Why is Jesus Always White?

[Ladewig]

A Muppet Passion. That might be too much. On the other hand, a Muppet version of Jesus Christ Superstar might be cool.


The thing I dislike most about the Passion is that it has given the conservative commentators the latest "word of the month" - Judas. Everyone whom they dislike is now a Judas.

 

[ceo_esq]

Having seen pictures of Jim Caviezel as Jesus from the passion, I have to admit, I just thought he looked like a white guy who went to a tanning salon.

Just from the pictures, I thought he made a convincing Semite. His complexion and the altered features (nose, eyes) looked appropriately Mediterranean to me, in contrast to just about every other cinematic or TV Jesus. He certainly did not look like his normal self.

Interestingly, even without makeup Caviezel used to pass himself off successfully to casting directors as a recent Italian immigrant, and we all know that in Hollywood, Italians are traditionally interchangeable with Semites, Hispanics and every other "off-white" ethnicity, as illustrated by John Turturro's career and a hundred spaghetti Westerns.

I'd give Mel Gibson a B+ for effort in this department. (And, if we're grading "on a curve", he frankly deserves an A.)

 

[Darat]

Mel Gibson's movie has gotten so much press as being sooooo realistic. But there is one point that really bothers me. Jesus (if he existed at all) wouldn't have looked like that guy. He would have looked much more like the guys from the middle East look now. Rather than being the nice boy next door who just needs a haircut, he would've been the guy you don't want on the same plane as you.


..snip...

I don't understand your confusion, after all his mother and father (human) were white.

 

[Ladewig]

What worries me is all of the portrayals of Jesus as white and a Republican..

Please don't get me started. I once heard Hannity and Colmes argue about whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative. Actually, before they got to the conservative/liberal thing, they had to argue about whether to use "was" or "is" when discussing Jesus's political view (he's not dead, so "is" is more appropriate).

 

[Darat]

Why are there so many at all? Doesn't the bible say in many places that it's wrong to make graven images?

In the version of Christianity I was brought up with they are totally wrong. In fact the cross as a symbol was only just tolerated.

The idea of churches full of statues of Saints, the Virgin Mary and so on was a heretical abhorrence as far as my religious teachers were concerned. To this day a crucifix is something that fills me with a form of revulsion, to dignify that kind of depraved, barbaric execution…

 

[PogoPedant]

Somebody mentioned
the Passion

One Norwegian newspaper summarized this movie with one word: Kitsh.
D'ya think that's what Gibson was aiming for?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

One Norwegian newspaper summarized this movie with one word: Kitsh.
D'ya think that's what Gibson was aiming for?

I saw it. It was far too brutal to be kitsch.

By the way, is there a Norewegian word for "kitsch"? Or is "kitsch" one of those international words like "taxi"?

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

I think you're all reading too much modern racial attitude into this.

Historically, our Christianity came mostly by way of Europe.

The renaissance painters always painted from living models. All those Virgin Marys, Jesuses, and so forth, are portraits of real people who sat for the paintings.

Also, realistically painting JE-bus and Mom as representing someone actually from the mid-east (and there were visitors and trade both ways, then) would have caused the wrath of the Church and probably a date with the Holy Torturer. And then if released at all, you would find that your wife was pregnant with the Pope's child and your land was seized. What? You mean that type of thing didn't really happen back then?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Also, realistically painting JE-bus and Mom as representing someone actually from the mid-east (and there were visitors and trade both ways, then) would have caused the wrath of the Church and probably a date with the Holy Torturer. And then if released at all, you would find that your wife was pregnant with the Pope's child and your land was seized. What? You mean that type of thing didn't really happen back then?

In a general way, stuff like that happened, but I don't think it has much to do with Jesus and Co looking Italian in Leonardo's paintings, German in Durer's paintings, etc.

They used their neighbors as models.

The modern notion of ethnic 'authenticity' didn't exist even to be prohibited.

The authorities were religious bigots, but 'racism' as a thought out policy wasn't invented yet.

In so far as some southern Italians are 'mideast looking', I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few renaissance paintings that were accidentally
'authentic'.

 

[ceo_esq]

What? You mean that type of thing didn't really happen back then?

As a rule, no. I hope you're joking.

 

[jimmygun]

Ask yourselves this question..."Would the portrayal of the brutality of the crucifixion have the same impact if the Christ was a black man."?

How many pictures of blacks being slaughtered in Rwanda being hacked to death with machetes and burned inside old tires have appeared on television in the past 30 years, with almost no outrage at it being shown?

How many Chinese were murdered by the Japanese during their war with almost no outcry. Surely not even a small percentage of the outrage of the killing of the Jews.

Compare the universal disgust and rage at the pictures of a single white American soldier's body being dragged through the streets.

Face it folks, the prevailing attitude for the past two hundred years has been that white is good, anything else doesn't matter. It is less pronounced now then just thirty years ago but it still is pervasive.

Why is Jesus white? Because a black JC would not bring in the huge coin that a white one draws. Very simple!

 

[MLynn]

You know I always wondering why Jebuses best friends all had white names like Paul and John and crap. Maybe a little creative writing involved? Perhaps Jebuses original name was Tyron and he was from the mean streats of constantinople. With his primary attraction being the fact that he always "Keeps it real". It would explain why his followers had crook names likening them to bandits.

Paul is a greek name and John is hebrew. People mistake biblical names as "xtian" even tho most are hebrew. (If I understand correctly, Saul is hebrew for Paul).
Pictures of the "nordic Jesus" (blonde hair/blue eyes) have always bothered me. I would like to see a true, historical, semitic rendering of Jesus by a good artist.

 

[The idea]

You know I always wondering why Jebuses best friends all had white names like Paul and John and crap. Maybe a little creative writing involved?

Why did US presidents always have black names like Washington and Jefferson? Maybe their parents watched the Jefferson's a lot on TV? Maybe their parents admired the scientific prowess of George Washington Carver?

 

[The idea]

Is this thread supposed to be a subtle comment about global warming?

 

[ceo_esq]

Pictures of the "nordic Jesus" (blonde hair/blue eyes) have always bothered me. I would like to see a true, historical, semitic rendering of Jesus by a good artist.

The next best thing might be well-preserved images of Jesus in early Coptic or other Middle Eastern art. This is one of the best early surviving examples, painted around 590 AD at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Egypt, not far from what is now Israel:

 

[MLynn]

The next best thing might be well-preserved images of Jesus in early Coptic or other Middle Eastern art. This is one of the best early surviving examples, painted around 590 AD at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Egypt, not far from what is now Israel:

Looks a lot like the Shroud of Turin...

 

[wolfgirl]

I think you're all reading too much modern racial attitude into this.

Historically, our Christianity came mostly by way of Europe.

The renaissance painters always painted from living models. All those Virgin Marys, Jesuses, and so forth, are portraits of real people who sat for the paintings.

I understand why they did it back then, for all the reasons you and others have said.

What I'm saying is that now we are supposed to be more "enlightened" and this movie was supposed to be so "realistic." It seems that enlightenment and reality only count if they don't make you uncomfortable.

I still don't think that Jesus would have been "black" as in "African-American." He didn't come from deep Africa, but rather from the middle-East, where he would have looked like the Arabic types: dark-skinned, dark-haired, dark-eyed. Swarthy. He would probably have looked more like the 911 hijackers than anyone would care to admit. And that's the point I'm trying to get across. That I don't think this movie would have had the impact (or the financial success) that it did if Jesus had been shown more like he probably really was. Taking a good-looking white guy and giving him a few vaguely ethnic-looking features still gives you the warm-and-fuzzy "he's one of us" feeling. Which makes the impact greater. If they had shown "Abdul" up there being tortured, I don't think it would've bothered people as much. And Mel Gibson knew that, so despite his lip-service to reality, he really wanted not to disturb people's comfort zone so that he could make lots of money.

Mel Gibson will never get another penny of my money. (Not that he'll need it now...)

 

[headscratcher4]

painted around 590 AD

Nice picture, considering it represents someone who supposedly died 500 years before the pictorial representation. It leads one to question the "representational" value of the art, and consider that it is projecting a "spiritual" ideal of Christ Pantocrator, rather than a picutrue of Jesus, the man. In any event, the picture has a slight middle-eastern/Egyptian look about it, which is what I would expect from a Monestary in the Siani.

 

[evildave]

What worries me is all of the portrayals of Jesus as white and a Republican...

Of course, that "Give to Caesar what is his" quote marks him as a Tax & Spend Democrat. Maybe they misquoted Jesus.

After all, Republicans believe in borrowing money to cover debt while they spend and spend and spend, so it doesn't look like they raised taxes at all.

If Jesus was Republican, he'd be all against paying taxes. The quote would be something like "Loan Caesar what he wants, and collect the interest back a hundred-fold."

You see, what Jesus really said was as long as the government owes you enough money, you'll always net a profit from the government in the national debt scheme, and you should always support politicians who'll provide you with MORE debt to invest in and collect from.

After all, the Bible is pro-usury, too. Especially when it's usury against all the millions of wage slaves out there who will be paying you.

 

[headscratcher4]

Of course, that "Give to Caesar what is his" quote marks him as a Tax & Spend Democrat. Maybe they misquoted Jesus.

After all, Republicans believe in borrowing money to cover debt while they spend and spend and spend, so it doesn't look like they raised taxes at all.

If Jesus was Republican, he'd be all against paying taxes. The quote would be something like "Loan Caesar what he wants, and collect the interest back a hundred-fold."

You see, what Jesus really said was as long as the government owes you enough money, you'll always net a profit from the government in the national debt scheme, and you should always support politicians who'll provide you with MORE debt to invest in and collect from.

After all, the Bible is pro-usury, too. Especially when it's usury against all the millions of wage slaves out there who will be paying you.

So, by your reading, maybe Jesus "upset" the tables of the money-lenders in the Temple because they weren't real good money lenders, he was mad because their interest rates were too low, or maybe they were selling pirated trinkets as opposed to items protected under the copyright laws. Hmmm...This Bible is a lot more complex than I thought...