The Racist Myth of the Curse of Ham

One racist myth is that the Hamites were black savages, natural slavesand Negroes. This identification of the Hamite with Negros served as a rationale for slavery, which relied on biblical misinterpretation to support its tenets. The image of the Negro deteriorated in direct proportion to the growth of the importance of slavery, and it became imperative for the white man to exclude the Negro from the brotherhood of races.1 Following some unseemly event, nebulously described in Genesis 9:19 9:23, in verse 24, Noah wakes from his drunkenness and is said to have known what his youngest son had done to him. The operative words here are youngest son. The racist tradition is that Noah was referring to his son Ham. But how is Ham Noahs youngest son given that the birth order is listed as Shem Ham and Japheth? The birth order of offspring in the Hebrew Scriptures (HS), commonly referred to as the Old Testament (OT) is typically given from eldest to youngest. In Genesis 5:32, the birth order of Noahs immediate offspring is given as Shem Ham and Japheth. Likewise, the first chapter of Chronicles presents genealogies in birth order sequence to include the same sequence as given in Genesis 5:32 for Noahs immediate offspring.2 Noah was referring to his grandson Canaan, not his son Ham. As a matter of custom, all of a mans male offspring, i.e. sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. were reckoned as his own sons. For example, in Genesis 48:5 Jacob declares that Josephs first born sons Ephraim and Manasseh are his sons just as Reuben and Simeon are his sons. It may be argued that if Noah were referring to Canaan the text would have used the words:

That is, He knew what his sons son had done to him.3 While this may appear to be plausible, the Hebrew expression , i.e. his youngest son identifies the culprit precisely. Recall that all of a mans male offspring may be referred to as his sons. Any of Noahs sons sons would qualify as his sons son; however, only Canaan qualifies as Noahs youngest son, as evidently he was at the time the youngest of all of Noahs male progeny. That Noah is referring to Canaan as his youngest son is certain. It is Canaan not Ham upon whom Noah pronounces the curse. Consider that it is in Genesis 9:18 and 9:23 that Canaan is introduced to us before Hams genealogy is given in Genesis 10:6 20. Canaan is mentioned here for no other purpose than to identify him as Noahs youngest son, i.e. the grandson that is the youngest of Noahs progeny. The account of Noahs drunkenness and the ultimate curse pronounced upon Canaan is that of cause and effect. Noahs drunkenness and whatever ensuing offense was perpetrated against him are the causes. The effect is the punishment of the perpetrator, i.e. Noahs curse against his youngest son Canaan. Would Noah who was a preacher of righteousness, who by faith, being warned of God, obediently prepared the ark, have condemned his innocent grandson Canaan if he knew his own son

Paraphrased from E. R. Sanders Hamites in Anthropology and History: A Preliminary Study, unpublished manuscript, Columbia University, 1965. 2 st 1 Chronicles 1:4 3 The Hebrew root is translated sons son in Genesis 21:23 and Job 18:19

Page 1 of 3

The Racist Myth of the Curse of Ham

Ham was the guilty party?4 Could Noah who had recently witnessed the justice of The Creator upon the earth and experienced His mercy for over one year in the ark unjustly condemn Canaan for the guilt of Ham? According to Jeremiah chapter 31 verses 29 30 and the entire 18th chapter of Ezekiel, it is unjust for a son to be punished for his fathers sins and vice versa.5 When we read the HS in context, it is abundantly clear that this curse of Ham is a myth that is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the HS. Ham was not Noahs youngest son. As previously mentioned, genealogies in the HS are typically given in order of birth. In the account of the division of the nations in Genesis chapter 10, Noahs sons genealogies are given first for Japheth, then Ham and finally for Shem in the reverse order of their birth. Regardless of which order of birth is given, oldest to youngest or youngest to oldest, Ham is clearly fixed in the middle of the two. How then can we know who was cursed? Noah said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servant shall he be unto his brethren. Canaan is the father of the Canaanites including the Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Amorites. In Genesis chapter 15, The Creator cut a blood covenant with Abraham to give unto his seed, i.e. Yaaqob/Yisrael the land of the Canaanites after Yaaqob/Yisrael first served the Egyptians. Gen 15:13 And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; Gen 15:14 and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance. Gen 15:15 But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. Gen 15:16 And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.' Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and there was thick darkness, behold a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces. Gen 15:18 In that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates; Gen 15:19 the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, Gen 15:20 and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, Gen 15:21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.' As The Creator prophesied unto Abraham, the Israelites became servants of the Egyptians. It was and is still common that servitude of one nation to another involve forfeiture of freedom and possessions including land. After serving the Egyptians, the Israelites were to totally possess the land of Canaan. Thus the Canaanites were to become servants of those, i.e. the Israelites, who had previously been servants to the Egyptians. While the HS presents seemingly conflicting testimony as to whether Israel ever totally possessed the land of Canaan, Joshua Chapter 9 and Judges Chapter 1 provide evidence of the fulfillment of Noahs curse upon Canaan. In both chapters the Canaanites are relegated to servitude to the Israelites. Subsequent to the forgoing myth, another myth emerged regarding Ham. At some point, Euro-gentiles had to come to grips with the fact that Mitzraim (Egypt) like Canaan was also a son of Ham. If Ham was cursed, how is it that a race of inferior, degenerate Negros could be responsible for any of the wonders of Egypt? Furthermore, certain Canaanites were renowned as seafaring people that possessed
4 5

See 2d Peter 2:5 See also Genesis 18:18 33 regarding condemnation of the just with the unjust and John 9:1 - 3

Page 2 of 3

The Racist Myth of the Curse of Ham

superior nautical technology. They also recognized that descendants of Canaan, who they cleverly dubbed Phoenicians, contributed to the development of the Hebrew, Greek and Western languages. They reasoned that no such good could come from the Negroes. So the Euro-gentile concocted the myth that Hamite designates an African population supposedly distinguished by its race Caucasian and its language family, from the Negro inhabitants of the rest of Africa below the Sahara. The crux of this myth is that that everything of value ever found in Africa was brought there or produced by these Hamites, a people inherently superior to the native populations. This belief, often referred to as the Hamitic hypothesis, is a convenient explanation for all the signs of civilization found in Black Africa. It was these Caucasoids who taught the Negro how to manufacture iron and who were so politically sophisticated that they organized the conquered territories into highly complex states with themselves as the ruling elites.6 Thus to those that the Euro-gentile had successfully deceived, to the nave and to the unlearned, it would seem natural for the Russian born Yul Brynner to portray the Hamitic monarch Pharaoh whose court is attended by Negro slaves. In reality, this is preposterous! As we see, both myths are egregious lies conceived and propagated by those that would twist the HS to serve their only evil purposes. But we have been admonished to study to show ourselves approved of God, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.7

6 7

Above n 1 2d Timothy 2:15

Page 3 of 3