Racism and the facts, was Jesus black?

[epronovost]

Any type of active suppression, mental or physical based on the "color" of one's skin.

That's pretty much the exact same thing as the usual definition which pretty much goes: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. I suppose the difference is in the terms "active suppression" which implies that prejudices aren't included and in the fact that racism is strictly based on skin colors instead of a wider category which could include ethnic group. Am I wrong in this assesment?

 

[Tambourine]

Many races were slaves. Being a slave depends more on the ability to enforce enslavement, not skin color.

Except in the US.

 

[columbus]

Any type of active suppression, mental or physical based on the "color" of one's skin.

Would this include telling @icehorse that his opinions concerning BLM don't matter because he's too White to understand USA culture?
Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

1. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his slave. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his slave. (Genesis 9, synodical translation).

2. The Floyd's race was slaves for many Europeans and Americans.

I do not believe that the OT defines the Cursed of Canaan as the negro race. The people of Canaan were Semites like the Hebrews. In fact the Hebrews began as Pastoral Canaanite tribe living in the Hills of Judea.

Jesus was a Hebrew Semite.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia

 

[Nakosis]

Except in the US.

We still had to enforce it. Slavery was not voluntary like being an indentured servant.

 

[Windwalker]

Actually it means I decide for myself instead of letting others decide for me.

How can you, if you never question the programming? It does take being made aware first.

 

[Tambourine]

We still had to enforce it. Slavery was not voluntary like being an indentured servant.

You don't need to individually enforce it when you have an entire legal system doing your work. The US legal system is fairly unique in that it explicitly designated people as lesser beings based on skin color, which worked differently than slavery in most other parts of the world.

 

[Nakosis]

That's pretty much the exact same thing as the usual definition which pretty much goes: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. I suppose the difference is in the terms "active suppression" which implies that prejudices aren't included and in the fact that racism is strictly based on skin colors instead of a wider category which could include ethnic group. Am I wrong in this assesment?

I was thinking to include culture? Ethnics, sure.

I think "racism" is more about culture than skin color though the two are often tied together.

For me, I have a preference for some cultures over others. The US has many different cultures. I don't have to like them all.

What I mean by active is if people try to interfere with someone else's happiness/wellbeing/success only because of their ethics/culture that is racism. Hard to specifically define, but a person should not cause harm to another because of their race. However, when we define harm, it gets a little muddy.

 

[Nakosis]

You don't need to individually enforce it when you have an entire legal system doing your work. The US legal system is fairly unique in that it explicitly designated people as lesser beings based on skin color, which worked differently than slavery in most other parts of the world.

Of course. Individual enforcement is easily overwhelmed. It'd take some masterful psychological manipulations for one individual to enforce slavery on another. They were legally purchased as slaves.

What laws are you referring to that makes this designation based on skin color?

 

[epronovost]

I was thinking to include culture? Ethnics, sure.

I think "racism" is more about culture than skin color though the two are often tied together.

For me, I have a preference for some cultures over others. The US has many different cultures. I don't have to like them all.

What I mean by active is if people try to interfere with someone else's happiness/wellbeing/success only because of their ethics/culture that is racism. Hard to specifically define, but a person should not cause harm to another because of their race. However, when we define harm, it gets a little muddy.

Well then your personnal definition is pretty much rigorously identical to the common usage of it. I don't think it requires you to forewarn people that your definition is uncommon. It's not like you wanted to limit the term "racism" to something like "institutional racism" or "systemic racism" like sociologist do.

 

[shunyadragon]

Except in the US.

Well in the USA both Native Americans and Negroes, which many White Americans justified the slavery Biblically as justified slavery of foreigners.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't need to individually enforce it when you have an entire legal system doing your work. The US legal system is fairly unique in that it explicitly designated people as lesser beings based on skin color, which worked differently than slavery in most other parts of the world.

This was justified Biblically. It did not work entirely differently then the rest of the world. The European colonial powers justified slavery of foreigners in the colonies for similar reasons.

Biblically the indentured servitude was for members of the tribe.

 

[SomeRandom]

Races weren't invented yet during the time the historical Jesus of Nazareth was likely active, so he wasn't really any race in particular. Jesus Christ, the religious figure, can be of any race one chooses, I suppose.

I mean I’ve seen depictions of him as Asian, so I guess the “race is in the eye of the beholder”

 

[fantome profane]

I guess the “race is in the eye of the beholder”

Bingo.

 

[Tambourine]

This was justified Biblically. It did not work entirely differently then the rest of the world. The European colonial powers justified slavery of foreigners in the colonies for similar reasons.

Biblically the indentured servitude was for members of the tribe.

Slavery existed in Europe before that. The Black Sea trade and the Meditteranean slave trade were active long before the Atlantic slave trade became an important factor to Western European economies, primarily involved people of European and Levantine descent, and were not justified via the construct of race.

The European colonies in Americans, by contrast, never knew any form of slavery that wasn't based on race.

 

[shunyadragon]

Slavery existed in Europe before that. The Black Sea trade and the Meditteranean slave trade were active long before the Atlantic slave trade became an important factor to Western European economies, primarily involved people of European and Levantine descent, and were not justified via the construct of race.

The European colonies in Americans, by contrast, never knew any form of slavery that wasn't based on race.

In India. South and Central America the European countries did not enslave Europeans.

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean I’ve seen depictions of him as Asian, so I guess the “race is in the eye of the beholder”

Depictions are cultural, Jesus was a Middle Eastern Semite of Jewish origin.

 

[SomeRandom]

Depictions are cultural, Jesus was a Middle Eastern Semite of Jewish origin.

I do not dispute that. People like to imagine Jesus in different ways, is all.

 

[truthseeker7]

You mean, the reason why Jews and Muslims don't eat it? (It's actually "haram" in the case of Muslims.)

no the curse of where ham is cursed in genesis 9 and racists use it to justofy that blakcs and dark skin is cursed and that blakcs are descendents of ham, the person