Recently, many right-wing commentators railed against a certain Netflix mocumentary (for it certainly was not a documentary) for race-swapping Cleopatra who was of Macedonian origin. The mocumentary writers may have wanted to believe that Cleopatra was black, but this was just a product of their own fever dreams and “woke” orientation. Interestingly, the same right-wing commentators remain blind to the greatest example of race-swapping in history, that of the “White Christ” that sits in so many churches, and is represented in innumerable works of art, documentaries and movies. Now of course, if Jesus did exist as stated in the bible he would have been born in the Middle East and therefore looked like a Middle Eastern person. Certainly not like the bearded white underwear model style depiction that is so prevalent. Even Monty Python got it wrong with their depiction of “Brian”, but that whole movie was meant to be satirical.
The White Christ of course served and continues to serve those in power, with the established Christian Church being founded in Rome and then continuing to be based in Europe; in Rome and Constantinople until the latter was defeated and Orthodox Christianity dispersed. It was then spread across the world through invasion and colonial subjugation; the white settler colonies, Latin America and southern Africa. That Christ was represented as a European would certainly have helped in supporting the supremacy of a white European civilization populated by those with the same skin colour as Christ. What would have been the impact upon the indigenous peoples of the sight of a Middle Eastern Christ that much more resembled themselves than the white invaders and occupiers?
If Western civilizational ideology were likened to a Tower of Babel the White Christ myth would be one of the foundational stones. A Middle Eastern Christ fundamentally undermines the Greco-Roman origin tales that are so foundational to European populations’ view of themselves, and the belief that the drivers of European civilization were immanent to Europe. A challenge to the basic ontology of the European “garden” separated from the uncivilized “forest” that requires the “white man’s burden” (now dressed up in less racist tones) to help it reach the heights that European civilization has reached. That is why the White Christ myth must not be challenged, and any attempt to do so must be marginalized and lost to the collective memory.
Imagine a world where the White Christ statues were all replaced with a Middle Eastern Christ, the paintings, documentaries and movies removed and treated as the blatant racist propaganda that they are, and a Christianity that truly had to come to terms with its Middle Eastern origin. A European population that was much better educated about its many debts to other civilizations, and the shared heritage of the three monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism; the product of the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Thousands of years later the religious followers of one are still attempting to subjugate the religious followers of the other. In religious terms all Christians, Muslims, and Jews are followers of the same Middle Eastern family of Abraham; worshipping the same God in different ways.
The Western “garden” has already displayed its deep ontological hatred toward the thought of Europeans no longer being the most powerful in its racist reaction to the success of Japan in the 1980s and 1990s, and the racist elements of its reaction to the success of China in the present. It simply cannot give up on the White Christ myth which supports its belief in its own civilizational supremacy at the deepest of levels. So the Christians, and especially the right-wing Christians, will continue race-swapping Jesus while complaining about the “woke”.
For an excellent investigation of the White Christ myth, Joan E. Taylor’s book What Did Jesus Look Like? would be as good a start as any. And this:
A relevant scene from the movie Malcolm X:
Christ has been depicted as he was, a Semite, since the beginning of the Church. Slight differences in iconography exist, but the overall form is the same. Racially transposing Christ is a 19th century phenomenon that has persisted until this day.
Furthermore, your characterisation of the Abrahamic religions worshipping the same God is simply false. I also understand your view of the spread of Christianity through the lens of imperialism, but to seperate its objective truth and goodness from the debate presents an entirely flawed and biased view of history.
Your entire argument sounds like appeasement to Marxist historical revisionists. A billion Christian’s from across the planet have no problem of Christs depiction, or the spread of their faith. A piece such as yours, completely out of touch with the times, could easily be classed as Marxist agitation.