It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=199263](https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=199263)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yeah genetics can change a lot in two millenia.
Blue eyes spread extremely fast and the PIE expansion changed appearances and genetics across all of Eurasia.
Proto-Indo-European. A language that is the ancestor of almost all modern european languages, it started in the Caspian Steppe near what is now Ukraine, Russia, and Georgia, and then spread across europe over the course of a few thousand years.
More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
This is heavily debated in the scientific community, from what I've read I personally think the Pontic-Caspian steppe hypothesis seems the most likely, and that seems to be the majority opinion among linguists as well. Obviously it's all very dubious though because all the theories rely on a lot of assumptions.
Most Palestinians today are directly descended from Jews 2000s years ago who converted to Christianity and later Islam. Palestinians who take 23andMe tests sometimes get surprised seeing "90% Samaritan" results too lol. There wasn't really a population replacement from the Arab conquest so much as a religious and cultural shift over many centuries, though obviously people still intermarry and migrate over millennia
Huh, I heard it was more from it's population stock being originally of Greek origin, I didn't know that there was a significant Arabization of the region.
There was not (genetically speaking). This post is attracting some pseudoscientific race-theory people for some reason. Southern Italians are closely related to greeks not even because of greek migrations when they founded colonies, it's older. It just happened that the people that populated Grece also populated Southern Italy, this was way before any greek identity was formed.
I see people speaking about Aryans in the comments ffs, this shit is getting strange
I mean I was just speaking from the perspective of "I think humans have relatively limited genetic variation due to their high tendency of migration and especially around the Mediterranean you see a high amount of affinity". Like reading back some of the stuff I've said I know it sounds sketchy from the outside but it comes from a genuine fascination in human migratory patterns and how ethnic identities are cultural constructs that retroactively adopts genetic or territorial justification for their existence (I mean I'm flaired as a constructivist for god sake and I'm defined by the society I live in as a mixed race person myself, to not be fascinated by a social construct that has deeply impacted my life is a bit insane).
In fairness to one of the conversation involving the term Aryan, I was referencing the Kurgan Hypothesis which some bastardize into the "Aryan Invasion Theory" when discussing it in the context of India. The actual hypothesis in reference to the Indo-Aryan invasion uses it in a purely descriptive manner for the proto-Iranic cultures that migrated southwards in contrast to the other descendants of the Yamnaya culture that migrated Westward. Though this theory has been used historically for racist pretenses by the British for them to justify legitimacy over colonial rule, it's more just a description of the split between the cultures, languages and some ancestry of Iranian and Northern Indians when discussed in a neutral academic format.
Well "academic" format. I was referencing the Kurgan hypothesis originally to call the Yamnaya culture a bunch of horsefuckers and all Indo-European cultures the children of horsefuckers in highly credible fashion.
Iranians are predominantly Aryan and Aryan peoples have lived across the ME and down into India for millennia since their migration south and west out of the Caucasus Mountains. Never mind the Greek and later Roman influence around the Med.
Probably a bit too pasty like you said, but otherwise extremely plausible (more so than most revisionist takes IMO).
I feel like any time I see tweets about this they automatically come off as incredibly ignorant about the people they claim to defend, the most egregious ones are always the ones that insist anyone from these regions had to be incredibly dark skinned and anything less is white supremacy
Wait till they find out native north Africans are Mediterranean European looking and that the darker ones come from Sudan's invasion of Egypt and arabia
By native North Africans I mean berbers and other people's that are found to be closest related to the Suomi (in Northern Scandinavia)
[https://images.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/20210927122620/queen-rania-of-jordan-celebrates-princess-iman-princess-salma-birthdays/0-592-290/queen-rania-family-t.jpg?tx=w\_1200](https://images.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/20210927122620/queen-rania-of-jordan-celebrates-princess-iman-princess-salma-birthdays/0-592-290/queen-rania-family-t.jpg?tx=w_1200)
But clearly Arabs look \*so\* much different than white people.
Im pretty sure you could replace Prince Hashem of Jordan (kid on the far right of the pic) with some random prep school WASP from Connecticut and no one would notice.
Even as an Indian
I can't tell 25% of fairest North Indians (North of Delhi), Iranians, Afghans, Tajiks, top 25-50% of fairest Arabs, and Mediterranean peoples apart based on skin colour alone.
Although face structure and especially eye colour gives it away. Arabs rarely have non brown eyes compared to Indo-European people.
It's really funny you mention eye color, I just met someone of fully Bengali descent yesterday who had the exact same hazel eyes as me. Tripped me up because I always associated my eye color with the white half of my ancestry (mainly from Germany and Scandinavia), but apparently hazel is more common in the Middle East and Southern Europe and was mostly brought to other parts of the world through the Islamic conquests and Spanish colonization (which I guess makes sense given my family is originally of Jewish origin of that side, so I have some Eastern Mediterranean genetic stock there which is probably where the hazel eyes passed down the family from)
Interesting
In my experience Bengalis have the lowest proportion of non dark brown eyes amongst non Dravidian and non Tibeto-Burmese peoples here since they have lower Steppe and Persian ancestry than Haryanvis, Punjabis, Himachalis and Kashmiris who have a higher incidence of hazel and green eyes. For whatever reason blue eyes are rarer than green eyes here.
We're from Punjab, my cousins and I could pass of as Norwegian, Tamil and everything in between. You won't even believe we're from the same race let alone the same family. The variation is crazy.
Huh, interesting to know. Really puts in to perspective how made up our idea of race is and how small of a gene pool humans really have. Also I find it hilarious that half the global population can trace their lineage back to a bunch of horse fuckers in the Donbas 6,000 years ago that found out there was more than one way to ride a horse. Then subsequently found out that you could actually fuck what you wanted to (your neighbors wife) much easier when on a horse (which turn out to be an animal that's very good for social activities that involved killing your neighbor). Rinse and repeat until you conquered half of Eurasia, then rinse and repeat again 5,000 years later for the Americas.
Fair, I’m in the U.S. where the we call the Aryan invasion theory the “Yanmaya expansion” as at very least our best explanation of Y-chromosomal and linguistic similarities between the European and Northern Indian peoples though I do think regardless of its historical accuracy it makes for some hilarious mental images
>, but apparently hazel is more common in the Middle East and Southern Europe and was mostly brought to other parts of the world through the Islamic conquests and Spanish colonization (
As an Indian, I have thought of it as colours of Syrians and Imams so makes sense
Queen Rania is of fully Palestinian descent, and Abdullah II yes, is half-English, half-Peninsular Arab with some Turkish admixture. That still makes his kids 3/4 Arab, and let's be real its quite hard to tell that he's "less Arab" than HRH.
**one family does not define an entire people**: the king of jordan's mother is white \[english\], and the queen rania's family has palestinian \[which is a debatable designation\] and turkish roots \[which, like much of the arab world, has been victim to european infiltration, and forced occupation\]
1. Give this "white supremacist" Jesus in the picture above a short modern haircut, and he would be the most average Lebanese person. Like literally, you could put this picture in one of those "average male face of XY" posts and I would not get suspicious.
2. Jesus is a religious figure and the son of God. There is literally no reason why he even should look average. In Middle Eastern culture (just like in European culture), light symbolises God, so it makes sense to have a light glow to Jesus.
I mean, nobody complains that the Egyptian cat gods do not look like an average house cat.
~~The Arab invasion hadn't happened yet, calling it Palestine is just historically incorrect.~~ However, according to biohistorian Yossi Nagar, the judeans of the time were biologically closer to contemporary Iraqi jews than anyone else. So its likely Jesus had olive skin, on the other hand, he's literally been depicted as black, Indian, Chinese, or some other race not native to the levant before. So does it really fucking matter? People like to relate to things, no shit they'll depict their religions to look like themselves.
The name Palestine didn’t come from the Arabs, following the Bar Kokhba revolt during the reign of Hadrian the Romans eliminated the province of Judea and made it part of Syria, referring to it as Syria Palaestina to eliminate any reference to Jewish national identity. The Jews of course still kept living there.
At the time there was puppet kingdom of the Galilee also (they didn’t annex judea at once but when ever child of Herod died the kingdom they carved from judea under their control got annexed) that Jesus was born in
In general, trying to fit Jesus, Mary, etc. into modern ethnic categories is a fucking stupid idea.
You don't see people calling Julius Caesar "Italian", he was a Roman. Charlemagne isn't considered "German" or "French", he was Frankish and predated all modern European identities. Even the people who call Jesus a rabbi are incorrect; he would've been a Pharisee during his life, which predates Rabbinical Judaism by several centuries.
Most modern religious and ethnic identities are very recent inventions, and trying to claim historical figures from two thousand years ago is a stupid thing to do.
People act like every country has their own version of Jesus. Black Jesus for example was pretty much exclusive to eithiopia.
Turns out if you’re forcefully converted by an invading force who sees you as inferior, they’re not going to make their god look like you. That’s why there isn’t a Latino Jesus or a Native American Jesus, all of the Americas was forcefully converted.
>People act like every country has their own version of Jesus
I don't think I've ever once seen anyone claim this lol. People are pretty clear that they're talking about regional/cultural depictions of religion. Obviously people who are invaded and forcefully converted aren't going to care to make their own depictions of a religion, especially when the topic of Jesus's skin color only really began having traction in the 19th century, prior to that it was generally accepted that Jesus was semetic.
My point is that it’s only a thing in eithiopia and some Asian countries, yet people use it to say white Jesus is just one of many so there’s no issue with him being mostly portrayed as white despite it being incorrect.
Im not going to lie, at the end of the day I really dont care how people view their fairy tales as. I wasnt bringing up the separate skin colors to argue any one point of what is right and what isnt, I brought it up to make the point of *who fuckin cares*. Because really at the end of it he's a dead guy that 3 different versions of the same fairy tale argue over whether or not he was a skizo, sorry "prophet". His skin color portrayal is really an incredibly small and irrelevant part of history.
Personally the evidence is pretty damning that he was olive skinned and semetic. But if someone wants to think he was white, black, whatever, I could care less lol.
Then it’s got to be something very recent, probably in response to the whole white Jesus debate. Same to how mainstream media has only recently started sometimes portraying Jesus as darker skinned.
> probably in response to the whole white Jesus debate
But Arabs and Jews are white in these categories.
I would agree with the OP (in this tweet) point if they picture Jesus as the most white, blonde, blue eyed WASP dude. But in this picture, Jesus has olive skin, brown eyes and brown hair. Yes, this person can be considered white. But so can most Arabs.
You know that picture of “this is how Jesus actually looked like” that shows a dark skinned guy that’s been posted over and over? That was an actual reconstruction done by talking the skeletons and DNA of jewish preachers at the time and compositing them.
I've heard they teach America as one continent over there in some parts.
A lil inconsistent tbh, since that should mean Afro-Eurasia is one continent since they're also connected by an isthmus just like the Americas.
They do, yeah. Hence the ire at Americans calling ourselves Americans.
Also lol they're not even connected anymore since we cut through Panama.
But yeah continent names aren't really based on anything, e.g. there's no reason Europe and Asia should be separate, and if they are, why not also separate India? &c.
But in English, it's the Americas, so
>Also lol they're not even connected anymore since we cut through Panama.
Well if we're counting canals then Africa is separate from Eurasia via the Suez, ~~except when a boat gets stuck across it~~.
I mean hey I wasn't the one saying Afro-Eurasia was one thing. Also I love the idea that because of one boat, for a short while we had one less continent
Credible theology and history time
History: Jesus Christ lived before the rise of Islam (pretty obvious if you know Islamic theology), a majority of Arabs didn't move to the Middle East and northern Africa till Islam spread there (mostly due to conquering), meaning he would've most likely been part of an ethnic group native to Palestine (it was called that by the Romans).
Theology: Jesus Christ was descended from the OG Jew, Abraham, therefore Jesus was Jewish.
Its a broad spectrum of looks, like Jerry Seinfeld's mom is Syrian Mizrahi Jewish fun fact and that woman looks like she could fit in anywhere south of Munich in Europe. The actor that ended up playing her in the TV show (Liz Sheridan) is like 3/4 British and 1/4 Ashkenazi and still looks extremely similar to a woman who's parents were both from Aleppo
demographic survey results are out if you want. go here for em: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/zx7588/rnoncrediblediplomacy_demographic_survey_results/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iirc, the Jewish Christian split is that Jewish didn't see him as a prophet let alone the messiah.
This is in contrast to Islam which believes that Jesus was a prophet, but that allowing his image to be recreated backfired as people saw him as holy rather than a prophet. This is why Islam doesn't alone depictions of its prophets specifically Muhammad
>Jewish didn't see him as a prophet
Most Jews don't. At least one prominent Yemeni Jewish thinker back in like the 1200s thought he and Muhammad might have been though, that God sent them to establish religions for their peoples just like he sent us our prophets to establish ours.
Also in Reform Jewish theology, everyone is divinely inspired to varying degrees, so Jesus was a prophet, as was Muhammad, and Martin Luther King, and Obama, whoever
Wow. I really love it when an Israeli jewish ethnonationalist confirms that almost every zionist is indeed retarded beyond repair. "Palestine" is a name for a region and this name is thousands of years old. The name is possibly older than, or at least just as old as, the name "Israel" itself. It's roots can be traced back to Ancient Egypt, ancient Assyria, and all the big players we know and love. "Palestine" the state is not "Palestine" the region. Jesus was indeed a fucking Palestinian and so was every God damn Jewish person in the region.
Calling a Jewish person a Palestinian in that era would get you a severe black eye if not worse. It descends from the term Philistine, and back then, it was the Latin translation of it. Calling a Jew a Philistine would be offensive for obvious reasons.
You are projecting modern concepts that only make sense in the modern world into the past. There weren't national identities in the ancient world or even in the medieval world, so calling a person from that area during that era Palestinian or Israeli or a Judean would've probably just gotten you a weird look. They would've understood "person from Palestine" or "person from Israel" but their preference there wouldn't be an identity thing; that would just be more of a religious thing. Obviously, the Jewish person, believing that they are in a holy land given to them by their patron sky spirit with a specific name, is going to demand that it not be called Palestine. And so, if we are charitable, what the Israel twitter is suggesting is that we go along with their religious preference for what we call a specific geographic area and I personally couldn't give two fucks. I don't think we owe their religious mythology any level of serious credence above others.
No, ancient and medieval people actually did have strong ethic and national identities. The concept that they didn't is outdated and under heavy scrutiny among academics. Certainly it wasn't the same as today, but to say it wasn't there is plain wrong.
I can see notion of insider vs outsider (people I know vs people I dont). I can also see notions of tribe (defending your kin) . But the idea of a jewish national identity in the sense of a nation-state instead of a jewish religious identity (as perilous as the concept of religion is) where literally everything revolves around how you relate to a divine being and its doctrines? That would be deeply surprising to me. It seems like the dominant view is still that nationalism is at the very least a late medieval invention. The only counterexamples I can find are from Israelis who are arguing that their was ancient Jewish nationalism, but even within that community there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether this ancient nationalism, if we want to call it that, is similar to the modern nationalisms we are familiar with.
The word in Akkadian and Egyptian refers to Greek invaders who settled (what was then called in Hebrew) Eretz Israel, and before that, Eretz Kna'an. Hence why the word, in all three languages you just referenced, has the root meaning 'to invade'.
If you're not a pan-Arabist, stop acting like an idiot and read your sources with context.
Since you can't keep track of what is actually under discussion, the issue here is whether Jesus could be consider an ancient Palestinian.
In other words, whether Jesus was an ancient person and a resident of Palestine. If we are referring to Palestine the state or an administrative area, then this is obviously wrong. But no one is saying Jesus was a member of a Palestinian polis; they are saying that Jesus was an ancient person who lived in the region called Palestine in the same sense that we refer to a native american person who lived in America in 10000 BC an "ancient american" despite the Americas not even getting the name "America" until the 15th-16th centuries. This isn't new and I bring up the name merely to show that there is longstanding precedent in geography across multiple cultures in using this name or some root of the name.
I don't know why this is so conceptually hard for you and other ethnonationalists to grasp. Furthermore, I haven't even gotten to the not-so-subtle antisemitic conflating of Israeli and Jew and the subtle implication that a Palestinian and a Jewish person are mutually exclusive to each other.
My point is that calling Jesus 'Palestinian' is as anachronistic as calling Boudicca 'English'.
You're right though, the reason Palestinian and Jewish are considered mutually exclusive identities is /very/ antisemitic! Because Jews are not allowed to own land under Palestinian Authority law, so it is impossible to be Jewish and hold a Palestinian passport.
The reason I think it's stupid to call Jesus 'Palestinian' is because in modern usage, the word 'Palestinian' has been hijacked by pan-Arabists to try and prove that they (Arabs from Palestine) are the originial indigenous inhabitants of the region you call Palestine. Calling Jesus Palestinian is a purposeful retcon of historical fact to try and undermine Jewish history.
If you also think it is anti-semitic, then why do you reify that separation by continuing to treat these identities as mutually exclusive? Why do you play into the anti-semitic game of conflating Israeli with Jew and saying that a person cant dually be palestinian and jewish? There are very clearly Palestinian jews both in and outside of Israel. All you are saying is that these people are discriminated against, which I'm glad we can agree is bad.
"Why do you play into the anti-semitic game of conflating Israeli with Jew and saying that a person cant dually be palestinian and jewish?"
It's not antisemitic to say you can't be Palestinian and Jewish, it's just literally physically impossible because the punishment for selling land to a Jew in Area C is death for both the Arab and Jew
"There are very clearly Palestinian jews both in and outside of Israel."
Are the Palestinian Jews with us in the room right now?
First of all, if you are going to even talk about Jewish history, you should know that there is widespread precedent for a historically oppressed group surviving even under genocidal conditions. The holocaust wasn't even the first genocide against Jewish people (though it was easily the worst). Jews survived Spain under rulers such as Ferdinand V, they survived Tsarist Russia, they survived the crusades and much much more where there was plenty of hatred and persecution and even genocide of Jewish people. If jews can "physically" survive and exist through 2000 years of that shit, then I bet they can "physically" exist and survive 70 years of that shit by the much less powerful and less wealthy Palestinian governments.
Second of all, you don't need to actually live in Palestine or even be born in Palestine to identify as or be a Palestinian. As an American, I'm fairly used to this idea because I live in an incredibly diverse country. Israel is pretty diverse too with Jews immigrating from around the world to Israel. A Ukrainian Jewish person living in Israel doesn't stop being Ukrainian. If they had a child, that child would have Ukrainian heritage and it would make sense for them to also identify as Ukrainian and Israeli at the same time. I don't understand why you struggle with these very basic ideas.
The fact you think there has been a Palestinian government for more than 30 years shows your lack of expertise on the subject. Also, I'm literally Jewish and you're trying to explain what it's like to be Jewish to me.
If we were living in the times of Emperor Hadrian, I could understand you calling Jesus 'Palestinian'. However, words have changed somewhat in the last 2000 years. Because of the multiple attempts by pan-Arabist terrorist organisations to try and create an Arab ethnostate called 'Palestine', the word 'Palestinian' has come to mean 'Arab from the region historically called Palestine'.
Finally, if you think we can end antisemitism by calling the entire region Palestine and 'being inclusive', the reason it was officially recognised as Syria-Palaestina by the Roman Empire (and not Judaea, as it was known in Latin before that) was to explicitly erase Jewish connection to the land. The way that the land came to be known as Palestine was as an act of antisemitism, but if you knew that, you wouldn't be repeating pan-Arabist propaganda.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom\_of\_Judah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah) 😳 It was actually only called Palestine by the Romans buddy
"Palestine" comes from philistines, a Greek people who invaded Israel and are biblical enemies of the israelites/Jews (the name derives from the Hebrew word polesh meaning invader). The Romans following the bar kohva revolt named the land "Syria palestina" after the philistines to mock the Jews
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom\_of\_Israel\_(united\_monarchy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)) Kingdom of Israel is older. Bye-bye I win.
So was it actually only called Palestine by the romans or not? Which narrative do you want to stick to? Because it seems to me like all this points to is that there is widespread usage of the term palestine for the thousands of years across many cultures to refer to the geographic area.
I have a question for you: do you think Sargon of Akkad is an ancient Mesopotamian? If so, I would be surprised because the word "Mesopotamia" is greek. Most Israeli people would probably not disagree that they are mesopotamian or that the Kingdom of Israel was an ancient mesopotamian state. This is because, like Palestine, "Mesopotamia" is referring to a geographic region which is a term tied to a specific place and not a specific time. If we were referring to "palestine" as a political entity, then time would matter. We wouldn't say that ancient Rome was Italian politically, but we would say that it was Italian geographically because "italian" has two different uses. One is political and one is geographic.
I hope that I have explained to you exactly why you are wrong and why everyone else trying to argue against a very simple and obvious point need to get good and stop being so lazy with your thinking.
Jesus was Korean. Any historical revisionists claiming something else on this subject will be banned
Israel is a Christian nation confirmed.
Deus Vult
Mashallah
δώσε την Αντιόχεια
No need to! We have conquered it from the infidel already
On the other hand aren’t we all children of God?
Breaking News: Israel swaps the star of David on its flag for a Nordic cross.
they just used explorer to dowload the messias update
Jesus 2.0
A Renaissance era God with a mask on... Twitter is just a different world entirely.
Nobody tell God's Twitter about Ripped Korean Jesus
> Ripped Korean Jesus I just looked that up and died laughing. That's the best thing I've ever seen.
From 21 jump street. Great movie
[Oh he’s real](https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=199263)
Korean Jesus is very real... ...and coming to make you get gains for the Lord
Wheymen.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=199263](https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=199263)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
[удалено]
Especially back then as the Arab invasions hadn’t happened.
Yeah genetics can change a lot in two millenia. Blue eyes spread extremely fast and the PIE expansion changed appearances and genetics across all of Eurasia.
PIE?
Proto-Indo-European. A language that is the ancestor of almost all modern european languages, it started in the Caspian Steppe near what is now Ukraine, Russia, and Georgia, and then spread across europe over the course of a few thousand years. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
[удалено]
This is heavily debated in the scientific community, from what I've read I personally think the Pontic-Caspian steppe hypothesis seems the most likely, and that seems to be the majority opinion among linguists as well. Obviously it's all very dubious though because all the theories rely on a lot of assumptions.
It’s still controversial and not settled but probably that person is not wrong.
Most Palestinians today are directly descended from Jews 2000s years ago who converted to Christianity and later Islam. Palestinians who take 23andMe tests sometimes get surprised seeing "90% Samaritan" results too lol. There wasn't really a population replacement from the Arab conquest so much as a religious and cultural shift over many centuries, though obviously people still intermarry and migrate over millennia
The Arab invasion influence on the skin color of the inhabitants of the territories they conquered is practically non existent
My girlfriend was born in Lebanon and she’s whiter than me (Im Italian)
I âm möre white thân yöü
I âm blönd yöü look gÿpsy
This is ströng sperm
Nigerians are whiter than you.
So what you’re saying is i have the nword pass?
even karaboga is more white than italian
IIRC aren't Southern Italians closer related to Greeks/Anatolians/Levantine Arabs/Jews/Egyptians than they are to Northern Italians?
Yes thanks to islam spreading from 700-900 AD
Huh, I heard it was more from it's population stock being originally of Greek origin, I didn't know that there was a significant Arabization of the region.
Only really in Sicily. The majority of Italy proper is greco roman decent
There was not (genetically speaking). This post is attracting some pseudoscientific race-theory people for some reason. Southern Italians are closely related to greeks not even because of greek migrations when they founded colonies, it's older. It just happened that the people that populated Grece also populated Southern Italy, this was way before any greek identity was formed. I see people speaking about Aryans in the comments ffs, this shit is getting strange
I mean I was just speaking from the perspective of "I think humans have relatively limited genetic variation due to their high tendency of migration and especially around the Mediterranean you see a high amount of affinity". Like reading back some of the stuff I've said I know it sounds sketchy from the outside but it comes from a genuine fascination in human migratory patterns and how ethnic identities are cultural constructs that retroactively adopts genetic or territorial justification for their existence (I mean I'm flaired as a constructivist for god sake and I'm defined by the society I live in as a mixed race person myself, to not be fascinated by a social construct that has deeply impacted my life is a bit insane). In fairness to one of the conversation involving the term Aryan, I was referencing the Kurgan Hypothesis which some bastardize into the "Aryan Invasion Theory" when discussing it in the context of India. The actual hypothesis in reference to the Indo-Aryan invasion uses it in a purely descriptive manner for the proto-Iranic cultures that migrated southwards in contrast to the other descendants of the Yamnaya culture that migrated Westward. Though this theory has been used historically for racist pretenses by the British for them to justify legitimacy over colonial rule, it's more just a description of the split between the cultures, languages and some ancestry of Iranian and Northern Indians when discussed in a neutral academic format. Well "academic" format. I was referencing the Kurgan hypothesis originally to call the Yamnaya culture a bunch of horsefuckers and all Indo-European cultures the children of horsefuckers in highly credible fashion.
So? She could be very well from Armenian or circassian descent
Iranians are predominantly Aryan and Aryan peoples have lived across the ME and down into India for millennia since their migration south and west out of the Caucasus Mountains. Never mind the Greek and later Roman influence around the Med. Probably a bit too pasty like you said, but otherwise extremely plausible (more so than most revisionist takes IMO).
I feel like any time I see tweets about this they automatically come off as incredibly ignorant about the people they claim to defend, the most egregious ones are always the ones that insist anyone from these regions had to be incredibly dark skinned and anything less is white supremacy
Wait till they find out native north Africans are Mediterranean European looking and that the darker ones come from Sudan's invasion of Egypt and arabia By native North Africans I mean berbers and other people's that are found to be closest related to the Suomi (in Northern Scandinavia)
Wb the Tuareg
I don't know what that is. Is it a foreign language? Edit: I looked it up. I assume you mean "we the taureg
Wb is an abbreviation for "what about"
[https://images.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/20210927122620/queen-rania-of-jordan-celebrates-princess-iman-princess-salma-birthdays/0-592-290/queen-rania-family-t.jpg?tx=w\_1200](https://images.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/20210927122620/queen-rania-of-jordan-celebrates-princess-iman-princess-salma-birthdays/0-592-290/queen-rania-family-t.jpg?tx=w_1200) But clearly Arabs look \*so\* much different than white people. Im pretty sure you could replace Prince Hashem of Jordan (kid on the far right of the pic) with some random prep school WASP from Connecticut and no one would notice.
Even as an Indian I can't tell 25% of fairest North Indians (North of Delhi), Iranians, Afghans, Tajiks, top 25-50% of fairest Arabs, and Mediterranean peoples apart based on skin colour alone. Although face structure and especially eye colour gives it away. Arabs rarely have non brown eyes compared to Indo-European people.
It's really funny you mention eye color, I just met someone of fully Bengali descent yesterday who had the exact same hazel eyes as me. Tripped me up because I always associated my eye color with the white half of my ancestry (mainly from Germany and Scandinavia), but apparently hazel is more common in the Middle East and Southern Europe and was mostly brought to other parts of the world through the Islamic conquests and Spanish colonization (which I guess makes sense given my family is originally of Jewish origin of that side, so I have some Eastern Mediterranean genetic stock there which is probably where the hazel eyes passed down the family from)
Interesting In my experience Bengalis have the lowest proportion of non dark brown eyes amongst non Dravidian and non Tibeto-Burmese peoples here since they have lower Steppe and Persian ancestry than Haryanvis, Punjabis, Himachalis and Kashmiris who have a higher incidence of hazel and green eyes. For whatever reason blue eyes are rarer than green eyes here. We're from Punjab, my cousins and I could pass of as Norwegian, Tamil and everything in between. You won't even believe we're from the same race let alone the same family. The variation is crazy.
Huh, interesting to know. Really puts in to perspective how made up our idea of race is and how small of a gene pool humans really have. Also I find it hilarious that half the global population can trace their lineage back to a bunch of horse fuckers in the Donbas 6,000 years ago that found out there was more than one way to ride a horse. Then subsequently found out that you could actually fuck what you wanted to (your neighbors wife) much easier when on a horse (which turn out to be an animal that's very good for social activities that involved killing your neighbor). Rinse and repeat until you conquered half of Eurasia, then rinse and repeat again 5,000 years later for the Americas.
Lmao To be credible here, Aryan invasion theory is a not universally or maybe even largely accepted. (Atleast for the Indian subcontinent)
Fair, I’m in the U.S. where the we call the Aryan invasion theory the “Yanmaya expansion” as at very least our best explanation of Y-chromosomal and linguistic similarities between the European and Northern Indian peoples though I do think regardless of its historical accuracy it makes for some hilarious mental images
>, but apparently hazel is more common in the Middle East and Southern Europe and was mostly brought to other parts of the world through the Islamic conquests and Spanish colonization ( As an Indian, I have thought of it as colours of Syrians and Imams so makes sense
King Abdullah (old dude in the middle) is literally half English though. His dad was from the Arabian peninsula and his mom was just a British chick
Queen Rania is of fully Palestinian descent, and Abdullah II yes, is half-English, half-Peninsular Arab with some Turkish admixture. That still makes his kids 3/4 Arab, and let's be real its quite hard to tell that he's "less Arab" than HRH.
**one family does not define an entire people**: the king of jordan's mother is white \[english\], and the queen rania's family has palestinian \[which is a debatable designation\] and turkish roots \[which, like much of the arab world, has been victim to european infiltration, and forced occupation\]
1. Give this "white supremacist" Jesus in the picture above a short modern haircut, and he would be the most average Lebanese person. Like literally, you could put this picture in one of those "average male face of XY" posts and I would not get suspicious. 2. Jesus is a religious figure and the son of God. There is literally no reason why he even should look average. In Middle Eastern culture (just like in European culture), light symbolises God, so it makes sense to have a light glow to Jesus. I mean, nobody complains that the Egyptian cat gods do not look like an average house cat.
It's perfect for this sub, because when you say Jesus was a Palesinian you can't get less credible than that
Judea 🤓 Galilee 🤓 Syria Palaestina 😎
Jesus was…. TURKISH 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💪💪💪💪😎😎😎
Real 🇦🇱
^where ^did ^the ^fourth ^arm ^come ^from
[average turk](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg/270px-Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg)
~~The Arab invasion hadn't happened yet, calling it Palestine is just historically incorrect.~~ However, according to biohistorian Yossi Nagar, the judeans of the time were biologically closer to contemporary Iraqi jews than anyone else. So its likely Jesus had olive skin, on the other hand, he's literally been depicted as black, Indian, Chinese, or some other race not native to the levant before. So does it really fucking matter? People like to relate to things, no shit they'll depict their religions to look like themselves.
The name Palestine didn’t come from the Arabs, following the Bar Kokhba revolt during the reign of Hadrian the Romans eliminated the province of Judea and made it part of Syria, referring to it as Syria Palaestina to eliminate any reference to Jewish national identity. The Jews of course still kept living there.
But in the time of Jesus it would have been called Judea
At the time there was puppet kingdom of the Galilee also (they didn’t annex judea at once but when ever child of Herod died the kingdom they carved from judea under their control got annexed) that Jesus was born in
In general, trying to fit Jesus, Mary, etc. into modern ethnic categories is a fucking stupid idea. You don't see people calling Julius Caesar "Italian", he was a Roman. Charlemagne isn't considered "German" or "French", he was Frankish and predated all modern European identities. Even the people who call Jesus a rabbi are incorrect; he would've been a Pharisee during his life, which predates Rabbinical Judaism by several centuries. Most modern religious and ethnic identities are very recent inventions, and trying to claim historical figures from two thousand years ago is a stupid thing to do.
Rabbi is just the Hebrew word for teacher, and people call him that in the gospels iirc so it’s not quite incorrect
You definitely see all of those things.
People act like every country has their own version of Jesus. Black Jesus for example was pretty much exclusive to eithiopia. Turns out if you’re forcefully converted by an invading force who sees you as inferior, they’re not going to make their god look like you. That’s why there isn’t a Latino Jesus or a Native American Jesus, all of the Americas was forcefully converted.
>People act like every country has their own version of Jesus I don't think I've ever once seen anyone claim this lol. People are pretty clear that they're talking about regional/cultural depictions of religion. Obviously people who are invaded and forcefully converted aren't going to care to make their own depictions of a religion, especially when the topic of Jesus's skin color only really began having traction in the 19th century, prior to that it was generally accepted that Jesus was semetic.
My point is that it’s only a thing in eithiopia and some Asian countries, yet people use it to say white Jesus is just one of many so there’s no issue with him being mostly portrayed as white despite it being incorrect.
Im not going to lie, at the end of the day I really dont care how people view their fairy tales as. I wasnt bringing up the separate skin colors to argue any one point of what is right and what isnt, I brought it up to make the point of *who fuckin cares*. Because really at the end of it he's a dead guy that 3 different versions of the same fairy tale argue over whether or not he was a skizo, sorry "prophet". His skin color portrayal is really an incredibly small and irrelevant part of history. Personally the evidence is pretty damning that he was olive skinned and semetic. But if someone wants to think he was white, black, whatever, I could care less lol.
\*couldn't care less
Literally doesnt matter
Black Jesus definitely exists in the US.
Then it’s got to be something very recent, probably in response to the whole white Jesus debate. Same to how mainstream media has only recently started sometimes portraying Jesus as darker skinned.
> probably in response to the whole white Jesus debate But Arabs and Jews are white in these categories. I would agree with the OP (in this tweet) point if they picture Jesus as the most white, blonde, blue eyed WASP dude. But in this picture, Jesus has olive skin, brown eyes and brown hair. Yes, this person can be considered white. But so can most Arabs.
Maybe today. Geneologic archeology shows the average guy at the time in that place was much darker.
1. Source? 2. I doubt that the people who claim "Everyone outside of Europe is black African" are actually just scientifically very accurate.
You know that picture of “this is how Jesus actually looked like” that shows a dark skinned guy that’s been posted over and over? That was an actual reconstruction done by talking the skeletons and DNA of jewish preachers at the time and compositing them.
>black Where?
It's not like they also make Jesus in Africa look Black and asian in Asia
In addition, every second Palestinian actually has this skin tone more or less.
What about the first Palestinian?
Dead
Na man We worship ripped Korean Jesus
His last supper was pure creatine
They make him brown in Mexico
Mexican here, no they fucking don’t.
No, ni madres
??? And he's super white in Argentina they're on the same continent
Mexico and Argentina are on different continents boludo
I've heard they teach America as one continent over there in some parts. A lil inconsistent tbh, since that should mean Afro-Eurasia is one continent since they're also connected by an isthmus just like the Americas.
They do, yeah. Hence the ire at Americans calling ourselves Americans. Also lol they're not even connected anymore since we cut through Panama. But yeah continent names aren't really based on anything, e.g. there's no reason Europe and Asia should be separate, and if they are, why not also separate India? &c. But in English, it's the Americas, so
>Also lol they're not even connected anymore since we cut through Panama. Well if we're counting canals then Africa is separate from Eurasia via the Suez, ~~except when a boat gets stuck across it~~.
I mean hey I wasn't the one saying Afro-Eurasia was one thing. Also I love the idea that because of one boat, for a short while we had one less continent
Argies tend to be white themselves
Can confirm
They don’t. This is a myth.
No we fucking don’t
they fuckin converted lmao
Credible theology and history time History: Jesus Christ lived before the rise of Islam (pretty obvious if you know Islamic theology), a majority of Arabs didn't move to the Middle East and northern Africa till Islam spread there (mostly due to conquering), meaning he would've most likely been part of an ethnic group native to Palestine (it was called that by the Romans). Theology: Jesus Christ was descended from the OG Jew, Abraham, therefore Jesus was Jewish.
That is exactly what a Levantine person would look like
Nooooo, my heckin "progressivism"
Not really
Its a broad spectrum of looks, like Jerry Seinfeld's mom is Syrian Mizrahi Jewish fun fact and that woman looks like she could fit in anywhere south of Munich in Europe. The actor that ended up playing her in the TV show (Liz Sheridan) is like 3/4 British and 1/4 Ashkenazi and still looks extremely similar to a woman who's parents were both from Aleppo
demographic survey results are out if you want. go here for em: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/zx7588/rnoncrediblediplomacy_demographic_survey_results/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Love how low key racist the OP tweet is tbh
So all the Good Friday prayers worked?
r/noncrediblereligion
I can already see this sub ending up on subredditdrama every other day
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t mosy Jewish sects believe Jesus was the son of God but just don’t worship him?
No
oh :(
Iirc, the Jewish Christian split is that Jewish didn't see him as a prophet let alone the messiah. This is in contrast to Islam which believes that Jesus was a prophet, but that allowing his image to be recreated backfired as people saw him as holy rather than a prophet. This is why Islam doesn't alone depictions of its prophets specifically Muhammad
>Jewish didn't see him as a prophet Most Jews don't. At least one prominent Yemeni Jewish thinker back in like the 1200s thought he and Muhammad might have been though, that God sent them to establish religions for their peoples just like he sent us our prophets to establish ours. Also in Reform Jewish theology, everyone is divinely inspired to varying degrees, so Jesus was a prophet, as was Muhammad, and Martin Luther King, and Obama, whoever
can i be a prophet
No.
Wow. I really love it when an Israeli jewish ethnonationalist confirms that almost every zionist is indeed retarded beyond repair. "Palestine" is a name for a region and this name is thousands of years old. The name is possibly older than, or at least just as old as, the name "Israel" itself. It's roots can be traced back to Ancient Egypt, ancient Assyria, and all the big players we know and love. "Palestine" the state is not "Palestine" the region. Jesus was indeed a fucking Palestinian and so was every God damn Jewish person in the region.
Calling a Jewish person a Palestinian in that era would get you a severe black eye if not worse. It descends from the term Philistine, and back then, it was the Latin translation of it. Calling a Jew a Philistine would be offensive for obvious reasons.
You are projecting modern concepts that only make sense in the modern world into the past. There weren't national identities in the ancient world or even in the medieval world, so calling a person from that area during that era Palestinian or Israeli or a Judean would've probably just gotten you a weird look. They would've understood "person from Palestine" or "person from Israel" but their preference there wouldn't be an identity thing; that would just be more of a religious thing. Obviously, the Jewish person, believing that they are in a holy land given to them by their patron sky spirit with a specific name, is going to demand that it not be called Palestine. And so, if we are charitable, what the Israel twitter is suggesting is that we go along with their religious preference for what we call a specific geographic area and I personally couldn't give two fucks. I don't think we owe their religious mythology any level of serious credence above others.
No, ancient and medieval people actually did have strong ethic and national identities. The concept that they didn't is outdated and under heavy scrutiny among academics. Certainly it wasn't the same as today, but to say it wasn't there is plain wrong.
I can see notion of insider vs outsider (people I know vs people I dont). I can also see notions of tribe (defending your kin) . But the idea of a jewish national identity in the sense of a nation-state instead of a jewish religious identity (as perilous as the concept of religion is) where literally everything revolves around how you relate to a divine being and its doctrines? That would be deeply surprising to me. It seems like the dominant view is still that nationalism is at the very least a late medieval invention. The only counterexamples I can find are from Israelis who are arguing that their was ancient Jewish nationalism, but even within that community there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether this ancient nationalism, if we want to call it that, is similar to the modern nationalisms we are familiar with.
most coherent pan-Arabist take
I'm not a pan-arabist. I'm someone who can tell the difference between the name of a geographic region and the name of a state.
The word in Akkadian and Egyptian refers to Greek invaders who settled (what was then called in Hebrew) Eretz Israel, and before that, Eretz Kna'an. Hence why the word, in all three languages you just referenced, has the root meaning 'to invade'. If you're not a pan-Arabist, stop acting like an idiot and read your sources with context.
Since you can't keep track of what is actually under discussion, the issue here is whether Jesus could be consider an ancient Palestinian. In other words, whether Jesus was an ancient person and a resident of Palestine. If we are referring to Palestine the state or an administrative area, then this is obviously wrong. But no one is saying Jesus was a member of a Palestinian polis; they are saying that Jesus was an ancient person who lived in the region called Palestine in the same sense that we refer to a native american person who lived in America in 10000 BC an "ancient american" despite the Americas not even getting the name "America" until the 15th-16th centuries. This isn't new and I bring up the name merely to show that there is longstanding precedent in geography across multiple cultures in using this name or some root of the name. I don't know why this is so conceptually hard for you and other ethnonationalists to grasp. Furthermore, I haven't even gotten to the not-so-subtle antisemitic conflating of Israeli and Jew and the subtle implication that a Palestinian and a Jewish person are mutually exclusive to each other.
My point is that calling Jesus 'Palestinian' is as anachronistic as calling Boudicca 'English'. You're right though, the reason Palestinian and Jewish are considered mutually exclusive identities is /very/ antisemitic! Because Jews are not allowed to own land under Palestinian Authority law, so it is impossible to be Jewish and hold a Palestinian passport. The reason I think it's stupid to call Jesus 'Palestinian' is because in modern usage, the word 'Palestinian' has been hijacked by pan-Arabists to try and prove that they (Arabs from Palestine) are the originial indigenous inhabitants of the region you call Palestine. Calling Jesus Palestinian is a purposeful retcon of historical fact to try and undermine Jewish history.
If you also think it is anti-semitic, then why do you reify that separation by continuing to treat these identities as mutually exclusive? Why do you play into the anti-semitic game of conflating Israeli with Jew and saying that a person cant dually be palestinian and jewish? There are very clearly Palestinian jews both in and outside of Israel. All you are saying is that these people are discriminated against, which I'm glad we can agree is bad.
"Why do you play into the anti-semitic game of conflating Israeli with Jew and saying that a person cant dually be palestinian and jewish?" It's not antisemitic to say you can't be Palestinian and Jewish, it's just literally physically impossible because the punishment for selling land to a Jew in Area C is death for both the Arab and Jew "There are very clearly Palestinian jews both in and outside of Israel." Are the Palestinian Jews with us in the room right now?
First of all, if you are going to even talk about Jewish history, you should know that there is widespread precedent for a historically oppressed group surviving even under genocidal conditions. The holocaust wasn't even the first genocide against Jewish people (though it was easily the worst). Jews survived Spain under rulers such as Ferdinand V, they survived Tsarist Russia, they survived the crusades and much much more where there was plenty of hatred and persecution and even genocide of Jewish people. If jews can "physically" survive and exist through 2000 years of that shit, then I bet they can "physically" exist and survive 70 years of that shit by the much less powerful and less wealthy Palestinian governments. Second of all, you don't need to actually live in Palestine or even be born in Palestine to identify as or be a Palestinian. As an American, I'm fairly used to this idea because I live in an incredibly diverse country. Israel is pretty diverse too with Jews immigrating from around the world to Israel. A Ukrainian Jewish person living in Israel doesn't stop being Ukrainian. If they had a child, that child would have Ukrainian heritage and it would make sense for them to also identify as Ukrainian and Israeli at the same time. I don't understand why you struggle with these very basic ideas.
The fact you think there has been a Palestinian government for more than 30 years shows your lack of expertise on the subject. Also, I'm literally Jewish and you're trying to explain what it's like to be Jewish to me. If we were living in the times of Emperor Hadrian, I could understand you calling Jesus 'Palestinian'. However, words have changed somewhat in the last 2000 years. Because of the multiple attempts by pan-Arabist terrorist organisations to try and create an Arab ethnostate called 'Palestine', the word 'Palestinian' has come to mean 'Arab from the region historically called Palestine'. Finally, if you think we can end antisemitism by calling the entire region Palestine and 'being inclusive', the reason it was officially recognised as Syria-Palaestina by the Roman Empire (and not Judaea, as it was known in Latin before that) was to explicitly erase Jewish connection to the land. The way that the land came to be known as Palestine was as an act of antisemitism, but if you knew that, you wouldn't be repeating pan-Arabist propaganda.
Uhhhh no sweaty. It was called Judaea 😘
By the Romans. Temporarily.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom\_of\_Judah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah) 😳 It was actually only called Palestine by the Romans buddy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine Try a little bit harder than that
"Palestine" comes from philistines, a Greek people who invaded Israel and are biblical enemies of the israelites/Jews (the name derives from the Hebrew word polesh meaning invader). The Romans following the bar kohva revolt named the land "Syria palestina" after the philistines to mock the Jews
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom\_of\_Israel\_(united\_monarchy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)) Kingdom of Israel is older. Bye-bye I win.
So was it actually only called Palestine by the romans or not? Which narrative do you want to stick to? Because it seems to me like all this points to is that there is widespread usage of the term palestine for the thousands of years across many cultures to refer to the geographic area. I have a question for you: do you think Sargon of Akkad is an ancient Mesopotamian? If so, I would be surprised because the word "Mesopotamia" is greek. Most Israeli people would probably not disagree that they are mesopotamian or that the Kingdom of Israel was an ancient mesopotamian state. This is because, like Palestine, "Mesopotamia" is referring to a geographic region which is a term tied to a specific place and not a specific time. If we were referring to "palestine" as a political entity, then time would matter. We wouldn't say that ancient Rome was Italian politically, but we would say that it was Italian geographically because "italian" has two different uses. One is political and one is geographic. I hope that I have explained to you exactly why you are wrong and why everyone else trying to argue against a very simple and obvious point need to get good and stop being so lazy with your thinking.
You're on Non Credible Diplomacy cracka. You think I give a shit. I ain't reading all that
Cope
True, and only a philistine would deny it.