![Would The History Channel’s Series “The Bible” be as Popular If It Didn’t Feature a White Surfer Jesus Dude? | We Are Respectable Negroes
By Chauncey DeVega
March 17, 2013
The History Channel’s miniseries The Bible is one of the most popular TV shows in recent memory. “The greatest story ever told” would appear to have much life left in it.
During an age of economic uncertainty (and among Christian Dominionist Evangelicals even more so who believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ) a retreat to a popularized version of the underpinnings of Christian faith, tailor-made for cable TV, would prove itself to be imminently popular.
The Bible is not a “true” or an “accurate” depiction of events. Like other TV shows and films, the final product is the result of the many decisions made by producers, actors, directors, writers, and editors. Given the religious-mythological-historical elements in the Bible as a document, these acts of creative decision-making are further compounded.
The choice of what elements to include or exclude from the History Channel’s series is ultimately an artistic interpretation of a document, one that itself is an act of both the omission, as well as selected inclusion of facts and details, that in total is a saleable product designed to make money for a TV network. Despite what its writers would claim, and some of the “faithful” in the audience would like to believe, there is nothing divine about the History Channel’s The Bible.
Truth is held hostage to these realities. However, that does not mean that we should avoid asking some basic questions about the accuracy of The Bible miniseries.
For some, what follows is an uncomfortable truth.
The historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth was not “white.” He was not European. Based on the scholarly consensus, the historical Jesus would be a Middle Eastern Jew of medium, if not dark, complexion. He was certainly dark enough to have spent time in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to not have had his skin tone commented upon or noted.
This Jesus would be hounded and harassed by the TSA, looked at as a de facto “suspicious” person in post 9/11 America, and be racially profiled by the national security state. The historical Jesus would likely be subject to stop and frisk policies by the New York police and others. If it were too late at night, and the historical Jesus was trying to get a cab—especially if he were not attired “professionally”—he would be left standing curbside because brown folks in their twenties and thirties who look like him are presumed to be criminals.
Despite the “common sense” depiction of Jesus in the (white) American popular imagination, the historical Jesus Christ is not a white surfer dude with blue eyes, long flowing hair, and suntan toned skin.
When I was an undergraduate and forced to take a series of Religious Studies classes as part of a core requirement. There, I was exposed first hand to how volatile such a basic observation can be to some Christians and others who identify with that faith tradition. Our professor was discussing how the Bible is a historical text that has been edited and changed to reveal the prevailing political and social norms of a given time. I asked a question about the Civil Rights Movement and how black folks tried to use the text for purposes of political inspiration and motivation in the face of great adversity.
This transitioned to a follow-up question where I asked, “what color was Jesus?” Having just seen Malcolm X the movie, I was curious as to the professor’s response. He looked around and plainly said that Jesus Christ was not white or a European. He would likely be a medium complected Jew with brown or darker skin. Check and mate: thus my follow-up, “could one reasonably say that Jesus the historical figure was black?”
Our masterful professor looked around in a considerate and contemplative manner and said, “depending on who you ask, and in what context, one could say that he could be considered ‘black’ in a society like America where whites have been so color conscious and race obsessed.” You could here a pin hit the floor as gasps of anger and protest erupted from the white (and some black and brown) students in the class.
There was actually an effort made by some students to get this professor fired. He was saved by a few things. First, his research claims, historiography on the matter, and credentials were impeccable. He had tenure. And he was white. It is quite likely that a black faculty member making such a basic claim would have had far fewer protections.
In these discussion of faith, some would likely object that “race doesn’t matter.” Who cares what color the historical Jesus is/was?
Here, the color of Jesus Christ matters while simultaneously being of little import. Thus, a paradox. If the color of Jesus Christ is unimportant, why then the objection to the question and a resistance to changing the images to be more historically accurate? Moreover, such a basic question about the lie that is white Jesus, is often deflected and redirected into one which ends with the power of the white racial frame enabling those invested in its distortion(s) of reality arguing that anyone, especially a person of color, asking such things must be a black “racist” or anti-white.
If a Christian is a true believer why would they have difficulty reconciling their faith with such a superficial thing as changing the historical lie that is white Jesus into one that is more accurate, a man of color, whose message would be unchanged? Would it really be that hard for some white Christians (and others) to kneel before a black or brown Jesus Christ? Are the psychic wages of Whiteness so great as to distort a person’s image of God?
These matters of race, religion, and politics remain potent even in 21st century America. See how President Obama’s presidential campaign was almost destroyed by Reverend Wright and the white conservative bogeyman known as “black liberation theology.”
Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo’s White Jesus were iconic images that enabled European colonialism and imperialism. In these grand projects of global white power and conquest “Christian” became synonymous with free, “white,” and “civilized.” “Heathen” meant that whole populations could be subjected to extermination, enslavement, and exploitation.
The current and most popular image of Jesus as created by Warner Sallman in 1941 depicts the former as a white “American.” Here, American exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and rise as an Imperial power were ordained as being one with He, and a blessing from God for a country whose elites imagined it to be a “shining city on the hill.”
This logic is perfectly cogent: a racial project of exploitation and enslavement of non-whites by Europeans, one legitimated by a belief in the natural inferiority of people of color, the pseudo-science of The Great Chain of Being, a belief in The Curse of Ham as well as other myths, must, for reasons of practical necessity, be predicated on the existence of a “white” God.
A twisted complement to how the whiteness of Jesus has been historically naturalized in the West is how the same ahistorical image adorns many African-American churches (as well as those of Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others) in this country and throughout the world.
Is there any greater example of the twisted nature of the color line, and the power of internalized white supremacy, than how many millions of black and brown folks kneel and pray before the image of a white god—an image which has long been used to justify and legitimate white supremacy and racial exploitation—on the most segregated day of the week?
Black and white Christians pray to the same mythologized and historically inaccurate image of Jesus; yet, they do not pray or worship together in the same churches.
Research shows that white audiences will not watch TV shows or movies which they judge to have too many people of color as characters. A historically accurate version of the Bible, which embraced the demographic realities of the era such as HBO’s epic Rome series, would be a revelation. Unfortunately, many in the American public would be unwilling to hear such a basic truth, for it would be too upsetting for those who have internalized whiteness and white racial privilege even on matters of religion and faith.
Copyright © 2013 Chauncey DeVega.
[Photo from www.bibleseries.tv.]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/c95ecab85686f626f82e124edf967667/tumblr_mjxblicwVZ1qb5wbbo1_r1_1280.jpg)
Would The History Channel’s Series “The Bible” be as Popular If It Didn’t Feature a White Surfer Jesus Dude? | We Are Respectable Negroes
By Chauncey DeVega
March 17, 2013
The History Channel’s miniseries The Bible is one of the most popular TV shows in recent memory. “The greatest story ever told” would appear to have much life left in it.
During an age of economic uncertainty (and among Christian Dominionist Evangelicals even more so who believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ) a retreat to a popularized version of the underpinnings of Christian faith, tailor-made for cable TV, would prove itself to be imminently popular.
The Bible is not a “true” or an “accurate” depiction of events. Like other TV shows and films, the final product is the result of the many decisions made by producers, actors, directors, writers, and editors. Given the religious-mythological-historical elements in the Bible as a document, these acts of creative decision-making are further compounded.
The choice of what elements to include or exclude from the History Channel’s series is ultimately an artistic interpretation of a document, one that itself is an act of both the omission, as well as selected inclusion of facts and details, that in total is a saleable product designed to make money for a TV network. Despite what its writers would claim, and some of the “faithful” in the audience would like to believe, there is nothing divine about the History Channel’s The Bible.
Truth is held hostage to these realities. However, that does not mean that we should avoid asking some basic questions about the accuracy of The Bible miniseries.
For some, what follows is an uncomfortable truth.
The historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth was not “white.” He was not European. Based on the scholarly consensus, the historical Jesus would be a Middle Eastern Jew of medium, if not dark, complexion. He was certainly dark enough to have spent time in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to not have had his skin tone commented upon or noted.
This Jesus would be hounded and harassed by the TSA, looked at as a de facto “suspicious” person in post 9/11 America, and be racially profiled by the national security state. The historical Jesus would likely be subject to stop and frisk policies by the New York police and others. If it were too late at night, and the historical Jesus was trying to get a cab—especially if he were not attired “professionally”—he would be left standing curbside because brown folks in their twenties and thirties who look like him are presumed to be criminals.
Despite the “common sense” depiction of Jesus in the (white) American popular imagination, the historical Jesus Christ is not a white surfer dude with blue eyes, long flowing hair, and suntan toned skin.
When I was an undergraduate and forced to take a series of Religious Studies classes as part of a core requirement. There, I was exposed first hand to how volatile such a basic observation can be to some Christians and others who identify with that faith tradition. Our professor was discussing how the Bible is a historical text that has been edited and changed to reveal the prevailing political and social norms of a given time. I asked a question about the Civil Rights Movement and how black folks tried to use the text for purposes of political inspiration and motivation in the face of great adversity.
This transitioned to a follow-up question where I asked, “what color was Jesus?” Having just seen Malcolm X the movie, I was curious as to the professor’s response. He looked around and plainly said that Jesus Christ was not white or a European. He would likely be a medium complected Jew with brown or darker skin. Check and mate: thus my follow-up, “could one reasonably say that Jesus the historical figure was black?”
Our masterful professor looked around in a considerate and contemplative manner and said, “depending on who you ask, and in what context, one could say that he could be considered ‘black’ in a society like America where whites have been so color conscious and race obsessed.” You could here a pin hit the floor as gasps of anger and protest erupted from the white (and some black and brown) students in the class.
There was actually an effort made by some students to get this professor fired. He was saved by a few things. First, his research claims, historiography on the matter, and credentials were impeccable. He had tenure. And he was white. It is quite likely that a black faculty member making such a basic claim would have had far fewer protections.
In these discussion of faith, some would likely object that “race doesn’t matter.” Who cares what color the historical Jesus is/was?
Here, the color of Jesus Christ matters while simultaneously being of little import. Thus, a paradox. If the color of Jesus Christ is unimportant, why then the objection to the question and a resistance to changing the images to be more historically accurate? Moreover, such a basic question about the lie that is white Jesus, is often deflected and redirected into one which ends with the power of the white racial frame enabling those invested in its distortion(s) of reality arguing that anyone, especially a person of color, asking such things must be a black “racist” or anti-white.
If a Christian is a true believer why would they have difficulty reconciling their faith with such a superficial thing as changing the historical lie that is white Jesus into one that is more accurate, a man of color, whose message would be unchanged? Would it really be that hard for some white Christians (and others) to kneel before a black or brown Jesus Christ? Are the psychic wages of Whiteness so great as to distort a person’s image of God?
These matters of race, religion, and politics remain potent even in 21st century America. See how President Obama’s presidential campaign was almost destroyed by Reverend Wright and the white conservative bogeyman known as “black liberation theology.”
Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo’s White Jesus were iconic images that enabled European colonialism and imperialism. In these grand projects of global white power and conquest “Christian” became synonymous with free, “white,” and “civilized.” “Heathen” meant that whole populations could be subjected to extermination, enslavement, and exploitation.
The current and most popular image of Jesus as created by Warner Sallman in 1941 depicts the former as a white “American.” Here, American exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and rise as an Imperial power were ordained as being one with He, and a blessing from God for a country whose elites imagined it to be a “shining city on the hill.”
This logic is perfectly cogent: a racial project of exploitation and enslavement of non-whites by Europeans, one legitimated by a belief in the natural inferiority of people of color, the pseudo-science of The Great Chain of Being, a belief in The Curse of Ham as well as other myths, must, for reasons of practical necessity, be predicated on the existence of a “white” God.
A twisted complement to how the whiteness of Jesus has been historically naturalized in the West is how the same ahistorical image adorns many African-American churches (as well as those of Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others) in this country and throughout the world.
Is there any greater example of the twisted nature of the color line, and the power of internalized white supremacy, than how many millions of black and brown folks kneel and pray before the image of a white god—an image which has long been used to justify and legitimate white supremacy and racial exploitation—on the most segregated day of the week?
Black and white Christians pray to the same mythologized and historically inaccurate image of Jesus; yet, they do not pray or worship together in the same churches.
Research shows that white audiences will not watch TV shows or movies which they judge to have too many people of color as characters. A historically accurate version of the Bible, which embraced the demographic realities of the era such as HBO’s epic Rome series, would be a revelation. Unfortunately, many in the American public would be unwilling to hear such a basic truth, for it would be too upsetting for those who have internalized whiteness and white racial privilege even on matters of religion and faith.
Copyright © 2013 Chauncey DeVega.
[Photo from www.bibleseries.tv.]
![Promising Platform for Secularism, ‘Free Arabs’ is Shackled by Stereotypes | Al Akhbar English
By Hocine Dimerdji
March 11, 2013
Last week marked the launch of Free Arabs, a new journalistic venture which aims to provide “democracy, secularism & fun” while “advocat[ing] secularism as what it is: institutionalized freedom of choice.”
“Millions of Arabs have internalized the notion that secularism is tantamount to faithlessness, and is all about demonizing Islam and promoting a dissolute way of life,” the editorial guidelines read. “This is certainly not the working definition for Free Arabs.”
While I have a few issues with that particular definition of secularism, as it locates secularism within a statist perspective, while ignoring both the historical contexts in which secularism as a concept was born and the rich history of Arab secularisms, I was intrigued. A space for secular Arabs to gather and provide analysis, satire, and commentary on Arab issues from a secular progressive perspective sounded promising.
However, within hours of the site’s launch, most of the responses I read on Twitter were scathing and seemed to pre-judge what on the surface looked like a welcome endeavor.
My first reaction was a mixture of hope and apprehension. While some of the listed contributors have a history of incisive, nuanced, and intelligent commentary, others associated with it do not. The title of the website bothered me as well: it seemed to imply that only secular Arabs were free.
Unfortunately, as I explored the website more thoroughly, my apprehensions solidified.
The website does not live up to its promise. In fact, I find much of its content damaging.
Indeed, within hours of the site’s launch, listed contributors like Mona Kareem (who blogs here at Al-Akhbar) had withdrawn. Other contributors, while critical of the content, defended their choice to participate.
The first issue I have is with the choice to publish most of the material in English – without any translation into Arabic. If the website is attempting to reach Arabs in the Arab world then it would be rational to expect that content be presented in the language of the target audience.
By choosing not to publish in Arabic, the website appears more interested in reaching a western or westernized audience, thus alienating the majority of people who it ostensibly ought to reach.
While the editors promise a future Arabic version of the website, the point remains that choosing to publish in English first, rather than launch both at the same time, is troublesome.
The other issues relate to the content. The website promises to open up new spaces for discussing secularism in the Arab world without demonizing Islam and Muslims. Instead, the content on launch was almost exclusively devoted to Muslim bashing and rife with contempt for religious Arabs, mocking them in crude and unimaginative terms that rely on tired orientalist fantasies, as well as flagrant misogyny and body-shaming. The overriding tropes about Muslims and Arabs signal that, unless one is a free Arab (that rare breed of enlightened westernized Arab), one is part of a culture that is inherently impervious to modernity.
The space that the website occupies is not a new space. Arabs are homogenized, their experiences and histories collapsed within a commonly heard orientalist perspective. Thus, we have “The Homosexual” (one of the website’s four contributors dubbed “Satan’s personal envoys to the Ummah”) arguing that the experience of homosexual men is uniform within the Arab world.
There is no depth or nuance to his “argument.” It reproduces the imagery of Arabs as inherently homophobic and does not take into account the important work of LGBTQ rights activists throughout the Arab world.
Another of “Satan’s personal envoys to the Ummah” is “The Jew,” who is an Israeli of Arab Jewish descent. He argues in his first piece that Arab Jews are the freest Arabs because he can write expletives directed at Israeli leaders. Ironically, that piece was published the same week Israel introduced segregated bus lines in the West Bank.
Maybe Arab Jews are the freest in that they are free of sitting on the same buses as Palestinians.
It is also interesting to note that the first piece that Free Arabs published touching on Palestine is from an Israeli perspective and that it reinforces notions of Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East,” ignoring the oppressions of Palestinians, African immigrants, and Ethiopian Jews, to name a few. Palestine is arguably the most politicizing issue in the Arab world, and Arab secularism has a rich and continuing history within Palestinian resistance to Zionist settler colonialism.
However, that is completely ignored and instead Israel is represented as an island of tolerance and freedom within a sea of ignorance and bondage.
What Free Arabs promises to do and what it ends up doing are two very different things.
I attribute its failure to provide an intelligent and original perspective on secularism to the website’s editorial line, which is rooted within the ideology of liberalism rather than a progressive secular perspective. It is an ahistorical perspective that ignores the intersections of oppressions and problems faced by Arabs within the different contexts of their lives. It relies on taking the binary of religious/secular as pure and uncomplicated, and it sees this binary to be the central problem within the Arab world today.
An intelligent discussion of secularism in the Arab world that avoids orientalist tropes must begin by a thorough deconstruction of the concept of secularism in order to free it from its Eurocentric history.
Secularism as a concept was born within a particular set of European historical contexts. Arab secularism also has a long and complex history, which has not always been a positive one. Most Arab anti-colonial movements were secular. Islam and Christianity often informed that secularism, and those seculars saw no problem complicating the binary of religious/secular. The work of deconstructing and decolonizing the concept of secularism cannot be ignored.
Unless these serious issues, as well as many more that cannot be explored fully in this article, are addressed and rectified by the editors of Free Arabs, I cannot imagine this website providing anything positive.
The fact that most of the substantive criticism of the website comes from Arab seculars should tell the editors something about their failure to open a space where we feel comfortable residing.
Ali Hocine Dimerdji is an Algerian-Lebanese MA in Philosophy. He is interested in questions of secularism, feminism, and liberation politics, particularly in the Palestinian context.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/fdb90a53c87304ae39669173dfee45f5/tumblr_mjnfb6QY2s1qb5wbbo1_1280.jpg)
![Protesters Using Pink Smoke To Protest Lack Of Women In Catholic Leadership
Demonstrators use pink smoke outside [Chicago’s] Holy Name Cathedral on March 13, 2013, to protest the lack of female inclusion in Catholic Church leadership, as cardinals vote on a new pope. (© Mike Krauer/WBBM)](http://25.media.tumblr.com/f01a1d581c2a746e1d05ef09e52d27cc/tumblr_mjm49px2FQ1qb5wbbo1_1280.jpg)