NationStates Jolt Archive

Was he?

He called everyone brother, became freinds with prostitutes and theives, died young and couldn't get a fair trial.:D stolen from Paul Merton

No, she was a woman.

-Fed 5000 people with not much in the cupboards and no notice
-Had long hair
-Couldn't rest even when he was dead because there was more work to do

:p

He was swarthy at least, certainly not the caucasian that most churches portray him as.

I believe that Jesus would have been an Arab, seeing as that is the part of the world in which he lived.

jesus cant be black! noo!:)

Jesus was my home-boy back in the hood.

I demand a poll.

No, she was a woman.

-Fed 5000 people with not much in the cupboards and no notice
-Had long hair
-Couldn't rest even when he was dead because there was more work to do

:p

Or maybe he was a hippy

Looked like one
Was practically a socialist
Was non conformist, went against the governmnet
The governmnet hated him and his cronies
Believed in free love

Jesus was Russian.

Was he?

He called everyone brother, became freinds with prostitutes and theives, died young and couldn't get a fair trial.:D stolen from Paul MertonI was just thinking about that today. Not because of clichés like yours but because so many people claim that. Also what about ancient hebrews?

i bet ya he had some irish conection.:cool:

Was he?

He called everyone brother, became freinds with prostitutes and theives, died young and couldn't get a fair trial.:D stolen from Paul Merton

he obviously was a jew. As in 2000 years ago, (or probably now as well) i cant imagine there was many black people in Israel.

I demand a poll.

Your demand has been answered. (damn should have made it multi choice)

Jesus was Russian.

I have a friend who was convinced for months that Jews and Russians were completely interchangeable because the Jews in The Passion of the Christ looked like Russians.

Jesus was southeast Asian...

>.>
<.<

What?

he obviously was a jew. As in 2000 years ago, (or probably now as well) i cant imagine there was many black people in Israel.

So he was a black jew, big whoop.

Jesus was southeast Asian...

>.>
<.<

What?

Thats crazy talk!

I have a friend who was convinced for months that Jews and Russians were completely interchangeable because the Jews in The Passion of the Christ looked like Russians.

Were they Russian Jews?

Tradition! Tradition! Dadadadada...Tradition!

I thought Jesus was a fish that lived on the back of cars.
Jesus must be grey.

Jesus was British :p

Jesus was Russian.
They invented him first? ;)

he obviously was a jew. As in 2000 years ago, (or probably now as well) i cant imagine there was many black people in Israel.But maybe Jews were all black then?

Thats crazy talk!

So Jesus is aborginal now?

They invented him first? ;)

The beauty about what I said is it makes sense to everyone on some strange level.


I wasn't thinking of any joke in particular. I just felt like saying it.

So Jesus is aborginal now?

Jesus was a native? Oh, god....I know him! I know Jesus!

He was swarthy at least, certainly not the caucasian that most churches portray him as.
They do?

There are indeed, always ethno-centric depictions of Jesus (much Korean Christian literature depicts Jesus as Asian), and I suspect these exist to make Him seem more familiar, but I doubt anyone would seriously try to mount an argument that Jesus was white, or Asian.

Jesus was a native? Oh, god....I know him! I know Jesus!

Really?

I know a Mexican Jesus...

Are you sure we aren't thinking of the same person? :p

But maybe Jews were all black then?

Like the Ethiopians?

Really?

I know a Mexican Jesus...

Are you sure we aren't thinking of the same person? :p

I dunno...Know any crazed Natives from Nanaimo?

They do?

There are indeed, always ethno-centric depictions of Jesus (much Korean Christian literature depicts Jesus as Asian), and I suspect these exist to make Him seem more familiar, but I doubt anyone would seriously try to mount an argument that Jesus was white, or Asian.These assholes do (http://www.christianseparatist.org/other/whitejesus.html).

Like the Ethiopians?Goddam Rastafarians claim that.

But maybe Jews were all black then?

It's possible, the climate was right for it I think.

I dunno...Know any crazed Natives from Nanaimo?

Aha! It wasn't just a random word that popped into my head!


I was wondering about that...

Goddam Rastafarians claim that.

A bit of Bob Marley in your blood can't be bad.

Aha! It wasn't just a random word that popped into my head!


I was wondering about that...

What random word popping into your head. Nanaimo?

A bit of Bob Marley in your blood can't be bad.O yes it definitely would. Bob Marley was a jerk.

all these was jesus this threads annoy me. they do not offend me, because i am an atheist, but they do annoy me.

What random word popping into your head. Nanaimo?

Yeah...

Personally, I suspect Jesus wasn't real concerned about which social constructs from the twentieth century might apply to him. I'm not either.

Yeah...

Well, anyone with a map could figure that out.

I dunno...Know any crazed Natives from Nanaimo?
Possibly. He's Jesus? NO WAY!

PS. Have you ever eaten a Nanaimo Bar in a bar in Nanaimo? That'd be the sweetest thing ever.

Personally, I suspect Jesus wasn't real concerned about which social constructs from the twentieth century might apply to him. I'm not either.Skin color is a social construct from the twentieth century?

Personally, I suspect Jesus wasn't real concerned about which social constructs from the twentieth century might apply to him. I'm not either.

Why wouldn't he be, can't he see into the future:D

Well, anyone with a map could figure that out.

...>_>''

O yes it definitely would. Bob Marley was a jerk.

I know that he liked Jerk chicken. That's another plus rastas make good food -- like goat.

Well, anyone with a map could figure that out.How? Egyptians weren't black (they were mediterranean/brown).

I know that he liked Jerk chicken. That's another plus rastas make good food -- like goat.I don't care what he liked. He's dead. Mainly because he was stupid and wanted to be a hero dying young.

Palestinian Hebrew, possibly with some Greek, Babylonian or Persian mixed in there.

Possibly. He's Jesus? NO WAY!

PS. Have you ever eaten a Nanaimo Bar in a bar in Nanaimo? That'd be the sweetest thing ever.

All the time. Never with Jesus, though.

How? Egyptians weren't black (they were mediterranean/brown).

Err....by that, I meant that Nanaimo was a real place. Not whatever the heck you are talking about.

I don't care what he liked. He's dead. Mainly because he was stupid and wanted to be a hero dying young.

How is Bob Marley stupid? He invented string theory. Play his records backwards and try some choice Jamaican green stuff and a bit of dark rum and you'll see what I mean.

How is Bob Marley stupid? He invented string theory. Play his records backwards and try some choice Jamaican green stuff and a bit of dark rum and you'll see what I mean.

He invted string theory? Thats interesting....

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Black_Jesus

How is Bob Marley stupid? He invented string theory. Play his records backwards and try some choice Jamaican green stuff and a bit of dark rum and you'll see what I mean.Bob Marley died of toe cancer. That is definitely the most stupid way to die. And whoever believes that Ras Tafari was more than a human must not be in a right mind.

Um. He was a Jew yo.

Bob Marley died of toe cancer. That is definitely the most stupid way to die. And whoever believes that Ras Tafari was more than a human must not be in a right mind.

You must be the stupid one, he died of cancer which started in the toe but spread through his body, dimwit.

Bob Marley died of toe cancer. That is definitely the most stupid way to die. And whoever believes that Ras Tafari was more than a human must not be in a right mind.

Toe cancer, that's a funny way to die. That shows that Bob Marley is not only one of the diamonds of human intelligence ever alive, he also was a comic genius rivaling such luminaries as Jim Carrey and Mike Myers.

You must be the stupid one, he died of cancer which started in the toe but spread through his body, dimwit.He died because he refused to see a doctor when the toe could still have been removed safely.

Skin color is a social construct from the twentieth century?

No. But the concept of "black" is a hell of a lot more than a denotation of skin color. It includes things like the stereotypes in the first post in this thread, and other cultural markers that have become associated with people with a darker range of skin tones.

All the time. Never with Jesus, though.
:eek:

You are my new hero.

That's my life's goal! To eat a nanaimo bar in a bar in Nanimo with Jesus.
Err....by that, I meant that Nanaimo was a real place. Not whatever the heck you are talking about.
Nah, Nanaimo's not a real place. In a couple of years, it'll be devoured by the super city of Vancouver along with the rest of Vancouver Island, the Okanagan Valley, Prince Ruper, and Southern Alaska.

No. But the concept of "black" is a hell of a lot more than a denotation of skin color. It includes things like the stereotypes in the first post in this thread, and other cultural markers that have become associated with people with a darker range of skin tones.At least in the US.

I believe that Jesus would have been an Arab, seeing as that is the part of the world in which he lived.


Jesus was jewish ... what is called Isreali now.

No. But the concept of "black" is a hell of a lot more than a denotation of skin color. It includes things like the stereotypes in the first post in this thread, and other cultural markers that have become associated with people with a darker range of skin tones.

Heres a question: what is essential to being black, then?

Jesus was jewish ... what is called Isreali now.The majority of Israelis are not indigenous to the land, so this equation doesn't work, since that doesn't give any hint to what Jews looked like back then. Also I'm not so sure whether Jews really made up the majority in Palestine of Jesus' time .

Nah, Nanaimo's not a real place. In a couple of years, it'll be devoured by the super city of Vancouver along with the rest of Vancouver Island, the Okanagan Valley, Prince Ruper, and Southern Alaska.

I can only hope.

http://www.interarteonline.com/Samoamax/Altas/palestinian%20boy.jpg

He actually probably looked rather like this fellow.

Jesus was jewish ... what is called Isreali now.

That's funny, 'cause I've known lots of Jews but only a small handful of Israelis.

http://www.interarteonline.com/Samoamax/Altas/palestinian%20boy.jpg

He actually probably looked rather like this fellow.A f*cked up version of Michael Jackson? :eek: :eek: :eek:

http://www.interarteonline.com/Samoamax/Altas/palestinian%20boy.jpg

He actually probably looked rather like this fellow.

Why pick this picture?

These assholes do (http://www.christianseparatist.org/other/whitejesus.html).
The flaw in their logic is that they think the ability to blush red is exclusive to Caucasians. When, in fact, Semitic peoples like the Jews that David and Jesus probably were, can also blush red.

A f*cked up version of Michael Jackson? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Dude, what have you got against jesus? I'd high five him any day.

Why pick this picture?

Because when I typed "Palestinian" into google and did an image search, this was the first one that came up that didn't look like someone getting shot.

Dude, what have you got against jesus?teargas

The flaw in their logic is that they think the ability to blush red is exclusive to Caucasians. When, in fact, Semitic peoples like the Jews that David and Jesus probably were, can also blush red.

I thought that only women wore red blush? So your saying that a lot of cross dressers used to live in Israel?

Heres a question: what is essential to being black, then?

Taking on an identity based on falsehood. Choosing to accept the lie that the color of your skin makes you who you are. Choosing to accept the lie that those with other skin colors are innately and automatically very different from you in a deeper cultural sense. The same thing that's essential to having any racial identity.

At least in the US.

Sure. And many other countries. The stereotypes differ somewhat from country to country, but they're still there in most multicultural countries that I'm familiar with.

I can only hope.
NO! Victoria refuses to submit to those damned Vancouver heretics!

teargas

huh????

Heres a question: what is essential to being black, then?

Being black i guess. I may be wrong, but I think thats what you need to be black.

I believe that Jesus would have been an Arab, seeing as that is the part of the world in which he lived.

Yep, I think he was Arab. And not a very neat one at that seeing as to they didn't have brushes and stuff to take care of their hair.

In South America, Mary is depicted as Hispanic in some churches.

Yep, I think he was Arab. And not a very neat one at that seeing as to they didn't have brushes and stuff to take care of their hair.Jesus had no dreads. There were brushes and combs back then.

Taking on an identity based on falsehood. Choosing to accept the lie that the color of your skin makes you who you are. Choosing to accept the lie that those with other skin colors are innately and automatically very different from you in a deeper cultural sense. The same thing that's essential to having any racial identity.

Yeah, whatever. I'm not sure what your speel has to do with the properties that either make a thing what that thing is.
What properties make something black? In other words, if those properties weren't there, then that person would no longer be black.

The flaw in their logic is that they think the ability to blush red is exclusive to Caucasians. When, in fact, Semitic peoples like the Jews that David and Jesus probably were, can also blush red.

You give them a great deal of credit. I wouldn't call their beliefs logical to begin with.

Being black i guess. I may be wrong, but I think thats what you need to be black.

What happens if you get that skin disease that turns black skin to white. You would say that person is no longer black, then?

Yeah, whatever. I'm not sure what your speel has to do with the properties that either make a thing what that thing is.
What properties make something black? In other words, if those properties weren't there, then that person would no longer be black.there is only one property making a person black. that's the melanin in the skin. just that. the whole bs on any cultural differences is acquired.

What happens if you get that skin disease that turns black skin to white. You would say that person is no longer black, then?

By definition, yes. I may say he is from a certain ethnic origin. But not that he is "black".

What happens if you get that skin disease that turns black skin to white. You would say that person is no longer black, then?Again Michael Jackson? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yeah, whatever. I'm not sure what your speel has to do with the properties that either make a thing what that thing is.
What properties make something black? In other words, if those properties weren't there, then that person would no longer be black.

I just listed them. Without accepting those lies, a person could not be black.

By definition, yes. I may say he is from a certain ethnic origin. But not that he is "black".

Well, whatever definition someone uses for blackness, we can easily defeat it. The point is, that skin colour is not essential to being black. So what is?

Woah I just realised I had over 3000 posts, and I only realised 6 posts later. It's a shame it had to be on a semi joke thread about what Jesus was :(

Taking on an identity based on falsehood. Choosing to accept the lie that the color of your skin makes you who you are. Choosing to accept the lie that those with other skin colors are innately and automatically very different from you in a deeper cultural sense. The same thing that's essential to having any racial identity.

So, you think that no matter what colour your skin is, you can be black.
What is taking on an identity based on a falsehood? - example perhaps.
The last sentence makes no sense because this is the question we're asking anyway, but you put it in general terms.

Jesus was an Autobot, duh.

Well, whatever definition someone uses for blackness, we can easily defeat it. The point is, that skin colour is not essential to being black. So what is?

You can defeat it? Go on then.

Again Michael Jackson? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Another good musical artist. First you pick on Bob Marley, now Michael Jackson. What is it that you have against the music idustry? You also hate Jesus. Hurt me some more by making some nasty comment about Chef from Southpark.

You can defeat it? Go on then.

Give me a definiton of blackness, then.

Give me a definiton of blackness, then.

Being black.

Jesus was an Autobot, duh.

Maybe Jesus is teh intraweb. :eek:

Another good musical artist. First you pick on Bob Marley, now Michael Jackson. What is it that you have against the music idustry? You also hate Jesus. Hust me some more by making some nasty statement about Chef from Southpark.Michael Jackson is a white woman doing it with little boys. I don't care what musical artist he once was if he's a damn pedophile. Success in the music business has obviously nothing to do with intelligence or good character.

Being black.

Yeah, you can't use the word or a synonym or a derivative of the word that you're defining in your definition.

Skin color is a social construct from the twentieth century?

Maybe. I have a theory that the idea of categorising people according to their skin colour is a relatively modern one.
For instance quite a few Romans, including the popular emperor Septimius Severus, were of African origin, but the ancient writers don't seem to have regarded their skin colour as important.
It's just an idea - if anyone out there knows differently, I'm happy to be corrected.

Michael Jackson is a white woman doing it with little boys. I don't care what musical artist he once was if he's a damn pedophile.


What about Chef from South Park, huh?

What about Chef from South Park, huh?

I heard he thinks he doesn't exist :eek:, the heretic!

Yeah, you can't use the word or a synonym or a derivative of the word that you're defining in your definition.

What? You were asking me what the definition of a black person is.
I say it is someone with black skin.

Michael Jackson is a white woman doing it with little boys. I don't care what musical artist he once was if he's a damn pedophile. Success in the music business has obviously nothing to do with intelligence or good character.

What's that got to do with his being black, though?

What about Chef from South Park, huh?What about him? I've only watched South Park less than ten times.

What's that got to do with his being black, though?Nothing. MJ dropped his skin color somehow.

What? You were asking me what the definition of a black person is.
I say it is someone with black skin.

Then, I say again that some black people can get a skin disease that turns them white. By your definition, they would be no longer black. I say that there is more to being black than skin colour. So, black skin is not an essential property of being black. Do you disagree?

Nothing. MJ dropped his skin color somehow.

What's that got to do with Jesus?

So, you think that no matter what colour your skin is, you can be black.

You can take being "black" as your identity regardless of skin color, yes. Others might object to it very strongly because it conflicts with their notion of being "black", but you could certainly do it.

What is taking on an identity based on a falsehood? - example perhaps.

Choosing to accept the "black" racial identity would be a fine example of that phenomenon. Which I believe we've already discussed, so I'm not sure why you're asking.

The last sentence makes no sense because this is the question we're asking anyway, but you put it in general terms.

Of course I put it in general terms. "Black" is a term that's useless at best, harmful at worst.

Then, I say again that some black people can get a skin disease that turns them white. By your definition, they would be no longer black. I say that there is more to being black than skin colour. So, black skin is not an essential property of being black. Do you disagree?

Yes. What more is there?

What's that got to do with Jesus?Read the thread.

You can take being "black" as your identity regardless of skin color, yes. Others might object to it very strongly because it conflicts with their notion of being "black", but you could certainly do it.



Choosing to accept the "black" racial identity would be a fine example of that phenomenon. Which I believe we've already discussed, so I'm not sure why you're asking.



Of course I put it in general terms. "Black" is a term that's useless at best, harmful at worst.

Yes, the point is that there notion is wrong. They might object in the sense that you're putting forward, but that is no objection at all.
Well, I'm confused. Why can't you give me an example?
To your last point I was giving you some advice on argument. We're trying to find out what is essential to being black. You said something like, "what is essential to being black is the same as what is essential to other races." You can see how this doesn't answer the question, right?

Read the thread.

But Michael Jackson isn't like Jesus in any way at all.

Yes. What more is there?

That's the trouble, right. I don't know. It is a confusing issue. If it is not skin colour, then what else is left? Hair picks? I don't think so. The answer, then, is that there is nothing that is essential to being black.

But Michael Jackson isn't like Jesus in any way at all.Both suck. At least one literally.

Both suck. At least one literally.

But, you like chef from South Park, right?

That's the trouble, right. I don't know. It is a confusing issue. If it is not skin colour, then what else is left? Hair picks? I don't think so. The answer, then, is that there is nothing that is essential to being black.

You are confusing me greatly. Why should there be an if in the first place? You seem to have created a situation (if it is not skin colour), then deduced from that hypothetical statement that there is nothing essential to being black. However you have given no backing for that statement in the first place.

But, you like chef from South Park, right?I don't know chef from South Park. So I'm indifferent on him.

Yes, the point is that there notion is wrong. They might object in the sense that you're putting forward, but that is no objection at all.

Indeed. And this, if considered carefully, explains why I think what I do...

Well, I'm confused. Why can't you give me an example?

To your last point I was giving you some advice on argument. We're trying to find out what is essential to being black. You said something like, "what is essential to being black is the same as what is essential to other races." You can see how this doesn't answer the question, right?

...which is that there is nothing essential to being black that is any different from what is essential to taking on any other racial identity. Which is why the question, "What's essential to being black?" is a useless question. Unsurprisingly, I see no need to answer a useless question, any more than I would if you had asked me how far I had jaundiced your blue.

Taking on an identity based on falsehood. Choosing to accept the lie that the color of your skin makes you who you are. Choosing to accept the lie that those with other skin colors are innately and automatically very different from you in a deeper cultural sense. The same thing that's essential to having any racial identity.
Actually it's pretty much just the melanin.

You are confusing me greatly. Why should there be an if in the first place? You seem to have created a situation (if it is not skin colour), then deduced from that hypothetical statement that there is nothing essential to being black. However you have given no backing for that statement in the first place.

No, someone claimed that skin colour is essential to be being black. I gave a counter example that showed that this can not be the case. Yet, skin colour has always been associated with being black. If skin colour is not essentil to being black, then probably not much else is, don't you agree?

Don't worry about the 'if' worry about the 'then'.

No, someone claimed that skin colour is essential to be being black. I gave a counter example that showed that this can not be the case. Yet, skin colour has always been associated with being black. If skin colour is not essentil to being black, then probably not much else is, don't you agree?

Don't worry about the 'if' worry about the 'then'.

What was the counter example?

...which is that there is nothing essential to being black that is any different from what is essential to taking on any other racial identity.

Again you get it wrong. What happens if there is a lot that is essential in "any other racial identity" then, by your reasoning there will be a lot that is essential to being black. Fine. Yet, we still don't know what that thing is. What you've said is trivial.

What was the counter example?

That some black people contract a disease that turns their skin white. Are they no longer black people then?

That some black people contract a disease that turns their skin white. Are they no longer black people then?

My answer was yes. Whats wrong with that answer?

That some black people contract a disease that turns their skin white. Are they no longer black people then?Yes. Example: Michael Jackson, he's not black anymore.

Then, I say again that some black people can get a skin disease that turns them white. By your definition, they would be no longer black. I say that there is more to being black than skin colour. So, black skin is not an essential property of being black. Do you disagree?
the term is 'wigger' and it is highly derogatory (leastways in these parts). there is nothing more to being black than having black skin, skin diseases notwithstanding. your personality reflects how you're raised, which chappell illustrates quitehumourously (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDUZzq79480) (after a fashion).

WARNING: that there video is highly profane, on account of it being Dave Chappell. (It's the black white-supremacist skit).

Again you get it wrong.

Oh, how kind of you to inform me.

What happens if there is a lot that is essential in "any other racial identity" then, by your reasoning there will be a lot that is essential to being black.

Yes. But fortunately I'm positing that your premise is wrong, so I don't feel particularly obliged to go down that particular line of reasoning.

Fine. Yet, we still don't know what that thing is. What you've said is trivial.

High-level analysis of human social and conceptual frameworks and their implications is trivial? I must have missed that memo.

My answer was yes. Whats wrong with that answer?

The problem is that race is just reduced to skin colour. Why not reduce it further since there many different shades of black skin. Some are darker than others. Why wouldn't we want to be more precise and have more varied groupings of race.

Here's another counter example. Two sisters have one black parent and one white parent. One of the sisters has very light skin and often passes for white, the other has much darker skin and is always thought of as black. Is there something essentially different about these sisters?

By saying that the black person who turns white due to a disease is no longer black is to ignore all the other properties, which are cultural, that make up being a black person.

Oh, how kind of you to inform me.



Yes. But fortunately I'm positing that your premise is wrong, so I don't feel particularly obliged to go down that particular line of reasoning.



High-level analysis of human social and conceptual frameworks and their implications is trivial? I must have missed that memo.

No, I didn't mean trivial in the insulting way, I meant trivial in the 'obvious result' way. What premise of mine is wrong?

The problem is that race is just reduced to skin colour. Why not reduce it further since there many different shades of black skin. Some are darker than others. Why wouldn't we want to be more precise and have more varied groupings of race.

Here's another counter example. Two sisters have one black parent and one white parent. One of the sisters has very light skin and often passes for white, the other has much darker skin and is always thought of as black. Is there something essentially different about these sisters?

By saying that the black person who turns white due to a disease is no longer black is to ignore all the other properties, which are cultural, that make up being a black person.cultural properties are not inherent. they are a result of education and interaction. there are many blacks in Europe that are raised exactly like their white school mates. they normally behave in no different way at all. if they do, they were told to do so by their parents or whoever influences them. it is no result of their skin color.

The problem is that race is just reduced to skin colour. Why not reduce it further since there many different shades of black skin. Some are darker than others. Why wouldn't we want to be more precise and have more varied groupings of race.

Here's another counter example. Two sisters have one black parent and one white parent. One of the sisters has very light skin and often passes for white, the other has much darker skin and is always thought of as black. Is there something essentially different about these sisters?

By saying that the black person who turns white due to a disease is no longer black is to ignore all the other properties, which are cultural, that make up being a black person.

What you are doing is mixing race/ ethnic origin with skin colour. They are two different things.

cultural properties are not inherent. they are a result of education and interaction. there are many blacks in Europe that are raised exactly like their white school mates. they behave in no different way at all. if they do, they were told to do so by their parents or whoever influences them. it is no result of their skin color.

So what. Why place greater importance on genetics rather than social or cultural properties?

What you are doing is mixing race/ ethnic origin with skin colour. They are two different things.

There still are many different types of skin colour under the umbrella of black. Black is like the word 'hispanic', it is a false construction (hispanic was a term made up by Richard Nixon) and it doesn't actually pay precise attention to skin colour or ethnic background.

So what. Why place greater importance on genetics rather than social or cultural properties?Who does that? You?

Who does that? You?

No, I'm asking you why place greater emphasis on one aspect and ignore the other.

No, I'm asking you why place greater emphasis on one aspect and ignore the other.

The other is irellivant to skin colour. You culture does not change what your skin colour is.

No, I'm asking you why place greater emphasis on one aspect and ignore the other.It seems there is only one aspect: skin color. The other aspects are not proprietary but acquired. Being black means having more melanin than others and nothing more and that constitutes no differences in culture or behavior or character or whatever.

The other is irellivant to skin colour. You culture does not change what your skin colour is.

So, culture is essential to blackness and not skin colour. Is this right on your view?

It seems there is only one aspect: skin color. The other aspects are not proprietary but acquired. Being black means having more melanin than others and nothing more and that constitutes no differences in culture or behavior or character or whatever.

Why can't a property be aquired?

But there are some black people that have higher melanin levels than other black people. Do these people then constitute a new race?

Why can't a property be aquired?

But there are some black people that have higher melanin levels than other black people. Do these people then constitute a new race?What's a race?

What's a race?

An arbitrary way of classifying groups of individuals.

An arbitrary way of classifying groups of individuals.So how can melanin constitute races if race is only a question of opinion?

Wether Jesus was a he or a she, he/she was Black yes, there were no white people in the region in which Jesus existed at the time. So therefore he must have been black... or albino?

Jesus had dark skin, squinty eyes,and dirty hair. mary would have been, in today's world, an Arab. Face it, he grew up in a desert, learned carpentry from the guy that acted as his father, and spent a number of years in Egypt. If you want to approximate him to anybody, go with the Arabs, or the Egyptians. he was not a man of white skin with a huge nose, nor a tall, athletic man with blue eyes and flowing hair (though he was probably well built, since as a carpenter, most of his training would have been in construction). Personally, I believe that the Coptics and the Christian Ethiopians are the two groups of Christians with the most ancestry in common with Christ. Jesus=Black man.:)

So how can melanin constitute races?

I don't know, since I didn't claim it, you did. You mean, why does "science" (whatever science your thinking of) use melanin as a definition of race. I doubt they do. One thing about the use of language in science is that it doesn't care to much for essentials. So, you can use the term "race" in quite an arbitrary way and get away with it, because it doesn't really matter when you're studying diseases of a particular group of people or whatever. Yet, when we want to know what makes someone "black", that is, what is it that connects all black people together -- that one essential thing -- then we can't appeal to melanin production since there may be, without contradiction, a white person that has a closer melanin count to a black person than that black person has to another black person. So, Melanin counts are not what is essential to a race.

Wether Jesus was a he or a she, he/she was Black yes, there were no white people in the region in which Jesus existed at the time. So therefore he must have been black... or albino?How so? They were Mediterranean people, just like today (is that "white"?). Remember that Hebrews/Israelites/Jews are originally form (upper) Mesopotamia. They would have looked like folks from the Taurus and Zagros look today. I'd say that Kurds have the closest resemblance.

I don't know, since I didn't claim it, you did. You mean, why does "science" (whatever science your thinking of) use melanin as a definition of race. I doubt they do. One thing about the use of language in science is that it doesn't care to much for essentials. So, you can use the term "race" in quite an arbitrary way and get away with it, because it doesn't really matter when you're studying diseases of a particular group of people or whatever. Yet, when we want to know what makes someone "black", that is, what is it that connects all black people together -- that one essential thing -- then we can't appeal to melanin production since there may be, without contradiction, a white person that has a closer melanin count to a black person than that black person has to another black person. So, Melanin counts are not what is essential to a race.If race is arbitrary how can you claim that there is a thing "that connects all black people together" besides the skin color? That would also include the Drawidians and the Australian aborigines. There surely is no cultural connexion among those folks.

If race is arbitrary how can you claim that there is a thing "that connects all black people together" besides the skin color? That would also include the Drawidians and the Australian aborigines. There surely is no cultural connexion among those folks.

I said that science may use the term in a way that is more arbitrary than we are here since science does not set about to tell what is essential about something. Science doesn't ask, "what is motion" it just assumes motion and draws consequences. So, the same for race. Why don't you try and object to my response to your claims about Melanin. That was the more important aspect of my response.

I said that science may use the term in a way that is more arbitrary than we are here since science does not set about to tell what is essential about something. Science doesn't ask, "what is motion" it just assumes motion and draws consequences. So, the same for race. Why don't you try and object to my response to your claims about Melanin. That was the more important aspect of my response.You claimed it took more than skin color to make a person black. This has nothing to do with race or science. You claimed that there was a cultural aspect to being black. But you still fail to come forward with any meaningful description of what this cultural aspect would be and how it would be connected to any idea of race.

And I'm going to bed now. It's half past one.

You claimed it took more than skin color to make a person black. This has nothing to do with race or science. You claimed that there was a cultural aspect to being black. But you still fail to come forward with any meaningful description of what this cultural aspect would be and how it would be connected to any idea of race.

No, I think I said that there is nothing essential to be being black. Since, in general, skin color is what is considered the most essential element to being black and I showed that this wasn't the case. Furthermore, there is no meaningful cultural description that would find what is essential to being black since it would rely on things like food and artifacts.

- snip -
:eek: Where did you come from? You haven't been on in forever!


Oh, and Jesus was totally a hippie. *nod*

:eek: Where did you come from? You haven't been on in forever!


Oh, and Jesus was totally a hippie. *nod*

Jesus = Mexican hippie? :eek:

What? You were asking me what the definition of a black person is.
I say it is someone with black skin.

you keep saying that but no one has black skin. not even the darkest of pure africans in the middle of summer.

so no one is black?

to go on, many people who identify themselves as black have very light skin. do you deny that they are black because their skin isnt dark enough?

race (and black in particular) is a very vague thing that doesnt allow for interracial breeding throughout the ages. it is heavily culturally defined and is to some extent dependant on the culture that the definer is living in.

so the question is (perhaps) "if jesus was born with dark skin would anyone have noticed?" israel is in a crossroads area where many cultures cross each other from europe, africa and asia. the hebrews spent generations in both egypt and babylon. jews in the diaspora have lived throughout the world and have picked up genetic traits from all the areas they have settled in (thus you have sephardic jews, Ashkenazi jews and ethiopian jews, among others, all looking somewhat different fom each other in the aggregate)

just as "gay" wasnt a concept in the ancient world (even though there were men and women who had same sex experiences) "black" didnt exist back then. all we can do is toss a modern concept onto a man and a culture that didnt have the concept. as hotrodja said, its not particularly appropriate to do so.

Jesus was Middle-Eastern.

He was likely a nice mocha-latte color, with cream.

Interestingly enough, the idea we have of him being a Honkey may come from the Shroud of Tourin. (wich is one of the worlds most famous and most elaborate hoaxes of its day)

Many paintings we have since the 13th Century have based representations of Jesus from this cloth.

White Europeans, of course, had no desire to believe Jesus may have been anything other than caucasian, and have since painted him as a Whitey.

Jesus sunk my battleship.

I dunno...Know any crazed Natives from Nanaimo?

Funnily enough I know someone from that area who spent a few years as a hippy in that area many years ago. My Buddhist teacher has a wonderful story about a guy who insisted he was Jesus. Don't know if his Jesus was a native, but I do know the guy was crazy.

But the best part of the story was when Jesus decided my teacher was Simon Peter.

According to my own research from the area he had settled it was likely, through his mother at least, that he was probably of Greek, Armenian, and whatever the ancient Jewish tribe of Judah could be defined as.

According to my own research from the area he had settled it was likely, through his mother at least, that he was probably of Greek, Armenian, and whatever the ancient Jewish tribe of Judah could be defined as.

what kind of research is that? does the bible say anything about mary's family? where do you get any notion that she was anything but a nice jewish girl?

I wonder why god decided to make his son a Middle Easterner, as opposed to say a European, Asian, or Hawaiian. That baffles my mind greatly.

I wonder why god decided to make his son a Middle Easterner, as opposed to say a European, Asian, or Hawaiian. That baffles my mind greatly.

i find it much more mysterious that he only revealed himself to an elderly wanderer whose grandchildren were converted to slaves in egypt, whose decendants fought their way back to the land the old man had been promised many many generations before and who couldnt hold onto it in the face of repeated empires moving in to conquer it.

wouldnt it have made more sense to reveal himself to the chin emperor or to alexander the great? or better yet, to every society that existed in the ancient world? shouldnt everyone have known about the garden of eden? didnt everyone have some need to follow the commandments god gave moses? i guess we cant call god "the great communicator"

In the unwritten 20 years of Jesus's life, he wuz a professional breakdancer who owned every1. However, a massive collarbone injury forced him to go down the path of leading mankind.

Was he?

He called everyone brother, became freinds with prostitutes and theives, died young and couldn't get a fair trial.:D stolen from Paul Merton

He did NOT call EVERYONE brother; He told a bunch of religious stuffshirt Pharisees that they were of their father the devil (John 8:44). Do you think He (no, I don't mean "she"; He was a MAN) would have dared to even THINK of calling THEM His "brothers"? I don't think so.

No, she was a woman.

-Fed 5000 people with not much in the cupboards and no notice
-Had long hair
-Couldn't rest even when he was dead because there was more work to do

:p

Jesus most certainly was NOT a woman; the only reason He had long hair was because He was an orthodox Jew under the Mosaic Law; if He had cut it, He would have been in violation of the Mosaic Law. At the very least, He kept it long enough to hide the corners of His head.

he obviously was a jew. As in 2000 years ago, (or probably now as well) i cant imagine there was many black people in Israel.

Of course He was a Jew; in fact He was their Divinely selected King, though they failed to recognize Him as such.

Jesus was Middle-Eastern.

He was likely a nice mocha-latte color, with cream.

Interestingly enough, the idea we have of him being a Honkey may come from the Shroud of Tourin. (wich is one of the worlds most famous and most elaborate hoaxes of its day)

Many paintings we have since the 13th Century have based representations of Jesus from this cloth.

White Europeans, of course, had no desire to believe Jesus may have been anything other than caucasian, and have since painted him as a Whitey.

I agree with you about that Shroud of Tourin; that thing is nothing more than just another piece of cloth. But the Roman Catholics LOVE to make much of things that pertained to Jesus dring His earthly life (such as a piece of the cross He died on, or a sandal He wore, or a boat He sailed in, or the Shroud of Tourin, etc.), rather than Jesus Himself.

I agree with you about that Shroud of Tourin; that thing is nothing more than just another piece of cloth. But the Roman Catholics LOVE to make much of things that pertained to Jesus dring His earthly life (such as a piece of the cross He died on, or a sandal He wore, or a boat He sailed in, or the Shroud of Tourin, etc.), rather than Jesus Himself.

Yep 'cause Catholics are the only Christian sect with the concept of relics:rolleyes:

Yep 'cause Catholics are the only Christian sect with the concept of relics:rolleyes:

Yeah. Actually, it's an even more common phenomenon than that. Souvenirs and memorabilia in general are a fine example of the sort of thing he's describing. It's an incredibly common thing.

Funny how people can act just as silly as their opponents in protesting silly religious customs, ain't it?

Jesus was Middle-Eastern.

He was likely a nice mocha-latte color, with cream.

Interestingly enough, the idea we have of him being a Honkey may come from the Shroud of Tourin. (wich is one of the worlds most famous and most elaborate hoaxes of its day)

Many paintings we have since the 13th Century have based representations of Jesus from this cloth.

White Europeans, of course, had no desire to believe Jesus may have been anything other than caucasian, and have since painted him as a Whitey.I never understood what the word Caucasian is supposed to mean. Isn't that just as Middle-Eastern as a few kilometres south of the Caucasus (http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//2581/Caucasus.A2001306.0815.250m.jpg)?

I wonder why god decided to make his son a Middle Easterner, as opposed to say a European, Asian, or Hawaiian. That baffles my mind greatly.

cuz i guess the mid-eastern ppl be Jew or Arab are the most stubborn ppl on earth? look at them today =P