As far I’m concerned this debate should not exist.

The Apostle Paul dedicated his life to ensuring that Christianity was a religion for all peoples everywhere. The universal Church spread the faith to all corners of the world. Christ represents an idea and a spirit, not an ethnicity. But an essential ingredient of the idea of Christ is that he was God made flesh, therefore he has to be represented as a person of some variety.
Artistic depictions of Jesus have historically tended to depict him with the ethnic appearance of the artist or their region. The artists didn’t do that to promote their ethnicity, they did it to promote the humanity of Christ.

A). People who point out that the historical Jesus was probably tanned with dark hair are making a technically accurate point about how climate affects skin tone, but they’re using Jesus as the example for the sake of attention.

B). People who think this technical point is a good way to undermine the Western artistic tradition of Christ depictions are ignoring the point of the art.

C). People who get defensive about the ethnicity of Jesus are forgetting the substance of Christianity, and conflating incidental elements of artistic representation with the idea itself.

This debate over skin tone is an argument between the least engaged critics of Christianity and the least informed proponents of it. If people are going to attack or defend something, I really wish they’d engage with the thing itself and not a surface level token.