blatham wrote:dlowan wrote:I guess I see xenophobia as that kind of instinctive "I prefer my herd/what is familiar" stuff.
Racism would grow out of that, but is more organized, with a huge system of rationalizations supporting it, as I see it.
Also, one can be xenophobic when race is not a factor.....eg "Arrrrr, them folks from that thar next village be moighty queer, they be, arrrrrr."
But that seems quite the common description of conflict between religious communities where, again, race isn't a factor.
I guess I'm just not sure that parsing in this manner gets us the proper perspective on what seems to me to be facets of the same critter.
Whether it is skin color or clothing or accent or sacred icon, etc, in each case some difference is discerned or claimed. By itself, no problem. (New York is a wonderful example of differences with little bad consequence, at least presently).
But then something else gets stacked on top - the valuation of 'bad', 'wrong', 'dangerous', 'enemy', etc.
Yeah, but I think this whole discussion got started around whether it is racist, or not, to depict Jesus as a blond, blue eyed, rather androgynous looking critter, when the historical figure (if there was one) would look very different.
My sense is it might have started out as a bigotry based thing (anti Semitism and all), but now it is generally just an ignorance and/or tradition....and blindingly bad art (I had a look at some Jesus "art" sites...) thing.
But it's not like I'm an expert on Jesus depictions....
And, since I believe it's all projection of ourselves onto some god or other, it makes perfect sense in my eyes as a simple psychological mechanism, anyway.
Buddha isn't a god, BTW.
The Chinese depictions of Buddha, I believe, reflect their idea of bliss......I think they are the only culture to have a chubby one?
I doubt Buddha would give a toss. Buddhism has no problems adapting its waters to the shape of the stream bed....