DUers please reposnd to racist Letter to Editor

[UCLA02]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=148772&mesg_id=148772

I posted this over at the "Editorials" board. My
local rag often publishes bullshit like this, which is a
widely-held attitude here.

snip from L2E:
"I don't trust any man that wears a dress, has his bath
towel wrapped around his head and looks like he hasn't had a
shower in a month. Just doesn't look right some how. That's
just my personal opinion. I can do that here in America. Try
that over there and look out!"

Geez, what an asshole...

[FloridaPat]

1. Don't ever remember seeing a picture of Jesus in pants. Just the dress.

Same with the apostiles. How about all those Roman soldiers? Biggest empire in the world for a long time. Minis too. Or how about all those catholic priests? They get all "dressed" up for mass and other special occaisions.

[UCLA02]

2. Perfect!!

But wouldn't that imply that Jesus was middle eastern? Would kinda call into question all of the angelic blonde pictures, wouldn't it?

"Can't...think...abstractly...head...might...explode..."

[Igel]

3. Pants/trousers are recent in Europe.

Introduced various ways, but pretty much unless you wanted to cover up in a certain way, and rode horses, you didn't wear pants west of the Urals until several hundred years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers does decent job of it. The Greeks considered the horse-riding Persians to be barbarians, in part because they wore pants.

You can still have a dress/tunic or dress/cossack or dress/... distinction. It's just less robust.

So had Jesus not been from Palestina, but from England, Rome, or Germany, he'd still not have worn pants.

On the other hand, blondes would still have worn dresses, mostly, in all four places, whether they had boys' names or not.