Are Blacks The Cursed Descendants of Ham?
77Queen Charlotte: Black English Queen and Wife Of English King George III (1738-1820)
Are Blacks The Cursed Descendants Of Ham?
copyright 2009 El Veasey Publishing>
This may be the first time that some of you have heard of this topic.
Well welcome aboard this journey into a religious idea that has plagued the minds of certain groups of people over long periods of time, causing them to wreck havoc and scorn upon another group of people for hundreds if not thousands of years. Sadly, some people still believe this idea.
First the text of the curse then my commentary on the text
Genesis chapter 9
20 Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; 21 and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." 26 He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaanbe his slave. God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Revised Standard Edition)
My Commentary
Now let’s see what this infamous curse is all about.
Well it appears that Noah got drunk and passed-out naked in his tent (Verse 21). His son Ham saw him lying there drunk asleep and told his brothers about it and they covered him with a garment (Verse 22). So it seems that Noah spoke this curse because he was mad that his son, Ham, saw him naked.
I guess he was pretty uptight about being seen naked by Ham but not about drinking so much that he'd passed-out and was lying there in the nude where anyone could see him, including Shem and Japheth. Ham just happened to see him first.
Now here’s where the story gets interesting.
Noah’s mad at his son, Ham, but he curses his grandson Canaan (Verse 25). He says "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall you be to your brothers."
Why is he cursing his innocent grandson Canaan, who's not in this story at all up to this point and who’s only mentioned here in passing? (Verse 22)
And what’s so bad about being seen naked that he’d want to curse anybody anyway, especially his innocent grandson? Ham committed this "horrible" offense so why doesn’t he curse Ham instead?
Noah was drunk; so maybe he intended to curse Ham but mistakenly cursed Canaan. At any rate, the person who initially took the “forbidden” action in relation to Noah was Ham not Canaan.
Some people say that seeing Noah naked wasn't the real reason for his invoking the curse…that the real reason Canaan was cursed was because he sexually molested Noah while he was sleeping. Read the text for yourself folks;
“And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness”. (Verse 22)
Do you see anything in the text about Canaan molesting his grandfather, Noah? Does it seem to you that the real reason for the curse was that Ham saw Noah naked?
If seeing Noah naked wasn't the reason why does the writer emphasize the fact that Ham saw his father's nakedness and Shem and Japheth didn't? Anyway, the innocent Canaan received the curse not, Ham.
Let's move on.
Let’s dissect the historical after shocks of this curse. White supremacists and their sympathizers say that Ham was cursed by God with blackness and as a result, all of Ham’s descendants (Black People) are cursed and are destined to be slaves (A good justification for enslaving Africans during the European slave trade.).
But as you can see by the text, that’s not true. God doesn’t curse anyone Noah does. (Verse 24-25). Noah doesn’t curse Ham he curses his innocent grandson, Canaan, and the text doesn’t say that Ham or Canaan were cursed with blackness.
Noah said in Verse 25, “Canaan shall be a slave of slaves to his brothers” and in Verses 26-27, to his Uncles Shem and Japheth not to white supremacists or any other group.
Now who are these brothers Canaan is cursed to be a slave to?
Get your bibles out, scroll down to Genesis 10, Verse 6 where it lists the sons of Ham; his son’s are listed as Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan.
(Mizraim… was the name generally given by the Hebrews to the land of Egypt…) (Easton’s Revised Bible dictionary)
(This probably means that this list of sons is metaphorical or mythological because these are all names of ancient civilizations in Africa; groups of people not individuals).
These are the blacks who (according to the text) are the descendants of Ham, who historically, white racists say were cursed by God with blackness; but, again, as you can see from the text that’s not the case. God doesn’t curse Ham or his sons with blackness, but Noah does curse Canaan.
So Canaan is cursed to be a slave to his brothers Cush, Egypt, and Put? Canaan is cursed to be a slave to the ancestors of the blacks?
Not to mention that if Canaan’s brothers are black…that means Canaan is black…and his father Ham is black...and since Ham, Shem and Japheth all have the same father and mother. It’s logical to conclude that Noah, his wife, Shem and Japheth are black.
Remember Ham wasn't cursed with blackness. So that means that if his sons are black, he's black, his mother and father are black, and so are his brothers. That’s how absurd this whole thing about blacks being cursed with blackness is. Blacks weren't cursed with black skin.
Actually, having black skin was a blessing for Africans rather than a curse. Dark skin protected Africans and other dark skin people from being killed or severely burned by the sun. The melanin content of the skin is what causes dark skin. It’s because of melanin that you get tanned rather than burned when you’re out in the hot sun.
Those with very fair or pale skin have very little or no melanin in their skin, that’s why they can be severely burned or poisoned by exposure to the sun. You could say that those people are cursed because they don’t have dark skin which is just as stupid as saying that those with dark skin are cursed because they don’t have white skin.
I'm surprised by the number of people that don't know about melanin, especially white people. Please those of you who don't know do a search on melanin and get updated and maybe we can start to put an end to some of the stupidity of racism based on skin color.
Let’s trace the descendants of the innocent cursed Canaan.
Go to Genesis 10, Verse15-20 and you’ll see that the descendants of Canaan actually end up populating a large portion of what’s now the Middle East. Canaan was also the name of the “Promised Land” (roughly were present day Israel is now) that Moses led the Children of Israel to. And since the Israelites were the descendants of Canaan’s uncle, Shem, that means they actually fought their own relatives for possession the “Promised Land”.
As I said earlier, if Ham was black, then the whole family of Noah was black, therefore by extension, Moses and the people he led out of Egypt were black. And if you believe that we all descend from Adam and Eve, they were black; which goes along with the current findings of genetic and archeological science that states that, all humans originated in Africa near Ethiopia.
Not to mention that Egypt was also a descendant of Ham, where these children of Israel lived and intermingled for four hundred years. (After intermingling with Egyptians for four hundred years, they had become more Egyptian than Israelite; as the descendants of Africans have become more American than African after living in the United States for a similar length of time)
So if there were any “cursed descendants of Ham.” It looks like they would have to be Canaan’s descendants. But again…the text doesn’t say Canaan’s descendants were cursed just the innocent Canaan (Verse 25-26).
So what happened to the fabled curse on black people?
Unless you’re spiritually myopic, you can see from the text that this whole curse thing has just been ethnic propaganda, used for centuries to justify enslaving Africans and their descendants for economic gain and to help relieve the guilt of white Christians for participating in the slave trade. Generally speaking, this myth has allowed all whites to feel superior to blacks for no other reason than that they are white!
According to the noted African American Historian and anthropologist, J.A Rogers, in his book "Nature Knows No Color Line" certain Jewish Rabbis in the first or second century A.D. taught that Ham was cursed with blackness for engaging in sex on the ark against God’s command. This is another source of historical misinformation that helped create the psychological climate that made it easier for various white Christian cultures to abuse and enslave blacks for social and economic gain.
The myth that God "cursed" blacks made it easier for white Christians and others to engage in racist behaviors without feeling guilty about it. (Of course not all whites or white Christians accepted this ideology or engaged in those behaviors and many were totally in opposition to any racist ideology)
Blacks must have previously been very powerful and enviously admired in the cultural and religious history of the various white cultures of the world, for so much scorn to have been heaped on them starting in such ancient times.
Ironically there are African-Americans who believe this myth about blacks being the "Cursed Descendants of Ham" without ever researching it to see if it's true or not! They never critique nor question if what they believe is true or not. They just accept it as true, because that’s what they’ve been taught.
But that's the way it is with those who are overly religious or closed minded whether they’re black or white. But we should seek to know the truth if want to free our minds of deception and self deception. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” John 8:32
This article is dedicated to those who believed that blacks were the “Cursed Descendants of Ham” based on what they’ve been taught or believed that the Bible said on the subject. Hopefully after reading this article the truth flashed across your Minds like Lightening across a darken sky!
Is The Kingdom Of Heaven A Place?
- What Is The Kingdom Of Heaven?
Copyright 2000 El-veasey Publishing(All Quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible)Youve heard a lot about the kingdom of heaven but do you know what or where the kingdom of heaven is? I...
CommentsLoading...
Hey V,
You have missed many things.
First Ham sin was not seeing his father naked but by his actions it was intended to humiliate the High priest unto God in front of his brothers.
We must cover the nakedness of our brother and even more so of our fathers and high priest.
As high priest, Noah had to do something to protect The office of the High Priest and it was out of compassion for Ham that he chose to curse not the son but his offspring.
And added to that as the high priest, this was given unto Him by the Holy Spirit foreseeing the future generations and how history will play out itself with the sons of Canaan being the arch enemy of the Hebrews.
The Hebrew History also records that by Ham self same actions he brought the blackness upon himself and we see the result in mankind history up to this very day.
As a black man I am not ashamed to admit all these things for now we as the gentiles and the least, are more opportuned to entering the Kingdom of God before those who considered themselves great.
Yes indeed truth sets up free.
Truth is the Christ in us.
Hi V, actually the hamitic myth has intrigued me for a while but surprisingly though ive read the verses many times i never noted that it was Canaan who was cursed and not Ham himself...thanks for pointing that out.
What has actually been curious to me was Ham's other son Cush...he was also known as Aethiops also loosely translated as the 'burnt one'. This seems to infer that Cush was black since the word Aethiops in greek means black. Ive always thought Cush's lineage to be the source of the hamitic myth.
You are right to say that black pple must have done smthng to piss the rest off. It follows that since Cush was black, his son Nimrod was also black. Biblical records of Nimrod show that he was a mighty man (Genesis 10:8), historical records potray Nimrod as a man of colossal achievements. He is said to have founded the great Babylonian Kingdom and married the most beautiful woman Semiramis. He was a terrible tyrant who no man or army could subdue in battle. He could tame the wildest of animals from the bushes of Africa and bring them to babylonia for entertainment. According to history, his Nemesis, Shem finally overpowers him, cuts him into pieces and scatters the pieces over the entire land. It is said that Semiramis in fear of losing her power then went with 'fallen angels' and bore a son proclaiming it to be a 'virgin birth' and that the son was Nimrod reborn...and thus the generation of the Nephilim began...the giants of old.
Following your line of thinking then it seems that this first and so far greatest human kingdom founded and ruled by a black man must be the source of all this scorn...for scorn & cruelty is nothing but an expression of one's own fear and insecurity
Actually V...do some bit of research on Nimrod & Semiramis and let us know what you find out...lots of myths surround these two and their kingdom...others say most of ancient religions and rituals stem from these two
Nice article, nicely presented. I agree the Bible doesn't mention Noah as a High Priest and thus and thus. But why would Noah, a righteous man, curse Ham's son for what Ham saw? It seems that Kess has a reasonable point with the "humiliation" factor (not High Priest thing). Passages tells us Noah was sober ("woke from his wine") when he realized "what his son had done to him". Ham had done something TO Noah. Sodomy or Humiliation? Logically I believe God would have "spoken up" to Noah had Ham sodomized him, and ordered a punishment against Ham. This wasn't the case. So humiliation (or embarrassment) is the best alternative. As far as the black race being cursed...no. However, history testifies to nearly every race of man receiving some degree of slavery and national disgrace. Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Jews, Latins, Arabians, Chinese, Japanese, etc., and now Americans have all been the but of either slavery or national disgrace. Reasonably, these can be remnants of a cursed. In conclusion: every person of race is cursed by sin.
Well, well, had I not been so busy and lost track of my comments, I would’ve responded to this earlier.
1. No, the Bible doesn’t use the word “sober” but it does imply it. “Noah WOKE from HIS WINE”. Your explanation has truth in it, but biblical language tends to convey things different than what many perceive it to say. Literally, people awake from sleep not wine. Figuratively, a person awaking from the intoxicating effects of wine means “sobered up”, hangover or not.
2. You asked me in a rhetorical attempt: “Why would a righteous man drink himself into a drunken stupor until he passed-out naked where anyone could see him?” Well, I say now: Even the righteous stumble. It’s not impossible for them to slip and commit sin. Read Mt. 24:24. “If possible, even the elect,” is basically saying there is a possibility for even the righteous to fall to sin. David was righteous & he committed adultery & murder. Job was R, he slipped into arrogance. Solomon, Saul, Peter, Moses were all righteous & slipped and committed mistakes.
As far as the righteous debate, it's irrelevant at this point. The central focus is what does "Noah woke from his wine" mean. My argument isn't on just "woke", it's on "woke from his wine". Again, had it been sleep he woke up from God would've had that written. But It states "from his wine." That's the defining clue: Noah woke--FROM HIS WINE. Now "woke" past tense of "wake" translated from yaqats, literally means "to awake"--to become consciously alert apart from sleep. So if a more clarifying translation is applied it would be: "Noah woke from his sleep and from his wine". The fact that God did have Moses write "woke from his sleep" reasonably means that the "waking up/woke" is in direct relation to "from his wine".
So re-translating for better clarity and exact conveyance (hangover has no Hebrew equivalence, sober/hangover aren't Hebraic words) it would read: "Noah became consciously alert from his wine". When the definitions of the past tense verb "woke" are used interchangeably the rendering is evident Noah sobered up from his wine. That's why he was "alert"--he KNEW (alert)to what Ham had done. My stance remains the same.
thank you.
I’m not bashing your implications that most people have a hangover after consuming large amounts of alcohol. I respect your opinion. I’m just defending “a” logical interpretation. Now as for “figurative” language, you obviously don’t think every single word in a figurative statement is an allegoric word, do you? Wine is literal, woke is figurative. Figurative language is simply a way of saying something rather than saying it in literal terms. The Bible is full of that, as well as literalism.
Now that the Noah thing is pretty much cleared up we can discuss the righteous man. For my words in my last comment were: “As far as the righteous debate, it's irrelevant at this point.” This point being when Noah’s awaking was still in debate. Now the righteous debate is relevant.
I wasn’t implying David was righteous AT THE MOMENT he murdered Bathseba’s husband. I meant, which should’ve been obvious, that the Lord accounted David as righteous. It just so happened later he killed someone. He repented and then regained his righteous standing among the Lord.
So my definition of “righteous man” is the literal dictionary definition: “a male human—acting in accord with divine or moral law.” So my answers to your questions can obtained from this basic definition which is precise and to point.
Okay, now this discussion is becoming redundant. Because:
1. I’ve already explained TWICE how “woke” takes on a figurative nature in DIRECT connection to “wine”. (If God wanted Moses to write, “Noah woke from his sleep.” That is what would have been written. “from his wine” means something else than sleep.)
2. I’ve already explained to you a man can become righteous, later fall to temptation and commit a sin, but repent and gain a righteous status in the EYES OF THE LORD—not your eyes, not my eyes, not any other person’s.
3. As for my statement about the Lord accounting David as righteous being obvious and you claiming it wasn’t to you or someone else perhaps—well, this is my answer. Such confesses as yours “failing to see the obvious in Scripture when it is” proves not everyone claiming to be a Christian or “a believer in the Bible” actually READS & STUDIES the BOOK! Because if you had studied up on David you would be in agreement with me about recognizing the obvious. And that obvious is: God chose David to fulfill His righteous plan (meaning David would have to later become righteous)—David became righteous—David succumbed to temptation & sin (becoming temporarily unrighteous)—David repented of his sins (so he could regain his righteousness before God)—God forgave him, accounting him righteous—David lived out the rest of his life IN RIGHTEOUS WAYS—The End.
My view on Noah cursing Ham would be too detailed for comment space. Some other time. Just know it might not be answer you agree with. This may be my last comment to this topic, because it’s becoming redundant when I have to explain a simple sentence umpteenth times. It seems to me you're trying to spin discrediting rhetoric on my MENTAL perception by trying to imply something I never even conveyed, by writing: "You say 'Wine is literal, woke is figurative'. So you think he woke up figuratively not literally?"
Never wrote, hinted, implied, or insinuated Noah had awaken "figuratively" from his "literal" wine. So if you cannot glean my clear and precise message from my TWICE explanatory attempts, then, like my grandmama use to say to us when we failed repeatedly to grasp informative: "Well, baby, if you can't understand simple things said three times, then a fourth time will make us both look like idiots. Go run and play now." This is my third and last attempt.
A person cannot awake from wine. The only things he can awake from is sleep and death. Again, cannot wake from wine even if the intoxicating effects PUT you to sleep. It would still be the sleep you awoke from. Noah woke (sobered up) from his wine...and was now alert to what had happened.
Thank you.
i am not a religious person...ive not read the bible...
i read this article tho...and my only thought at this time is...noah woke (either sober or hungover) and cursed his grandson...the son of ham...
To me...Noah had time to find these things out...how could he know it was ham that first saw him? unless he questioned...which to me makes his waking of no concequence (sorry about spelling)...
Greetings, God is not the author of confusion. people took that upon themselves. spiritual blindness is destroying society because everything about God has been twisted. If one has a personal relationship with the father and son, one will see. Intellect only takes you so far. I have a book coming out soon that unveils the truth about God/jesus and this world. some lack and some don't. it goes deeper than the eyes can see. God bless
no we are the the desendents of ham whites, russians , asians act are the cursed seeds of ham we are the desendets of the jews . the whites stole our whole history and destoryed it and stole our idenity we are the real children of isreal ,
A very good lengthy discussion on the Noah and the curse of his grandson Canaan. I do not know much about the christian bible but my opinion may express a simple reasoning from simple questions.
1: When the event surrounding Noah's drinking of wine happen Ham had the son Canaan? If so then do you think that the punishment in form of curse is paramount to that sin commited by Adam and his wife in the garden of eden.
2: If Canaan was a grow up person during the time when Noah got silly drunk from wine and layed nake and later waking up from his wine sleep his curse Canaan and not his father that is a Figurative story in itself. As a righteous man he would have found out more information before making his decision. For me Noah waking from his wine sleep mean the literal sleep as well as drunkness which includes hangover.
Therefore the question in this category is He(Noah) decision is it based on embrassment or Humiliation?
3: A simple question is which act diserve greater for breaking a law: Act by Ham not drunk causing embrassment or humiliation? And what about Noah Getting drunk and behaving disorderly causing causing embrassment and humilation. Which one of the two derseve the worse penalty? I will leave it for people to decise but for me the story is incomplete.
4: Is Canaan deserve the curse? My answer is the story is not too clear.
Sorry if Iam took vague on the subject but i find the whole issue interesting.
Can someone help me understand and answer a question that I have for a long time and that is: Will the fallen angles including santan be forgiven if they repent?
Thank you.
No Joe Goi there will be no forgiveness for the Fallen Ones. These beings willfully rebelled against the Most High with access to the full untainted knowledge to make the correct decision and no weak mortal flesh to be tempted. Man is not so fortunate, so Grace is extended to us.
I hope that this has been helpful to you.
first you must ask yourself this , is the curse of ham really authentic? ok , it states that ham seen his father naked , and later shem and japheth cover them up and noah curse ham son canaan? one if canaan , was really curse then why did god made nimrod his greatest hunter.... and why is japheth along with his brother shem recieves blessings from god... and that all of canaan children would be servants for all eternity.... than why was japheth son gomer up to his sons were considered gentiles and cast out into europe.... and the tulmud which is a babylonian book states that all gentiles would be slaves? and why the so called askenazi jews proclaiming refuge in a curse land of canaan , when their book the tulmud is babylonian? who really benefits from the bible by trying to hide and distort the truth ? if aramiac is afro-asiatic and afri means = carthage which is tunisia in modern times and is in the land of ham and shem = asiatic wouldn't it language be hamitic-semetic so they had to live amoungst eachother ? and gomer = who is greek and askenazi = germany , turkey , hungary , french are really the gentiles.... and decendents how is the curse place on ham .... and who is known to hate the egyptians the romans , who is known to killed yeshushua ebin yusef (jesus) and turned him into zues ... greeks , who revised the old testament context first done by ptolemy made the term christus which means annointed or lord and created seraptis ....so that greeks and egyptians could praise the deity , and in in 325 annu domini constantine the horrible who converted into christianity .... which is coptic kemetic scroll of the book of the rah , orientate by musa (moses) in(egypt) that where the same parables .... about nimrod is the same thing that happened to osiris ... where seth cut osiris into pieces and isis had to search for him .... and who profit from the trans-atlantic slave trade cause they was running from the inquisition and found wealth with enslaving people the sephardic jews , like christoper columbus who's name is christobal colon and is from genoa spain and the ship traders name aaron lopez , david frank , and issac de costa .... who antagonized the enslavement of blacks so they could divert persecutions from the catholic church .... king james writers revised the bible to his likened to justify slavery that askenazi's and khazars could profit and the khazars who are decendents from russia and georgia , armania etc












bayareagreatthing Level 2 Commenter 2 years ago
I am familiar with the ridiculous teaching of Ham's curse. I am also familiar with many things being done throughout history in the "name of Christianity".
As a follower of Christ, I am more than appalled at the use of anything in the scripture to defend racism of any kind. Never, ever did God make a race of people who were superior over another. even the choice of Israel was not about race, but about a promise and a witness of God's goodness to those who love him. Well written hub!