3 ms·

> he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious). Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines all look very similar and Jesus was definitely of the Levant

> he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious). Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines all look very similar and Jesus was definitely of the Levant. I hope you won’t deny Spaniards and Greeks are European.

krapp 1y ago
In this context, "European" means "white." Jesus probably did not look like the bearded white hippie commonly depicted in Western (primarily American and British) iconography. Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines may or may not look similar (seems a bit broad, like the geographical definition of "European") but they also don't often look like "white people." Especially not in Egypt or the Levant.
- jibal 1y ago
  Weird which of these two comments was downvoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#Historical_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#H... > in terms of physical appearance, the average Judean of the time would have likely had brown or black hair, honey/olive-brown skin, and brown eyes This entire digression has been brought to you by someone who didn't understand an obvious pun.
- watwut 1y ago
  As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe.
  - throw0101d 1y ago
    > Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe. Not that they should actually be listened to about anything, but the KKK (and others) did not consider Italian (immigrants) to be white. One of the reasons for Columbus Day was people of that background wanting to show their 'American-ness'.
  - krapp 1y ago
    >As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Because you are, as I suspect many people will, intentionally misreading the context of my comment. I am implying that the use of "European" herein does not literally refer to the geographic region known as "Europe," but rather that in the context of a statement about the likely physical appearance of Jesus it should be understood as a statement about race and ethnicity whereby "European" is a politically correct descriptor for the common set of physical traits often described as "white," as is represented in Western depictions of Jesus, particularly where traits like skin color, eye color and hair color are concerned.
    - watwut 1y ago
      1.) Look, Spaniards are Europeans by any reasonable definition. They are part of Western Europe. 2.) Traditional western depiction of Jesus looking like Spaniards would be no exception. Traditional western depiction of Jesus tend to look sorta kinda like locals do. 3.) Europeans do have wild range of eye colors and hair colors. The eye color and hair being some specific colors even for whites is weird, because even whitey whites have all kind of hair colors and eye colors. > "European" is a politically correct descriptor for the common set of physical traits often described as "white, No it is not and to the extend it is, it is absurd whistleblowing attempt - the one that ends up redefine Western Europe as a place that excludes Spaniards.
    - barry-cotter 1y ago
      99.99% of the population of the Mediterranean basin at the time Jesus lived were white, almost certainly more given that the trans-Saharan slave trade was a creature of the camel and post dated the Arab conquest of North Africa.
      - acdha 1y ago
        “White” didn’t exist at that time and the people of the Mediterranean certainly didn’t think of themselves as one homogeneous group. The various peoples had prejudices about each other which only consolidated into a hierarchy when the trans-Atlantic slave trade needed to legally define who couldn’t be property. Prejudices by, for example, the English or American against Greeks or Italians lasted into the 20th century.
  - rhet0rica 1y ago
    Generally the matter is one of blood purity, as with all racism. Southern Spain, Italy, and Greece were all occupied at one time by Arabs, which contributed certain hair textures, skin tones, and facial features to the local gene pool. Those with no knowledge of history or civilization tend to be terrified of acknowledging the artistic and cultural contributions of al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire. As you probably know, the northern reaches of Italy are more German than Romance, on account of those pesky invasive Lombards. Of course the true absurdity of all this comes when two people from the same parents end up with different physiognomical and racial labels; since these traits are rarely as simple as idealized Mendelian characteristics, it is entirely possible for them to be passed on a couple of generations before re-coalescing. (The case of Summer on The Sopranos comes to mind—while her parents both have fairer skin than she does, the result is otherwise not all that unrealistic.)
- williamdclt 1y ago
  Never heard of spanish people or greeks not being considered "white".
  - krapp 1y ago
    Read an American history book.
  - noboostforyou 1y ago
    Just because you never heard it doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example, Irish people were heavily discriminated against in the US and were considered at one point to not be "white" https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/06/negative-stereotypes-of-the-irish/ https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/06/negative-st... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment
    - barry-cotter 1y ago
      > Irish people […] were considered at one point to not be "white" This isn’t true. Naturalisation was limited to white people and no Irish person was ever denied it in account of their race.
  - xeonmc 1y ago
    It's euphemism for "Aryan".

krapp 1y ago

In this context, "European" means "white." Jesus probably did not look like the bearded white hippie commonly depicted in Western (primarily American and British) iconography. Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines may or may not look similar (seems a bit broad, like the geographical definition of "European") but they also don't often look like "white people." Especially not in Egypt or the Levant.

jibal 1y ago
Weird which of these two comments was downvoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#Historical_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#H... > in terms of physical appearance, the average Judean of the time would have likely had brown or black hair, honey/olive-brown skin, and brown eyes This entire digression has been brought to you by someone who didn't understand an obvious pun.
watwut 1y ago
As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe.
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe. Not that they should actually be listened to about anything, but the KKK (and others) did not consider Italian (immigrants) to be white. One of the reasons for Columbus Day was people of that background wanting to show their 'American-ness'.
- krapp 1y ago
  >As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Because you are, as I suspect many people will, intentionally misreading the context of my comment. I am implying that the use of "European" herein does not literally refer to the geographic region known as "Europe," but rather that in the context of a statement about the likely physical appearance of Jesus it should be understood as a statement about race and ethnicity whereby "European" is a politically correct descriptor for the common set of physical traits often described as "white," as is represented in Western depictions of Jesus, particularly where traits like skin color, eye color and hair color are concerned.
  - watwut 1y ago
    1.) Look, Spaniards are Europeans by any reasonable definition. They are part of Western Europe. 2.) Traditional western depiction of Jesus looking like Spaniards would be no exception. Traditional western depiction of Jesus tend to look sorta kinda like locals do. 3.) Europeans do have wild range of eye colors and hair colors. The eye color and hair being some specific colors even for whites is weird, because even whitey whites have all kind of hair colors and eye colors. > "European" is a politically correct descriptor for the common set of physical traits often described as "white, No it is not and to the extend it is, it is absurd whistleblowing attempt - the one that ends up redefine Western Europe as a place that excludes Spaniards.
  - barry-cotter 1y ago
    99.99% of the population of the Mediterranean basin at the time Jesus lived were white, almost certainly more given that the trans-Saharan slave trade was a creature of the camel and post dated the Arab conquest of North Africa.
    - acdha 1y ago
      “White” didn’t exist at that time and the people of the Mediterranean certainly didn’t think of themselves as one homogeneous group. The various peoples had prejudices about each other which only consolidated into a hierarchy when the trans-Atlantic slave trade needed to legally define who couldn’t be property. Prejudices by, for example, the English or American against Greeks or Italians lasted into the 20th century.
- rhet0rica 1y ago
  Generally the matter is one of blood purity, as with all racism. Southern Spain, Italy, and Greece were all occupied at one time by Arabs, which contributed certain hair textures, skin tones, and facial features to the local gene pool. Those with no knowledge of history or civilization tend to be terrified of acknowledging the artistic and cultural contributions of al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire. As you probably know, the northern reaches of Italy are more German than Romance, on account of those pesky invasive Lombards. Of course the true absurdity of all this comes when two people from the same parents end up with different physiognomical and racial labels; since these traits are rarely as simple as idealized Mendelian characteristics, it is entirely possible for them to be passed on a couple of generations before re-coalescing. (The case of Summer on The Sopranos comes to mind—while her parents both have fairer skin than she does, the result is otherwise not all that unrealistic.)
williamdclt 1y ago
Never heard of spanish people or greeks not being considered "white".
- krapp 1y ago
  Read an American history book.
- noboostforyou 1y ago
  Just because you never heard it doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example, Irish people were heavily discriminated against in the US and were considered at one point to not be "white" https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/06/negative-stereotypes-of-the-irish/ https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/06/negative-st... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment
  - barry-cotter 1y ago
    > Irish people […] were considered at one point to not be "white" This isn’t true. Naturalisation was limited to white people and no Irish person was ever denied it in account of their race.
- xeonmc 1y ago
  It's euphemism for "Aryan".