Reply to removing images of Jesus as white - can we have a respecful discussion?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "removing images of Jesus as white - can we have a respecful discussion?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I did not read the thread, but I've discussed this issue before:

Jesus was a Jewish man from the eastern Mediterranean 2,000 years ago, so the logical conclusion is that he looked like the way the typical Jewish man from the eastern Mediterranean 2,000 years ago looked like.

The closest example would be Sephardic Jews without a history of intermarriage, although similar sects such as Druze, Alawaites, Maronites, etc. would also be helpful.  Whether that is "brown" or not is in the eye of the beholder.  He certainly was neither European (as was commonly shown in European paintings) nor Arab (which is what I think some people think of when they say things like "Jesus was brown.")  Please keep in mind as well that if you went back in time and spoke with people from the Middle East 2,000 years ago, they would have no freaking clue what you were saying if you asked them whether they were "white" or "brown" since those are cultural constructions developed almost 2,000 years later.

Anyways, most Christians historically have simply drawn Mary and Jesus to look like people from their culture.  So, Italians made pictures of Mary and Jesus that looked Italian, Spaniards made pictures that looked Spanish, Ethiopians made pictures that looked Ethiopian, Japanese made pictures that looked Japanese, etc.  (I think I saw one in a museum by a Danish artist that gave Mary red hair actually.)  This is not recent, the Virgin of Gaudeloupe (the "brown lady," brown being mestiza here, not Arab (or Shephardi Jew) and not European Spanish either) was done in 1531.  There are Japanese Virgin Mary's from hundreds of years ago, and of course the Ethiopian church is one of the oldest there is.   There's nothing nefarious about this, except insofar as the European version crowded out other local versions in certain places (though understandably there can also be confusion or tension where a society has become more diverse and thus the pictures look dated).

This is a great example where the current trend toward iconoclasm ("let's hate on or even destroy cultural artifacts to show how woke we are") is totally wrong.  We should simply encourage people to draw Jesus and Mary however the heck they want. Middle-eastern, hispanic, white, native american, sub-saharan african, asian, indian, aborigonal.  Whatever. 
 And of course some depictions that intend to be as historically accurate as possible would be nice too, but that's not necessary for religious iconograpgy.

As relates to the debate about removing images, I think my idea of "let's create even more beautiful inclusive religious art that is reflective of our increasingly diverse communities" and the other idea of "I don't know why everyone isn't tearing down all the statutes," I'm going to go with my idea as better in the long run for many reasons.  Usually the people whose impulse is "let's keep all of our current art and culture and just expand it and have even more art and culture" tend to be better regarded by history than those whose impulse is "tear it down, burn it down."

FWIW, most Jewish people identify as white.  But if they all chose to declare themselves "brown" then this would still be fundamentally a pretty stupid debate.  [/quote]

You are much too well informed and reasonable to be posting here. Shame.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics