Racism in Religious Imagery

so i mentioned a while ago how i had just discovered all these old Phil Donahue episodes on youtube. one in particular that i want to discuss is the one entitled "Was Jesus Black?" in this episode, Phil has various black people on the show discussing the historical references and arguments to support the idea that Jesus was black.

while i am fascianted with nearly every aspect of religion, i am only vaguely concerned with the racial make-up of Jesus. theres barely any evidence to show he existed at all, let alone any to give insight to his "race". black people should spend more time questioning the morals and subliminal messages of the bible than the racial make-up of any of its important figures. but thats another post. i wanted to expand on the comments made by the (self-identified) white people that phoned in to offer their opinions.

the main sentiment of the white individuals in the audience and on the phone was- "what does his skin color have to do with it?...i don't care if he's black, green, or hot pink!....it's sacreligious to speak about the phenotype of god...etc." what i find interesting is that it didn't seem much of a concern for the white people calling in to question why it would be such an issue to worship a god (or god in human form) that looks nothing like you. then again, it doesn't take much of an imagination to wonder why some individuals have such difficulty stepping into the perspective of someone of a minority race when our perspective has been, for the most part, ignored, distorted or completely left out in most textbooks, history lessons, and general historical education. the inferiority complex evident even today in many (most) black and brown people has to be examined from all axes. religion may not be the arena most people explore, but with people of color being some of the most religious in the country, this field has to be studied.

growing up in a non-denominational church in southern Alabama, the only figure in my religious upbringing that resembled me in was satan and his demons. they were the only dark-skinned individuals in ANY religious imagery. in contrast, every depiction of God, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Noah, Moses, or any angel was white. Asians, Pacific Islanders, Blacks and Native Americans did not exist. at the time, it didn't have much effect on me (or so i didn't think). living in a country in which most shows, movies, television commericials, etc....are white, white, and white, it wasn't something that stuck out to me. every now and then the pastor of the church i grew up it mentioned the verse in Revelations that talks about Jesus having "hair like wool...", which got a reaction. but that isn't enough to reverse the overwhelming racial preferences in Christianity.

i don't consdier myself a Christian presently, but the idea of a white god and a black devil never was a factor in that. and i'm wondering now, why is that? why is it easy for many black and brown people to accept this idea of a white god? what kind of effect does this have on the personal esteem when all the people that look like you in the Bible dwell in hell? does it have any effect on our thoughts?

i've recently read about the Black Madonna and about how the imagery of Christianity at one point and time was very black, but was changed once it reached the Americas. Europeans changed this imagery to fit themselves as a people, so why haven't we as blacks and browns changed the imagery to suit ourselves?

in some circles, it is happening. one of my aunts gave my mother a Bible with all the characters represented as black people a while back. it was the first bible i had seen like that; the first time i had seen a black Mary and Joseph holding a black baby with black wise men behind them. Afro-centric churches have changed the imagery of Jesus, but as far as the masses of black church-goers, i think the imagery is consistently white.

what have been your experiences with religious imagery? do you think it has effected your personal ideas on color, race, or nationality? do you think it effects the esteem of others? is it necessary to liken the imagery of your religious gods and goddesses to oneself? also, if one can change the imagery of religious figures so easily, and have it become near fact in many people's eyes....wouldn't it be equally easy (and possible) for one to do the same to the religious text itself; to the message of the Bible? can this be added to the argument that suggests Christianity was instrumental in the mental enslavement of Africans?

comment. think. criticize.

Slavery and Christianity

i'm reading (all my posts seem to start this way) Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs. the entire book is gut wrenching and fascinating and humbling and eye-opening. i think we should have been reading books like these instead of....whatever diluted, white-washed sliver of knowledge about slavery we learned in my public school.

one chapter i wanted to do a post on- XIII The Church and Slavery. heres some interesting excerpts:

"After the alarm caused by Nat Turner's insurrection had subsided, the slaveholder's came to the conclusion that it would be well to give the slaves enough religious instruction to keep them from murdering their masters. the episcopal clergyman offered to hold a separate service on Sundays for their benefit. .....

his text was, 'servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.' pious Mr. pike brushed up his hair till it stood upright, and, in deep, solemn tones, began: 'hearken, ye servants! give strict heed unto my words. you are rebellious sinners. your hearts are filled with all manner of evil, 'tis the devil who tempts you. god is angry with you, and will surely punish you, if you don't forsake your wicked ways. you that live in town are eye-servants behind your master's back. instead of serving your masters faithfully, which is pleasing in the sight of your heavenly master, you are idle, and shirk, your work. "

for some time now, i've been non-religious, and at one point while i was transitioning from being a god-fearing Christian, i was very very anti-religious. i still am, to some extent, but right now i think of this whole religion thing as more subjective than anything else that probably is beneficial in some cases (even if it wasn't for me, and for many people). so right now, i'm more interested in how religion has shaped culture and vice versa....and the philosophical side of religion.

when reading up on colonialism, it's difficult not to wonder whether religion played a part in the submission of those being colonized. in almost every colonized country, you can find either Islam or Christianity, neither of which are native to the country, that were usually forced upon the people. looking at Christianity and those enslaved in the Americas in particular, i think it's easy to see how Christianity harmed and helped the struggle.

on one hand, you can look at Jacob's excerpts and see how Christianity rewarded and revered the docile and the submissive. this helped slave owners because it made it a sin across the board to kill (even if it was someone who kept you in bondage and had the right to kill you when and if they wanted to), to steal (even if it was stealing against someone who STOLE your labor from you and any wages earned from that labor for their entire lives), to lie (even if it was done for survival), and even to disobey your masters (in Ephesians 6:5, but in a number of scriptures). and when all these transgressions could be the factor between eternal damnation and heaven...how much more incentive does one need? what better tool would a slave owner need than the supposed backing of a god? is there not a parallel between worshiping a white god in a religion in which only the demons, are described as "black" and the inferiority complex used to brainwash people of color? the bible is filled with subliminal messages of the "white is right" mentality.

on the other hand, Christianity may have been the one thing holding blacks together at the time of slavery. Harriet talks about praying a number of times with her family and her children. she prayed at her parents' graves the day before she went into hiding, she prayed when she was moved from one place to another, she prayed when she was living in the free states, but still in fear for her life. she also blessed the people that helped her along the way, saying that she hoped they received blessings in heaven (or something along those lines), and i think that is really important. the idea that the wretched will one day be atoned, and the deserving will get their blessings ;the idea that their slave masters will eventually suffer for what they have done may have helped slaves suffer through one more day. the idea that slaves will one day inherit heaven may also (and probably more so) have been the only concept their survival was riding on. Harriet learned that even in the Free states, she wasn't free. and even when outside the south, she was still being treated like a lesser human being. one has to wonder how any person of color stayed sane or even had the will to live during this time...

the church was also one of the first places where blacks could meet without it being seen as a Turner rebellion in the making. whites didn't take black religion seriously, so many a times, there were no whites present in the black churches (which were sometimes separate shacks, although sometimes blacks just sat in a separate section from whites, under the same roof, listening to the same preacher). this helped with everything from Negro spirituals, with their subliminal messages, to helping slaves escape to the free states. in the book Hair Story (great great great read), the authors talk about how black women kept their hair in rags nearly everyday with the exception of Sunday, when many went to church and put the a little extra time into their appearance and hair. who knows how important those little hours on one day out of the week spent with all those who suffer in the way you suffer speaking of heaven? probably very important. the church also had much to do with the Civil Rights Movement in which the church was the meet-up place for community organizations, further recruiting for the struggle, and a place for education specifically suited to the black perspective.

Christianity also helped bridge gaps along racial lines. when blacks needed support within in the white community, it was usually white Christians who saw the need to respect all people somewhere in the bible (and lets not forget that some of the first abolitionists were Quakers).

although religion helped the struggle in many ways, what if there was no religion and all the slave owners and colonizers were staunch atheists and agnostics? telling those they brutalized that there was no life after death, no judgement day, no god, and no objective morality, what would have been the turn-out? its possible that the colonizers would have never been able to make slaves past one generation, for the ones who believed them may had the "liberty or death" mentality and would have easily chosen death to subjugation. without religion, its a wonder if slavery could have even survived past the Middle Passage. hmm...

"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors...For my part, i would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcomes anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by the Divines. they convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke put together have done!" ~ Fredrick Douglass

comment. think. criticize.

also note that the lists of things i mentioned about atheists and agnostics are common to many atheists and agnostics, but not to ALL, nor are they factors in being atheists or agnostics.

it should also be noted that that anything in the bible should be studied within its given context(s). the slavery in the bible is most related to indentured servitude, and not the racial division and extreme conditions as it was in the Americas and other colonized parts of the world. also the bible doesn't necessarily encourage slavery, it mostly just accepts it as a part of the society. personally, this shows to me the fallibility in the concept of an omniscient god...but i guess thats up for discussion...

reverence for Christianity?

i'm reading Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali...and it's beginning to go downhill at this point. in the chapter 'Seeking God but Finding Allah', she says this in a conversation she had with a priest. this is a proposition she presented to him:

"'The churches could go into Muslim communities, provide services just as the radical Muslims do: build new Catholic schools, hospitals, and community centers, just like the ones that were such a civilizing force under colonialism in Africa.'....

Father Bodar positively beamed with happiness. he said he had been trying to achieve just this for years and that he has often been mocked for even suggesting it. the Roman Catholic has a long history of resisting religious challenges from inside and outside what used to be called Christendom. all kinds of heresies have been combated successfully from the earliest times....and of course, the church fought against Islam not only in the time of the crusades but also when, as recently as 1683, Muslim troops of the Ottoman sultan menaced the Holy Roman Emperor's capital, Vienna."

there are two parts that are important.

1) "...a civilizing force under colonialism...."

i cringe just typing that. as i have read, Somalia, where Ayaan is from, was never formally colonized. Somalis successfully fought off the British four times. and i wonder if she ever realizes what an amazing act they, known as The Dervish State, did for Somalis by resisting colonization...

of course this priest has been trying to get into Muslim communities for years and convert them. he's a typical priest-he prays on those that do not ascribe to his religion in order to make himself feel morally superior; he capitalizes off their emotional distress by regurgitating some theological bullshit that probably came from the priests that were murdering, lynching, and torturing Muslims during the Crusades all while making them feel as though their religion, their culture, their beliefs are inferior to his.

religion disgusts me on many levels, particularly Christianity, but what disgusts me even more are missionaries and priests that go into remote parts of the globe and convert the people. they force them to convert in exchange for food, they brainwash the inhabitants to hate and devalue their own culture, and sometimes do so via violence. they reek havoc on some of the oldest societies in the world without thinking twice about it, and get praised in the process by their Christian brethren!

for one, to believe that colonialism was a "civilizing force" and not the degradation, enslavement, disregard and disrespect for indigenous cultures that summoned centuries of genocide for Africans on the continent and in the diaspora....is just ignorance, if not blatant euro-centrism. more and likely, her understanding of colonialism has come from the European perspective. not to mention her bias against nearly anything Islamic or Middle Eastern. that statement also gives the impression that African cultures prior to colonialism were uncivilized. if that isn't typical racist, ignorant, anthropologically foolish bullshit straight from David Duke's mouth, i don't know what is. i really can't believe this is coming from an African. as intelligent as Ayaan is in so many other areas, how is it that she does not understand racism in anthropology, history, and sociology? maybe, on some level, it is too difficult to revere a culture (as she does) while simultaneously understanding the atrocities committed in its past.

and second it is absurdity to suggest that churches in colonized countries were of any aid to.....anything. this really sounds like something i'd expect a tea partier to say. churches and Abrahamic religions in general have, for the most part (with the other part too overshadowed to even acknowledge...), been a detriment to society; to mankind, and have aided in the imped of almost all progressions we now consider successes. the Enlightenment period in Western history that Ayaan speaks so favorably of, was battled in nearly every aspect by the church. individual freedom, reproductive rights (which are very much so still in progress), religious freedom, separation of church and state,and scientific freedom have all been fought tooth and nail by the church. it's still fighting these things. and in colonialism, it aided in the brainwashing of the indigenous peoples, damaged, burned, and destroyed ancient religious artifacts, shrines, traditions and belief systems. any ancient knowledge these societies possessed prior to colonialism is now lost due in part to the church. i could make and entire blog devoted to showing the ills and problems the church and religion in general has done and aided in.... i have no idea how an atheist could give credence in this way to the church.

2) "...the church fought against Islam...in the Crusades...".

fought against or persecuted to the extent that modern day standards would consider it an attempted genocide against Muslims? they weren't fighting them because Muslims had hundreds of suicide bombers at that time, they were doing it because they were religious fanatics (like the same extreme Muslims she's very much opposed to) who wanted control of the minds of any and everyone they could and didn't like another religion infringing on their proselytism. how can she justify the religious extremism of one religion and abhor it in another? religious extremism is religious extremism. whether it is coming from Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Shintos, or Baha'is. it should be opposed in any and all regards because it is the threat to the very freedom she venerates.

i think, like many critics of Ayaan's, is that she has let all her concepts about nearly everything be shaded by this good/bad; western/non-western dichotomy.

Islam and the Middle East is backwards; wrong; inferior; less than-Western society is good; better; superior.

the fact that the west, at one point and time (and still today) has done more harm to this planet than good (which is not to say that others have not) is something i don't think she will let herself realize any time soon. the west, to her, will always be the shining beacon of hope and goodness and freedom, and the middle east will always be anything but.

comment. criticize. think. pray....ha...just kidding.

Book Reviews

i'm reading a number of books right now. technically, i'm probably in the middle of 20-30 books. some of which i started a year or more ago and still plan on finishing...like Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell (5 years ago), They Came Before Columbus by Ivan Van Sertima (3 years ago), or Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer (1 or 2 years ago). but then theres many that i check out from the library on a monthly basis that i check back in, but plan to finish. i thought i'd share a few i'm reading right now. when/if you're bored...

Black Rage Confronts the Law by Paul Harris.
the sleeve says this:

Harris here traces the origins of the black rage defense back through American history, recreating numerous dramatic trials along the way. he recounts in vivid detail how Clarence Darrow introduced the notion of an environmental harship defense in 1925 while defending a black family who shot into a drunken white mob that had encricled their home. the black rage defense forces us to grapple with questions the criminal justice system simply does not want to hear. why does a person commit a crime? what is soceity's responsibility for shaping a nonhabitual offender? if societal factors such as class, poverty, and discrimination do shape us, does this in any way mitigate an explosive, uncharacteristic crime of violence?

i've only gotten through the introduction and the first chapter, but i think it'll be a thought-provoking read. as of yet, he's gone into a trial in 1874 in which a man named William Freeman was charged with the murder of a couple, their young son, and an associate of the family. the story is truly tragic.
Bill, as his family and friends knew him, was a typical black man living in America in the 1800's. his father died while he was young (having bought himself out of slavery), making poverty for Bill almost guaranteed. he worked for white families, being beaten often when he was disobedient or friendly with other black children. when he was 15, he was charged with stealing a horse from a white family, and found guilty, even though there was little evidence to support it. while he was in the midst of being transported to prison, evidence was found that he was at another place at the time the crime, making him innocent. either his lawyer, or the judge didn't care enough to go through the procedures to get him out of jail, and he served all 5 years he was sentenced. while he was in jail, he was regularly beaten-once by a guard that broke a wooden post on his head, causing him to lose hearing in one of his ears as well as brain damage. prison life was basically a catalyst for his deteriorating mental state. when he was released, he looked for lawyers to help him get some sort of retribution for serving 5 years for a crime he never committed but no one agreed to help him for one reason or another. he found who he thought were the individuals who aided in getting him convicted of this crime (that were supposed witnesses) and killed them. he waited outside their house, stabbed the woman as she come out the back door to empty trash, stabbed her husband when he came to her aid, went into their home and stabbed their 2 year old son who was asleep, stabbed a man that was at the home helping the family, and injured the mother in law that was armed by that time. he then stole one of their horses to get away and killed it when it gave out from exhaustion.
his lawyer, Willam Seward, raised the "black rage defense", although never going near the actual words. however, he was convicted and sentenced to be hanged. his conviction was overturned due to issues with the judge instructing the juror inappropriately and prohibiting doctors to testify on his mental state during the murders. he died in a jail cell awaiting his second trial due to complications from a cold. he was 23 years old. TWENTY-THREE years old. i am 23 years old. how is it possible to live a life like this and do anything but kill someone? its really disheartening to think of what his last thoughts would have been before he died.

so what about this defense? is this defense a legitimate argument to explain the violence that occasionally is produced by blacks or others that have lived lives full of oppression or is it simply yet another excuse a creative lawyer has pulled from the limitless spectrum of the insanity defense? how much is society to blame for the outcasts and criminals? doesn't society, in a sense, produce these individuals? if one has lived in a society that makes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness nearly impossible, due to circumstances they have no control over, how can anyone expect that person to be an upstanding, contributing member of society? in the west (or rather, capitalistic countries), it seems as though we all like to think of ourselves only as individuals, and embrace independence and sovereignty, and think of society as some separate political system, but at what point do we have a duty/obligation/responsibility to take care of all of our members of society?
knowing the history and the reality of being black in America during that (or even THIS) time, i think black rage was a more than justified reaction to oppression, outright hatred, and degradation blacks had to experience on a daily basis. its almost harder to understand why there weren't more instances of killing sprees (like the one Freeman committed) and riots than say...black colleges and progressive organizations.
bell hooks talks about this topic in her book, Killing Rage, in which she opens the book up saying how she wanted to kill a white man sitting in the seat next to her on a plane. she says its okay to feel enraged-that it is a completely justified emotional reaction as an oppressed member of society. however, you have to acknowledge that rage and own it; control it.
on another note, what does it say about this defense/argument when most black people don't commit crimes like these? black on black crime is often, but black serial killers are rare. and if this is a legitimate defense, then cannot every black person that has lived a tumultuous life arguably due to the obstacles of racism be excused of any wrongdoing they've committed or will commit?



Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies by David Bentley Hart.

i won't post the little quotes on the back of the book because they're almost laughable to me. i think you can surmise what the book is about from the title.

books like this don't usually interest me. they're ubiquitous, have elementary arguments at best, and usually stereotype atheists and non-religious people alike, while whitewashing the bible's moral code and disregarding much of the history of Christianity. however, this book so far (SO FAR. i'm only in the first chapter) hasn't gone into those issues. he's an impeccable writer, though.
so far, Hart has only gone into criticizing the atheists writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett....as well as the writer of the Da Vinci Code, whom he calls a "borderline illiterite". ha. his style is definitely like that of the atheist writers i've read.

from what i've gathered, i think the book will be about the lack of knowledge (on the part of atheists that criticize it as well as Christians) concerning the history of Christianity and different or new arguments concerning the amount of violence that has been produced by religion as a whole. he brings up some interesting questions though, which is why i checked the book out and decided to read it.

"what i find most mystifying in the arguments of the authors i have mentioned, and of others like them, is the strange presupposition that a truly secular society would of its nature be more tolerant and less prone to violence than any society shaped by any form of faith. given that the modern age of secular governance has been the most savagely and sublimely violent period in human history, by a factor (or body count) on incalculable magnitude, it is hard to identify the grounds for their confidence.....it is not even especially clear why these authors imagine that a world entirely purged of faith would choose to be guided by moral prejudices remotely similar to their own...

while i probably would more and likely conclude that a society free of religion would be a more tolerant and progressive society, i do think its good to raise this question often and see the arguments on each side. its a pretty relevant and important question, which isn't talked about enough. though, i think he's wrong in noting the level of violence in our supposed "secular societies" because, while most western countries have secular governments, the citizens under those governments are usually overwhelmingly religious, as i the case in most countries in the Americas.
so what about the arguments that these prominent atheists make? has Christianity and religion as a whole been more destructive than progressive? bred more intolerance while claiming to teach the opposite? what would a society free from religious conviction actually look like (Norway, i think...)? and would it be a more progressive society than our country at this moment? even if one can show that there is a conection between a war and poverty infested country, time-period, or group of people....can one then estimate that a country, time-period or group of people without religious conviction would be non-violent, free from war, and successful in the health and well-being of the majority of the individuals involved?
so far, however, Hart has not tackled theology.

theres conclusions i've come to concerning Christianity and religion as a while, and its relationship with society, and i think its always good to re-engage myself with my arguments. i think its good for everyone to do this-either to renew their thoughts on the subject or to gain knowledge and form new opinions.

think. criticize. comment. learn. read.