[Marxism] RE: David Quarter's response

David Quarter davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Sun Feb 29 14:40:07 MST 2004


 I'm not disagreeing with your characterization about the origin of 
the 'white' Jesus concept. My reasons for the reply was a) to point 
out how my grandma and I imagine many 'G-d fearing' 'blacks' see 
this issue -- i.e., from *their* standpoint -- as opposed to a liberal, 
elite NyTimes (I imagine, 'white' guys) standpoint -- and b) where 
the characterization of Mr Rivers Pitts of folks interested in the 
Passion of the Christ falls way off the mark. My comments were 
directed to the author's characterization, not you per se. 

I think this article is but the continuation of the villification 
campaign started by the groups such as the ADL and the Simon 
Wiesalthal Centre against Mel and the film and taken on (I imagine 
in some instances unknowingly) by much of the (generally liberal) 
media, to the fanfare of many leftists it would appear (I'm not 
suggesting you!). I'm definitely not a proponent of Mel's view on 
sexuality and religion. But if the intention behind the storm was to 
rid the world of Mel's brand of religious intolerance, this is an ironic 
way to go about doing this. 

To this chagrin of the anti Mel bandwagon, there will likely be a 
backlash against these critics (whom many will identify as secular 
and liberal) which will in the end probably steer more people 
towards embracing Mel's version of Christianity than would have 
resulted had his critics simply let him be . It will definitely do little 
towards helping the cause of ridding the world of 
religion/superstition, if that is what the intention was. It's is also 
instructive to note that many of the groups that had from the get-go 
led the charge to discredit the film subscribe to a much more 
reactionary brand of fanatism than our good friend Mel. 


From:           	"Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>

David Quarter misses what I think is significant in this issue, which is
not what the white Jesus means to Black people, but what this image
means in a white racist society.  

And note that I didn't suggest Samuel L. Jackson for the part.  My
suggestions were lightly but cinematically thought out. I also think
that Gibson exercised good judgment in not playing Jesus himself. Nor
would John Wayne have been a good choice. I admit that you might want
Ice Cube to lose some weight, but I am convinced he could do a very
creditable job.  

In the United States, "nonracial" casting of Jesus means white, which is
actually a form of racial casting.  If your family's response doesn't
lead you to think that what we have seen on this matter (not just with
Gibson) is deeply racial casting, then I think you are looking at the
question from an angle that is not informative about this.


More information about the Marxism mailing list