Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #1

    Dec 26, 2006, 08:52 PM
    Ignorant Anthropologists? Or Political Correctness?
    I have great respect for the science of anthropology but recently I came across two representations which made me question both motives and the qualifications of those anthropologists who were involved. First, there was a documentary concerning the Taino Indians of the Caribbean. I began watching the show with great interest when suddenly I noticed that most of the Tainos were represented as Black Africans. This of course distracted me considerably since it's common knowledge that the Tainos were of Asiatic origin.

    Again, just recently, I was watching another show concerning Jesus' family members. Here we had Joseph and Mary some of Jesus brothers and one of his sisters represented as black Africans. Again a distraction and an inaccuracy. Now please understand that if this was true, I wouldn't mind. But it isn't anthropologically accurate. Why do these scientists choose to do this?
    CaptainForest's Avatar
    CaptainForest Posts: 3,645, Reputation: 393
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Dec 26, 2006, 09:13 PM
    I agree.

    But when it comes to Hollywood, sometimes its easier to bend the truth to make a film work.

    But overall I agree with you in that not representing history correctly is a bad thing.
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #3

    Dec 26, 2006, 10:27 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainForest
    I agree.

    But when it comes to Hollywood, sometimes its easier to bend the truth to make a film work.

    But overall I agree with you in that not representing history correctly is a bad thing.
    Yes, I understand about film salability. But these were educational anthropological documentaries. So that should make a world of a difference. Imagine if I made a documentary about Shaka the Zulu and used someone like Bruce Lee. Or if I used some Nordic Type person to represent Martin Luther King. What happens is that the scientist involved loses credibility and comes under suspicion of giving unjustifiable priority to non-scientific agendas.
    Xrayman's Avatar
    Xrayman Posts: 1,177, Reputation: 193
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    May 17, 2007, 08:12 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Starman
    I have great respect for the science of anthropology but recently I came across two representations which made me question both motives and the qualifications of those anthropologists who were involved. First, there was a documentary concerning the Taino Indians of the Caribbean. I began watching the show with great interest when suddenly I noticed that most of the Tainos were represented as Black Africans. This of course distracted me considerably since it's common knowledge that the Tainos were of Asiatic origin.

    Again, just recently, I was watching another show concerning Jesus' family members. Here we had Joseph and Mary some of Jesus brothers and one of his sisters represented as black Africans. Again a distraction and an inaccuracy. Now please understand that if this was true, I wouldn't mind. But it isn't anthropologically accurate. Why do these scientists choose to do this?
    Mmmm we Know for sure that shaka zulu would have been black, we know that MLK was black. Presently there is conjecture as to the skin/anthropometric variation of Jesus. However it does seem a stretch to show history this way.

    Was this an attenpt to be non-racist? Or as you say PC?

    Cheers
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #5

    May 19, 2007, 10:08 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Xrayman
    mmmm we Know for sure that shaka zulu would have been black, we know that MLK was black. presently there is conjecture as to the skin/anthropometric variation of Jesus. However it does seem a stretch to show history this way.

    was this an attenpt to be non-racist? or as you say PC?

    cheers

    It's not a matter of being politically correct or being politically incorrect. It's a matter of biblical and historically accuracy. The Bible tells us that the so-called black race are descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons. The Jews of Jesus day were descended from Shem, another of Noah's sons.

    Matthew 1:1-17


    If Jesus had been of the negroid race or if his appearance had been Chinese then his lineage from Shem would have come into question and by extension his Messiahship as well.

    Conversely, if the Messiah had been prophesied to come through Ham, then it would have been consistent with prophecy that he be of the black race and his Messiahship would have come into question if he had appeared otherwise.

    One thing to keep in mind however, is that Jesus was born of holy Spirit so his appearance was not totally determined by earthly genetics. Also, since the Bible calls him the second Adam to which it tells us he was equivalent, then one might suppose that his appearance would not have reflected any of the physical extremes brought about via geographical isolations caused by the rebellion at the Tower of Babel.

    So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam (Jesus), a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49)

    Physical Description of Jesus
    Xrayman's Avatar
    Xrayman Posts: 1,177, Reputation: 193
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    May 20, 2007, 03:52 PM
    It's not a matter of being politically correct or being politically incorrect. It's a matter of biblical and historically accuracy. The Bible tells us that the so-called black race are descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons. The Jews of Jesus day were descended from Shem, another of Noah's sons.

    Matthew 1:1-17

    Starman: thanks for your input.

    May I just point out, that the question was not whether the BIBLE agreed or disagreed with the body/skin type, it was whether Anthropology had any ideas on the subject. Do you have any other source apart from the Bible on this?

    Kind regards,
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #7

    May 20, 2007, 08:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Xrayman
    It's not a matter of being politically correct or being politically incorrect. It's a matter of biblical and historically accuracy. The Bible tells us that the so-called black race are descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons. The Jews of Jesus day were descended from Shem, another of Noah's sons.

    Matthew 1:1-17

    Starman: thanks for your input.

    may I just point out, that the question was not whether the BIBLE agreed or disagreed with the body/skin type, it was whether Anthropology had any ideas on the subject. Do you have any other source apart from the Bible on this?

    kind regards,

    I don't but your search engine will provide you perhaps with the info you seek.


    BTW
    Recently on the Discovery Channel anthropologists used Northern Europeans types to represent Asiatic Huns. Not the Huns which reached Europe and intermingled later with the European populations--but the original Huns in their Mongolian homeland. That included Attilla himself whom they represented as Aryan. Being anthropologists I guess they consider that to be poetic license. Or is that political correctness again?
    Xrayman's Avatar
    Xrayman Posts: 1,177, Reputation: 193
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    May 20, 2007, 09:32 PM
    Here is some data (after a search-as sugested by Starman) as to where this story/idea came from.
    BBC NEWS | Magazine | So what colour was Jesus?

    Have a read, it casts some information, but it still states that No One Actually Knows!
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #9

    May 20, 2007, 10:26 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Xrayman
    here is some data (after a search-as sugested by Starman) as to where this story/idea came from.
    BBC NEWS | Magazine | So what colour was Jesus?

    have a read, it casts some information, but it still states that No One Actually Knows!
    That Jesus could have had any physical appearance imaginable isn't scriptural. Jesus was a perfect man equivalent to Adam and being physically perfect he could NOT have displayed the effects of sin. Otherwise his sacrifice would have been defective and unacceptable. This doesn't mean that he had to be Aryan. It merely means that physically he could not have shown the effects of the rebellion and dispersal that took place at Babel which resulted in the physical extremes we see today. Neither could he have shown physically that he wasn't of Semitic descent because Semitic descent was required of the Christ. Casting doubt on that descent by making Jesus appear other than Semitic is nonsensical because it would have hurt his claim to being the Messiah. That's basic theology buttressed by common sense.


    Neither is it anthropologically correct to say that the Jews all had a uniform appearance. King David who was one of Jesus' ancestors was Nordic in appearance as are thousands of other Jews today. So that kind of stereotyping is based on ignorance.

    Actually, Jesus' contemporaries who saw him personally didn't describe him in the way that your article does.


    The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar

    This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

    TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:

    A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

    Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

    Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.

    Your most obedient servant,
    Pontius Pilate
    ================================================== =====


    BTW
    If asked, evolutionist anthropologists, the majority, will tell you that Jesus' ultimate ancestor was a fish. Not to mention his other ancestors who were amphibians and reptiles. Since this is so, I see no reason to take anything they say about Jesus that contradicts the Bible seriously.

    "The Holy Spirit will come upon you." (Luke 1:34,35). Joseph, likewise was told, "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:20).
    Xrayman's Avatar
    Xrayman Posts: 1,177, Reputation: 193
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    May 20, 2007, 11:41 PM
    The letter you describe is quite impressive and I must say I like the fact that you showed me this! Thanks.

    Obviously it would have had to have been converted to english-I wonder what the real roman version would have said is it an accurate translation? I would genuinely love to know.

    Once again-thanks!

    P.S.
    One thing, it wasn't my article-it was someone elses-I just referenced it. If it were mine I would have researched it much further, as I am a non-fiction writer and pride myself on accuracy.

    Cheers.
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #11

    May 21, 2007, 05:15 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Xrayman
    The letter you describe is quite impressive and I must say I like the fact that you showed me this! thanks.

    Obviously it would have had to have been converted to english-I wonder what the real roman version would have said is it an accurate translation? I would genuinely love to know.

    once again-thanks!

    P.S.
    One thing, it wasn't my article-it was someone elses-I just referenced it. If it were mine I would have researched it much further, as I am a non-fiction writer and pride myself on accuracy.

    cheers.
    Yes, I know it isn't your article. My apologies if I came across as saying that it is. I commend you for your policy of accuracy. About the Pontius Pilate document I provided as evidence, I did so assuming that those posting it as history had researched before posting it as such. Unfortunately they didn't. It turns out that the letter is under strong suspicion of being fiction. My apologies. I will contact the web master at that site and inform him of this.

    A debate about this can be found at Letters Of Pontius Pilate:written during his Governorship of Judaea to his friend Seneca in Rome [Free Republic]

    The reason I provide the link is because there are those who insist that letters are genuine or cannot be proven false. The author of the book himself leaves it up to the reader to decide. Nevertheless the book is written in the novel format and is said to be categorized under fiction and most biblical scholars are said to consider it that way.

    BTW
    Anthropologically, skin color is not the sole determiner of race. If it were, then southern Europeans who are darker than northern Europeans would not be classified as Caucasian--yet they are.
    disambiguity's Avatar
    disambiguity Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #12

    May 23, 2007, 04:45 AM
    Wao Starman and xrayman, really nice websites, I loved, This is really a worthy topic, I think is about what we know and we don't know. Philo, Apollonious, Jezus, Budha all had taught the same, wich color or form which nation they ware, is only important for those who may want to represent there own beliefs or disbeliefs. Movies are to be controvesial, if they had used the same Jezus image or Mary image, this topic was not here and we had not think about, that is what the movie or the sevent art, cinematography does. It makes you think and search, so the politicall correctness I don't think had any thing to do here as well not the antropologist attend to make apoint about the color of skin of Jezus. Looking at the web site starman mention and the emerald cameo, pendant, coin I don't remember anymore what it was (sorry for the word) whit the image of jezus, and if you look at the image of Philo in the wikypedia is quite amazing similar, only Philo is an older and "tired" Men. I ilke very much to continue this subject, if posible. Really great! And regarding the other BTW, well I find it very nero minded and defensive, no body is acusing here Antropologist, WAS JUS A QUESTION TO CREATE OR DEBATE ABOUT.
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #13

    May 23, 2007, 12:06 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by disambiguity
    Wao Starman and xrayman, really nice websites, I loved, This is really a worthy topic, I think is about what we know and we dont know. Philo, Apollonious, Jezus, Budha all had teached the same, wich color or form which nation they ware, is only important for those who may want to represent there own beliefs or disbeliefs. Movies are to be controvesial, if they had used the same Jezus image or Mary image, this topic was not here and we had not think about, that is what the movie or the sevent art, cinematography does. It makes you think and search, so the politicall correctness I dont think had any thing to do here as well not the antropologist attend to make apoint about the color of skin of Jezus. Looking at the web site starman mention and the emerald cameo, pendant, coin i dont remember anymore what it was (sorry for the word) whit the image of jezus, and if you look at the image of Philo in the wikypedia is quite amazing similar, only Philo is an older and "tired" Men. I ilke very much to continue this subject, if posible. Really great!! and regarding the other BTW, well I find it very nero minded and defensive, no body is acusing here Antropologist, WAS JUS A QUESTION TO CREATE OR DEBATE ABOUT.

    Hi! Glad to know you are enjoying the discussion.
    I disagree that an anthropologist is justified in sacrificing historical accuracy for the sake of discussion. Anthropology is a science and anthropologists are scientists. Being such, they have a professional responsibility not to disseminate, or encourage the dissemination of patently false information in any way manner or form. I think that depicting Attilla the Hun as Northern European is inexcusable since it's common knowledge to those investigating the subject that Attilla was not described as being of Northern European appearance-neither is there any justification for believing that he was. So when anthropologists participate in a program in which a misrepresentation is perpetuated, I consider that a violation of their responsibility as scientists and can't help but suspect that there is something much more important on their minds than scientific accuracy.

    About my being NARROW MINDED and Defensive because I state an anthropological principle in order to remind those interested in anthropology and its criterion to remain within it's evaluative criterion when determining race, the presentation of such evidence is well within the acceptable parameter of conventional argumentation and does not constitute a use of fallacious reasoning. In fact, in order to prove fallacious reasoning you would need to show how the statement is irrelevant to the subject. Can you do that considering that the subject is in relation to racial misrepresentation and the subject is anthropology?

    Defensive? Well, you can call any counter-argument defensive. Probably because it is defensive. That's why it's called a counter-argument--no? And BTW, no one need bring up a relevant point for it to arise within a discussion. The only thing needed if for the point to be relevant--if it is, then accusations of narrow-mindedness and defensiveness amount to nothing more than unfounded name-calling based on ignorance.

    BTW

    It's not Jesus' skin color that's the issue since skin color varies among all the so-called races. Otherwise the light skinned Chinese would be called Caucasians and they are not--are they?

    http://www.geocities.com/racial_reality/skincolor.html

    It's his portrayal as Negroid descendant of Ham that is innacurate. If that had been so, then he would have been identified immediately with the Hamitic line from which the messiah was NOT prophesied to come. If he had been prophesied to come via that line--cool. But the fact is that he wasn't--which makes the portrayal scripturally unnacceptable.

    Messiah Revealed: Fulfilled Messianic Prophecies from Genesis

    prophecieslist pg.1


    That's why I find it rather weird that during the program the Anthropologist would irresponsibly say that Jesus most probably looked like the interviewer, who just happened to be an Afro American. Sorry but to me that comes across as blatant
    Servile political correctness.
    disambiguity's Avatar
    disambiguity Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #14

    May 23, 2007, 12:42 PM
    I am interested, in Antropology, and I have now to AGREE fully whit Starman statement, it is a really judge mistake that antropologyst may had made. Like it is a mistake to thing that a persone can know it all, and pretend other belief the same, just by been defined.
    I think you don't get it! You are not the lawyer of all Antropologist. Those guys may had may a judge mistake. Antropologist colllect information and try to oganized, interpreted them and may probe them when they have lots of pasions. I Know not one but two very good ones, close friends, and they are quite realistic in acepting they don't know it all and sometimes make wrong asumptions, part of theyr work. So the thing here is yes you can just don't blow up in television or public media whatever you thing, specially when concerns a subject of believe or raze, history like this Big. Ignorant, yes maybe I am, and I like it, every day learn more!
    disambiguity's Avatar
    disambiguity Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #15

    May 23, 2007, 12:44 PM
    And sorry for my English writing, but I speak and write 4 lenguages at day and I am not in shape today!
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #16

    May 23, 2007, 07:11 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by disambiguity
    I am interested, in Antropology, and I have now to AGREE fully whit Starman statement, it is a really judge mistake that antropologyst may had made. Like it is a mistake to thing that a persone can know it all, and pretend other belief the same, just by been defined.
    I think you dont get it!! you are not the lawyer of all Antropologist. Those guys may had may a judge mistake. Antropologist colllect information and try to oganized, interpreted them and may probe them when they have lots of pasions. I Know not one but two very good ones, close freinds, and they are quite realistic in acepting they dont know it all and sometimes make wrong asumptions, part of theyr work. So the thing here is yes you can just dont blow up in television or public media whatever you thing, specially when concerns a subject of believe or raze, history like this Big. Ignorant, yes maybe I am, and I like it, every day learn more!


    Your description of how anthropologists reach conclusions goes completely contrary to the scientific method casts serious doubt on the veracity of your claim concerning your supposed anthropologist buddies. As a rule, anthropologists don't take liberties with history in the manner you describe simply because they haven't had the time to get around to it due to lack of interest.

    Also, you seem to feel that misrepresentation should be patiently tolerated which in itself is rather strange since no one would tolerate it if Britain's ancestors were said to have been Eskimos or the French descended from Pacific Islanders. Or is your tolerance recommended only for certain people?

    Self-appointed judge and know it all?

    The profession of anthropology is not what is being focused on. It's the particular anthropologists involved in the discovery channel programs I mentioned. How you made the leap from specific to general is way beyond me! We don't need to know it all in order to detect basic mistakes made by person's whose educational credentials indicate that they should know better. So your conclusion is false because your premise is faulty.

    Also, I never said skin color itself was the main issue. I said repeatedly and in clear simple English that it is lineage through Shem. You say that Jesus' lineage is of no real importance and that only those who have their own agenda would focus on it. Tell that to Matthew, Luke, who made sure we knew that Jesus descended from Shem. Repeatedly the Bible traces the line through which the Messiah would come. Why? Because the promise of Genesis 3:15 is important for us. Buddha and Mohammed had no such prophecies applicable to them so your comparison is a false analogy. In contrast Jesus' misrepresentation casts doubt on that promise and therefore such erroneous portrayals need to be exposed despite your protests and accusations.

    Actually, since you are trying to make this strictly a theological issue perhaps you should take your gripes to the religion forum under Christianity where it can be discussed without deviating from anthropology. In any case, if you continue to hurl false accusations and insults at me either here or there I will be forced to put you on my censored list although I would prefer not to.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

American political parties [ 15 Answers ]

Are there any other active political parties in the United States besides the Republicans and the Democrats? What I mean by active is, do they hold any seats in congress, or other areas of government? If not, why are there only 2 political parties? In Canada, right now we have 5 parties who occupy...

Political parties [ 3 Answers ]

How do political parties influence the selection of canidates running for election at the state and local level?

Political limericks [ 9 Answers ]

Join in if you can do one better. All for Poo and giggles... This was written by imo at japantoday forum at limericks R us. There once was a president named bush Who flew by the seat of his tush About his vision, when queried He said, I have a great theory

Political correctness [ 3 Answers ]

Hello, I am curious as to why in this day and age when every word uttered publicly must be politically correct, (e.g. mailperson as opposed to mailman, and firefighter vis--vis fireman) first year college students are still called freshmen, as opposed to freshstudents, or freshpeople. Mark


View more questions Search