3/18/2023 0 Comments Dissatifaction of the black massesSince both the Egyptians and Ethiopians are in the biblical record as being descended from Ham, he has been seen by literalists as the ancestor of Black people across the globe.Ģ. This is amplified by various biblical listings of nations that came from one of the three brothers. The Hebrew translation of the names of the sons have colors associated with them (sometimes very loosely), so those who take the Bible literally assign each of the sons as the ancestor of people with different skin colors. That makes Noah a kind of new Adam with all peoples tracing a lineage back to Noah and one of his three sons: Ham, Shem, and Japheth. The reason people latch onto race here is that, in a literal interpretation* of the biblical account of the Great Flood, all life on earth is wiped out except for those on the ark. There are several things to note about the passage, and I'll try to present them simply here.ġ. The Rwandan genocide should teach us to take seriously the threat posed by the use of the passage by White Identity movements today. If you would like to read more about the latter (including the role European colonialism played in making those racial distinctions in Rwanda) you can read Mirror to the Church: Resurrecting Faith after Genocide in Rwanda by Emmanuel A. Most notably it was used in the Rwandan genocide to justify pitting the indigenous Hutu and Tutsi peoples against each other. While it is used most frequently by White Supremacists and other White Identity movements, it also has been used in other racial conflicts. Another person on this site asked a question specifically about why seeing Noah naked was such a big deal, and if you're interested in that part of the question, you can find a number of answers by fine scholars here: "What's the issue with Noah's son seeing him naked?"īut there is a more sinister reason that this short, ancient passage stays alive today, and that is because the passage has been used to prop up systems of racial superiority from ancient times right up to today as described in this New York Times article. Noah then curses Ham's son, Canaan, saying he should be a slave to his brothers. The question is referring to Genesis 9:18-27 where, after the Great Flood, Noah gets drunk and Noah's son Ham enters Noah's tent and sees him naked. The short answer is no, but let me expand. So, by no means simply "black people." Only in the European period of colonialism did the idea appear that the curse of Canaan was transferred to Ham and justified slavery.įor a good discussion of the matter, see Ephraim Isaac, "Ham (Person)," The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3:31-32. Second, the figure Ham in Genesis 9 is the ancestor of the peoples of Canaan, and also Egypt, and perhaps Libya, and Ethiopia. The first appearance of a "curse of Ham" is in the Middle Ages, and it's a puzzle where it comes from, as there is no basis in the Genesis text. And this "Canaan" is obviously the eponymous ancestor of the Canaanites of the land of Canaan, who are the ones the Israelites are subsequently depicted (in the book of Joshua) as depriving of the land, in punishment for their idolatry and wickedness, so the story goes. Instead, Noah places a curse on Canaan (who in the narrative is Ham's son). First, it's important to read the biblical text! There is no "curse of Ham" in Genesis 9.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |