Curse of Ham

This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved. Curse of Ham could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

"Noah Curses Ham and Canaan" by Gustave Doré

Light iron-age reading The Bible

Gabbin' with God

Old / New Testament Apocrypha Annotated Bible

Analysis

Bibliolatry Examples of God personally killing people Biblical scientific errors

Woo

Hanzi of Genesis Benny Hinn Christian Identity

Figures

Joseph of Arimathea Paul of Tarsus Nephilim v - t - e

Not to be confused with the religious practice of not eating pork, or the creationist.

The Curse of Ham (also known as Noah's Curse or the Noachid Curse) refers to an incident in the Bible, in the book of Genesis, regarding Noah (after the Great Flood) and his sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham.

Quoting the good book

Here is the text from Genesis, Genesis 9:20-27:

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.

21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.

22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,

25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

26 He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

27 May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave."

Some Biblical scholars believe this anecdote was added to the scriptures as a rationalisation justifying the Israelite conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites later in the Old Testament. Ironically, one of Ham's grandsons, Nimrod, becomes the world's first Empire-builder, starting with the Tower of Babel, which undermines the curse in terms of Africans since Nimrod's father was Cush.

Interpretations

Racist

See the main article on this topic: Racism

“”That the act of manumission confers no other right but that of freedom from the dominion of the master, and the limited liberty of locomotion; that it does not and cannot confer citizenship, nor any of the powers, civil or political, incident to citizenship; that the social and civil degradation, resulting from the taint of blood, adheres to the descendants of Ham in this country, like the poisoned tunic of Nessus…

—Georgia Supreme Court Justice Joseph Henry Lumpkin in 1853, mixing mythologies while arguing that freed African Americans had no rights other than 'freedom' because of the Bible.

The Canaanites, descended from Ham via his son Canaan, have historically been regarded as the ethnic ancestors of the black peoples of Africa. Although Genesis does not identify Ham's skin colour, some ancient Jewish writings, including part of the Talmud, state that either Ham or Canaan had his faced "blackened" by God as part of curse, in punishment for Ham seeing Noah's nakedness and not covering him, or, in some variations, for copulating while aboard the Ark.

This idea became more widespread in Europe during colonialism, as an argument for the inferiority of the black race, whose dark skin was believed to be an outward sign of the curse, and to sanction some instances of slavery. The belief was at its most popular during the 18^th and 19^th centuries, to justify the Atlantic slave trade and plantation slavery in the British sugar islands and American South. Noah's decree that Canaan should be the slave of Shem was seen as God's command that Africans should be the slaves to white Christians.

Although overwhelmingly discredited and largely forgotten, racial arguments based on the Curse of Ham are still clung to by some white supremacists, including blogger Alan O'Reilly and some members of Stormfront. During 2008, various ultra-conservative and racist blogs and websites invoked the Curse of Ham as an argument against Barack Obama's campaign for the United States Presidency. Apparently white supremacists can't think any better than the Bronze Age herders who wrote that part of the Bible; nor do they see the irony in using a Jewish text to justify their racism.

Rationalist

The fully functioning rational mind raises a few questions about the Curse:

• Why weren't any of Ham's other sons (Cush, Mizraim, or Phut) cursed as well as Canaan? Genesis 10:6)
• Why was Canaan being punished for Ham's misdeeds, when Deuteronomy and Ezekiel clearly state that children should not be punished for parents' misdeeds?
• Shem and Japheth acted as equal partners in covering their father, but Japheth's reward is far greater.
• The whole idea that every black person in the world is permanently cursed because some far-distant and mythical ancestor saw his father drunk and naked, aside from being appallingly racist, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense at all.
• Why punish Ham and Canaan at all for Ham accidentally getting an eyeful of wrinkly old man parts? It can be fairly certain that getting a gander at his father's rattle-and-flute was the furthest thing from his mind that day.

See also

• Another ham-related curse
• Mark of Cain
• Slavery in the Bible

External links

• The Brick Testament account of Noah's insobriety and the Curse of Ham
• See the Wikipedia article on Curse of Ham.