Racial features of Jesus and Buddha

[Pitfighter]

I've often heard people complain that Jesus looked Anglo-Saxon in most depictions rather than Jewish. But lemme ask as a non-Caucasion. Are the differences in physical features between Anglo-Saxon's and Jews really that great? When I see a typical feature of Jesus I don't think damn that's an Anglo. (Regarding race) At most I think, oh he's white. In truth I usually don't know that the Jewish people I meet are Jewish as opposed to gentile until they tell me they are Jewish.

Over the years of watching Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm I guess I finally can distinguish Jews from other whites. Still I think there are more features in common than not.

I got similar apprehension to claims that Buddha looks Asian and not Indian. First of all Siddhartha Guatama, the historical buddha, was born in what is now Nepal, at the time it was under Indian dominon. Nepal happens to border India and China, the Tibetan part of China.

My point is that Nepal straddles the borderline of where "Mongloid" peoples would live with "Indian/Hindu" people. It is entirely possible that Buddha was in fact "Asian/Mongloid". I've met Indian looking Nepalis and Asian looking Nepalis.

My point is that these superficial criticisms of the traditional depictions of Jesus and Buddha seem more like excuses to me to unnecessarily draw racial distinctions that don't necessarily exist.

Comments?

[CKava]

Jesus does not look like a middle Eastern person in European portrayals instead he looks like a 70's pornstar. Most people don't seem as highly upset by this fact as you are suggesting though... it's an interesting fact that portrayals of Jesus shift with the cultures they are found in but its hardly unexpected. It's extremely unlikely Jesus was dark black yet you can find representations of Jesus like this. Anyhow, I don't think most people are concerned with the fact that he isn't Jewish enough more that the paintings are not an accurate portrayal but more a reflection of the interests of various cultures. Which I would agree with.

As for the Buddha, his representations are so heavily stylised it's difficult to read anything about his ethnic ancestry from such portrayals. Maybe he was from Asian/Mongoloid stock but personally I think it's unlikely considering that no other groups mentioned this in their accounts and it would probably have counted against him in Brahmanical society of the time. Maybe not but well who cares anyhow...

So in summary my 2 cents are: I think anyone worried that the Buddha and Jesus' are not portrayed accurately are probably entirely correct (there is even suggestions that Buddhism was an aniconic religion for its first century or so) and if we accept that they were real people it is likely that there is in fact a 'correct image' that would repsresent them more accurately. However, the people who want to argue over what exactly constitutes the correct image for any agenda beyond academic curiousity and the desire to find out an interesting fact I would suggest are being very silly since it would make very little difference to anyone if the Buddha for example did turn out to be 'Asian'.

[wrydolphin]

Jesus would have appeared Arab. However, because he is a religous icon he is depicted as whatever race the worshipers follow- so he has European features or Asian or African depending upon where you are. Its done because people want to be able to see Jesus in themselves, so the obvious way to do that is to make him look familiar. Its really not a big deal and everyone understands (or should and definately does in the leaderships) that it does not accurately reflect what he really looked like. I question whether anyone is actually upset about any of this.

And I would suspect that just as in Jesus' case, Buddah's features get shifted around with where the representation is. Consider the difference between Thai Buddah statues and those from China and Japan. Once again, you are dealing with cultural interpretations that reflect more about the society in which the depictions are found then they do about how the historical figure looked.

[jroe52]

Umm... mongloid is a racist term used by "whites" (people who refer to themselves as white, rather then an ethnic group or nationalist group)... so please don't use that term!

Mongols did not invade southern asia until at least 1500-1900 years after the Buddha had died.... it is a discriminary term often used in the 1800's and early 1900's to describe ethnic groups of asia... often those not japanese or han.

Most likely he was indian or a mix of northern border cultures. However I never have heard buddhists argue over this, unlike christians who prefer jesus as white (european even) rather then middle eastern/jewish (which in a sense, could be classified as the modern term white).

For buddhists, there is the belief that there were several buddhas before this "age's" buddha, and there will be more in the future, along with buddhisattvas. This is probably why race/ethnicity is not as important because buddha can be born in any planet, country etc ... our surroundings and classifications are human illusions put in place... bonds that we catagorize what we feel is reality.

[Sparkle]

I saw a picture of the Last Supper in the restroom of a black methodist church where I was taking my AP English exam and something seemed off about it. Ended up that they were all black! Complete with dread locks, fros and all that jazz too : P.

[wrydolphin]

There are three races- Mongoloid (from Mongolia), Negroid (from the Niger River) and Caucasoid (from the Caucaus Mountains). They are not racist terms, they are technical anthropological terms. Please get over it, jroe.

Christians do not argue over this. Where did you get that notion?

[jroe52]

umm... i got that notion from my christian upbringing and being raised in racist school district (sussex in wisconsin)... where everytime people saw black baby jesuses, a racial comment was made. thats where i get my evidence...

Mongoloid... is a lame term.. if your using it in an anthropologist sense... where do they get this from? think about it... and again... from history text books it was used as a racist term! (such as refering to japanese as mongols... or as hmong as mongols etc)... we did not refer to germans or irish as caucation as a common term during 1800s-1950's...

"Mon·gol·oid or mon·gol·oid (mngg-loid, mn-)
adj.
Of or relating to Down syndrome. Not in technical use.
n.
A person affected with Down syndrome. No longer in technical use. Now considered offensive."

from wikipedia:
The term Mongoloid race or Mongoloid sometimes referred to as "Sinoid" or "Mongolid", is most used in discussions of human prehistory, historical definitions of race and in the forensic analysis of human remains.

The suffix "-oid" indicates a similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else. Mongoloid, therefore, does not necessarily equate to earlier terms such as "Mongolian" or "Asiatic" — whatever the parameters for their definitions may be — and much less does it equate to the Mongolian nationality.

Racial classification, and even the existence of race, is controversial. The -oid racial terms are now often controversial in both technical and non-technical contexts and are likely to give offense no matter how they are used. [1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongloid

""Mongoloid" loosely applies to physical traits and not to contemporary or historic definitions of racial or social groups. Some current terms for the latter are Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, and Oriental; however the range of Mongoloid does not correspond exactly to any one of these. In regards to "Asian", it can be said that North Asians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians are physically Mongoloid, however most South Asians are not, Central Asians tend to intermediate between Mongoloids and Caucasoids, and West Asians (Middle Easterners) are classified as Caucasoids.

Since people with Down syndrome have some superficially Mongoloid physical characteristics, the term "Mongol" was once also used as a synonym for retardation. "

"For these reasons, the usage of the term Mongoloid for racial purposes has acquired offensive connotations for some people. Due to this offensive use, the term Eastern Eurasian has been proposed as a euphemism for the term Mongoloid."

[Moosey]

There was a slightly hokey BBC programme a few years ago where they calculated what an average man born in Jesus' time, with his upbringing and social status etc would have looked like, and they came to the conclusion that he resembled this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1240000/images/_1244037_jesus2.jpg

[wrydolphin]

Ok, you can't base the entirty of Christian historical discussions on the basis of one school that happened to have a few racists. You look on ANY of the websites or books and there are NO arguments over the race of Jesus as it is merely an unimportant detail. But why do research when you can hold on to unfounded beliefs?

Where did I get the three races? I don't know- anthropology textbooks? Just because a word has been bastardized does not negate its real use. Race is a notion that has gone out of favor (a whole other discussion that does not apply here) however, when it is discussed in anthropological terms those are the terms used. So you claiming that it is racist is really a non starter. It just sounds racist because you haven't had the background behind it and are picking up on a rather unfortunate bastardization of the technical terms.

[jroe52]

I am sorry if I came off as all christians think this way, I know they do not.. but racist ones may 0.o .

However, to say its not a bad term (mongoloid)... you should do some research. Were not these terms developed to measure brain/skull sizes in the 1800's to show superiority of the "cacaus" race over all other races, until evidence was shown that their skulls were not larger. Can you find evidence for me (I'm interested and can't find it) were the terms began and for what purposes? As a science of study, it makes sense to classify some key characteristics for studying... but not if it is for social darwinism.

For me, I prefer to call people as they feel comfortable with, and recognize the many differences (such as ethnic groups that have mixed, have not etc)... When I meet a Chinese person I do not call the mongoloid. When I meat a german, I do not call them white. When I meat a hmong person I do not call them Chinese. However, it is often common to refer to eastern groups as "asian" which does not seem offensive... HOever ASK AN ASIAN ETHNIC GROUP IF THEY LIKE BEING CALLED MONGOLOID... i'm sure your not going to get the happy answer you are refering too.

Most "asians" that I have met prefer to be called their ethnic group (han or chinese, japanese, hmong, vietnamese, korean etc)... and not "mongoloid"... even when discussing in a scientific matter or in a college level course. Most americans who I have encountered that are generations from their roots, tend to call themselves asian, or american, or their ethnic group (such as hmong american, or korean american).. however like many ethnic groups in america... eventually many adapt to american society and forget / leave their roots.

Again, as a term for describing groups of people, we should use their ethnic groups, location, cultures etc... and not a racial classification such as mongoloid.

Northern Indians at this time may have been a mix of southern indians, nepalese and Aryans... which would give them much diversity, since it is an indo-european region (at least at this time).

**origins of the terms**
http://www.answers.com/topic/johann-friedrich-blumenbach

other origins:
"The concept "race", in its current use, appeared for the first time in 1684. The French medical doctor and traveller Francois Bernier, wrote about "four or five races of people, whose differences are so obvious, that by right these should be used as the basis for a new division of the world." The real founder of the "race" doctrine, later developed as an ideology, was the Swedish natural scientist, Carl Von Linné. In the tenth revised edition of his famous book, "Systema Naturae", in 1758, he divided the human species into four major "races", according to physical, psychological and social features: Indians, Europeans, Asiatics, and Negroes.

Due to the contributions of Houston Chamberlain, G. V. de Lapouge and De Gobineau, eventually the "racist" ideologues settled for three major "race" groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. These were again sub-divided into various groups, including, for example, the famous "'Aryan race".

Scientific knowledge was harnessed in support of the theory of "white race superiority". Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of the Species. The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (1859) , gave a great impetus to "race" doctrines; in fact, even Marx was fascinated by Darwin's book, obviously for other reasons, and he even wanted to dedicate the second volume of Capital to Darwin. Darwin had connected evolutionary theory to the "race" theory, creating "Social Darwinism ", a tendency which had applied the biological selection theory to the historical social process. (This eventually found its application in Nazism and apartheid, in ideas like the "Herrenvolk" and "Aryan race").

The genetic laws of J. G. Mendel demolished the anthropological criteria for defining "race", and the biological/genetic "racist" scientists had to seek refuge in the field of sociology. From discovering "gene pools", the term "sociological races" was developed, for the mechanism of biological heredity made the anthropological concept of "race" meaningless. From "sociological races", ''race prejudice" was inferred, especially by the German Nazi scientists, and later by their pupils, the South African "Afrikaner" (Boer) scientists."

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2004/2708.html

[wrydolphin]

Which is why race has gone out of favor in anthropological terms. Find any post of mine that supports the existance of race. You asked where the terms came from, I gave you the information, then you got all pissy about it for some reason.

[iamraisen]

Jesus is a badass. Race is not important.

[jroe52]

er... I just think its an outdated and a racist term... it was used for social darwinism... and in history books to classify "inferrior people"... it was used in law.. (or substituted with asiatic) in american history... to keep out eastern peoples. (such as the anti-chinese act which excluded all "mongols" or "mongoloids"...)

I think we need to look at this in a micro manner, not a macro "stereotypical" approach. To answer these questions requires studying the location, history, groups etc.. not skull sizes or what not. plus we are getting off topic and I helped to hog this post.. so hopefully other discussion can occur on topic and we can move on. as a future history teacher with a hmong fiance, this is my belief.

[Chimpcheng]

Most "asians" that I have met prefer to be called their ethnic group (han or chinese, japanese, hmong, vietnamese, korean etc)... and not "mongoloid"...

Actually, I like to be called a Chinoid... :D

Sorry, bad joke, but I hear what you're saying. I don't see myself as Asian but rather I am Chinese (British Chinese at that), but I wouldn't take offence at being called Asian.

[jroe52]

What about mongoloid or better yet... mongol.. based on your skull shape... for me I find it offensive.

[wrydolphin]

You are still getting worked up over a word that is hardly in use at this point.

You got all hopping up and down over an issue that does not exist for Christian scholars, you got all hopping up and down over words that are obsolete and even worse when the origin was explained, now you are trying to go on about needed to micromanage the presumed facial features of Buddah and Jesus? Why is this so important to you? Does it really matter what the historical figures looked like? Does it really matter that each culture that comes into contact with them changes them to fit into their culture better? I would say no, they have both exceeded being a mere historical figure and the ability of cultures to assemble them speaks greatly of the value of both underlying systems.

Basically, you seem to be creating a fight with a shadow.

[jroe52]

Umm.. can't this be said about your posts? I believe they need to look at more then stereotypes and skull sizes, since it was a region of war, trade and religious explosion.

[tolchocker]

if this has already been said then sorry but i couldnt be bothered to read the whole thread.


when you say that the buddha looks more asian than indian, if you are talking about the small, chubby models apparantly (yes apparantly as i have only this knowledge from an rs teacher and am not saying its 100%) that isnt supposed to be siddartha but a buddha that has yet to be born unto human form who will enlighten us all or something. again, as said before i am not sure if i am right.

[CKava]

Personally I would like to be called a mongoloid as it sounds like something from a sci fi film though I would settle for caucasoid but really I don't think it sounds as impressive. As for the usage of the term yeah its an old fashioned out dated racial term which along with all terms related to antiquated racial theory has become severely un-PC (primarily because the theories were generally a bunch of racist nonsense). Still I really don't think its something to get worked up over... I don't think anyone here considers people as Negroids, Mongoloids or Caucasoids nor do I think anyone else here would use such terms to insinuate their superiority as 'whites' as such I think the barrage of PC criticism is unnecessary. Its a fair point that its a dated term with negative connotations but it really doesn't need this much attention since no-one I can see is arguing we should bring the word back into common usage.

...

Besides me of course who just suggested I would like to be called it but I think we can disregard that. Can't we?

[jroe52]

Caucamongoloid sounds like a dinosaur.

[CKava]

I will accept that title.

[wrydolphin]

Caucamongoloid sounds like a dinosaur.
Why am I picturing something with a frill? :D

[adouglasmhor]

The classical picture of Jesus used in medieval Europe is based on an actual historical person, unfortunatlely it is Allexander the Great and not the christian saviour, but either way it is just a representation not an actual avatar or idol.

[Existence]

Jesus was
Cambodian

[Kwajman]

Jesus would have appeared Arab. However, because he is a religous icon he is depicted as whatever race the worshipers follow- so he has European features or Asian or African depending upon where you are. Its done because people want to be able to see Jesus in themselves, so the obvious way to do that is to make him look familiar.



Amen, I've seen him depicted as everything except Asian and I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you'd find it.

[Pitfighter]

Well of course people like to project their ideas/idealizations on those hey idolize. But I think that although I doubt either looked like their most widespread depictions I don't necessarily feel that the most widespread depictions are necessarily idadvertant attempts to make Jesus look Western European or Buddha East Asian. There are too many common features between any race overall. In my opinion too many shared features between Europeans and Jews to act like Jesus is typically portrayed as European. Between Some Nepalis and East Asians there are also too many shared facial traits for me to consider Buddha's racial features obscured.

If their images were obscured it had less to do with subconscious racial idealization as it did with religious artistic interpretation.

As far as my use of language I simply have no apologies. All humans are of one species and genetic evidence tends to show we are related far closer and in more ways than we ever originally thought. That being said there are still characteristics that differentiate us into groups how you want to differentiate people, how you want to label that, and how much you want to differentiate between peoples varies from person to person and under different criteria. My use of the terms Caucasoid and Mongloid was vague enough to be appropiate for me regarding this topic.

After all if you break it down there is little evidence White people came from the Caucus Mountains (from which the term derives) Why isn't that term so offensive? Oddly enough roughly half the worlds population is descended from people from Central Asia (which includes Mongolia) so techniqually Mongloid could refer to half the world, though we all no it doesn't. If I had used the word Asian it may not have differentiated between Orientals (which to most people is politically incorrect I've heard), Indians (from India), or Middle Easterners.

Besides if you really want to mull over appropiate use of vocabulary consider this. I am Formosan, which is Taiwanese to most people. Most Taiwanese prefer Formosan which I think is actually rooted in a Portugese word formosa for "beautiful island". However we accept being called Taiwanese. How bout this ethnically/racialy/blood related (SEE THE DIFFUCULTY OF DEFINING PEOPLE) we are related to the Chinese or are Chinese depending on who you talk to. What about the word Chinese? Chinese people don't call themselves Chinese they call themselves Zhong Guo Ren (my best pinyin attempt to spell), roughly meaning people from the central kingdom. The term Chinese is derived from Ch'in a man who supposedly united China. Dude's empire collapsed after his death and several dynasties have emerged since that clearly overshadowed his achievements. Why doesn't everyone else call the Chinese people Zhong Guo or at least Central kingdom people? Getting my point?

WORDS ARE CLUMSY. After this post I'm not going to talk about this anymore because it's detracting from my main topic.

[jroe52]

hmm most of my chinese friends refer to themselves as han, is that for hans as well?

[Pitfighter]

hmm most of my chinese friends refer to themselves as han, is that for hans as well?
Han is the ethnic group that Chinese people from China Proper (historically China, 60% of Present day China is conquered territory leftover from the Ching dynasty) and most Taiwanese. Han ren (Chinese people) is more accurate than Zhong Guo Ren.

[aml01_ph]

I would not be surprised if Jesus looked like someone in the lines of Osama Bin Laden. :eek:

As for Buddha, since he's supposedly a noble he might look like somebody of the Aryan persuasion (big eyes, prominent nose, although not necessarily white).

And before any of you guys jump on the "nazi" and "racist" assumption, I would like to say that Hitler's definition of "Aryan" is very different.

[Topher]

I would not be surprised if Jesus looked like someone in the lines of Osama Bin Laden. :eek:
Maybe he is! :eek: He always talked about comming back. :p

[jroe52]

umm... aryans went from the west/northwest between europoe/russia (or somewhere along these lines... some say ukraine area)... down into northern india about 4000 years ago? (give or take lol)...

hitler just like the idea of using a popular ancient race to justify his exhistance. he used alot of powerful and popular symbols such...

however.. the aryans did introduce the caste system into india which many would regret, along with many parts of their religion that would blend with the local culture.

my guess is the buddha was a mix of wealthy northern stock... from the local kingdoms mixed with the previous invaders.

[Ressla]

I've often heard people complain that Jesus looked Anglo-Saxon in most depictions rather than Jewish. But lemme ask as a non-Caucasion. Are the differences in physical features between Anglo-Saxon's and Jews really that great? When I see a typical feature of Jesus I don't think damn that's an Anglo. (Regarding race) At most I think, oh he's white. In truth I usually don't know that the Jewish people I meet are Jewish as opposed to gentile until they tell me they are Jewish.



I'm really surprised nobody's mentioned this already.
The VAST majority of jews in the US and europe are Ashkenazi Jews.This apparently means of the "Rhineland" -but most scholars agree they probably originated in a region of Northern turkey.

The other main groups are Mizrahic (ie of the Middle east) and Sephardic ( originating in the Iberian peninsula).

To add more confusion most non-Ashkenazi are called Sephardic as a general term even if they are Mizrahi.

In general,when you encounter a Jew,they are most likely to be of Ashkenazi
descent , and therefore more "european" looking than Middle-eastern.

Add to the mix the intermarriage that has occured over the centuries and many western Jews look "Anglo" ( hence the statuesque blond blue-eyed jewish girl who I trained with when I started Shotokan many misguided years ago ).

But a strongly "jewish" looking ashkenazi would often be difficult to tell apart from a Greek or Turk.

If you ever encounter non-ashkenazi jews, they are generally slightly darker and really look little different to many arabs of Palestine , Lebanon, Syria or even Yemen.

The "Jewish" look that most people mean -ie "swarthy" with a big nose , could basically apply to anybody from the Mediterranean and the middle -east.


Hope I've made sense here.