blatham wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:blatham wrote:Setanta wrote:Can't be, that last guy he looks like . . . i don't know . . . a Jew or sumpin' . . .
Yeah, I know. This reconstruction of what jesus probably would have looked like (being a semite) would likely be a tad disconcerting to a lot of christian kids from Kansas. It's a face far closer to, say, al Zarqawy or any of those folks you might find in Abu Ghraib (the unswollen faces there, that is) than to the portrayals found in the books and posters lovingly cherished by the End Times set. But there is NOTHING racist going on here at all.
What utter tripe.
Are Chinese Buddhas examples of racism?
hi finnerman
Quite possibly so. I guess you are suggesting that traditional representations of icons become ingrained in a culture and that if one pushed for historical accuracy but got lots of resistance for that project, then it isn't racism so much as tradition you bump into. That's valid.
But it doubt that is all that is in play here. Imagine a set of optional jesus illustrations, one where he is blonde, another with freckles and red hair, and a third where he looks chinese. Which would be less agreeable to a majority of folks from the west and why?
A very illuminating exercise involves going through the historical representations of Satan. He's a jew.
It is not a question of which would be less agreeable, but which would be more agreeable.
While it may reveal a disregard for historical accuracy, the desire or tendency to represent historical figures (and particularly religious ones) much as the people doing the representation does not reveal racism.
The chinese depicted Buddha as chinese not because they despised Indians, but because they were chinese and chinese was what they knew.
As for Satan, I always thought he looked like a dago, not a jew.
