7 ms·

Start with Shaun King, who is followed by millions. You can easily see the undertones on most of his posts.

pstuart 6y ago
Wikipedia has this: In June 2020, King tweeted that statues, murals, and stained glass windows depicting a white Jesus should be removed. "Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down," he tweeted. "They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. Are you hurt by that assertion? Please show citations where actual "anti-white" comments are made. N.B. calling white people out on their shit is not "anti-white".
- jariel 6y ago
  This is driving the problem if you're literally quoting blatantly 'anti-white' statements and then wondering where the 'anti-white' sentiment is. This language is certainly within the threshold of civility, he should be able to say such things without being 'cancelled' , but it's obviously 'anti white' and casually racist. He's antagonising to make a name for himself. This is the equivalent of Trump's 'Whuan Virus' rhetoric.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    It's not "anti-white". It's calling out a lie. If Jesus was real (and I'm in the camp that believes he wasn't), he wasn't white. I'm as white as they come and these statements don't threaten me. How was the statement I cited racist?
    - slowmovintarget 6y ago
      Jesus was real. There's documentation of his existence in letters between Roman governors. So he was at least an actual historical figure that was around back then. That being said, he would have been dark-skinned Middle Eastern, like everyone else in the region at the time.
      - pstuart 6y ago
        Maybe there was a guy named Jesus around that time. But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God.
        slowmovintarget 6y ago
        I can only claim secular documentation for the former. :)
        jariel 6y ago
        I think you're missing the key dimensions of the issue here. Jesus is ultimately a metaphysical figure, his skin colour is irrelevant. Are you going to be the 'Young Stazi' going around from Church to Church with the Pantone cards making sure he's 'Pantone Lion 17-1330' and not a shade off? And will you do the same for the Buddha, who was almost assuredly 'Brown' (Indian sub-continent), and not 'East Asian' as often depicted? And what about all the Black and Asian Jesuses? You're going to take those down as well? We're gonna call out 1/2 the world as "RACIST!" now? And "That's a Lie." ... of all the concerns and 'evil lies' that people tell about Jesus and it's going to be his skin colour (?!?!) which, you're not even sure of? And maybe not, for example, the bit about 'turning water into wine'? It's Month Python crazy. Just FYI: - Jesus was probably a real person (Moses was not, Mohammed definitely was, Buddha probably was) , though obviously, if you're into 'historical' Jesus, he probably didn't turn water into wine. But the 'historical Jesus' isn't that interesting, it's the metaphorical/metaphysical person/creation that is the foundation of the Church and the Teacher. - His 'skin colour' was probably what see now in the Middle East and would have been identical to most Romans or Greek and would not have been seen as 'brown' as one would have to go to Ethopia/Nubia for that kind of thing even then. Jesus could have been fair skinned like many Greeks. In '19th century' terms people from the 'Middle East' are Caucasian - meaning 'White'. If a Lebanese citizen told you they identified as 'White' would you deny them that? The point being, the identification of Jesus as being 'White or Not' racially is not only missing the point, it's not even possible to define. - "But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God" once again, not even in the ballpark. For starters, not 'every man' was Abraham Lincoln, to start, and not every man started the the most influential and enduring social movement in world history. - Shawn King is an artist, making a name for himself. He's a rabble-rouser, getting his name spread around the world by making racist statements that others are only too willing to publish. Now - if Shawn wanted to say 'Hey, that White people depict their Lord as White, when he probably was not, might create a problematic perspective' and if Shawn also wanted to concede that this is actually common among religions and there's a universality to it, and wanted to have a discussion about this - that would be some intellectual rhetoric worth an evening on Charlie Rose if he wasn't cancelled. But he and his enablers at CNN are (painfully obviously) not interested in any discussion, rather, in attacking what they perceive to be 'White Culture' as the source of all of their problems. If Barack Obama, and avowed Christian and serious intellect, for example, wanted to talk about the issue of 'White depictions of Jesus' - now that would be fine, and he'd have the ear of half the nation. But Shawn needs to be cancelled because he has nothing to contribute but racist antagonising.
- throw_this_one 6y ago
  So you're just taking one of his statements as the n=1 example that he's not racist? Just spend 5 mins perusing his Instagram, look at maybe 10 random posts and see the undertones.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    I don't do instagram. I perused his twitter and didn't see anything alarming. Again, calling out white people on their shit is not racist. Show me posts where he's issuing judgments of people solely on their skin color.

Wikipedia has this: In June 2020, King tweeted that statues, murals, and stained glass windows depicting a white Jesus should be removed. "Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down," he tweeted. "They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. Are you hurt by that assertion? Please show citations where actual "anti-white" comments are made. N.B. calling white people out on their shit is not "anti-white".

jariel 6y ago
This is driving the problem if you're literally quoting blatantly 'anti-white' statements and then wondering where the 'anti-white' sentiment is. This language is certainly within the threshold of civility, he should be able to say such things without being 'cancelled' , but it's obviously 'anti white' and casually racist. He's antagonising to make a name for himself. This is the equivalent of Trump's 'Whuan Virus' rhetoric.
- pstuart 6y ago
  It's not "anti-white". It's calling out a lie. If Jesus was real (and I'm in the camp that believes he wasn't), he wasn't white. I'm as white as they come and these statements don't threaten me. How was the statement I cited racist?
  - slowmovintarget 6y ago
    Jesus was real. There's documentation of his existence in letters between Roman governors. So he was at least an actual historical figure that was around back then. That being said, he would have been dark-skinned Middle Eastern, like everyone else in the region at the time.
    - pstuart 6y ago
      Maybe there was a guy named Jesus around that time. But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God.
      - slowmovintarget 6y ago
        I can only claim secular documentation for the former. :)
      - jariel 6y ago
        I think you're missing the key dimensions of the issue here. Jesus is ultimately a metaphysical figure, his skin colour is irrelevant. Are you going to be the 'Young Stazi' going around from Church to Church with the Pantone cards making sure he's 'Pantone Lion 17-1330' and not a shade off? And will you do the same for the Buddha, who was almost assuredly 'Brown' (Indian sub-continent), and not 'East Asian' as often depicted? And what about all the Black and Asian Jesuses? You're going to take those down as well? We're gonna call out 1/2 the world as "RACIST!" now? And "That's a Lie." ... of all the concerns and 'evil lies' that people tell about Jesus and it's going to be his skin colour (?!?!) which, you're not even sure of? And maybe not, for example, the bit about 'turning water into wine'? It's Month Python crazy. Just FYI: - Jesus was probably a real person (Moses was not, Mohammed definitely was, Buddha probably was) , though obviously, if you're into 'historical' Jesus, he probably didn't turn water into wine. But the 'historical Jesus' isn't that interesting, it's the metaphorical/metaphysical person/creation that is the foundation of the Church and the Teacher. - His 'skin colour' was probably what see now in the Middle East and would have been identical to most Romans or Greek and would not have been seen as 'brown' as one would have to go to Ethopia/Nubia for that kind of thing even then. Jesus could have been fair skinned like many Greeks. In '19th century' terms people from the 'Middle East' are Caucasian - meaning 'White'. If a Lebanese citizen told you they identified as 'White' would you deny them that? The point being, the identification of Jesus as being 'White or Not' racially is not only missing the point, it's not even possible to define. - "But son of God? Only if you consider every man a son of God" once again, not even in the ballpark. For starters, not 'every man' was Abraham Lincoln, to start, and not every man started the the most influential and enduring social movement in world history. - Shawn King is an artist, making a name for himself. He's a rabble-rouser, getting his name spread around the world by making racist statements that others are only too willing to publish. Now - if Shawn wanted to say 'Hey, that White people depict their Lord as White, when he probably was not, might create a problematic perspective' and if Shawn also wanted to concede that this is actually common among religions and there's a universality to it, and wanted to have a discussion about this - that would be some intellectual rhetoric worth an evening on Charlie Rose if he wasn't cancelled. But he and his enablers at CNN are (painfully obviously) not interested in any discussion, rather, in attacking what they perceive to be 'White Culture' as the source of all of their problems. If Barack Obama, and avowed Christian and serious intellect, for example, wanted to talk about the issue of 'White depictions of Jesus' - now that would be fine, and he'd have the ear of half the nation. But Shawn needs to be cancelled because he has nothing to contribute but racist antagonising.
throw_this_one 6y ago
So you're just taking one of his statements as the n=1 example that he's not racist? Just spend 5 mins perusing his Instagram, look at maybe 10 random posts and see the undertones.
- pstuart 6y ago
  I don't do instagram. I perused his twitter and didn't see anything alarming. Again, calling out white people on their shit is not racist. Show me posts where he's issuing judgments of people solely on their skin color.