Humans have always travelled, in Europe even serfs would hope to go on pilgrimage and Lords generally had to allow it. Although it may only be to a nearby cathedral. Italy was a trade hub, and a relatively short trip by boat to north Africa.
European painters knew that people came in different shades. As proof, go look at the school of Athens painting.
Are you trying to say any historical event involving white people is racist in and of itself (As opposed to it merely being limited to the tragically high amount of ones directly linked to the exploitation of minorities) or that you are racist and believe renaissance era artwork to be proof of white racial superiority? Which brand of idiocy am I dealing with?
Jesus became white when Christianity spread in Europe and became a European religion. Earlier Jesus paintings had him a few shades darker. Palestinians are still light skinned and the dark skin is mostly acquired from working in the field.
Majority of Muslims actively avoid portrayals of religious figures. They would rather have the persons head glowing or something like that to avoid misrepresentation.
I'd be shocked if they put that much thought into it. It's probably just good old unconscious ethnocentrism. Jesus is white because I'm white and that's my default setting to view the world.
There's quite a bit of evidence they knew what other people looked like. Western Christianity goes big in Italy and they have regular trade contact with the Levant and Northern Africa.
That trade contact comes to the entirety of Europe thanks to the Byzantine Empire, also known as the Eastern Roman Empire.
Jesus is like a Marvel superhero. Like any pop culture fiction, it's rendition changes to reflect and is a product of the era of that particular iteration of the superhero. You even have the religious offspring sect equivalents of Invincible and The Boys.
A theory that claims multiple leaders – from Jesus to Barack Obama – are actually Turkish and that modern nations are little more than portions of a greater Turkic whole is gaining traction in many countries
"Black Jesus" is a deliberate response to the traditional white depiction of Jesus, arising out of an acrimonious colonial relationship with whites. We're trying to discuss why Jesus was depicted as white in the first place.
Frankly this comes off almost as a conspiracy theory. Christian art in Europe developed its typical imagery when the vast majority of Europeans could have no direct contact with non-Europeans, before colonialism or coherent ideas about racial identities, when far-off lands were thought to be occupied by one-legged giants...
If anything, it's stupid and bad for society to outright dismiss peoples faith. Faith and hope is a huge part of what drives humans in the first place.
it's going to take too long to die a natural death and will continue to steer society in the wrong direction until it does. we need to take action to see its demise.
Jesus: It's because I'm not your god. I'm god of the people that colonized your country, took some of your people as slaves and made you all believe in me instead of your original black gods.
Imma be a total dweeb and give the correct answer. Jesus is just Josh in Greek. There's many meticulous Roman records about messianic rebels in Judea, not a single Josh among them. One possible interpretation would be that the Romans were so invested I'm erasing Jesus from history, they removed the Joshes, but Christianity was a NON-factor before 77AD, so doubtful Roman clerks were furiously burning records to cover up a messianic figure nobody would give a shit about for a century.
The earliest 1st century CE images have Jesus portrayed like a little Harry Potter of indeterminate race, which seems weird since he's supposed to be 30, but maybe it's a Michael J Fox situation, where he points his magic wand at images of the miracles (like loaves and fishes) but it's more likely he never existed (thus the absence of that Josh in the meticulous records).
Rome around this time was religiously divided between an ostensible state religion of the Roman pantheon we all know and love and various "cults" such as The Cult of Saint John, which predates Christianity -- you can think of his appearance in Christianity like how Munch from Homicide: Life on The Streets carried over to Law & Order: SVU. Other cults were influential among various groups -- Cult of Isis and Osiris was for the nerds, Mithraism was for the jocks, Cult of Cybele was for the ladies.
Constantine, when he came to power, desperately wanted to reboot the Roman state religion with more of that slick theocratic energy they saw in Judea, so he decided the answer was scrapbooking: He'd call the religion Christianity, but Jesus would be sexy Apollo, and God would be bearded Zeus, both of Greco-Roman imagery. The marriage ceremony would come from Isis and Osiris, and they shoehorn in mother imagery from Cybele and Skandamata, creating Mary iconography. Throw in a dash of baptism from John the Baptist and Mitraism's bath in bull's blood, and voila! Christianity as we know it.
So the tl;dr is that's not your Jesus, that's Sexy Apollo with a Jesus skin mod, and there never was a historical Jesus, he never existed
Just like Black/Yellow Jesus existing in those populations
You ask someone to draw a person, they will likely draw someone resembling people they see. If you tell an artist a thousand years ago “from the middle east” they will say what’s that
Except Jesus is depicted as black, asian etc depending on where in the world they are worshiping him. Everyone in this thread is revising history to match with their contemporary race ideologies instead of just saying "Hmm maybe Jesus is depicted as white because that's what made sense to the iconographers in Greece" One of the earliest icons of Jesus showed him as tawny with a robe and he looked Roman. People also assume he must be brown or black even though there are people in the levant that look super white. The reality is no one knows. This is a stupid thread.
The “rightymemes” version of this is a kid asking Miles Morales why he’s brown and having text below that says
“Because, I'm a psychological tool. By creating the image of a brown Spider-Man this subliminally engrains the myth of brown superiority into the subconscious minds of white people. This makes you people more compliant with our brown dominance over your lives.”
The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.
It’s one thing to make an observation of how Jesus’s “image” has been adopted by different ethnicities, but when the official lore is that all humans are made in the image of God I think there are more productive ways to approach the topic of the societal impact of whitewashing.
I guess it’s the difference between saying “fictional white characters/heroes are bad because they reinforce white supremacy” vs asking “how foolish is it to look at a painting and try to judge which color of paint is ‘best’?”