With no snow on the ground and the temperature at a relatively mild 44 degrees, St. Thomas brought a little bit of Christmas spirit to its St. Paul Campus Tuesday evening.
Even though this is only the 13th year of the annual St. Thomas tree lighting ceremony, the nativity scene atop the arches has a history dating back more than 50 years.
Christmas carols sung by members of the St. Thomas choirs served as a backdrop while about 75 onlookers waited for twilight. Members of the St. Thomas community along with the Rev. Father Dennis Dease spoke at the event. Then just before nightfall, thousands of lights on trees in the Lower Quad and on the sidewalk connecting both quads lit up the scene.
Ashley Bolkcom can be reached awbolkcom@stthomas.edu
I would love to see a more historically correct nativity scene. Last time I checked, Jesus wasn’t white.
He also wasn’t sitting on a roof, there weren’t pine trees with electric lights on them chilling by the manger, it wasn’t 5 degrees outside, and there wasn’t a plastic star 10 feet above his head. Let’s change all those things too.
Sorry Jay- I don’t think that’s the same thing. I can think of good reasons for why each of those is the case (better visibility, better visibility and Christmas tradition, Minnesota weather is what it is, symbolizes star of Bethlahem). Can you think of a good reason Jesus should be depicted as white when he wasn’t? And maybe more importantly, if I had suggested taking down the pine trees and adding animal figures to make it more realistic, do you think I would have gotten a sarcastic response saying we should just take down the lights while we’re at it?
Depiction of Jesus’ race typically varies, depending on the culture. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus Our ethnic composition is predominantly white, with many having backgrounds in Europe, where Jesus has been depicted as having white skin. Realism isn’t the intended purpose here.
The same wikipedia page discusses racist reasons why people have had issues with portraying Jesus as semetic. If realism isn’t the intended purpose what is? Wouldn’t you think it’s strange if we depicted other historical figures, not as their actual race or ethnicity, but as that of the audience?
The purpose is to remind us of the Nativity, and I doubt that skin color is important in this situation.
I meant what’s the intended purpose of changing his race not of the nativity scene itself. If skin color isn’t important in this situation, then why change it to white? Or why the hesitation to change it to be a more accurate representation?
We could buy a new set, but the old one is perfectly functional, so I think the school would vote nay on the expense. Barring that, I think people would be really offended if we had Maintenence climb up there and rub down the Holy Family with some self-tanner or brown paint.
I think Mr. Westminster’s point is not that he’s a huge racist who thinks Jesus should be white, it’s that politicizing everything not only seems silly, but cheapens truly heinous displays of race hatred remarkably. When I see that Nativity, I think “Glory to the newborn King!”
not “Yeah, ain’t nobody but a white fella could save humanity!” I know that small acts of discrimination are symptomatic of a larger problem, but I just don’t think this is a discriminatory issue. I /don’t/ think St. Thomas set out to find an intentionally anti-semitic Nativity, I think they set out to find one they liked (or, if it’s anything like our stuff at Campus Ministry, it was probably donated). Now, granted, you could slap a big scarlet “R” on them for racist, but you could also let it go. Maybe this is a deabte that has more merit in society in general, but you can’t even /see/ the nativity in any of these pictures– why is this debate even happening here?
I agree with Kathryn. The statue is clearly racist in its origins, indicating that the catholic church believes that only white people can be saved. I’m applaud by these beliefs and st thomas’ draconian attempts to force them upon us.
ಠ_____ಠ really?
Kathryn,
If you actually have an argument to support that the statue is racist, could you please state it clearly? Your suggestive questions are only likely to mislead people to a conclusion that you don’t agree with.
I don’t think I’m politicizing something that’s not political. Perhaps the decision to display the set wasn’t intentionally political (and with respect to race, I doubt it was), but the consistent depiction of Jesus as white is a political issue (and the effects of an action may be political even when the intention is not).
Just generally, it seems to me that if there was no political importance to Jesus’ race, then there wouldn’t be any hesitation in portraying him accurately. For a more specific example of why this is a political issue, in 1997, a New Jersey theater group cast a black actor as Jesus in a passion play; the result was that many groups who had purchased tickets in advance canceled (although one just asked if they could change their tickets for an alternate time with the cast that had a white Jesus), and the theater group even got a death threat over their casting choice. It isn’t a big deal when we inaccurately portray Jesus as white, but it is when he’s black? (And unfortunately, there are people who do think Jesus couldn’t have been anything other than white)
Again, if depicting Jesus as white when he wasn’t isn’t a discriminatory issue, then why portray him as white? We might say that perhaps this instance just wasn’t meant to be…
…discriminatory, but why is the visual narrative of Jesus white over and over again?
The debate’s happening here, because the article mentioned the nativity scene, I commented, Jay responded. To clarify: I do not think UST intentionally picked a white Jesus to be racist in anyway, but I do think visual representations of Jesus as white have racist underpinnings.
a white jesus lights up better when filled with with christmas bulbs. Nice photos Josh.
Kathryn,
“I do think visual representations of Jesus as white have racist underpinnings.”
I will ask again if you have any actual argument to support this conclusion.
I am unsure at the moment if you have a meaningful argument, or if you are simply trying to draw attention to yourself.
Kathryn- just curious. Do you always have something to complain about? I was already laughing out loud every time I saw you turn all Matriarchy in an attempt to govern people’s behavior. This just take the cake. lol
It must be stupidity or naïveté that is fueling the comments against Kathryn. If you are not open for an actual discourse, fine. Stick to meaningless comments such as Tony’s or Gavin’s. Paul and Jack (Jay), while it appears you are trying to say something I honestly cannot figure out what is it. In a country where blacks were not considered fully human, the idea of a black messiah is not something that would have been too common. Granted, much of America’s traditions were passed on from Europe and their attitudes where not much better. If you need evidence of that, read a history book. The desire to see a non-white Jesus in the Nativity scene is far from uncommon and the disrespectful manner in which many people here have responded to that opinion is quite simply shameful. I like to consider my self pretty well versed in logical arguments and the like if that is the strongest contention you have, namely Paul(a). But ad hominem remarks like “turn all Matriarchy” which is not necessarily true and adds nothing to the discussion will be ignored.
Some of us just believe that there’s a time and place for “actual discourse” and an article about the tree lighting ceremony isn’t really it…. But it’s fun to see what you people can turn into an argument.
““I do think visual representations of Jesus as white have racist underpinnings.”
I will ask again if you have any actual argument to support this conclusion.
I am unsure at the moment if you have a meaningful argument, or if you are simply trying to draw attention to yourself. ”
I don’t understand why you think someone would take so much time to write these comments to draw attention to oneself. The point is, that Jesus continues to be depicted as white even though historical purposes point that he was not. Why does this matter and why should we care? Continuing to portray Jesus as a white man further enforces the dominance of whiteness in our culture. That is what Kathryn means by “racist underpinnings.” It is not the “hatred of a race” type of racism. Instead, it is a more subtle type that continues to show whites in a power-dominant role. If Jesus lived in our time today, he would most likely identify as a person of color. The fact that he is depicted as white, further oppresses people of color and at the same time further enforces the white power structure.
I hope that makes sense for everyone.
Paula- Sorry your comment asking for a particular argument was still waiting on moderation when I submitted my last comment; hence, I hadn’t seen it yet. I’ll try and respond now.
1. If (A) Albrecht Durer, one of the most influential German Renaissance artists famous for his religious artwork, portrayed Jesus as white and published anti-Semitic writings along with his paintings, then (B) the visual narrative of Jesus as white is influenced by racism.
2. (A)
3. Therefore (B)
1. If (A) Nazi propaganda included promoting the idea that Jesus was Aryan to avoid conflict between their anti-Semitic beliefs and Christianity, and this was reflected in visual representations of Jesus, then (B) the visual narrative of Jesus as white is influenced by racism.
2. (A)
3. Therefore (B)
1. If (A) inaccurately portraying Jesus as white is the normative standard and meets little to no criticism, yet inaccurately portraying Jesus as black causes massive controversy (and in the case mentioned above even garnered a death threat) then (B) the visual narrative of Jesus as white is influenced by racism.
2. (A)
3. Therefore (B)
1. If (A) Jesus and the other “good guys” are often depicted in historic artworks as white, but Judas and the “bad guys” have much more traditionally Jewish features then (B) the visual narrative of Jesus as white is influenced by racism.
2. (A)
3. Therefore (B)
1. If (A) the reason given for historically depicting Jesus as white is that the audiences were primarily white, but western images of a white Jesus were regularly disseminated in areas that had primarily non-white populations then (B) the visual narrative of Jesus as white is influenced by racism.
2. (A)
3. Therefore (B)
…. I was really trying to avoid even getting involved in this, but Kathryn (and everyone else who’s participating in this argument), Is there a specific reason you thought that the comments section of an article entitled “Tree lighting ceremony christens holiday season” would be the appropriate place to start this discussion? Sure, maybe it’s super important to you, but it’s nothing NEW that the most widely available light-up plastic baby Jesus decorations happen to be white (even more so at the time when this set was purchased). A middle-eastern baby doesn’t look all that much different from a “white” baby either, so for all we know, maybe St. Thomas DID purchase a politically correct christmas set and the color just faded a bit over the years…. Probably not, but in the last 50 years, it doesn’t seem like anyone’s had a problem with it till now… now this is the part where YOU tell ME what you’ve already said before, and I ignore it and go back to disagreeing with you…
Ha Tony! I love your last sentence. Honestly, I wasn’t trying to start an argument, I just thought since the article mentioned the nativity I’d say it. I’ve thought for the last couple of years that we should get a different set (ever since I walked by the window on the third floor of JRC and noticed he’s blonde). I really didn’t think it would turn out to be this controversial.
Hey, you guys should listen… Pretty interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUqxoPrX25I
I agree with Nick, why continue to believe and promote something that isnt even factual in history, lol??? Kathryn was just saying why continue it, it wouldn’t hurt anyone to switch (and this is overall society) to a more factual representation, so why not? Maybe its just hard for some because to change something they have always known to be right which the learn later turns out to be false is difficult. I dont think UST tried to do anything disrespectful- heck, even if they tried to find a better representation of a nativity scene there probably wouldnt even have been a supply!
“I was already laughing out loud every time I saw you turn all Matriarchy in an attempt to govern people’s behavior. ” -why would you say that??? how, where is this the case???
PS, Paul Milner, why do you pretend to be a girl?????????????
Do we seriously have to have liberal ideas ruin our Christmas, not “holiday”, Season?
Katrina, with all due respect, while individual persons might tend to identify with particular side of this argument depending upon their placement in the political spectrum, I don’t see this as a “liberal” vs. “conservative” discussion. Applying labels to this argument does not seem prudent, and might even be inflammatory. In addition, the whole “christmas” vs. “holiday” thing is not at all related to this discussion.
Katrina… First, ditto to Jay. Second, there are two possible reasons I can think of for why you would think this is “ruining” Christmas… Either you just find the discussion annoying, in which case, you don’t have to participate, or you think the idea of a non-white Jesus has the potential to ruin Christmas… Is there another possibility I’m not seeing?
I apologize for such a brash comment. It was hard to not get upset when I read the prior comments. Christmas is a peaceful and joyful season, why does it have to ruined with such petty arguments? We should be reflecting on what Christ did for us, not what he looked like. I wasn’t implying that this was a liberal vs. conservative discussion. In my past experience I’ve notice that liberal “thinkers” (not liberals) notice skin color more often than non-liberal thinkers. I agree. Jesus was not white. We have an Americanized Jesus on campus. But this season is about the heart, not skin color. I just transferred here from a state school and I’m so thankful that this campus even says Merry Christmas, I don’t care what our Lord and Savior looks like. I’m just glad He’s there.
Kathryn,
Forgive the delay, I thought I posted this last night, but it appears my comment never made it through. I think you have a misunderstanding of what makes an act racist.
I’ll illustrate this point with an example. Supposed a racist man throws a snowball which his a black man. Is this considered a racist action? The careful read would answer that it depends. If the racist man intended to hit the black man in order to demean him, then certainly this would be considered a racist act. However, it is just as likely that the racist man hit the black man on accident, perhaps while trying to hit his friend standing next to the black man. In this case the action does not appear as racist.
This leads us to a conclusion. An act is determined racist not by its object (what the action actually is) but by the action’s end (the actions intention or goal of the one committing the act). Thus, you cannot to label the statue of Jesus as racist without addressing the end (intentions or goals) of those who use the statue.
Ok, first, note that in the first comment you asked about I said “To clarify: I do not think UST intentionally picked a white Jesus to be racist in anyway, but I do think visual representations of Jesus as white have racist underpinnings.” Then, again in the arguments, my conclusion for each was “the visual narrative of Jesus as white is influenced by racism.” There are two important points here, one being that I specifically did not label “the statue of Jesus as racist” and second, that I’m talking more generally about the visual narrative of Jesus as white.
Second, a number of the arguments I offered above, your analogy does not apply to. Albrecht Durer was anti-Semitic, and published anti-Semitic poetry with his paintings. It seems clear to me that his representation of Jesus as white was intentional. The Nazi endorsement of an Aryan Jesus was obviously intentional. I think representing Jesus as white while representing Judas as more Semitic looking was often intentional as well, but that might be up for debate.
Third, we have a difference in the definition of racism. Nick Kor talked about it earlier in his response to your comment. Take a look at coaching positions in the NFL vs. college football. The college system is notoriously difficult for minority coaches to get head coaching jobs in. Mike Tomlin applied for several jobs and even with a personal recommendation from Tony Dungee never got offered an interview at the college level. Two years later the Steelers won the super bowl. In the job market at large, statistically speaking if you have a “black” sounding name, you’re less likely to get hired compared to people with “white” sounding names who have the same level education and experience. Distribution of 5 grams of crack cocaine (more prevalent in minority communities) carries the same prison sentence as distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine (more prevalent in white communities). As of 2006, African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense at 58.7 months, as whites do for a violent offense at 61.7 months.
Do I think all of the individuals who contribute to the above are intentionally racist? No. But I don’t think that means that this isn’t the result of racism. Your modus ponens is my modus tollens. Consider this: in 1963 Gallop poll (note this is before the Civil Rights Act and the same year the MLK Jr. gave the “I have a dream “speech” ) two out of three white people surveyed said that they thought black people were treated equally in their communities. Racism happens even when people don’t intend it to, and even when the majority of people don’t recognize it.
And Paul, why are you commenting under the name Paula?
And Gavin, there isn’t anyone at St. Thomas with the last name Chiodos. So either you aren’t currently a student at, nor employed by St. Thomas, or you are also posting under a fake name. Care to explain?
And Jack Westman (Jay Westminster), same question to you. Why don’t you post comments under your real name?
Kathryn,
I will try to argue with your terms in mind. To do this, I need to better understand where you are coming from, so I have a few questions to ask of you. I don’t expect you to answer them to my satisfaction on the first try, but I trust you will do your best.
And before I ask these questions, I should establish why I care about this argument. It is a major tenet of the Catholic faith that Jesus came as the savior to the entire world, not simply the Jews. The tradition of representing Jesus in art as different ethnicities reflects this message. Thus, I find it perfectly acceptable for Jesus to be represented white, black, brown, yellow, and purple skin, even though these representations may not be historically accurate as you rightly said.
Here are my questions. What do you feel makes an act racist? Are individual acts even considered racist in your opinion? Or is the statue contributing to some systemic view of racism (sometimes called Racism, “Capital R racism”)? If so, how exactly does the statue contribute to this?
Regarding your previous arguments. Your arguments did not support your stated conclusion. Instead, they supported the conclusion, “Some visual narratives of Jesus as white are influenced by racism.” …
This is because each of your arguments dealt with specific events, rather then dealing with the visual narrative of Jesus in general.
I’D kind of like to know why the people who were using aliases chose names so close to their own… I don’t think anyone would be fooled if i started posting under the name Toni Bombardo… :-)
Paul, yes of course I believe individual acts can be racist. As for a definition of racism, there’s the more obvious kind (see Webster), but there’s also a more subtle kind… this might not be a perfect definition but I would put it something like this: any set of attitudes or practices that leads to a systematic privileging of one group, at the expense of another, based on racial or ethnic delineation. I’m saying the visual narrative of Jesus as white is a part of institutional racism, see below for more.
Regarding my previous arguments, let’s call the visual narrative of Jesus as white X. X is composed of two subsets- Y, visual representations of Jesus as white not influenced by racism, and Z, visual representations of Jesus as white influenced by racism. If there is any member of X that is a member of subset Z (see arguments above), X is influenced by racism in virtue of the fact that Z is a subset of X. It’s like if I burn my hand; I didn’t burn my foot, but it’s still true that I burned my body.
With respect to the question about the statue, let’s look at why you care about this argument. If what you say is true (“It is a major tenet of the Catholic faith that Jesus came as the savior to the entire world, not simply the Jews. The tradition of representing Jesus in art as different ethnicities reflects this message.”), then it seems that representing Jesus as white reflects the fact that Jesus came to save white people, in addition to Jews, just as representing Jesus as Asian would represent that Jesus came to save Asians as well. If that is true then, given that UST is not a racially homogenous community, representing Jesus as white is privileging the spiritual experiences of the white majority at the expense of the minority of students of color.
Kathryn,
Originally, you expressed the desire for the statue to be taken down. I assume your argument for this was as follows.
“The statue of Jesus should be taken down” because “the visual narrative of Jesus as white was influenced by racism”.
If this is not your argument, then forgive me for reading too much into your statements.
If this is your argument, then consider the following. If you burn your hand, indeed you have burned your body. But does your foot need medical attention?
Or we could change your analogy to an infection rather then a burn. If my hand is infected, indeed I have an infection. But does that mean I should amputate my foot?
My point is this. Unless we can establish that the statue is subtly racist, then you are, in essence, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Do you consider the statue to be subtly racist?
If the answer is yes, you will have to demonstrate (following your definition) that the statue grants whites special privileges and also that the statue is detrimental to minorities.
To accomplish this, I would suggest you explain what you mean by “privileges”. For it doesn’t seem that whites gain any special rights because of this statue, nor do they need special rights to display this statue. After all, everyone at the University of Saint Thomas has a right to express his or her culture.
Interestingly, I’m sitting here in Rome (study abroad! Whoo!) and I’ve just finished an art history class on Christian Art & Architecture. Perhaps it would shed some light on this discussion to mention another non-historical “fact” that’s slipped into our nativity representations:
Jesus wasn’t born in a stable! He was born in a cave. But when Europe imported the nativity scene, it was gradually (over several centuries) changed from a cave to a stable. Why? Because Europeans had never *seen* a cave. The change allowed the population to understand the scene, because, ultimately, these scenes were functioning as a form of catechesis for the common folk.
The depiction of Jesus as white by whites (and black by blacks, Asian by Asians) is far less controversial: it dates all the way back to before Christian anti-Semitism, when half the Christians *were* Jews. This idea that “white Jesus is a racist conspiracy” is simply tosh. It is just as Mr. (Ms.?) Milner said: “It is a major tenet of the Catholic faith that Jesus came as the savior to the entire world, not simply the Jews. The tradition of representing Jesus in art as different ethnicities reflects this message.”
The fact that New Jerseyans ran away from a Nativity play because of a black Jesus is silly…
Paul- the most reasonable explanation I can think of while staying true to what you said (“It is a major tenet of the Catholic faith that Jesus came as the savior to the entire world, not simply the Jews. The tradition of representing Jesus in art as different ethnicities reflects this message.”) while supposing racial preference is not a factor, is that portraying Jesus as belonging to a race that he did not belong to, helps viewers identify with their religious experience on a personal level. If this isn’t the case, then it certainly seems strange to me that we don’t see Asian representations of Jesus in the Hispanic world, and vice versa. Given that, if viewing Jesus portrayed as your own race is beneficial to your spiritual experience, then portraying Jesus as white is benefitting the white students on campus, while simultaneously not benefitting non-white students on campus.
All of that aside, if what you said were true, and racial preference has nothing to do with representations of Jesus, then why don’t we see images of Jesus as a woman? After all, Jesus came as savior to the entire world, not simply the male population.
I want to know something. Are any of you black? Do you know what it’s like to be African American? Do you walk by that statue every day and know that Jesus was middle eastern, or of African decent, and that so were all of his disciples, and wonder why it is white? Wonder why the famous painting of the Last Supper is depicted as white? It’s because you are all blind to racism in America. Just because you did not create this image does not mean that you are unknowingly participating in silent segregation. I am sure you are the same type of people that think it is no longer a problem, because we have a black president. Racism is every where, and we need to look around and change it. Our communities are still segregated. There is a reason north Minneapolis is predominantly black, and a reason why we hear it referred to as the ‘bad part of town’, or ‘ghetto’. It’s not because African Americans are bad. It’s because we have them trapped in a cycle of poverty, with smaller wages, and underfunded schools. While you were taking swim lessons and band as electives, these highschoolers down the street from me at Broadway Community College are taking electives like Hair Braiding. Because they don’t have the funds, or the teachers, or the books.
Objects in our daily lives, like white Jesus, litter the United States. You may not see it now, because it is not effecting your life on a day to day basis, but imagine knowing that racism is a permanent fixture in out society, reading these comments, and giving up hope- Knowing that even though you all know that this is an inaccurate portrayal of Jesus Christ, and that this is the same country who screams “freedom”, but denies equality. It’s not even that you are not willing to do anything about it that makes me upset. I understand if you are being lazy and not caring about anyone else besides yourselves, but to take the time to say “Yes, I know that Jesus was not white, but I think you are a terrible person, and idiot, for trying to raise a concern and make a difference”? How is that not racist? Lets save a couple bucks, right? Lets keep those confederate flags up- they’re still American, right? Racism is dead, even though there are still schools with segregated proms in the south, right? No thank you. I will not be filled with that kind of ignorance. Kathryn is right. People need to stop turning their heads, and start being aware of what we are going within our communities, and within our country.
Please forgive the many spelling errors… I have not had my coffee this morning :/
“It’s because you are all blind to racism in America.”
“I am sure you are the same type of people that think it is no longer a problem, because we have a black president.”
” I understand if you are being lazy and not caring about anyone else besides yourselves, but to take the time to say “Yes, I know that Jesus was not white, but I think you are a terrible person, and idiot, for trying to raise a concern and make a difference”?
“Lets save a couple bucks, right? Lets keep those confederate flags up- they’re still American, right?”
Gabriel, I’m wondering if you have anything to support your argument besides massive generalizations about 1 Everyone in America and 2 Anyone who disgrees with your point of view. The truth is, you’re right, I will never understand what it is like to be of another race, and I will never know how it makes them feel. I would imagine that some are fine with “white Jesus”, some are not, but I’ll never really know. Those of us who disagree with the position held by Kathryn, yourself, and others are not, by any stretch of the imagination, completely blind and ignorant to racism, and I resent the implication that by disagreeing with your position, I am imagining racism to be dead and buried. So don’t make us out to all be…
So basically you are attacking me for the way things are worded, and not the message. If you will never know what it is like to be someone of another race, then what right do you have to speak on behalf of them? Maybe you should go talk to someone who is. Maybe my sarcasm went straight over your head, which I apologize for, but really… You’re going to speak on behalf of minorities in America? I am not making anyone out to be anything that they have not already admit. To say it is ridiculous to be upset about this, which obviously some people have expressed, is backhanded racism. It is ignoring a problem by saying it is not important enough to be addressed. Can I assume that this is because it does not effect them? Probably. But I wont. I never said anyone was completely blind to racism, although it is very obvious that people do not understand the full scope of this situation in America. Ignoring the problem is almost the same thing as supporting it, but being aware of a problem and being upset that someone wants it to change IS supporting it. Which, you are right, is not being blind to racism. Instead it IS racist.
To answer your question Gabriel, I am black. In fact, I grew up in North Minneapolis before moving to Northeast. I do indeed know what it is like to be African American.
While I agree with what you have said, to an extent, perhaps your generalizations are a bit too harsh. From my personal perspective the Cons outweigh the Pros on the Jesus topic but I will not let that dictate how others should think. You’ve got the right idea in that racism affects people differently depending on their race, but your sentiment towards non-blacks does not help as much as I think you would want it to. John’s response is quite logic given your comments. There are racist tendancies within every person I’ve come across, but only a fraction of them would I consider racist.
I’m interested to know, given how strong you appear to take this issue, what do you plan to do about the racism of which you spoke?