Sun, Nov 22, 2009
EURweb |
|
Back to the Article »
Click Here
|
|---|
| Click here to post your comments. |
|
Name:
MrsPhoenix
Comment: "Like it or hate it, it really shouldn’t matter at the end of the day."
Miss Nassardeen, if it doesn't matter what Jesus' skin color was, then why do White folks force THEIR perception of His skin color as White onto the masses of the people? "It really shouldn't matter"...right?
|
|
Name:
poeticlyspkng
Comment: If her intentions are to stir pots and counter the thinking of the masses, it does not make sense that she is attempting to dismount the belief that Jesus could have been black. Fact is, the masses in this country believe him to be white.
|
|
Name:
jab122
Comment: I get the point of Ms. Nassardeen's arguement, I agree, because race is a social construct it does not truly have a universal meaning. "Black" in the US is very different than "Black" in Brazil, so there is no real means of classifying races across the board. I also do not really get caught up in the idea of the race of Jesus, because his humanly form has nothing to do with what he fully represents. When I think of God and his descendents, I think of the positive energy that they represent and emit. Jesus' bodily form was just a vessel through which to spread the word, and no more. I think the discussion of who Jesus was can go well beyond his racial characteristics, and could approach just who he was and his role in history... One final point, I am assuming that the authors statement that over 85% of white america is 'black' was hyperbole, cause I don't necessarily believe that fact, or does she have facts to back that up...
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: While I agree that race is a social construct, skin color is not. People of different lands are comprised of different colors. Jesus was of a land based in color. White folk since his death have made him in their likeness, which is the basis behind the opposing viewpoint. What I don't get about the basis of this article is if the author purports to be "Christian" and is not interested in arguing about God, then why write this article to begin with? What makes her belief and theory any more relevant than the next person's? No, Jesus wasn't black by race, he was coloured by skin tone. I find it interesting how "Christians" seem to be the only folks who say they don't care what Jesus looked like, but in fact, because of Christianity, we were all led to believe Jesus was white. It is about the message Jesus brought-we are all to live as he lived. But do we?
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: Well said Mer82, well said. And no, we don't live as Jesus lived, Societies never have, we've always been too busy telling other folks how to live and be.
|
|
Name:
DCGG
Comment: Exellent retort Mer82 why write the article in the first place - the answer is simple - to get a huge reaction from EUR posters...BIG OLE YAWWWWWNNNNN - she's right Jesus wasn't black - he was probably more paper sack brown. However, I like MOKelly's idea of allowing guest writers...however mundane they are...
|
|
Name:
ATLGirl
Comment: I've often wondered if I was the only one who noticed the prevalence of the "one drop rule" in the US. Interesting article.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Damn...you are all as ruthless as I suspected. Tough, tough crowd.
|
|
Name:
ATLGirl
Comment: If a "Black" person doesn't adhere to the "one drop rule" (like Tiger Woods for example) are they a race traitor? Are they self-hating? Are they attempting to separate themselves from "Black" people? Should they call themselves "Black" and make it a point of saying other ethnicities don't matter to them? On the other hand, some "Black" people of mixed ancestry, who claim "Black" are still called "not Black enough" by Black folks, e.g. Halle Berry.
|
|
Name:
Renegade
Comment: Alicia your attempt to stir up a big pot of Gumbo has failed. You have served up a pot of Shat instead! You should have attacked it from the angle of white folks with their Da Vinci type images of a "white" Jesus.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: Ok, I'm gonna try to address everyone's concerns here.
*big stretch*
Ok,
MrsPhoenix - I can't answer for white folks. DaVinci deciding to portray Him that way ushered all that in...I can't call it. And it shouldn't matter. Personally, I've never subscribed to the white Jesus theory either.
poeticlyspkng - This is true. The masses do believe that, but I like to play on the opposite side of the coin. Why argue what black people have been arguing for decades? My "masses" are my regular audience (I blog for another site)...and I don't write to confirm beliefs of my audience.
jab122 - that's what I was saying. Jesus shouldn't be held to standards imposed by social constructs - no more, no less. And I tend to write in hyperbole...I got that from dad.
MER82 - a theological debate would have shifted away from the purposes of what I wrote. It's been my experience that such debates can get pretty heated - if you want to go there, hit me at my e-mail address.
Royale55 - I completely agree with this.
DCGG - Ummm...yeah. I come here to read Mo's articles, rarely do I read the responses to them. Your reactions weren't what I was looking for at all. As I stated before, I blog for another site. =o)
ATLGirl - That tripped me out too...the fact that it was actually a law (in ANY state for that matter) is bananas.
MoKells - you told me this would happen. LOL.
ATLGirl - such is the plight of the tragic mulatto...
Renegade - that was just rude...LOL...but (as I stated earlier) why argue what black people have been arguing for years? To this audience or my regular audience. I didn't want to "attack" it from that angle, so I didn't. Wouldn't have been as fun for me to come back and read all of this.
Thanks for reading...no one really comments on the other site anyway.
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: Pligga: Well I do like a good heated debate from time to time...I thought about hitting you up because I wasn't sure you would read these comments, but nah--I am not up for it today. There are those who believe Jesus was the son of God and God manifested, and there are those who believe we are all children of God. I happen to fall in the later category~ there really isn't much left to debate.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: MER82 - I figured y'all wouldn't. LOL. Then again, it would be very "tuck-tailish" of me to not "defend" my work. And I love a debate as well...gets the blood pressure working. =o)
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Pligga...you are a great disciple (no pun intended). Stand your ground!
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: ;o) - What's that they say? Stick to the fight when you're hardest hit? Something like that. LOL.
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: I loved the article! We are so bounded by Race that we don't always realize what truly matters.
Euro's have made him their color b/c that's how they FEEL. It doesn't make it true.
Interesting -- You gave me a lot to ponder. And since I'm not an avid bible reader, you gave me a lesson too:)
kudos.
|
|
Name:
mayday
Comment: *Yawn*......hopefully the author's logic, theories and analytical reasoning will expand and improve as she grows and matures. Xaxixavi...do not spend a lot of time pondering this article.....read a couple of books on Black History, World Religion and Christianity......you will be fine.
|
|
Name:
jab122
Comment: Dang, folks sure are harsh in here today!! I thought the article was interesting and a good topic for discussion. On a related and somewhat lighter note, what do people think of the one drop rule? Is it valid? If not, how would one define what is Black or African American? Note: I am not a proponent of the one drop rule, just asking a question for discussion's sake.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ mayday...not sure what the books are supposed to prove. Please clarify, if you don't mind. I'm always open to expansion.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: I would offer this...if you have spent time trying to argue whether Jesus was any specific color...then the piece is valid fodder.
I suspect all of us have. It's a bit difficult to 'argue' whether the piece was 'yawn' material. Seeing as how one read it, then responded in the comment section, that contradicts any %*$ertion of 'yawn'.
If it were a 'yawn' TV show...I change the channel before the next commercial...not watch it all and enter into debate afterwards.
Nothing wrong with being harsh...but the actions are contradicting some of the harsh criticism.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: I was gonna say that...but I 'on know y'all like that. =o)
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: To Jab...I consider 'Black' to be both...the African lineage and also the psychological consciousness and acknowledgement. For me you gotta have both.
To the person of African descent who says "I'm not Black...I'm Haitian" or some craziness like that.
I just agree. "You're not Black" because Black is a state of mind too in my estimation.
|
|
Name:
Molefi
Comment: Alicia,
Of course you are aware that the image of the divine DOES matter. If it didn't why would you be angering anyone by saying he's black or not. If the image of the divine is the same as the most evil being known to human (hue man)kind, you know you are in a hopeless situation. If the image of evil is depicted as black. Then your hope is the elimination of evil (read hue man). Do you know any race bent on killing every man and beast on this planet. Since you like fiction reading (the bible is pure fiction) try some non fiction history. Read "The Missionaries, God Against the Indians" by Norman Lewis. You'll get a taste of how religion (the bible) is shaped to fit the environment. In this book you'll read that the Panare Indian was the tribe who killed Christ. By the time this concept was accepted by this indigenious tribe they were wearing european clothes, suffering from euorpean diseases and seen leaving their mineral rich land to seek Jesus' forgiveness. Sound familiar, it should but only to someone rooted in the pursuit of truth not Jesus.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ Molefi: My point was not to anger everyone...I don't control that. Besides that, one can argue that any and everything is shaped to fit the environment you are in. You learn what people want you to learn; you read books based on points of view that people want you to prescribe to; everything is relative to an author, a scribe, or a teacher's perspective. The knowledge of a people can shift based on a paradigm that a generation chooses to subscribe to - and it has...several times. So I really said all that to say that arguing about what the truth is is inane because the truth shifts depending on whose vantage point you're viewing it from. Clearly we believe different things. Interesting story though. I'll check it out.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: And upon further review of the Panare situation...I don't really see what that has to do with what I was talking about. Sure enough, those missionaries were foul for what they did in rearranging scripture to convert people (which wasn't done or promoted in the Bible at all - and that's another topic entirely), but I don't see how you got all the way over there from what I wrote. *shrug*
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: 2 major points of debate here...
#1 Was Jesus Black?
#2 Is this important in the grand scheme of Christianity? (i.e. accepting Christ as Lord and Savior...not accepting Christ as relative of LeRoy and Shaniqua.)
If we keep the discussion within the framework of applying a Jim Crow definition of 'Black' to a 'man' who arguably had far more non-African blood running through his veins...how should this be viewed and should we care from a Christian standpoint?
Also, Alicia...I didn't take your 85% of White folks to be 'Black' as hyperbole...if you subscribe to the 'one drop' philosophy and you understand the racial mixing of southern Spaniards and southern Italians with north Africans...it's not unrealistic.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: And that's not counting the Africans who mixed with American Indians (who mixed with the Spaniards) to form 'Mexicans' (Mestizos)...etc. I would not think it 'unbelievable' to think more than 3/4 of this country has 'one drop' of African blood coarsing through their veins.
And by Jim Crow definition...that makes them Black.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Aww you got me going now. Since we're talking about 'books' to read. Maybe we should include 'Stolen Legacy' and the 'mixing' of the Greeks and Egyptians and the spread of Egyptian math (as well as people).
And since we 'know' Hannibal was 'Black' and Rome's greatest enemy...you're telling me that Italy wasn't also 'impacted' racially along the way?
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: "The term 'greek philosophy' to begin with is a misnomer, because there is no such philosophy to begin with."
Sorry...I had to read that book at a very young age and I've never forgotten it. =o)
|
|
Name:
queeniebunz
Comment: I'm going to step outside the box on this one. As I have grown as a Christian, I have come to realize that the higher I climb in my faith, the less race matters to me. It really doesn't. Race drags you back down into the world when dwelled on. This doesn't mean that I don't see racism when it happens. I do. And it doesn't mean that I don't stand up for myself and others when necessary. Race isn't my focus. I really don't care what color Jesus was. If I had to guess, based on my limited knowledge and my 7 years teaching social studies, I'd say that he was probably more tan like a Middle Eastern man. But, I really don't care. All I do care about is that He died for my sins and that He commanded me to love others. That's what matters. I agree with the person who said this young woman needs to grow a bit more. You reach a certain level spiritually and following the Word of God matters. The color/appearance of the people in the Bible is irrelevant.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ queenie - that was precisely my point. Sure it was a one-liner, but it really was the point.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: OK, Queeniebunz...I feel you on that. But what about this? What if Black children understood that felt a connection to Jesus as a Black 'role model' of sorts to help redirect this Black inferiority complex we have...isn't that beneficial too?
Granted, we shouldn't 'conform' to this world, but 'be ye transformed' by the renewing of your mind'...
But couldn't the positive reinforcement of the 'Black' image of Jesus be that first step in the renewal of Black children's minds?
I'm just playing both sides of the argument to further the discussion.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ Mo - queenie mentoned that as she grows more in faith, the less that race matters. I found that in my walk, the higher I climbed, the more I found out about what being a Christian was about. At first, it's just be be saved. As I went on, I found out about the Great Commission and rights and responsibilities that we have as Christians. I think the same goes for those black children that need a positive black role model of sorts. A black Jesus can start the process of renewing a child's mind. As that child grows, race will become less and less important. The focus should always be on His message because no matter what He actually looked like, that will always remain a constant.
|
|
Name:
Molefi
Comment: My contention is that Jesus is an invention. We have King James and the Nicene Council to thank. If you look at the map the bible portrays you see the world of Jesus was Europe, Asia and North Africa. (The same flat world Christopher Columbus knew). So God didn't even include a round world in his scripture. People please, WAKE UP!
|
|
Name:
JohnBrown
Comment: I'm not a Christian, so take this with as many grains of salt as you'd like, but...
After the exodus from Egypt, some percentage of the Hebrews had African ancestry. (What percentage? Who knows.) The Bible says that Joseph and Moses had African wives. How many less prominent Hebrews also had African husbands and wives?
So it is very possible that Jesus was of African ancestry. What is the likelihood? Who knows.
Of course if one follows one's family tree back sufficiently far, we are all of African ancestry, because nearly all scientists believe that humans originated in Africa. :-)
|
|
Name:
ATLGirl
Comment: Morris-->"...What if Black children understood that felt a connection to Jesus as a Black 'role model' of sorts to help redirect this Black inferiority complex we have...isn't that beneficial too? " -- Maybe this is outside the scope of the article, but why must Black people be so literal. I understand you're not suggesting that Jesus be a role model because he's Black, but...Why is the mindset that "someone who look like me" must do something before I can do it? Why isn't the mindset "I can be the first who does it"? Not very eloquent, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ JohnBrown - not contending that Jesus had African ancestry at all. Many people in His geneaology are widely believed and accepted as descendants of Ham (read: of dark complexion or African) I also believe that we are all of African descent, however, that doesn't make everyone "black" as we in America know it.
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: ATLgirl-because before you can be the first, you have to believe you can be the first. Where does the belief come from? It has to be intrinsic to work. It can't be because I went to a good school or had two parents in the home, or I make this much money. Black folk need to relearn some of the real history, the TRUTH-and sorry to say but that does mean stepping outside of the Bible and the scope of religion--No offense to anyone.
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: Not to be facetious but I don't think the argument was ever that Jesus was Black like we know it in America. I don't think folk think Jesus was enslaved. But his peoples did originate in Africa--how were they able to hide in Africa as the story goes, if they were not of AfroAsian descent? I think that is why folks are "yawning" all over this topic. LOL.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: ATL Girl - I feel you and agree with you to a point. I think ALL children, Black or not need the visual identification.
If children can see it and relate to it, then there's that seed to identify with it/Him.
I hear far too often that 'our' children don't grow up thinking that they can become the lawyer or doctor because they don't 'see' that in their neighborhoods. There is this absence of 'greatness'. The 'idea' of being related to the 'Son of Man' is a powerful idea.
To make the connection for African American children (who are often taught that our only contribution to the world was slavery and spear tips) that we are more than just what the world will try to tell us we are is a powerful idea.
Agreed, as we grow in faith, we don't need, use or want these crutches anymore...but they on some level might have a place.
For example, back when I said that 'being Black' contained a conscious aspect...when I LOOK at Thurgood Marshall, Adam Clayton Powell et. al I don't think of them as predominantly African-American because of their skin, I think of it because of their consciousness. Me growing up and having those 'role models' to identify with was very important in my development I can surely say. To summarize...the identification with greatness does have its place I would argue.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: For the unaware, Adam Clayton Powell and Dr. Charles Drew for example 'looked' White for the most part.
|
|
Name:
JohnBrown
Comment: PliggaNeese - Is Jesus considered to be descended from Ham and not Shem? Or is it both? I'm not familiar with the Gospels, but I thought that Jews are descendents of Shem (Semites).
Also, I understand your point about "Black" vs. African ancestry.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ Royale - none taken here. And black people are largely ignorant of their history - their preslavery history, that is. If many knew about it, a lot of these complexes wouldn't exist. I had the fortune of getting a lot of that information during elementary and junior high school...it gives you that boldness to think you can do anything that is missing in many people today.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: I fully disagree Royale...THAT IS and has BEEN the argument. The American social construct of 'Black' is what we 'perceive' Jesus as being 'Black' to be in the parameters of these discussions.
find me a picture of the supposed 'Black Jesus' and you'll find an African-American looking man...not an African looking man.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: I rest my case...
http://picturesofjesus4you.com/jesus_black.html
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ Royale - they yawned because they missed the point. Many feel he was black like we know it in America. NOT ONCE have I heard someone say "Jesus was African." Not arguing that His skin was dark, not arguing that His people didn't originate in Africa (I believe I state these in the blog); however both of those arguments serve as grounds for designating someone as black in this country (regardless of any other heritage they may possess) and that isn't always the case. What of white people with African ancestors? Or slave ancestors for that matter? No one sees them as black.
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: Morris you made your own point though. The pics of Jesus you are referring to show him in the image of black Americans who many of us identify with as being Africans in Amerikkka. I don't necessarily disagree with the points that you and your cohort bring up in this article, I just think they are not worthwhile ones. If you want to talk about looks--do you look African? I mean I think we are really speaking about two sides to the same coin. Black in America is about consciousness, but when historians refer to a Black Jesus, they mean he originated in Africa, not Harlem.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ JohnBrown - per His lineage, he is a descendant of Shem who was the "father" of the south western Asian nations (Persia, Assyria, etc). However, the lineages are partiarchal and sometimes don't account for a Hamitic woman in the mix.
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: I have always heard people who talk about truth talk about Jesus as being of African descent-that or AfroAsiatic, never from NYC, ATL or L.A. I don't get the purpose for this topic???
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: The point: Not all people of African descent are "black" as we know it. Designating them as black is something that only Americans seem to do.
You're way in left-field.
|
|
Name:
queeniebunz
Comment: I'll say it again - all of this focus on what color people are really does damage to the black community. We put each other down for being light or dark. We put each other down if we are mixed for not claiming to be black enough. We are always focused on being black. We play the race card at every opportunity, whether it's valid or not (Tawana Brawley, OJ Simpson, McKinney, etc.) and all we do is keep ourselves from our purpose on this planet. Racism is a ploy of the enemy. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. It doesn't matter what color you are if you are guided by Christ in your life. You are going to make it because He is stronger than the KKK, the Nazis, the GW Bushes of this world. Jesse Owens, MLK, Wilma Rudolph, Jackie Robinson, Thurgood Marshall, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey, Alice Walker, all know this. When you are fulfilling your purpose, race cannot stand in your way. That being the case, why even have the discussion of whether Jesus was light/dark/purple/green/etc.? What we really need to concentrate on is why our young men are over there in the Middle East being killed daily. We need to focus on cleaning up New Orleans. We need to focus on bringing down these gas prices so people don't go bankrupt at the pump trying to get to and from their 9 to 5. We need to focus on improving our finances (good stewardship) and home ownership. We need to focus on curing diseases, becoming doctors and scientists and lawyers and business owners. We need to focus on our young people getting education and reading the Bible instead of watching nasty raunchy videos and playing violent video games. That should be our focus. I have a personal relationship with Jesus and race has never come up in our conversations...
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: Puhlease. White folk don't even claim Eqypt as part of Africa. They damn sure as a whole would not own up to their own African ancestry. We know the first civilizations of Humans came out of Africa and the coloured world. But only some of us know that. Majority population would have us to believe otherwise. When folk say Jesus was black, he came to his people, who did not look like the Romans and he spread his word. White folk have a problem with that, because they wouldn't want to follow a man of color, the way they have treated the people of the world. Jesus had to be made and adapted to be like them. Everything in history has been twisted up and most of the folk of the world have been caught up in the webs every since.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: Some Egyptians don't think they're African. LOL.
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: Pligga: No, the topic is in left field, it really is irrelevant what people mean when they say 'Jesus is Black'-as long as they acknowledge he was of color and can move forward from there. All the things queenie addressed are where the focus should be, but how can that be the focus if people can't agree on who and what they believe? In reality this is where religion fails and spirituality steps in. To live as Jesus lived and not believed he died for us but because of us. We all have to get it together, we are the ones not living faithfully and allowing all sorts of atrocities to develop.
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: Pligga-that is because all the colored people of the world have bought into the notion of internalized oppression. It all comes from the same source.
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: Peace people.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ Royale - I believed I addressed this in the blog as well. At the end of the day, His skin color, heritage, and the whole nine are unimportant. It's His message that is. Your comment about LA, ATL, and Harlem was definitely out there - my topic is fodder for a discussion. Your last sentence I agree with. The penultimate sentence...not so much. But then again, that's another discussion.
And who said this had to be a serious topic with the goal of pointing out the problems with black people and where they need to focus? Lighten up.
@ MER82 - You remind me of one of my good friends. You guys would have great conversations (I'm being SO serious right now).
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: If anyone has to 'debate' whether this is a worthy subject...then you've just lent credence to the fact that it's a worthy subject.
Again, we only spend our time doing that which is worth our mind's eye.
To spend this much time talking about this issue is proof of its relevance. Far too often folks want to discount the importance of an issue simply because they might not agree. If you're going to argue tooth and nail for the better part of a day...de facto it's then important.
|
|
Name:
poeticlyspkng
Comment: Wow. Very interesting debate sparked by this article. In response to my original statement and as a black person, I've never felt the need to consider Jesus black but then I also did not picture him white. Only a few of my more "militant" friends have ever argued the case. Most people I know just worship as we are more interested in his principles than his skin color. Hence my original comments, most Christian people I know are not caught up in the appearance.
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: poeticlyspkng-your comments reflect what I originally said.
|
|
Name:
Angel
Comment: PliggaNeese & Morris - It's ironic that YT folks came up with the 1 drop rule and then later it was discovered that all humanity began in Africa--meaning that if you believe in the 1 drop rule, then EVERYBODY is black. LOL
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: I love this, almost everytime I think of writing something someone else get's to it.
Pligga, knowing a few egyptians, I can tell you this -- they do consider themselves african, they just don't consider themselves black. They like indians and other brown skinned people.
That used to bother me until I realized that black is a Euro constuct -- transformed from negro (litterally the color black).
The bible doesn't do this intrinsically. It's more sublte (speaking more of tones), and seems to do this more to get a picture in your mind than to emphasize the color.
Mo's point is exactly correct. Black is a state of mind (mostly having to do w/ Euro/American societal constratints). African refers to our lineage, and that is factual.
We as american, find it hard to grasp this b/c we have lived w/ it for soo long.
|
|
Name:
MOTHERSHIP
Comment: God and Jesus is/are of African descent. The Garden of Eden and everything else was based in Africa. Most of humanity derived from Africa and spread out. MER82, on the real.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: Thanks xavi. I completely feel your comment. And for the record, I never said Jesus was not of African descent...really. It's in there. I promise!
|
|
Name:
mayday
Comment: Morris...your theory on my *yawn* was...? From your experience and point of view the yawn contradicted the action of reading the entire article. LOL, OK! My comment was for Xaxixavi...in response to his/her comment stating "You gave me a lot to ponder. And since I'm not an avid bible reader, you gave me a lesson too:) kudos."....if Xaxixavi is not an avid bible reader or an avid reader of black history or religion (or any other book) then he/she should broaden their horizons and read and learn and form their own opinion versus taking an article off of an internet site as a "lesson". I did not enter the debate about the content of the article for two reasons...1. I only have about 10 minutes to spend on EUR per day.....2. The article would lead to a lot of posts about.....theory, point of view, opinion(nothing wrong with that)and I would rather participate in a debate on a topic based on facts (like how high these gas prices are). I never debate religion in any forum. Keep up the good work!
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Mayday...I'm only saying...if the topic/discussion was 'boring' to you, it would seem more logical not to even finish the piece or engage in the subsequent discussion.
I don't spend any time 'discussing' that which doesn't mentally invigorate me. I suspect that's true of most people.
If you are saying that the piece did not advance the discussion beyond points you've felt that have already been made in other published pieces...that's one thing. But to me, that's still different than 'yawn'. I was getting the feeling that you were saying the subject matter itself is not interesting.
If not...this is day two and the multitude of us...still here.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: If we can boil it down to two points that I think are getting lost.
Jesus may have been of "African descent". A point I don't think anyone is arguing.
BUT...
To say whether Jesus was 'Black' which we all seem to agree is a social construct and definition born of American racism is the issue here.
It's a distinction without a real difference to some, but there's a difference.
To me...'Black' says African-American and all that luggage that comes along with it. It says a certain type of consciousness. It says Jesus was less than Lord and Savior, it says he was a man and no more.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: It's like that old math analogy and geometric proof.
All squares are rhombi...but not all rhombi are squares.
All 'Black' people are of African descent, but I would argue that not all people of African descent (or possess one drop of Black blood) are Black.
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: I see what you are saying in your last two posts Morris-but the reason folk like myself feel the article is baseless is because its reduced to arguing over semantics. Now the topic of Jesus being a man, as a prophet, or as God, is another topic altogether and thus the reason why I questioned writing the article to begin with if Pligga (the author) did not want to debate about religion.
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: And Mo-to your last comment-you best believe not all people of African descent are black-he11 look at Charlize Theron who is "from" South Africa. But arguing about whether DARK- coloured Brazilians, Jamaicans, Africans, Cubans, Dominicans, and other people of the sun, are considered Black, and treated accordingly, just ask any White person, in any country. So it really goes back to semantics. Whatever country you are from, if your racial characteristics look more "negroid" than any other, you best believe you will be considered black by the white world.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: I happen to like semantics thankyouverymuch. The definition of what black is intrigues me because of the variance you come across in people's opinions. I used JC as a focal point because I hear the argument come up a lot. *shrug*
|
|
Name:
MER82
Comment: But in the case of Jesus, its not relevant.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: I said that in the blog. Feel free to step outside the box.
|
|
Name:
Kofi
Comment: In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Christian. I think the bible is a mixture of profound truths and fairy tales. Having stated my bias, I think the issue of what race Jesus was is largely irrelevant. What is more important are the political uses of Christianity. Christianity has been used to maintain white surpremacy. Christianity has the potential to be a force for liberations both physically and spiritually. Anything else is sort of like fleas arguing about the breed of dog they are riding on.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: Ok, ok, ok...Let me put it this way. There is a local point and a global point. The local point is the debate about whether or not Jesus is black - shallow at best - and the end result was that it does not matter. The global point speaks to how we as (black) Americans define what black is. One of African ancestry (like Jesus) isn't always considered to be black, so why is He (among black people, naturally)? Why are any of us considered to be? Why do we always assign a mixed person the race of the social subordinate? Why do you consider yourself or the next person to be black? Do you base it solely on skin tone or mindset? Or is it because we don't have a specific nation to tie ourselves to so we use the generic color?
I didn't want to debate theology. I used Jesus as an example to illustrate a larger issue of how and why we classify certain people as black. Some got it, some didn't. Yeesh...
|
|
Name:
MrsPhoenix
Comment: I would like to commend ALL of the posters regarding our approach to Sister Nassardeen's guest column. The posters, in my opinion, rose above emotion and articulated their thoughts in an intelligent and constructive way (i.e. ANTI-"sultry", and if you don't know what I'm talking about, ask Big Bro. Mo :). We are NOT a monolithic race of people, and there is more than one road to God. Peace out ya'll!
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: And so is the purpose of this column...although this may be largely an entertainment website...there is much we can learn from one-another.
|
|
Name:
KatrinaMBA
Comment: "True enough, Jesus did have black ancestors, but He also had Israeli and Arab ancestors." - WRONG! Jesus was a Hebrew man born of a Hebrew woman. He did not have Israeli or Arab ancestors. His ancestors were Abraham and Sarah, both Black Hebrews and the father/mother of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Israeli is a nationalistic term like American. It only describes a person who lives in the State of Israel. Judaism predates Christianity and Islam by 1300+ years, hence the term Judeo-Christian. Also the "Arabs" you refer do did not exist during the so-called time of The Krest or The Christ. Judaisim's only predacessors are The Ancient Egyptians who are the architects of monotheistic religion in its modern form. Any amateur who has minimal study in comparative religion could have clued you into this game. As a "so-called" Chistian, you should be more knowlegeable into how and where your religion was derived. You should also know about the Roman influence in which the "Krest"ian religion was whitewashed so that the Mythical Body of The Krest or "The Christ" became the Literal Body of Christ to rip Krestians away from true Judaic teachings and ritualistic Judaic practice. Jesus was a Hebrew and a Black man. Ask your Pastor (hopefully he's a Dr of Divinity, a learned man, and not some "jack leg"). Read a book. Then decide for yourself if the things you have stated are really anchored in facts. http://www.inetmgrs.com/onepeoples/hebrewisraelites_bo oks.htm
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ Katrina - I see your MBA is serving you well.
The reason I used the terms "Israeli" and "Arab" was so people who aren't familiar with the regions that the Old Testament people inhabited could identify with them more easily. As I stated in an earlier comment, Jesus was a descendant of Shem who "fathered" many of the southwestern Asian nations (including Persia, which is now Iran, which is presently included under the "Arab" designation). As a descendant of David who was of the house of Judah, and of Abraham who fathered the 12 tribes of Israeal as you say, I believe that I can say that Jesus had "Israeli" ancestors. Regardless if they were black or not, they are still of Israel. For example - there is a city in Israel called Dimona. There are nothing but North African people and their progeny over there, but they are Israeli in that they are residents of that area. Thank you for clarifying that I did not mean "Israeli" and "Arab" in the sense the words are used in today. The rest of what you said is largely irrelevant to the discussion. I merely wrote an opinion piece on the qualification of race. And my pastor does have a D.D. ;o)
Now when you called Abraham and Sarah "Black Hebrews," did you mean they were of African descent? If so, why are you calling them black and not African?
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: And I believe that Akhenaten (the pharoah that "ushered" in monotheism in Egypt) was labeled a heretic and had most of his work destroyed upon his succession while Egypt went back to polytheism as it had done prior to his reign. Not that it was germane to the topic or anything like that, but since you brought it up...
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: Pligga, You are correctg on Akenhaten's fate. After his death, the tried to erase as much of him and his religion as they could!
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: Mayday, "the lesson" I was referring to was the description of Jesus. I had always taken it for granted that the description was as she first said when she was listening for crickets, before the clarification.
I'm not an avid Bible reader is all that I said. An honest %*$esment that I believe would characterize many a "christian". I cannot quote chapter and verse like some, but may know a bit more than others.
To take that as an inference that I don't know my Black history is asinine.
She gave me more to ponder, but I had already agreed w/ her!
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: As for the person who said that semantics aren't important.
Semantics is very important. When you hear a word, it is associated w/ feelings that's semantics.
maid/domestic, cook/chef, Black/African, terrorist/revolutionairy are all words meaning the same thing to some people. It depends on one's perspective.
We have been so jaded, that we forget, "like mo said", that all black people are of african descent, but not all people of african descent are black or darker skinned. That's not semantics, that's just plain fact!
It's the connotation that comes along w/ "black" that makes Indians, Egyptians, and many of the african nations not identify themselves as "BLACK"!!
Pligga, try asking some Nigerians, Ethiopians, South Africans that same question, and see what you get. Many go for the term African, before going for black!
Futhermore, scholars now admit to Jesus being African, they will NEVER, imho say he was black.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: Well put. Of all the Africans and 1st American born generations of Africans, very few of them call themselves "black." They will identify with their nationality before their skin color...Now, is that why WE call ourselves black? Is it because we have no nation to identify with outside of America?
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: Pligga, that's only a piece of the puzzle. We call ourselves what we were "TOLD" to call ourselves (see.. toby vs. kunga).
They called us black, told us we were black, we said "ok, we is black suh", and have tried to own "black" like "nixxer" ever since.
That's why we get all upset when the Tiger Wood's, Mariah's, Sade's et al try to identify w/ anything other than "Black" or African American. Their parents tried to instill in them the thought that whatever "White americans" see, they are more than skin tone, and "Black Americans" go up in arms about it!
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Wow...this is getting REAL deep.
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: meant toby vs. kunta kinte sorry
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ xavi - and I think that sucks. Why should Tiger shun his Thai heritage? Better yet, why should he shun his MOTHER? He is Thai and black. Why should he have to only identify with "the blackness" to appease black people? We treat "blackness" like yeast - a little bit affects the entire lump of dough. Sure we can own it, but everyone doesn't want to own just that part of themselves...why judge them for appreciating and recognizing all of their heritage? Why box them in to "black?" We get enough of that from outsiders.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: I can only speak for myself...but I am a Black man...African-American descent. I readily identify with the history and consciousness of Africans IN America. I identify with the larger body of Africans IN America.
Granted, that is most definitely a by-product of racism and isn't logical in the sense of the fact that few if any of us are 'Black' anymore. There is more yellow and brown hues than any Black.
And it is true, we as 'Black' people don't have any country in which to identify. And that's why phrases like BET is NOT racist and WET (White Entertainment Television) would be.
I know, I've digressed...but the point here is that BLACK in America is a choice, not necessarily an ethnicity. It's almost like a political party affiliation.
To that end...Jesus made no such choice, nor would he.
Ergo, Jesus wasn't Black.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: @ Mo - word. There is no alternative to it, really. I like the parallel of being black to political party affiliation. We share a common history as black people in America - it's a tie that binds us. Sometimes it's the only tie. But to tie that term to JC...not so much.
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: nuff said...
...At least till some1 else tries to insult my intelligence!
|
|
Name:
mayday
Comment: Morris...in your words....If you are saying that the piece did not advance the discussion beyond points you've felt that have already been made in other published pieces...that's one thing. Yes, that is exactly what I was saying...although not as eloquently as you. xavixavi.....I was not insulting your intelligence I was only making an observation. Loved the exchange between KatrinaMBA and Pligga.
|
|
Name:
MrsPhoenix
Comment: Ahhhh, so nice to see and read constructive & respectful debate instead of another "%*$!(@ @ The Apollo" set of postings :)
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Ok, we've covered whether Jesus is/is not Black. Now out of complete selfishness, I need some help here.
Is Mo'Kelly Negro?
On my birth certificate it says I and my mother are. I really felt old when I saw that.
I don't think I want to be called Negro...although California Hospital says I am.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Yes, I admit it...I'm old (1969)
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: MO, I don't want to debate whether or not you are negro.. See my comment above.
I want to know why you think being born in 1969 makes you old.......... That means I'm older, and I ain't havin it!!!
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: xavixavi - I'm 'old' because when I was under 30, everybody over 30 was 'old.' And either I was a liar then or extremely misled.
It's tough to think I'm closer to 50 than age 21.
Oh the pain of age...
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: Well...instead of "old," let's call you "experienced." Eh? Eh?
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: Like pliggas way of thinking, but to me is older than me.... That means that when I'm 85 old will be older than 85. As long as it's a moving target.
Like everyone else I'm getting older, but I dread the day when I start callin myself old. I prefer to think that you were EXTREMELY misled back in the day:)
|
|
Name:
xavixavi
Comment: Plus have you seen janet!! She's older than you!!! Would you call HER old??
She's my age
|
|
Name:
JohnBrown
Comment: Like xavixavi, "old" will always be 10 or 20 years older than whatever age I am. :-)
MorrisOKelly, I laughed at your comment that being born in 1969 makes you old. My "baby" sister was born in '69. She's got children of her own, but I would never think to describe her as old.
|
|
Name:
nefertiti
Comment: I AGREE WITH MOTHERSHIP, AND WHAT JESUS LOOKS LIKE SHOULDN'T MATTER BUT IT DOES, HERE IN AMERICA THEY USE IT TO SUBJUGATE US, BUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD HE IS THOUGHT OF AS A MAN OF COLOR, I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT HE IS A MAN OF COLOR.
|
|
Name:
swagg
Comment: Interesting article however, the discussion should be moot for all Christians. If Jesus was not white in the first place (and he was not), then we're all guilty of idolatry! Especially when we sit a watch the images produced by Hollywood. If any Christian prays with that Hollywood image in their mind, he/she is in the act of idolatry. It has been known for quite some time now that Jesus was not white. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. Debating the level of hue in his skin is wasting time and energy. Flee from idolatry!
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: Mo-next time let's see some more seasoned guest writers appear in this column~thanks.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: This is how they become seasoned... =o)
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: I believe showcasing unseasoned writers was his point in opening his column up for guest writers... "The Mo’Kelly Report will feature guest writers from time to time; allowing them a platform to develop their published portfolios as well as polish their poetic prose. If you are an aspiring writer..." *shrug*
|
|
Name:
Royale55
Comment: Shrug indeed.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: ...
Well alright then!
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Pligga...you stole my thunder. I can't say it any better.
Wait...those WERE my words! :)
I do though suspect that because Royale55 disagrees with Pligga, therein lies the jab at being 'unseasoned.'
I think Alicia did a fabulous job...
Day 4...still covering this subject. That says volumes. My first column here didn't approach this much traffic. It took me a good year to generate this type of traffic.
The proof is in the pudding. The column is relevant.
|
|
Name:
PliggaNeese
Comment: Sweet!
|
|
Name:
kenyatta2006
Comment: Peace and blessings to you. I agree with you that the concept of race is an illusion. It is a system designed by white supremacist to create confusion in the minds of the 90% of the worlds non-white people by subdividing them on the basis of color. While confusing non-white people, it allows "white" people or Eurogentiles to justify mistreatment of non-white people on the basis of color.
The one drop rule was created by white supremacist witch doctors as medical mythology to prevent the miscegenation between White and nonwhite. They understood, that miscengation between white and non-white people would be mean the genetic annihilation of those people who classify themselves as "White".
The Bible states that from one blood all nations. Let's examine the one blood. We know from the Bible that in Genesis the Garden of Eden was located between the Gihon and Pishon rivers (Blue and White Nile) that encompassed the land of Ethiopia. This is in Africa. According to the Bible the first man and women were Adam and Eve. The name Adam in the Hebrew is actually
"Aphar ha adamah". Adham means dark or black soil. It is a scientific fact that the first humans were found in that area of the Bible in Central Africa. These two facts show Biblically and scientifically that the first human beings were "black" and non-white. Let also also establish that the european "white" skin is genetically recessive while "black" or dark skin in genetically dominant. African people can produce albino's. White people cannot produce dark skin. It is a proven fact, that geneticists have confirmed the "one blood" concept by tracing the Mitochondrial DNA to the first African women in Central Africa.
Now let's establish that Jesus was non-white. The European image of Jesus was created in 1505 by Michael Angelo we he used his family members as models to paint the Sisteen Chappel in 1505 at the orders of Pope Julius. Ironically, this happened at the time of the African Holocaust (slave trade). Before that, there were images and still are images of the Black Virgin Mother Modonna and the Christ Child as Black throughout out Europe mainly in Poland and France.
Secondly, A Jewish writer by the name of Fishberg described the Ancient Hebrews as having Black skin, lips that folded, portruding foreheads and wooly hair. The Jewish scholar Josephus described Christus (Chris) as a dark skinned man. Furthmore the Greek Historian Herodutus said that the "Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Colchians have wide nose, black skin and wooly hair".
It is little known fact that the majority of people Israel have know genetic connection to the Biblical Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They converted to Judaism in 700 AD. However, there are "Black" hebrews in Ethiopia known as Beta Israel and also African Hebrews in South Africa known as the Lemba.
|
|
Name:
JohnBrown
Comment: kenyatta2006, for somebody who starts a message with "race is an illusion," you sure are focused on an illusion.
I have a few questions for you:
(1) When did Maurice Fishberg (author of "The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment") describe the ancient Hebrews in the manner you write? According to my research, he wrote: "Beginning with Biblical evidence and traditions, it appears that even in the beginning of the formation of the tribe of Israel they were already composed of various racial elements.... We find in Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine at that time many races - the Amorites, who were blondes, dolichocephalic, and tall; the Hittites, a dark-complexioned race, probably of Mongoloid type; the Cushites, a negroid race; and many others. With all these the ancient Hebrews intermarried, as can be seen in many passages in the Bible." (I know it's crude, but he was writing in 1911.)
(2) Where did Josephus describe Jesus as a dark-skinned man? The only reference to Jesus in the known writings of Josephus describes his actions, not his appearance: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3) Whether this section is truly part of Josephus or a later insertion is a matter of scholarly debate.
(3) You write that the majority of "people Israel" converted to Judaism in 700 AD. Can you cite a source for this "fact"?
|
|
Name:
JohnBrown
Comment: One more thing, kenyatta2006. The name Adam in Hebrew is actually... Adam (???).
The _derivation_ of the name Adam is from the word adamah, which simply means earth or soil, not soil of any particular color. The phrase you were trying to quote is from Genesis 2:7, where God created Adam "aphar min ha'adamah", which means that God created Adam from the dust of the earth.
|
| Back to Top |
| Click here to post your comments. |
| Back to the Article » Click Here |
|---|
...
