St. Augustine was from Northern Africa, what is now Libya. Although not Arabic--like the peoples there now, 4th Century Libyans were likely a mixture of Cartheginian and Roman... i.e. your swarthy meditarianian type. One can't really call him white, or black for that matter.
The earliest images of Augustine, as more or less reliable as they are (none date from his lifetime) back of my contention the St. was an olive skinned meditarianian.
I find the peleocon contention that skin color makes culture rather offensive. I think all kinds of people can learn--once steeped in Western culture--the basics of democratic thought, and their backgrounds can add, not subtract to our culture. There will always be various skin colors--and we should lighten up about it all!
So far, the only 'cons I've heard make this contention are neocons. I have yet to hear a self-described paleocon contend that "skin color makes culture" though I admit that I don't follow every volley the intramural conservative conflict.
Me? I think I'd pass on both of the age-defined conservative labels (paleo- and neo-) and, like LaBelleDameSansMerci, just call myself an Extreme Reactionary. (at least until someone comes up with a term that combines a Habsburg Catholic sensibility with a Puritan theological bent).
St. Augustine was...your swarthy meditarianian type. One can't really call him white, or black for that matter.
Indisputably true. How about "white(ish)?" (not that it maters)
At one time, that was considered a liberal, even Marxist, position, because of its focus on environmental conditions. That position implies a certain malleability in human nature.
Even better question: who originally steeped Westerners in Western culture?