tone, it is a question of identity. I'm not sure what your comment means.
You know, of European descent, of African descent, of Asian descent. But even still offended?
You really don't get it. I'm not offended, but I would be if someone honestly insisted on tying me to another country of origin.
I realize you are Canadian so you think we are similar. We aren't in this respect. Did you guys do anything to gain independence? Other than hang around and wait until it wasn't cost effective for England to stay a part of your business? Heck, I think you guys still say 'God save the queen.' You'd probably bow if one of the British royal family was introduced.
Do you realize the founders of this country were so adamant to be a unique nation that they changed the hand we hold our fork in? We Are Americans. And, to be quite honest, we are mutts to boot. If you insisted that I lay claim to an ancestral home you'd have to cut me in a hundred little pieces and send my body parts to the corners of the earth. I am a product of the land I live in which is a land of immigrants living together, working together, marrying and having babies together.
I know you said yours was a land of immigrants. Did you have over 14 million people enter your country legally in the last decade? Do you have people clamoring to enter your country with such fervor that if they can't get in legally they sneak across your borders? Why do they come here? They want to be American. If we have that many people who want to be what we are, why in the world would we go out of our way to deny portions of our collective heritage in order to pretend we are something we aren't? I'm not European. Don't want to be European and have no interest in pretending that I am European.
Those types of attitudes are Old World. They are the ones who believe in blood lines and meticulously keep track of their genealogy. Proudly insisting they are special since they are the son of the son of the cousin of a duke. I don't care and I am fairly typical of those in this country. What I am is a product of who I am. Not what came before me. It doesn't matter if some of my distant ancestors wandered over from Europe. Others wandered in from elsewhere. None of them are important enough to override the rest.
But you said you'd be offended if someone called you European.
Yes we did, we fought of Americans when they wanted to take all of North American.
Yes, I'm a mutt as well, I looked back as far as I can and couldn't find a single European. But I get what your saying, You're a white American who would be offended to be called of European descent. Americans do have those who call themselves African Americans though?
That's funny because we also have immigrants coming from all over dying to get in, many American's as well. One of my close friends is an American who is trying to get his Canadian Citizenship.
This forum is call The Race of Jesus. White is not a race, it's skin colour. I was once on a but in Rome, and beside us were some older Americans loudly complaining that Italians don'd understand English. At least a half the bus understood them, but said nothing until they got off. They looked at us because we spook to the Americans and one said "you guys aren't Americans are you" How'd they know?
You don't have any where near the number of people attempting to immigrate as we do. Look at statistics that are easily found through a google search.
And you can rest easy. Although our constitution did include a provision that we would welcome Canada if they wanted to join us in freedom, we all know that is ancient history. We are separate countries as was meant to be.
And we have Americans who call themselves whatever they want. But, it is not anyone's place to label another person. They get to label themselves.
I could certainly share stories about arrogant Canadians, but I'm not certain what purpose that would serve.
And Jesus was probably not caucasian. Not by our understanding of the term or by ancient understanding of the term.
You clearly don't understand the term because you didn't click on the link. If you're not native Australian, East Asian, or Sub-Saharan African your Caucasian. If you don't want to use those terms you don't have to, but once again we are in the The Race of Jesus forum.
There was a purpose to my story. Stating that Canada has never fought for it's freedom when we fought of the Americans and we were fighting Germany way before the US joined.
But, you clearly don't understand where I am coming from. I have noticed on the census form they had these ridiculous groupings. I check Other.
So, you see, when we talk about race everyone has a different idea of what the word means. This doesn't make you right rad man. You simply are coming in from a different angle.
And, bully for you chap. That you were fighting the Germans before our arrival. Thank goodness we did arrive, eh? Had we not, we might all be typing in German. And, being mistaken for Italian might have been a bad thing for you. Not being similar to the master race and all.
Good point. Call me anything you want. Just not European.
Can we simply leave it at agree to disagree? I'm very uncomfortable with lumping people into categories. It can develop an us against them mentality. The larger the groups, the bigger the problems. The smaller the groups, the more likely we are to work together as a community. Of course, I suppose, the smaller the groupings makes it easier for some to justify crimes against humanity. But living in a peaceful and cohesive community tends to make me lean toward enjoying the diversity where I don't have cause to lump so many groups together. If I lived in Rwanda, or Albania, I might see things differently.
So, on the topic of what race was Jesus, I can look to the geographical region he came from and fine tune it down without leaving the possibility of blond hair and blue eyes in the mix. To simply insist he was caucasian doesn't do the question justice. Imo.
Sure it does, because if you're going to talk about the race of Jesus, you need to understand what the race of people in that region were. Those people were Caucasian. I prefer not discussing race as well, but if it must be done then lets be honest about race. Most likely not blond hair and blue eyes.
No. I disagree. Using the term caucasian as you choose to doesn't mean I choose to. He was not caucasian. We will simply either agree to disagree, or disagree. I'm not agreeing to the use of the term.
To be quite honest, I think it's haughty. Why caucasian? If you are going to lump everyone with a term, you should know that it began as racist. I have no intention of acquiescing to the use of word with such a shady past.
Jesus was not caucasian.
Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia/Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia. Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.
Look I don't even know if there was a Jesus, but if someone else bring up race and if Jesus from from the Middle East then he fits into this category.
I'm also unsure why you would think it an offensive term? There is nothing offensive in the above description.
You appear to be gleaning this info from Wikipedia, which is good. Go down further and read when it was first coined and why. Do some research radman. It's enlightening.
The concept was based on craniology. Notice further down it describes the use of the term in the Medical sciences and the it describes it's uses in the US. I understand Americans don't like that term and prefer to further divide the races into sub races and that's okay I guess.
You know, it is one thing to accept something, it is another thing to gloss over its problems. Let's take some excerpts from your site, Wikipedia; since you can easily look to see if I am lying. The concept was developed by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, who said:
Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men (emphasis mine), I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.
He also believed:
in the "degeneration theory" of racial origins. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were Caucasian (Georgian) and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting—for instance, he claimed Negroid pigmentation arose because of the result of the heat of the tropical sun, while the cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos, and the Chinese were fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns protected from environmental factors. He believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.
Move forward to the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind. According to him,
there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found Jews and Africans less attractive, and thus Mongolian
Meiner, God bless his dark little soul, believed in scientific racism.:
Meiners split mankind into two divisions which he labeled the "beautiful White race" and the "ugly Black race".
So, at one time, I suppose the race of Jesus would have considered to be Mongolian by the developer of the term. Or, if he would have fallen into the category of Caucasian he would have certainly been classified to be dirty white
This type of sick thinking spawned selective breeding, compulsory sterilization, and a close alignment of public health with eugenics. Not to mention genocide.
So, please, ignore the origin. Although I find that humorous that you would, since you are quite often railing at the Christians for past atrocities by the church; completely ignoring any good any part of it ever attempted to do. I suppose you are simply a have your cake and eat it too kind of guy.
Regardless how screwed up those people were, it's still used in forensics. You just keep checking that "white" box as if being white is a race. Does that make African albinos "white"? Dividing people by skin colour makes sense to you?
I don't check the white box. I check the box marked other. It's no one's business what my race or ethnicity is. What does it matter?
Doesn't matter to me. I think your great just the way you are or aren't. We don't have boxes to check up here. I'm told by my African-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian and Japanese-Canadian friends that racism still exist and I do see it from time to time, but for the most part it's not relevant to thinking people.
When I was about 18 or 19 I went camping with a friend of mine that is Japanese/German. He had long black straight hair, which I had never given much thought to, but we both agreed we would have been at odds during WW2. Anywho, this kid walks up to us in the camp ground and say "my Dad over there says you're a real live indian". Our mouths dropped. Sure he does look first nations, but a dad sends his child over to ask that question? His parents were watching. My friend told him is dad was wrong and left it at that.
I grew up in an Italian community so I completely know and understand what it's like to be the minority. I even got it from the teachers who were also Italian. I love Italians, I'm married to and Italian-Canadian, she doesn't like to be called Italian, she's Canadian, but they typically only speak good of people of their own village. They have names for everyone. If your ancestry is from GB your a mungacake, If your from an other Italian province they have a name for each. You can be from the same provence, but that's not good enough, what village are you from, Oh the next village over live a bunch of morons, your from my village? What street? From that street you only have idiots. From my sheet, which side? LOL
The big question to be answered here is, did Jesus win the race?
No, he got stopped in Jerusalem for some reason, and I guess he forfeited.
Oh, but I do remember Paul saying he finished the race, and if he bothered to write about it, I guess it means he was the winner.
The simple, truthful answer: Christianity has always been racist as hell, and for many it would be reprehensible to think its beloved martyr would be anything but white.
I agree! But i also think that the reason why it was never written in the bible what race he was, it wasn't important and totally irrelevent. It's about what he came to do on earth and the sacrifice he made for us.
Then why does the bible go on and on about God's chosen people?
There are people who are chosen religiously, people who are chosen to be rich and unhappy, poor and happy, change lives or even save lives. What i'm trying to say is, we are all God's chosen people. Maybe not spiritually but in other ways.
by cblack2 years ago
In Christianity, do non believers go to hell?What happens to the people that believe in another religion and another God. If the Christian God is the only true God, then are those people damned?
by ryankett8 years ago
I don't believe in a god by the way, but I do believe that a man named Jesus lived. I just don't believe that he was a son of god, instead just a pretty nice bloke with lots to write.That isn't my topic though, my topic...
by soldout17 years ago
Recently I summit-ed a topic on the political site called (The Hypocrisy Of America). And I used the race card as the stirring stick, and boy was I surprise at the response. Over 200 hits. The real truth is that color...
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit2 years ago
Why Are Christians Afraid To Follow Jesus?Once again, the Christian mainstream has turned it's back on the image of God. "...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it...
by Evolution Guy6 years ago
http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/oslo- … or-terror/More proof this religion is dangerous to others as well as the people who follow it.
by M. T. Dremer4 months ago
Do you believe non-religious people, who lead a good life, are still going to hell?One of my biggest frustrations with religion is the idea that, how you live your life is of no consequence if you do not accept god. For...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.