Talcum X: White Jesus statues are a form of white supremacy and must come down

We need a nuclear holocaust to reset the planet/

I cannot stand Shaun King. I used to follow him until he became an insufferable twat.

This is why Trump will win re-election in November.

I surreptitiously follow several black SJWs on Twitter, and they HATE Shaun King. They think he is a money-grubbing opportunist, besides not being black enough.

Don’t worry R1 I’m taking care of it

Good one! Troll the lunatic fringe!

I'm fine if they tear down every single public statue of Jesus, on the grounds that the slave-owners used Christianity as a justification for their crimes. And they did, they actually assured each other that owning slaves was their Christian duty, as it gave them the opportunity to forcibly convert the African heathens. Of course the actual slaves never got any religious instruction other than "God says obey your master", but that didn't stop the masters from assuring each other that they were just humbly doing their Christian duty.

My Son was a Swede. Print the legend.

...With the most beautiful blue eyes ever bestowed -- because he's Jesus!

I can’t believe he’s still around

I'm part Palestinian and of course Jesus wasn't white - only an idiot would believe he was and I call it out every time. However, you can't force racist people to see the truth.

The white churches along with other brainwashed ones will accept the idea of walking on water and all of the other nonsense, but the most realistic thing about Jesus (basic geography), they will never accept. Leave them to their false idols. Let them worship bullshit imagery, I couldn't care less.

[quote]Talcum X

I wish I could find the other names they came up with for him. It was fucking hilarious. The problem with people like him and that Yashar guy is that they don't know when to fucking stop. They'll make sense on some issues and then their egos make them think every stupid thought is good for their cause. Didn't Yashar essentially force some woman to apologize for what was actually an Amy Winehouse costume she was in as a kid because the stupid ass thought she was mocking cholas? I could be wrong on that, but I know it was something beyond stupid and he was called out for it.

Anybody tries to tear down one of Michelangelo's statues of Jesus and the Italian will see you hanged.

I don't care what color he was. As long as he keeps the washboard abs. Made catholic school somewhat engaging.

Jesus was a white Hipster & a Pass-Around Bottom... everyone knows that.

Is he advocating the removal of only white statues? Most people in the Middle East are brown. Many Jews are swarthy. Add in Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, the greater Arab world. Jesus was also likely to have black hair and a black beard.

Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this, but he was crucified naked. All crucified men were. He might have had a large penis, hairy balls and a big black bush. Try to explain that, now.

According to a documentary which studied DNA samples from the area over time, this may be the face of Jesus. It is repeated often on those NatGeo and History-type networks.

[quote] Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this, but he was crucified naked. All crucified men were. He might have had a large penis, hairy balls and a big black bush. Try to explain that, now.

I'm sure Jesus manscaped his bush.

Jesus was black!

R11, other nicknames include+ Martin Luther Cream Chaka Con Tupac Sugar Alexander Scamilton Snow J. Simpson

Fictional religious figures lives matter!

[quote] I'm part Palestinian and of course Jesus wasn't white - only an idiot would believe he was and I call it out every time. However, you can't force racist people to see the truth.

You also need to call out all the black Jesus pictures as well. Because he wouldn't have been black either. He was a Jewish man of Palestine. The people of the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and India, are all classified as Caucasian. So he might not have been white, but he was Caucasian.

R19 Whether you believe he was/is God or not, the scholarly consensus is that he did exist as a man.

He's not talking about razing churches but yes, any religious iconography excluding things like roadside memorials should be banned and removed permanently from public display. All our "founding fathers" fetishists that have now come out of the woodwork to protest the removal of these statues and portraits seem to forget we have a separation of church and state.

And R3 anyone casting their ballot, including you, based on or even slightly influenced by a tweet Shaun King wrote deserves to have their voting rights taken away. If you read his tweet and went "This did it. I'm a racist now and I'm voting for Trump,"--- chances are you were a racist voting for Trump before.

Sorry R3 I didn't read your signature. There's so many of them

Thurgood Marshmallow

so judging by r15's picture, the answer to Was Jesus black or white? is "yes."

Alabaster Ali

Jesus was Arab-Jewy and that's the end of it.

R20, I agree with that, too. Jesus wasn't white and he wasn't black. Black people need to stop that bullshit, too. He was undoubtedly swarthy, olive-tanned with frizzy hair.

The real dummies are the ones who look at today's population and think Jesus looked like that. Are they too stupid to understand there's been war over that land for thousands of years and there was a lot of invading in more ways than one? Jesus was a darker-skinned man. It isn't up for debate. There were no "white" people who originated from there. Whatever white you see today in that region is due to mixing over thousands of years, but Jesus was FROM THERE back them, so he was inevitably darker.

R24 Even if that picture is actually what he looked like that is not Black, unless you want to say everyone who isn't White is Black.

back then*

Major sideeye to the stupid fake woke celebs that follow this clown like Brandon Flynn LOL Even stupid ass Beto follows this 🤡

His mother is white and his father was allegedly black, though no one really knows for sure, but that's beside the point. He's stolen projects others were working on, taken credit where none is due, and taken a lot of money for causes and projects without answering where it's gone.

LOL, R18/R23. I was trying to recall some of those names. I was laughing so hard when I saw black people coming for him with all of those names.

R31 The funny thing about him complaining about the "White Jesus" depictions is that he is lighter than most of the pictures he is complaining about. They usually at least give Jesus a tan.

There are thousands of depictions of Jesus from the Middle Ages through the Renaissance and onward. Most of those artists wouldn’t have had a clue as to what Middle Eastern men of the first century would have looked like. They modeled Jesus after the men of the country where they were painting because few people travelled very far. They assumed that’s what he looked like. It wasn’t some intentional denial of what may well have been reality. To look at this from the standpoint of 2020 racial sensibilities and start banning and “canceling” things accordingly, is absurd.

[quote] any religious iconography excluding things like roadside memorials should be banned and removed permanently from public display.

That’s never going to happen. First, there are few “roadside memorials” of a religious nature. Second, there is no reason that churches, museums, and private collections should ban works of art from Raphael, Michelangelo, da Vinci or hundreds of other artists. These are not Confederate statues. Shawn King doesn’t determine what religious iconography is permissible.

The current version of jesus was the brainchild of Constantine the great. It’s all on him. The earlier version of Jesus from christians was a replica of appolo the greek god lol who was blonde is that what talcum x is complaining about?

I assume after all statues are destroyed, they'll commence the burning of museums and churches. That should end racism once and for all.

That moron Beto would, R30.

R36 Yeah taking down racist monuments, some erected as late as the 1970's or in response to the Civil Rights Act passing is akin to the burning of museums and churches. You exhibit the superior intellect one typically expects of the Master Race.

I don't care if idiots want to worship a lie, just don't pretend it isn't one and don't pretend this is about destroying Christianity which is laughable coming from people who worship the Republican Party and Trump in particular - people who themselves destroy any right to call themselves Christian by that fact.

Are white Jesus statues the equivalent of Confederate statues?

These statues and monuments in the south AND the north where they are so clearly out of place were in many instances financed by klan chapters and arose in direct response to the advancement of civil rights for black people as sort of totems of white supremacy. If after knowing this you're still on the fence as to whether they should remain for public display, you're a racist.

[quote]Most of those artists wouldn’t have had a clue as to what Middle Eastern men of the first century would have looked like.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the concept of trade and when it began.

[quote] Martin Luther Cream Chaka Con Tupac Sugar Alexander Scamilton Snow J. Simpson

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I do think Talcum X takes the prize though. How come Rachel Dolezal didn't get a moniker like that?

[quote] Are white Jesus statues the equivalent of Confederate statues?

I think this was the question Shaun was asked to answer and he took the bait.

[quote] I take it you are unfamiliar with the concept of trade and when it began. —And where artists got their pigments... hint: it wasn't Hobby Lobby

🙄 The pigments traveled from abroad. The artists, not so much.

R43 Rachel Dolezal is harmless and should get the same “respect” from Sjws that the men who claim to be women get.

I couldn't resis.t I had to look up more names they gave him:

Thurgood Partial

Martin Luther Cream

W.E.B. Defraud

Hueless P. Newton

Pale Revere

Tupac Sugar

Chalkus Garvey

Didn't this douche have several Go Fund Mes where the money never went to where it was supposed to go?

R47 beat me to it, I was about to post that.

Who the fuck knows what Jesus really looked like.

R50 He is make believe so it does not matter.

[quote]🙄 The pigments traveled from abroad.

😳 Not by themselves. Pigments didn't form a caravan to peddle their wares to artists. They hopped a ride with traders. Seriously, familiarize yourself with the history of trade. You're coming across very ignorant.

W.H.I.T.E. Dubois is another one.

Here is a little family tree. King claims his mother was sleeping around which is how he ended up half black when his dad is obviously white. Way to slutshame your mom, Jeffrey (his real name).

Shaun King is a grifter. He is HARDCORE Bernie Sanders stan and a liar. Talcum X, indeed.

The 'White' marble statues were almost certainly painted when they were carved. As were all of the statues and buildings in Rome and Greece, It washed off.

We have a facsimile of how these things looked in the 16th/17th century.

R54 He needs to be destroyed and all the left idiots who follow him shamed!

[quote]The earlier version of Jesus from christians was a replica of appolo the greek god lol who was blonde

I have never in my life seen a Blonde Greek.

R55, it's funny they made The White House, well, white since all those building of Ancient Greece and Rome were painted. And not even painted well, painted in the most GAUDY colors ever. Maybe we dodged a bullet there.

Isn't Ariana Huffington blonde?

[quote] He needs to be destroyed and all the left idiots who follow him shamed!

They really need to but he keeps gaining all these stupid followers.

[quote]How come Rachel Dolezal didn't get a moniker like that?

Oh but she did!

The ACTUAL Greek version of Apollo.

[quote]Who the fuck knows what Jesus really looked like.

Honey, people who say this can't accept basic common sense. There is no way in hell he was from that part of the world and white - that's a given. People who say what you do would rather play stupid and believe in turning water into wine and all of the other magic tricks, but basic geography is a bridge too far apparently.

And to add... apparently is a grow'er and not a show'er

R58 They were usually red/yellow/orange/brown.(basically ochre colours).

Lapis lazuli was inordinately expensive so there was very little blue.

FFS r63 that's not what I said at all. I never said he was Caucasian. I said we have NO idea what he looked like. And we don't. People in that region are certainly not white, but they have varying degrees of light skin/dark skin. Straight hair/kinky hair etc.

R41 Most were NOT financed by the KKK, they were financed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Organizations that were not seen in the same light, as the KKK, as late as 1995 President Bill Clinton was writing letters to be published in the UDC newsletter. The Sons of Confederate Veterans has changed in the past thirty years, until around 1990 they weren't a "political" group. It was almost all about tending to gravestones, reenacting battles and learning about battles. In the 1990s a group of neo-Confederate activists took over the organization and remade it into a political hate organization. I knew people who were members, and left because that wasn't what they signed up for. Basically they just enjoyed putting on uniforms, playing soldier a few times a year, and studying about Civil War battles. They weren't signing up to overthrow the current government, or start a new Civil War or race war. They don't provide verifiable membership numbers, but people I know say it is clear that membership has declined considerably. One of their chapters used to meet monthly in the function room of a local restaurant. A waitress, I know, said the restaurant kicked them out a few years ago because they couldn't fill a booth let alone the function room. Also, weirdly she said they tipped black waitresses better than white ones.

[quote] Pigments didn't form a caravan to peddle their wares to artists. They hopped a ride with traders. Seriously, familiarize yourself with the history of trade. [bold] You're coming across very ignorant. [/bold]

🙄 Says the person trying to sell the notion that the the people from the Middle East were traveling to Europe to sell their goods, when, in fact, Italian merchants traded in the Middle East for spices, silks, and other highly sought after Eastern goods, [bold] and in turn traded them across Europe at enormous profit. [/bold] The merchants — the traders — were the Italians. Their goods came from the Middle East but that provides no support for your assertion that artists in Europe were familiar with the people making and selling the pigments to the Italian traders.

[quote] “We have to realize that in medieval Europe, travel, especially to somewhere as far off as the Holy Land, was incredibly difficult for the vast majority of the population," says Holly Flora, curator of New York's Museum of Biblical Art. "People's worldview was very limited to their immediate surroundings, and so they projected those surroundings onto their imagery of Christ and the holy family."

HAHAHAHAHAHHAA.

BURN ALL THE CATHEDRALS.

Fucking idiots. I told you.

Actually, there were many Middle Eastern merchants and traders in the European port cities.

R66, and as I pointed out earlier, people vary in color NOW due to thousands of years of warring/raping/invading. But when you're talking about over 2000 years ago, people weren't a "rainbow." I happen to be olive-skinned with green eyes and I'm Palestinian/Irish/Italian. I have full Palestinian cousins who are white, blonde or red-headed with both blue and green eyes. All of that is due to being in the present AFTER a couple thousand years of different groups warring and fornicating whether willingly or unwillingly. But during the times of Jesus, he wouldn't have been living among people who were a rainbow of colors. All of the warring and fucking and mixing took place mostly after him.

Let's just point out the overwhelming majority of liberals may know conservative Christians are full of shit with their white Jesus along with how they practice their religion, but King doesn't have many people on his side regarding actual demolition of statues, but cons want to play victim, so they're pretending liberals are looking to destroy churches and some of you morons are enabling their bullshit belief.

I don't see many people agreeing with him, so why are you acting like he has tons of people cheering on his bullshit? Questioning the lies they tell themselves is not the same as actually destroying places of worship, so don't let Cons LIE about what this is about. Shame on you for helping them push the narrative that this about attacking churches.

His white family says he's white. Here are pics of his mother, father and brother, all of whom are white. Also a picture of him from childhood, in which he looks definitively white.

He is the definition of a conman and a grifter.

I always thought he was Puerto Rican.

Are Talcum and BrieBrie still up one another's vages?

R67 Wrong you stupid revisionist son of a bitch. All across this nation you will find monuments and statues erected by segregationists or that the klan had a hand in in some way.

[quote]"These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?"

r71 there were a variety of skin tones already in Jesus' time. Middle Easterners are naturally variant in skin tone, hair texture etc. And also there had been a Greek influence for hundreds of years by then.

Shaun King has always raised red flags for me. He has been dishonest about a lot of things. People need to better hone their instincts about people. Cons are usually quite transparent if you pay attention. But then I'm a cynical bitch.

I have no idea about his mom sleeping around - did he really say that about his mother? - but he looks just like his brother and he has his purported dad's nose.

Racist, Conservative Christians only know how live in delusion. I mean this is how they see Trump:

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R76 Can you read. I never said they weren't erected by segregationists and White supremacists, or that, that wasn't the message. Just that they were not built by the KKK. They are not all the same. Strom Thurmond was a segregationist, who famously ran for President as a Dixiecrat, but he was also known to hate the KKK. The UDC and SVC might be seen as analogous to the KKK today, but that was not the case when they were erecting these statues. They were viewed as benign organizations like the Junior League or Jaycees.

The entire BLM movement and their supporters are a bunch of hypocrites who are thrilled to destroy anything, as long as it does not personally affect them.

R83, are you even paying attention? Do you see BLM agreeing with King's bullshit? People are allowed to question the lies about white Jesus while at the same time NOT advocating for destroying churches. Why are you pushing the right's narrative?

R83 I support BLM I'm not thrilled to destroy anything. I think about how my actions affect others. I think you're just a racist.

Holy shit you're ignorant, r68. Are you not familiar with the crusades? Are you not familiar with trade prior to to the crusades? FFS you are terminally stupid to the point that you must be a trumpazee.

🤪< This emoji was modeled after you.

Thank you, r70.

Thank you, r70.

To the posters who say Jesus was a myth - there are historical/documented accounts of a Jewish man during that time who did miracles and was crucified because people believed he was God. Witnesses and Italian soldiers made a huge deal him and became followers after his death. Also, all of Jesus’ disciples willingly died than denounce him.

And yes, Jesus was not white or black. He was a dark middle-eastern Jew and probably looked more Palestinian than modern day white Jewish people. At least Mel Gibson (who I hate btw) tried to make him look more ethnic in the Passion of the Christ. The violent/brutal crucifixion was probably more accurate in that movie also! The welts across his back and trickle of blood is an inaccurate cakewalk in other movies.

[quote]the lies about white Jesus while at the same time NOT advocating for destroying churches.

R84 R85 But those churches should be destroyed as they are far more representative of centuries of oppression, genocide and racism than any statue. Yet they remain standing due to hypocritical personal interest.

I'll bet Jesus didn't have an English either.

Why should a white man, who lies about his race in order to make money off of black people, have anything to say about anything, anywhere, at any time?

R90, there's a difference between statues celebrating individuals like those of the confederacy and destroying a house of worship. Tear the former down. They have no place in a civilized society. No one needs to celebrate enemies of the state. Destroying houses of worship does not send the right message. CHANGING the message within that house of worship is how you progress.

[quote]Destroying houses of worship does not send the right message. CHANGING the message within that house of worship is how you progress.

R93 perfectly proves the it affects me personally point. The Church celebrated the subjugation of the conquered populace by being the largest and most prominent building, was made up of INDIVIDUALS who were instrumental in centuries of racism, genocide and oppression. Their destruction would send a far stronger message about the evils of the brutality and cruelties they inflicted on others.

Who gives a fuck what anyone thinks of churches and Jesus. As long as Jesus isn't on government property then Jesus is protected under the Constitution.

R94, the WH was built by slaves. Should we tear it down? Again, there's a difference between the celebration of bad individuals and using places of subjugation as places to be educated. Places of worship are buildings. It's the individuals within those places who can change the message within those places.

Auschwitz still stands as a place to learn and be educated.

R96 Shriek about racism, destroy a few irrelevant statues to be seen to be doing something against racism, yet leave standing the most pernicious symbols of racism. And as far as edifices of "education", churches do not educate but rather reiterate through doctrine the same racism and bigotry as those individuals reviled as racists. That you support one while turning a blind eye to another simply illustrates blatant hypocrisy. Your comparison of churches to Auschwitz simply illustrates your blatant ignorance.

Jesus looked like Woody Allen.

I don't agree with this man overall, but I have no problem with people re-thinking how they imagine Jesus to look like, especially in Latin America and even the U.S. Although there are White and White Mestizo Latinos in the U.S. and in Latin America, most Latinos are not blonde and blue eyed. But so many pictures and icons of Jesus make him look like a beatific White, blue eyed, blonde haired hippie. It really does fuck up people's self-image and self-worth. When the wealthy are overwhelmingly White/White Mestizo, and the poor are overwhelmingly Brown and Black, these images do support White supremacy in the Americas. I'm not advocating tearing down statues of Jesus or stained glass windows, but at the very least there should be a discussion of it.

You just said people were subjugated within churches. Explain to me the difference. Auschwitz still stands specifically to teach people about evil. I mean how far do you want to take this? Do you want to destroy every ancient Basilica?

Do you want to destroy the pyramids or the tombs of pharaohs who undoubtedly tortured slaves? How far do you want to take this?

BTW, R98 reminds me that all of this has truly brought out the stupid in people who think Jews were always "white" because that's the only type of Jews they've ever met. They think European Jews were white guys who traveled from the Middle East to like Brooklyn.

So if we cancel Jesus for the way artists depicted him, when do we cancel Mohammed for being an actual slave trader?

R101, that's such a dumb take. Truly dumb, You were looking for a way to make it about Muslims by pretending this is about Jesus himself when it clearly is not. In fact, teh most disgusting depiction of Jesus is how conservatives view him. Greedy, hateful, fuck the poor.

Go sit in the corner and learn not to be so stupid.

the*

Answer the question, r102.

I have MA in Religious history.

You?

r100 reminds me that some people are too stupid to see an obvious joke.

Imagine wasting time and energy on statues when there’s actual systemic racism to fight.

Olivia de Havilland was Methuselah's wife.

[quote]Explain to me the difference. Auschwitz still stands specifically to teach people about evil.

Auschwitz stands as a reminder about the systematic extermination of the Jews, the culmination of 1,700 years of Church fomented, socially entrenched Jew hatred. Not some overgeneralized evil, but what happens when the discrimination, scapegoating, oppression, and persecution of the Jewish people is socially acceptable.

Your muddled, confused attempt to equate extermination with subjugation reiterates your double standard in retaining certain symbols of racism while destroying others. That self-righteous being seen to be doing something when in reality doing nothing and worse, the convoluted rationalizing of double standard.

R101 is correct. If it wasn't for Muslims, there would have been no African slave trade. A fact that is ignored by those with far too many other agendas to pursue.

Black twitter is kissed. They want to tear down statues of everybody else but Jesus is just too far for them.

*pissed

R97 You do realize that the Abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement both grew out of and was fostered by churches, don't you? Like everything, some churches got it right and others didn't.

What is missing in all this, is that instead of condemning dead people for what they did before we were born, we should be celebrating how far we have come, while still acknowledging we need to do more. I don't know if it is our educational system or popular culture causing this but things are better now, concerning racism, sexism, homophobia, religious tolerance, etc. than it has ever been, yet these idiots are going around acting like it is 1920, instead of 2020. If MLK, W.E.B. Du Bois, or Malcolm X were alive today, I'm sure they would say there was still work to do, but they would be amazed by how far we have come in such a short period of time.

*And, when I say idiots, I'm mainly talking about the White idiots, including Shaun King, who seem to be the worse offenders

[quote]You do realize that the Abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement both grew out of and was fostered by churches, don't you?

Which does not mitigate one iota the centuries of brutality, cruelty and horrors inflicted by churches on those they wanted to subjugate.

R105, I knew you were joking, hon, but i saw people on Twitter say exactly what I wrote. "Jesus is white because Jews are white"

R101, you can have your debate about Muslims, but your idiotic claim that there's an attempt to cancel Jesus HIMSELF rather than the FALSE DEPICTIONS was genuinely stupid and no amount of "likes" from people who already hate Muslims will change that fact.

You were finding a way to make this about your preexisting hatred for Muslims. And BTW, many of the slaves brought to the US were Muslim and then made to convert to Christianity by their new slave owners, so to attempt to take the onus off of Christians by saying "look over there" is idiotic. You don't attempt to erase hundreds of years of Christian slave owning even before black people by just saying "Duh, it's all them Moslems!"

[quote]And BTW, many of the slaves brought to the US were Muslim and then made to convert to Christianity by their new slave owners, so to attempt to take the onus off of Christians by saying "look over there" is idiotic.

Those Muslim slaves were converted by the sword to Islam during the Muslim conquest of Africa between the 9th and 14th century.

R115? And they converted to Christianity with what? A bouquet of flowers? Listen, genius, stop trying to make this a competition. Everyone has shit in their history, but you're trying to pretend it doesn't exist with Christianity, particularly white Christianity. That's my point. You're trying to overtake this thread with your own agenda.

And again, you're fucking lying about what this is about. No one is trying to cancel Jesus, you liar, but you saw an opening for your agenda and chose to lie.

R116 Slaves were not slaughtered if they didn't convert to Xtianity, since they were a valuable commodity. Muslims did slaughter those who didn't convert.

You continue to ignore an essential piece of the complete historical picture. For YOUR agenda.

Nothing King has to say will ever top this tweet.

Not only the fact that Mohammed was an actual slave trader, and yet has to be cancelled,

But the Native Americans were also enthusiastic slave owners. They were so attached to owning black slaves that many of the major tribes negotiated a ten-year extension of slave ownership with the Federal Government after abolition had illegalised slavery across the rest of the country.

That's right. They insisted upon owning slaves for an entire ten years after the Civil War had been won and slavery had been abolished.

Oh, and by the way, Mohammed was very exact in his description of Satan: a black man.

Most scholars prior to the 1990's, when it was still acceptable to tell the truth about history, assume he meant Iblis.

[quote] Many Jews are swarthy

For the fucking love of god, swarthy means WEATHERBEATEN AND DEEPLY TANNED LIKE A DECKHAND ON A PIRATE SHIP.

Is this guy in cahoots with certain foreign entities?

No, Donny r123, This person is just a white man pretending to be black in order to extract money from black people.

[quote] Hasn't there always been a plausible argument that Shaun King works for the feds or some other nefarious entity? Like if I was trying to accelerate and poison pill BLM i'd have someone like him say something like what he said.

Isn’t this guy in cahoots with overseas propagandists?

Well if I were as obviously fake as he is, I would CERTAINLY be pandering to the CCP for extra financial ballast.

[quote] Nothing King has to say will ever top this tweet.

What a fucking piece of shit. And that comment had thousands of likes. WTF is wrong with people!?

MiLK Jr.!

[quote] And they converted to Christianity with what? A bouquet of flowers?

Prior to Constantine in the 4th century, Christianity was a non-violent religion. Christian communities existed formed by peaceable converts and their descendants. They were subject to persecution and martyred. Conversion to Christianity at the point of a sword came later. So, they might have converted to Christianity with a quiet talk with evangelists, not even needing the flowers.

Jesus was a literary character, never really physically described, but always imagined by readers of Christian literature to reflect their own ethnicities. Historically, nobody ever visualized him as a Jew until after WWII, when Christian thinkers were forced to confront their own complicity in the crimes of that war, committed by both sides.

In Europe of the 16th century, had someone gotten pedantic about Jesus being a Jew, they'd have been imprisoned by the Church (either Catholic or Protestant, take your pick), and tortured until they recanted or died - or both.

[quote]To the posters who say Jesus was a myth - there are historical/documented accounts of a Jewish man during that time who did miracles and was crucified because people believed he was God.

No, there aren't, R89. Christian literature is not evidence of the claims of Christian literature - nor the bible of the claims of the bible. That's circular reasoning.

[quote]Witnesses and Italian soldiers made a huge deal him and became followers after his death.

There's not any evidence of that. Again, the claims of Christian literature do not count as evidence.

[quote]Also, all of Jesus’ disciples willingly died than denounce him.

Where is the evidence for that?

Even assuming the literary characters of Christian hagiography had a historical basis in persons who actually died for their beliefs, none of that amounts to evidence that Jesus existed. People willingly perish for all sorts of foolish and un-evidenced propositions. And you cannot be certain that their conception of "Jesus" was the same as the one you're arguing for. Gnostic sectarians far outnumbered the proto-Catholics for several centuries into the Christian Era; their idea of "Jesus" was as a non-corporeal being apprehended in dreams and visions.

Sojourner Lies!

[quote] Do you see BLM agreeing with King's bullshit?

Sorry but BLM has been in bed with this guy for ages and they still are.

I stopped paying attention to him a while ago but stumbled upon him again recently when people were beginning to call him out - it seemed like mostly women and maybe mostly women of color.

[quote]Prior to Constantine in the 4th century, Christianity was a non-violent religion. Christian communities existed formed by peaceable converts and their descendants.

So modern Christians like to imagine pre-Nicene Christianity, R130. But that isn't borne out by the scriptures of the New Testament, for whatever they may be worth in terms of reflecting the mores and practices of the people who wrote them. They are filled with violence. Most Christians today aren't aware that the tortures of the Inquisition had a firm basis in the New Testament - 1 Timothy 1:19-20 and its 'witness counterpart', ¹ 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, which instructed the assembled authorities of the Church to "deliver" (the same word used to describe how Jesus was taken captive in the Garden) recalcitrant sinners, heretics, and witches "over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" that their "spirit might be saved on the Day of the Lord." And no, in practice this wasn't some passive form of shunning or disfellowshipping, as modern apologists prefer to paint it - this was how Christians managed their own affairs internally, intra-church. They were killing their own members over matters of pledges of wealth/property (cf. Acts 5:1-11 - and no, "God" didn't do it), which membership required must be handed over to the Church (Acts 2:44, 4:32, 37).

But surely that must be a misinterpretation, right? It's not what Jesus taught, is it? Matthew 18:17 is fraught with 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑖² menace: "And if he fails to listen to them, tell it to the Church. And if he fails to listen to even to the Church, let him be to you as the foreigner and the tax collector" - that is, anathema, or damned. (The casual hostility towards foreigners is breathtaking; little wonder the Christian world was historically murderous towards any who were different. And after the first millennium, this attitude ultimately found expression in the Corpus Juris Canonici, where persecution of homosexuals was finally mandated.) "In his anger, his master turned him over to the torturers, until he should repay all that he owed" (Matthew 18:34) reflects how normative torture was for the society which produced the gospel narrative. So we see the torture mandate of the epistles reflected in the ostensible words of Jesus.

Once Christianity gained the power of the government, what was formerly done between believers was then done to Roman society at large.

¹ 'Witness counterparts': The Principle of Witnesses (Deut.17:6, 19:15; Matt.18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1) was held necessary for anything to become a doctrinally approved practice. Practices that had only a single witness often had a second mention interpolated into either the same book, or another New Testament text held authoritative by a given Christian community. Examples would be the Matthean community's doublet of the "fornication clause" for divorce (Matthew 19:8, interpolated also at 5:32), the injunction that women keep silent (1 Timothy 2:11-15 is the likely first instance of it, interpolated also back into 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35), and the mandate to torture recalcitrant sinners (likely first instance 1 Timothy 1:20, duplicated at 1 Corinthians 5:4-5). The 'hapax legomena' of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are yet another example of multiplying witnesses.

²Parabalani - 'Church police'; thugs who served as ecclesiastical enforcers or handlers, enforcing the will of the bishops, up until around the 7th century. Matthew 18:17 advocates siccing them on those with whom one has an intractable difference.

[quote] The problem with people like him and that Yashar guy is

Yashar who tries to hide his triple chins in his Twitter avatar.

Yashar on Twitter.

His previous Twitter pic. lol

My other favorite nickname for Shaun King is Hue-less P. Newton.

My favorite Shaun King nickname is Fleece Witherspoon. I almost pissed myself laughing at that one.

Alexander Scamilton, Frauderick Dumbass and Chalka Con are also excellent.

[quote]Historically, nobody ever visualized him as a Jew until after WWII

Are you just pulling shit out of your ass? That is insane.

Jesus did exist, he is in the historical record. Of course he wasn't the son of God or Divinely created, he was a regular human being like everyone else. He just had a lot of followers and his legend grew. But there was a man named Jesus Christ who did exist.

[quote]Are you just pulling shit out of your ass? That is insane.

Look at the depictions, R140. And also consider the fact that the two gospels which have nativity accounts both insist that his mother was not impregnated by a person, but miraculously by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic doubled this removal from any sort of ethnic descent by adding that Mary, too, had been born of a virgin (the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception). As far as they were concerned, there was nothing in Jesus which could have been physically related to the ethnic peoples of the Levant. And that was how Christians believed he came about.

Anti-Semitism was the predominant view during the nearly two millennia of Christianity. Had you insisted of Jesus that he was Jewish, the Christians of the majority of that period would have had much the same reaction - "Are you just pulling shit out of your ass? That is insane." And they'd have likely done something about it. You probably would not have survived.

[quote]Jesus did exist, he is in the historical record.

No, hon. He's not. What "historical record" do you think records him? Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius do not count.

[quote]Of course he wasn't the son of God or Divinely created, he was a regular human being like everyone else.

Except that there's nothing like that related in the bible, capable of being separated from its miraculous or fantastical elements. Everything related of Christ is supposedly the miraculous fulfillment of some prophetic text, or some sort of literary borrowing. When you strip all that away, there's literally nothing left to claim existed.

Is it possible that an ordinary person like Jesus existed? Maybe. But there's no evidence that he did.

Again, R140, [italic]the claims of Christian literature do not constitute evidence.[/italic]

[quote]Except that there's nothing like that related in the bible, capable of being separated from its miraculous or fantastical elements. Everything related of Christ is supposedly the miraculous fulfillment of some prophetic text, or some sort of literary borrowing. When you strip all that away, there's literally nothing left to claim existed.

Jesus went from a man to a myth. Which is exactly what I said. He did exist, but it's ridiculous to think he was a supernatural being.

Poisoned Dragon, you are nuts. It has always been known that Jesus was Jewish. It didn't "start after World War II." God, you're an imbecile.

[quote] the claims of Christian literature do not constitute evidence.

What about non-Christian historians Thallos and Tacitus? Or the Jewish historian Josephus? The references in the Talmud? Or, the writings of Mara bar Serapion?

Destroying Jesus statues, the fundies will just LOVE this come November. Bernie Bro Fraudrick Douglass need to sit his ass down somewhere and stfu.

[quote] Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius do not count.

Why not? Either way, if you google historical Jesus, there are many references to historical and archeological evidence of his existence. However, you will still find reasons to argue to the contrary no matter what - so why bother? Nobody is convincing anybody of anything different either way. Moving on.

R146 I'm guessing they don't count because they do not support his point of view.

Coptic (Egyptian) Christians tend to make him pretty white also, but Egypt did the same with their old gods. The Coptic's predate Christianity.

In Latin America the Virgin Mary has a way stronger image than Jesus Christ as LA is predominately Catholic and most of the Virgin Marys in LA are either brown skinned or even pitch black . Guadalupe, Aparecida, Caacupe, Maipú, Chiquinquira, Copacabana and many others, none are white or blonde.

Actually I stand correct, Our Lady of Caacupe from Paraguay is actually a red hair lady.

*corrected, damn we need an edit button here asap.

I love Korean Jesus!

“Is it possible that an ordinary person existed? Maybe. But there's no evidence that he did.“

See how stupid that sounds when you take his name out?

I agree that he existed but never was supernatural. I think he was the first activist in a way, but that still doesn’t make him a saint. I bet that under today’s standards he’d prob be labeled a rapist. But I do think he was a great person based on the standards of his time period.

I also don’t think he looked “white”.

I thought the Immaculate Conception meant that Mary was born without Original Sin, not that her mother was a virgin.

The general public will kill for, and die for, the Jesus statues. Do we want our own knockoff of the Mexican Civil War?

[quote] I bet that under today’s standards he’d prob be labeled a rapist.

Are you talking about Mohammed or Jesus? How could Jesus be a rapist? There are no recorded sexual relationships between him and anyone.

R154 You're correct. Mary being impregnated with Jesus as a virgin is called the incarnation, incidentally.

This thread might be one of the biggest clusterfuck shitshows in Datalounge history.

[quote] I'm part Palestinian and of course Jesus wasn't white

He was Semitic, so by definition he was indeed Caucasian.

He looked Middle Eastern.

Also I’m cracking up at the ideas of racial purity on both sides. Hitler had some ideas about that, and who qualifies, based on coloring and genetics. It cuts both ways. Hahaha

Shaun King is a mess and a menace.

It's like if a Bern bro WAS the Fyre Festival, but with more Twitter enemies. He's a world class fool and grifter.

'Chaka Con' is my favorite. That's funny!

They aren’t painted. How can you be sure they are white?

He's received death threats over this.

R165 Like I said, the Christians will kill and die for their statues. King is trying to egg on a bloodbath.

Sure he has. Shaun always plays the “OMG death threats!” card.

It’s just twitter Shaun. You can always delete your social media and walk away.

[quote] You can always delete your social media and walk away.

That's like telling an alcoholic "just stop drinking cold turkey". He will die! Wait, now that you mention it...

[quote]What about non-Christian historians Thallos and Tacitus?

R144, none of Thallus's actual works survive; his supposed account of an eclipse was ostensibly quoted in 3rd century Christian author Julius Africanus, who supposedly connected it to the Crucifixion, and whose works we also *do not* have. Julius Africanus' quote of Thallus is itself quoted in George Syncellus' 'Chronography,' a work from the 9th century; earliest surviving manuscripts are from the 11th century - several times removed. As such, it's still dependent upon Christian literature.

Tacitus' Annals 15:44 was unattested by anyone prior to its discovery in the Laurentian Library in the 16th century. The manuscript itself dates from the 11th century. That's pretty late, and doesn't explain why *nobody* knew this tale or repeated it up to that point - not even Eusebius. The suggestion that it's an 11th century forgery is strong, no matter how many theologians and faith-based scholars one assembles to testify they believe in it.

Typical apologetics renderings of the text are usually inaccurate, for the manuscript from the Laurentian Library reads "Chrestians" instead of "Christians," agreeing with Suetonius's mention of "Chrestus," a Jewish rabblerouser described as alive in Rome during the reign of Claudius.

To be continued, R144.

[quote]Or the Jewish historian Josephus?

R144, the Jewish historian Josephus does not mention Christ at all. The "Testimonia Flavianum" (Antiquities 18.3.3; 20.9.1) are interpolations unattested before the 4th century CE. Within critical scholarship, Ken Olson has made a compelling case that the larger of the two passages (18.3.3) was composed in its entirety by Eusebius.

The secondary passage, the so-called "Jamesian reference," has been answered ably by Richard Carrier in his book, 𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠: 𝑊ℎ𝑦 𝑊𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐻𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑡 (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), pp. 337-338. In fact, Carrier puts to rest any possibility that either passage is genuine.

Within critical scholarship, these are accepted as conclusive; the only ones still beating the dead horse of Josephus are apologists, who don't care whether it's true or not, just so long as it supports their assertions - just like the so-called 'chariot wheels' they claim were found in the Red Sea.

Please please PLEASE keep talking and even louder, Shaun! More!

Shaun is a race-baiter, peddler of victimology and a flat out liar. But why let that stop him. Who the fuck is he to censor religious art? He can paint his Jesus any color he wants. I'd love to hear him make the same type of statements about Mohammed. Oh, wait, you can't do that and if you do, you will be a target.

[quote]The references in the Talmud?

Really, R144? By the 5th -8th centuries CE, you're no longer dealing with anything that could be characterized as a witness. Material written centuries later isn't evidence. It's also why the testimony of the Quran is moot.

[quote]Or, the writings of Mara bar Serapion?

The supposed reference in Bar Serapion reads as follows:

[quote]What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.

Pretty vague, but for the sake of argument, let's agree to agree that the "wise king" refers to Jesus. Although it pleases conservative scholars to claim that Bar Serapion wrote just after 73 CE (clearly predicated on how close they can move it to the destruction of Jerusalem), it's a fact that the Jews did not "live in complete dispersion" until after the outcome of the Bar Kochba Revolt, 135 CE, when they were banished from Judea, and the region was re-named 'Syria-Palæstina.' Even Archibald Robertson who accept the historical existence of Jesus, writes that that "such authorities as Cureton and M'Lean date it in the second or even third" century (Jesus: Myth or History? [Second edition, London: Watts & Co, 1949], p. 87).

It's much the same problem with most of these sources - being decades or even centuries after the supposed time of Jesus, they cannot attest to personal knowledge of him. The most to which they can testify is what Christians of their time were saying, and that is valueless in terms of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. They're not eyewitnesses any more than you are.

[quote]However, you will still find reasons to argue to the contrary no matter what - so why bother? Nobody is convincing anybody of anything different either way. Moving on.

So you admit that the apologetic claims have been answered, and that no evidence or information will alter your beliefs either way; that's good to know, R146/NYCTechie. Still, I present the arguments and information for the benefit of readers whose minds are not closed by faith.

[quote] “Is it possible that an ordinary person existed? Maybe. But there's no evidence that he did.“

See how stupid that sounds when you take his name out?

Not particularly, no, since then we're no longer discussing the specific claim that Jesus - the one who's the center of the Christian religion - existed as a human being. Kind of a stupid argument.

[quote]I'm guessing they don't count because they do not support his point of view.

No, R147. When I said they didn't count, it's because they cannot support the existence of a historical Jesus as evidence, for the reasons offered. You present this stuff as if you think no one has ever read it before, or answered it. It's old apologetics. You haven't even exhausted the typical lists - "Oh, what about Phlegon? What about Lucian of Samosata? What about Celsus? What about Suetonius? Pliny the Younger?" :D

C'mon - admit it, guys - you're just one poster using socks, aren't you? You all seem to share the same claim and manner of supporting it.

Why does this white man who pretends to be black for attention and money, have the right to tell anyone else to tear down religious art? That's inciting violence.

Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.

[quote]Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.

Mmm-hmm. Which ones, R175? Be specific. Chances are good they've already been discussed.

When a text can be said to "corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus," that simply means that

𝑎) the author read the relevant Christian literature and incorporated it into his text, or

𝑏) At some point centuries later, Christian copyists responsible for propagating the text interpolated Christian material into it. That's how the Testimonium Flavianum wound up in Josephus' [italic]Antiquities[/italic] 18.3.3.

Neither comprise a witness to the existence of a historical Jesus.

[quote]Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians

Rubbish! There is NO mention of Yeshu or Yeshua or Yehoshua in relation to the Xtian concept of Jesus in Jewish historical texts.

The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.

[quote]...and [italic]Christian[/italic] scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died.

▲ Fixed, R178. Critical scholarship, not predicated on edifying Christian belief, has found that the epistles are patchworks of materials written and redacted by different sectarian hands, from the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE. They are not the product of "St Paul," or anyone else from the ostensible time of 'Jesus.'

Likewise the gospels, each serially copied from the preceding ones and serving as polemical responses to them, with 'Mark' being the first, dated to some point after 135 CE (per Mark 13:14; see Hermann Detering, [italic]The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 PAR) A Document From the Time of Bar Kochba[/italic] (JHC 7/2 (Fall 2000)), 161-210. The provided "descriptions" in Mark decidedly [italic]do not[/italic] comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine, but are incongruous with a firsthand knowledge of the region in question. Culturally, they reflect a familiarity with Rabbinic Judaism and its post-Judaic innovations. Unsurprising, though, since 'Mark' was never written as a 'biography' of 'Jesus,' but rather as an allegory, transvaluating the Homeric Epics; see Dennis R. MacDonald, [italic]The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark[/italic] (Yale University Press, 2000). The authors of the other two Synoptics, not recognizing the nature and function of the first gospel, copied some 95% of the text of 'Mark' into their own gospels, and freely altered and embellished the material, borrowing from other sources such as the Septuagint, Jewish apocrypha, Philo, and Josephus. The gospels were still being edited, interpolated, and altered as late as the 4th century CE.

[quote]difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure...

The 'Institution of the Lord's Supper' is sufficient to thoroughly refute the proposition that any of it is of Jewish religion; "this is my body, which is given for you... Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant..." would have been, and remains, utterly inimical to any observant Jew. It is impossible for it to have emerged from a Jewish milieu. It is, however, somewhat analogous to various pagan rituals, traditions, and practices, from which it was unquestionably derived.

R178, your attempt to try to rehabilitate Christian texts, bolstered by Christian claims about their dates and provenance, into viable evidence for Christian claims is a failure. None of it constitutes evidence for a historical Jesus.

90% of historical figures from antiquity left behind no physical evidence. That does not mean they didn't exist.

[quote] Critical scholarship, not predicated on edifying Christian belief, has found that the epistles are patchworks of materials written and redacted by different sectarian hands, from the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE. They are not the product of "St Paul," or anyone else from the ostensible time of 'Jesus.'

They were passed down through oral tradition, as most things were back then.

Virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

[quote]They were passed down through oral tradition, as most things were back then.

R181, there is no evidence for "oral tradition." On the other hand, there is considerable evidence of literary development, as revealed by critical scholarship, i.e. form criticism, textual criticism, etc. "Oral tradition" is a crutch relied upon by apologists, as a proposed bridge between the time in which they wish to set a narrative, and when the first discernible physical manuscripts/fragments are dated.

[quote]Virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Well, I was beginning to think none of you would say it - the ubiquitous 'argument ad populum.' It would not matter if billions believed it - it still comes down to the quality of the arguments and of the evidence, which is not on believers' side. But that it represents a majority is unsurprising, since virtually all biblical scholars are believers, all of them servicing and providing edification for Christian beliefs. See Hector Avalos, [italic]The End of Biblical Studies[/italic] (2007), Introduction:

[quote]there is no evidence for "oral tradition."

Oh for fuck's sake just stop.

[quote]it still comes down to the quality of the arguments and of the evidence, which is not on believers' side. But that it represents a majority is unsurprising, since virtually all biblical scholars are believers,

These are also historians who are often not Christian or practicing Christians. It is generally accepted that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure. Just like Plato or Aristotle.

Why can't atheists just be atheists without needing to rewrite history? Jesus was a person who existed. His given name was Emmanuel iirc, Christ was a title and idk where Yeshua or whatever came from. It's been a minute. Do you go around debating the existence of Buddha or Mohammed?

This reeks of the atheist forums of a decade ago where teenage mormons would coach each other on fedora-tipping debate tactics to use on their Moms. Surprised you haven't brought up Mithras or called Christians zombie-worshippers.

Btw, Christians write X-mas, X-tians and so forth because traditionally it was considered blasphemous to write Christ's name outside of a worship context. The "Holy Name," lots of Catholic churches floating around stilled called that.

[quote]Oh for fuck's sake just stop.

I realize your inability to defend your own positions must be frustrating, R184. There is no evidence for oral tradition; if there were, it would not be oral. Literary development, on the other hand, is traceable.

[quote]It is generally accepted that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure. Just like Plato or Aristotle.

A bad comparison, R185. Plato and Aristotle left writings; Jesus Christ did not.

[quote]Do you go around debating the existence of Buddha or Mohammed?

Not typically, R186, since I do not live in a society surrounded by the adherents of those religious traditions, unable to observe normal boundaries. But as a matter of fact, both are debatable. For the most part, the Buddhists don't care, since the historical existence of Prince Gautama is quite irrelevant to the Path advocated by Buddhism. And regarding Muhammad, a small but persistent group of scholars have begun exploring his potential non-existence, like Sven Kalisch.

And, no - the potential for personal harm that Islamic zealotry represents does not constitute a valid argument against the merits of that kind of scholarship.

R186 The thing about atheists is that they operate on as much faith as the religious, they just don't want to admit it. They spend as much time and energy trying to disprove God's existence as the faithful do to prove God's existence. In the end, all both can rely on is their faith in that what they believe is right. If one is really anti-faith and committed to being rational one would be agnostic, not atheistic.

[quote]There is no evidence for oral tradition; if there were, it would not be oral.

Every culture on Earth has had oral traditions from centuries. Drawings and paintings reinforced the oral traditions. Native Americans have a long history of oral tradition. Then of course there's the Odyssey, which was around for generations before it was written down.

Mr. King looks white through & through. If he wants to fight for the cause, then great. It's the entire backstory he fabricated, down to typically easily verifiable aspects that have still gone on with no clarification, that has tainted everything he brings forth. I find if rather staggering that a figure like him has accumulated so much support for himself. Being the attention slut he is, I can't help but believe that upon these threats being brought to his attention he didn't think "JACKPOT!" Pukes like him with take the press any way they can get it, especially when it's as high profile as someone plotting their demise! It must be reinforcing his self-determined high degree of formidibility.

If I had run into Rachel Dolenzal on the street I'd recognize her as biracial. She looks almost exactly like one of my biracial cousins. The same scenario with Shaun King? Not for a second would I guess he was anything other than white. He just looks like one of white guys in Color Me Badd.