Kelly Is Back And Still Stands Behind Her Insane Comments

[Synthaholic]

Ok since you chose to dog the question, explain why it is insane to say they are white?

I will remind you again that Saint Kick was a Greek, and Greeks are white. And that Jesus was born in Israel so was either white or off white.

If Greeks are White, and Palestinians are White, then Mexicans are White.

You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to explain which factors separate Mexicans from Semites and Mediterraneans.

Some Mexicans are white.

Im not sure why it matters. But the scriptures say very clearly Christ is white:

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; (Rev 1:12-14)

Again, why does it matter? He could be black or purple, and yet He would still be the Savior of the World. He would still be the Son of God. He still atoned for our sins.

Again, I don't know why you guys think this is a big deal. Nor why you are so offended that she stated the truth of the matter.

Revelations? Seriously?

 

[BDBoop]

Wouldn't that be as bad as saying he was white though?

No. Because all the other races aren't telling the white race that they're wrong. Just whites telling non-whites that he was white - which is also wrong.

I can understand that sentiment, but I am not going to target any non-white person here and shove that concept down their throat. As you can see, I am trying to make an actual scientific, genealogical and demographical argument for why I believe Jesus was white or Caucasian. I do it not to appease my sensitivities, but to prove a theory. Since most of the assertions about Jesus' ethnicity are just that, theories.

To my recollection, Caucasians (also referred to as "dirty whites") are any of the human species that originate from Europe, North Africa (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt), the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Somalia), Western Asia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen) , Central Asia and South Asia. Meaning, that the peoples in these areas shared a lighter complexion than their Middle Eastern counterparts. It can be deduced that some of them resided in the area where Israel is now. Thus, making it possible for Jesus to be a Causcasian, and thus 'white' as the term is used here.

"This third racial zone stretches from Spain across the Straits of Gibraltar to Morocco, and thence along the southern Mediterranean shores into Arabia, East Africa, Mesopotamia, and the Persian highlands; and across Afghanistan into India[...] The Mediterranean racial zone stretches unbroken from Spain across the Straits of Gibraltar to Morocco, and thence eastward to India[...] A branch of it extends far southward on both sides of the Red Sea into southern Arabia, the Ethiopian highlands, and the Horn of Africa."

Carleton Stevens Coon, The Races of Europe. New York: The Macmillan Company. pp 400-401 (1939)

No.

And I am not attempting to shove anything down anywhere, so no need for the inflammatory rhetoric, thanks.

 

[Iceman]

There is no such thing as "Afroasiatic peoples"

There are 3 primary races: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Thought some would say Australoid is a race as well, which I agree with.

Technically speaking, the idea of "race" is generally disregarded in modern anthropology. It only remains of any value in forensic anthropology. But even then, scientists recognize it as merely a rendering of modern social concepts. For example, a skull can have features that indicate predominate African ancestry. Thus, such a person would generally be considered "black" in today's society. These perceptions are not held to be indicative any actually existing race. They are merely convenient explanatory tools.

As for there being no such thing as Afroasiatic peoples, the fact that you say that shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Afroasiatic peoples share common ancestry, from which different but related cultures diverged. Semitic peoples are the only ethnic groups to emerge out of continental Africa during Ancient times. They had no substantial ancestry with Indo-European peoples, other than the common ancestries that Indo-Europeans at large shared with Afroasiatics.

Modern Anthropology, has no basis in reality. It's basis lies in the work of Franz Boas, a cultural marxist. Modern Anthropology was heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. Anthropology has no basis in science.

The fact you cite modern anthropology as some broad universal authority on the scientific topic of race shows how ignorant you are on the subject.

There are genetically defined races.

Semitic peoples are Caucasian peoples, Caucasians emerged out of Western Eurasia, primarily the Caucasus and modern day Iran.

There is no such thing as Afroasiatics racially. It is a language group comprising the Middle East, North Africa, and the horn of Africa(Somalia).

 

[Mertex]

Oh that St Nick was white. I love you lefties going mental crazy on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that Megan Kelly is the one that is going mental crazy over the fact that Santa has to be "white"!

It's a made up character....not really real.....so who can claim that he is of a particular race or color? Only Faux News and their idiot commentators.....

 

[SwimExpert]

There is no such thing as "Afroasiatic peoples"

There are 3 primary races: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Thought some would say Australoid is a race as well, which I agree with.

Technically speaking, the idea of "race" is generally disregarded in modern anthropology. It only remains of any value in forensic anthropology. But even then, scientists recognize it as merely a rendering of modern social concepts. For example, a skull can have features that indicate predominate African ancestry. Thus, such a person would generally be considered "black" in today's society. These perceptions are not held to be indicative any actually existing race. They are merely convenient explanatory tools.

As for there being no such thing as Afroasiatic peoples, the fact that you say that shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Afroasiatic peoples share common ancestry, from which different but related cultures diverged. Semitic peoples are the only ethnic groups to emerge out of continental Africa during Ancient times. They had no substantial ancestry with Indo-European peoples, other than the common ancestries that Indo-Europeans at large shared with Afroasiatics.

Modern Anthropology, has no basis in reality. It's basis lies in the work of Franz Boas, a cultural marxist. Modern Anthropology was heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. Anthropology has no basis in science.

The fact you cite modern anthropology as some broad universal authority on the scientific topic of race shows how ignorant you are on the subject.

There are genetically defined races.

Semitic peoples are Caucasian peoples, Caucasians emerged out of Western Eurasia, primarily the Caucasus and modern day Iran.

There is no such thing as Afroasiatics racially. It is a language group comprising the Middle East, North Africa, and the horn of Africa(Somalia).

Are you kidding me? You use 19th century anthropology ideas to try to make your argument, but then say that modern anthropology has no basis in science. So....what? Only the outdated anthropology has merit? Jesus-almost-black-Christ how can you not be embarrassed to say such ridiculous things?

 

[Iceman]

If Greeks are White, and Palestinians are White, then Mexicans are White.

You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to explain which factors separate Mexicans from Semites and Mediterraneans.

Some Mexicans are white.

Im not sure why it matters. But the scriptures say very clearly Christ is white:

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; (Rev 1:12-14)

Again, why does it matter? He could be black or purple, and yet He would still be the Savior of the World. He would still be the Son of God. He still atoned for our sins.

Again, I don't know why you guys think this is a big deal. Nor why you are so offended that she stated the truth of the matter.

Revelations? Seriously?

Mexicans aren't a race, they are a nationality. There Black, White, Mestizo, and Amerindian Mexicans

 

[Iceman]

Technically speaking, the idea of "race" is generally disregarded in modern anthropology. It only remains of any value in forensic anthropology. But even then, scientists recognize it as merely a rendering of modern social concepts. For example, a skull can have features that indicate predominate African ancestry. Thus, such a person would generally be considered "black" in today's society. These perceptions are not held to be indicative any actually existing race. They are merely convenient explanatory tools.

As for there being no such thing as Afroasiatic peoples, the fact that you say that shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Afroasiatic peoples share common ancestry, from which different but related cultures diverged. Semitic peoples are the only ethnic groups to emerge out of continental Africa during Ancient times. They had no substantial ancestry with Indo-European peoples, other than the common ancestries that Indo-Europeans at large shared with Afroasiatics.

Modern Anthropology, has no basis in reality. It's basis lies in the work of Franz Boas, a cultural marxist. Modern Anthropology was heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. Anthropology has no basis in science.

The fact you cite modern anthropology as some broad universal authority on the scientific topic of race shows how ignorant you are on the subject.

There are genetically defined races.

Semitic peoples are Caucasian peoples, Caucasians emerged out of Western Eurasia, primarily the Caucasus and modern day Iran.

There is no such thing as Afroasiatics racially. It is a language group comprising the Middle East, North Africa, and the horn of Africa(Somalia).

Are you kidding me? You use 19th century anthropology ideas to try to make your argument, but then say that modern anthropology has no basis in science. So....what? Only the outdated anthropology has merit? Jesus-almost-black-Christ how can you not be embarrassed to say such ridiculous things?

That's right, modern anthropology is just politically motivated social studies. Even universities recognize this by calling it a "social science", aka, not a science.

Any credible academic recognizes "Afroasiatic" as a linguistic category, not a racial group. You are the only person I know who has suggested this designation as a racial group. You are also the only person I have heard say Semites emerged as a distinct group from Africa.

 

[BDBoop]

Technically speaking, the idea of "race" is generally disregarded in modern anthropology. It only remains of any value in forensic anthropology. But even then, scientists recognize it as merely a rendering of modern social concepts. For example, a skull can have features that indicate predominate African ancestry. Thus, such a person would generally be considered "black" in today's society. These perceptions are not held to be indicative any actually existing race. They are merely convenient explanatory tools.

As for there being no such thing as Afroasiatic peoples, the fact that you say that shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Afroasiatic peoples share common ancestry, from which different but related cultures diverged. Semitic peoples are the only ethnic groups to emerge out of continental Africa during Ancient times. They had no substantial ancestry with Indo-European peoples, other than the common ancestries that Indo-Europeans at large shared with Afroasiatics.

Modern Anthropology, has no basis in reality. It's basis lies in the work of Franz Boas, a cultural marxist. Modern Anthropology was heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. Anthropology has no basis in science.

The fact you cite modern anthropology as some broad universal authority on the scientific topic of race shows how ignorant you are on the subject.

There are genetically defined races.

Semitic peoples are Caucasian peoples, Caucasians emerged out of Western Eurasia, primarily the Caucasus and modern day Iran.

There is no such thing as Afroasiatics racially. It is a language group comprising the Middle East, North Africa, and the horn of Africa(Somalia).

Are you kidding me? You use 19th century anthropology ideas to try to make your argument, but then say that modern anthropology has no basis in science. So....what? Only the outdated anthropology has merit? Jesus-almost-black-Christ how can you not be embarrassed to say such ridiculous things?

 

[Gracie]

I think she is a complete idiot.

And she could be Nancy Grace's twin. That face. Does she eat lemons regularly? What a moron.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

While the person that Santa Claus was originally fashioned after was Saint Nicholas, who was indeed a white male, the jolly, fat, red-cheeked, immortal who can circle the globe in one night in a sleigh with reindeer, distributing presents and wearing a red and white suit, is a completely fictional character, bearing no resemblance to the original individual and thus and fictional characters can be any color one wants to make them.
Kelly's comment about Jesus however, was one of ignorance. Jesus, if he existed at all, would have been a Nazarene and as such would have been olive-skinned, with black hair and beard. He wouldn't have been white. For those who cannot accept him as non-white, they're racist and aren't going to make it through the pearly gates, if there are any.

 

[Politico]

Well this thread is pointless as most of the OPs are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh that St Nick was white. I love you lefties going mental crazy on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that Megyn Kelly is the one that is going mental crazy over the fact that Santa has to be "white"!

It's a made up character....not really real.....so who can claim that he is of a particular race or color? Only Faux News and their idiot commentators.....

Actually, Aisha Harris started that one. "It was offensive for me to have Santa portrayed as an old-fat-white-man, so I want to turn him into a penguin!" To paraphrase.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. Because all the other races aren't telling the white race that they're wrong. Just whites telling non-whites that he was white - which is also wrong.

I can understand that sentiment, but I am not going to target any non-white person here and shove that concept down their throat. As you can see, I am trying to make an actual scientific, genealogical and demographical argument for why I believe Jesus was white or Caucasian. I do it not to appease my sensitivities, but to prove a theory. Since most of the assertions about Jesus' ethnicity are just that, theories.

To my recollection, Caucasians (also referred to as "dirty whites") are any of the human species that originate from Europe, North Africa (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt), the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Somalia), Western Asia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen) , Central Asia and South Asia. Meaning, that the peoples in these areas shared a lighter complexion than their Middle Eastern counterparts. It can be deduced that some of them resided in the area where Israel is now. Thus, making it possible for Jesus to be a Causcasian, and thus 'white' as the term is used here.

"This third racial zone stretches from Spain across the Straits of Gibraltar to Morocco, and thence along the southern Mediterranean shores into Arabia, East Africa, Mesopotamia, and the Persian highlands; and across Afghanistan into India[...] The Mediterranean racial zone stretches unbroken from Spain across the Straits of Gibraltar to Morocco, and thence eastward to India[...] A branch of it extends far southward on both sides of the Red Sea into southern Arabia, the Ethiopian highlands, and the Horn of Africa."

Carleton Stevens Coon, The Races of Europe. New York: The Macmillan Company. pp 400-401 (1939)

No.

And I am not attempting to shove anything down anywhere, so no need for the inflammatory rhetoric, thanks.

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] I was unaware I was issuing any inflammatory rhetoric, BD. Given that all I've gotten from the liberal posters here is 'no', which is not a sufficient rebuttal to my argument, I chose to provide fact based positions. But you were the one who made the contention that white people among other races were going around telling non-white people that Jesus was white, in essence, "shoving it down their throat." In fact, holding such a position may be considered in itself "inflammatory." I wasn't accusing you of anything, but was merely letting you know that I don't do the things you say those other races do. If that is indeed inflammatory, perhaps I need to reassess my knowledge of the dictionary.

 

[BDBoop]

I can understand that sentiment, but I am not going to target any non-white person here and shove that concept down their throat. As you can see, I am trying to make an actual scientific, genealogical and demographical argument for why I believe Jesus was white or Caucasian. I do it not to appease my sensitivities, but to prove a theory. Since most of the assertions about Jesus' ethnicity are just that, theories.

To my recollection, Caucasians (also referred to as "dirty whites") are any of the human species that originate from Europe, North Africa (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt), the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Somalia), Western Asia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen) , Central Asia and South Asia. Meaning, that the peoples in these areas shared a lighter complexion than their Middle Eastern counterparts. It can be deduced that some of them resided in the area where Israel is now. Thus, making it possible for Jesus to be a Causcasian, and thus 'white' as the term is used here.

No.

And I am not attempting to shove anything down anywhere, so no need for the inflammatory rhetoric, thanks.

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] I was unaware I was issuing any inflammatory rhetoric, BD. Given that all I've gotten from the liberal posters here is 'no', which is not a sufficient rebuttal to my argument, I chose to provide fact based positions. But you were the one who made the contention that white people among other races were going around telling non-white people that Jesus was white, in essence, "shoving it down their throat." In fact, holding such a position may be considered in itself "inflammatory." I wasn't accusing you of anything, but was merely letting you know that I don't do the things you say those other races do. If that is indeed inflammatory, perhaps I need to reassess my knowledge of the dictionary.

Oh, my god. No. Just no. Stop twisting what I say to fit your talking points, and then use them against me. Because once you twist it, it ceases to be what I said.

Jesus, TK. Is the 'win' really worth it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh that St Nick was white. I love you lefties going mental crazy on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that Megyn Kelly is the one that is going mental crazy over the fact that Santa has to be "white"!

It's a made up character....not really real.....so who can claim that he is of a particular race or color? Only Faux News and their idiot commentators.....

Actually, Aisha Harris started that one. "It was offensive for me to have Santa portrayed as an old-fat-white-man, so I want to turn him into a penguin!" To paraphrase.

To paraphrase?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No.

And I am not attempting to shove anything down anywhere, so no need for the inflammatory rhetoric, thanks.

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] I was unaware I was issuing any inflammatory rhetoric, BD. Given that all I've gotten from the liberal posters here is 'no', which is not a sufficient rebuttal to my argument, I chose to provide fact based positions. But you were the one who made the contention that white people among other races were going around telling non-white people that Jesus was white, in essence, "shoving it down their throat." In fact, holding such a position may be considered in itself "inflammatory." I wasn't accusing you of anything, but was merely letting you know that I don't do the things you say those other races do. If that is indeed inflammatory, perhaps I need to reassess my knowledge of the dictionary.

Oh, my god. No. Just no. Stop twisting what I say to fit your talking points, and then use them against me. Because once you twist it, it ceases to be what I said.

Jesus, TK. Is the 'win' really worth it?

Not trying to "win" or "twist" anything. I was originally trying to defend myself.

You said "all the other races aren't telling the white race that they're wrong. Just whites telling non-whites that he was white - which is also wrong.

In a nutshell, BD I agree, I personally don't make a habit of shoving my worldview down people's throats, and no, I'm not insinuating that you do anything of the sort. People can enjoy Santa however they want, black, white, pink, purple--whatever. Jesus on the other hand, I personally don't care what color he was. Jesus is Jesus. But though my own research, I believe he resembled a White Caucasian man, given that the Caucasus Mountains were mere hundreds of miles northeast of where Jesus was born, and that many Caucasians were from the areas I mention in my previous posts, including the Eastern Mediterranean.

There is no win here, no intentional sleights, just my honest attempt to engender a debate.

 

[BDBoop]

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] I was unaware I was issuing any inflammatory rhetoric, BD. Given that all I've gotten from the liberal posters here is 'no', which is not a sufficient rebuttal to my argument, I chose to provide fact based positions. But you were the one who made the contention that white people among other races were going around telling non-white people that Jesus was white, in essence, "shoving it down their throat." In fact, holding such a position may be considered in itself "inflammatory." I wasn't accusing you of anything, but was merely letting you know that I don't do the things you say those other races do. If that is indeed inflammatory, perhaps I need to reassess my knowledge of the dictionary.

Oh, my god. No. Just no. Stop twisting what I say to fit your talking points, and then use them against me. Because once you twist it, it ceases to be what I said.

Jesus, TK. Is the 'win' really worth it?

Not trying to "win" or "twist" anything. I was originally trying to defend myself.

You said "all the other races aren't telling the white race that they're wrong. Just whites telling non-whites that he was white - which is also wrong.

In a nutshell, BD I agree, I personally don't make a habit of shoving my worldview down people's throats, and no, I'm not insinuating that you do anything of the sort. People can enjoy Santa however they want, black, white, pink, purple--whatever. Jesus on the other hand, I personally don't care what color he was. Jesus is Jesus. But though my own research, I believe he resembled a White Caucasian man, given that the Caucasus Mountains were mere hundreds of miles northeast of where Jesus was born, and that many Caucasians were from the areas I mention in my previous posts, including the Eastern Mediterranean.

There is no win here, no intentional sleights, just my honest attempt to engender a debate.

Uh-huh. Okay. Jesus was Caucasian.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It seems to me that Megyn Kelly is the one that is going mental crazy over the fact that Santa has to be "white"!

It's a made up character....not really real.....so who can claim that he is of a particular race or color? Only Faux News and their idiot commentators.....

Actually, Aisha Harris started that one. "It was offensive for me to have Santa portrayed as an old-fat-white-man, so I want to turn him into a penguin!" To paraphrase.

To paraphrase?

I did read her essay. If you want me to quote her, I can. Did YOU read her essay? Or are you too busy spouting off talking points?

In hindsight, I see this explanation as the great Hollywood spec script it really is. (Just picture the past-their-prime actors who could share the role. Robert De Niro! Eddie Murphy! Jackie Chan! I smell a camp classic.) But at the time, I didn't buy it. I remember feeling slightly ashamed that our black Santa wasn't the "real thing." Because when you're a kid and you're inundated with the imagery of a pale seasonal visitor - and you notice that even some black families decorate their houses with white Santas - you're likely to accept the consensus view, despite your parents' noble intentions.

Two decades later, America is less and less white, but a melanin-deficient Santa remains the default in commercials, mall casting calls, and movies. Isn't it time that our image of Santa better serve all the children he delights each Christmas? Yes, it is. And so I propose that America abandon Santa-as-fat-old-white-man and create a new symbol of Christmas cheer. From here on out, Santa Claus should be a penguin.

That's right: a penguin.

Why, you ask? For one thing, making Santa Claus an animal rather than an old white male could spare millions of nonwhite kids the insecurity and shame that I remember from childhood. Whether you celebrate the holiday or not, Santa is one of the first iconic figures foisted upon you: He exists as an incredibly powerful image in the imaginations of children across the country (and beyond, of course). That this genial, jolly man can only be seen as white - and consequently, that a Santa of any other hue is merely a "joke" or a chance to trudge out racist stereotypes - helps perpetuate the whole "white-as-default" notion endemic to American culture (and, of course, not just American culture).

It's time to give Santa Claus a makeover - Aisha Harris

 

[LoneLaugher]

Actually, Aisha Harris started that one. "It was offensive for me to have Santa portrayed as an old-fat-white-man, so I want to turn him into a penguin!" To paraphrase.

To paraphrase?

I did read her essay. If you want me to quote her, I can. Did YOU read her essay? Or are you too busy spouting off talking points?

In hindsight, I see this explanation as the great Hollywood spec script it really is. (Just picture the past-their-prime actors who could share the role. Robert De Niro! Eddie Murphy! Jackie Chan! I smell a camp classic.) But at the time, I didn't buy it. I remember feeling slightly ashamed that our black Santa wasn't the "real thing." Because when you're a kid and you're inundated with the imagery of a pale seasonal visitor - and you notice that even some black families decorate their houses with white Santas - you're likely to accept the consensus view, despite your parents' noble intentions.

Two decades later, America is less and less white, but a melanin-deficient Santa remains the default in commercials, mall casting calls, and movies. Isn't it time that our image of Santa better serve all the children he delights each Christmas? Yes, it is. And so I propose that America abandon Santa-as-fat-old-white-man and create a new symbol of Christmas cheer. From here on out, Santa Claus should be a penguin.

That's right: a penguin.

Why, you ask? For one thing, making Santa Claus an animal rather than an old white male could spare millions of nonwhite kids the insecurity and shame that I remember from childhood. Whether you celebrate the holiday or not, Santa is one of the first iconic figures foisted upon you: He exists as an incredibly powerful image in the imaginations of children across the country (and beyond, of course). That this genial, jolly man can only be seen as white - and consequently, that a Santa of any other hue is merely a "joke" or a chance to trudge out racist stereotypes - helps perpetuate the whole "white-as-default" notion endemic to American culture (and, of course, not just American culture).

It's time to give Santa Claus a makeover - Aisha Harris

I read it. She was not offended. She did not say she was offended. Her discussion was reasoned and calm....without expressing angst other than being confused as a child.

Until she started in with the penguin shit, that is. That was just stupid.

Paraphrasing is fine.....but you need to do so accurately. She was not offended.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, my god. No. Just no. Stop twisting what I say to fit your talking points, and then use them against me. Because once you twist it, it ceases to be what I said.

Jesus, TK. Is the 'win' really worth it?

Not trying to "win" or "twist" anything. I was originally trying to defend myself.

You said "all the other races aren't telling the white race that they're wrong. Just whites telling non-whites that he was white - which is also wrong.

In a nutshell, BD I agree, I personally don't make a habit of shoving my worldview down people's throats, and no, I'm not insinuating that you do anything of the sort. People can enjoy Santa however they want, black, white, pink, purple--whatever. Jesus on the other hand, I personally don't care what color he was. Jesus is Jesus. But though my own research, I believe he resembled a White Caucasian man, given that the Caucasus Mountains were mere hundreds of miles northeast of where Jesus was born, and that many Caucasians were from the areas I mention in my previous posts, including the Eastern Mediterranean.

There is no win here, no intentional sleights, just my honest attempt to engender a debate.

Uh-huh. Okay. Jesus was Caucasian.

But not a Caucasian as defined by the US Census Bureau. The term has been co-opted by that bureaucracy.

Look, I'm not saying Jesus was white 'just because' I am trying to make an intellectual argument here. I'm hoping people can appreciate such an effort and try to rebut me, not react so dismissively. I am theorizing.

In explaining the development of racial theories in the context of scripture, Colin Kidd, in his book The forging of races, argues that the assignment of race to biblical individuals has been a mostly subjective practice based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific methods. Kidd reviews a number of theories about the race of Jesus, ranging from a white Aryan Jesus to a black African Jesus, illustrating that there is no general agreement among scholars on the race of Jesus

Race and appearance of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia