Reply to "The Curse of Ham"

seignet posted:

Interpretations makes whole lot of difference. Also, it depends who it is and what is the purpose. In particular, Black slavery was a Mid-East scenerio with the muslims-all justified with the holy texts of the region.

Empowered Africans on the Continent felt justified in taking their own race of people as captives. Later, realizing that Europeans will actually trade for their captives. Thereby making people as chattel.

All of this took place before the world really knew of Ham-christians were mainly whites at the time and Africans were muslims and ju ju spirit worshippers. 

If the muslims believe in the Ham story, then they started it all. 

Once a black fella told me that Islam is the Blackman religions-he is a Bajan. 

My post relates to the interpretation that blacks are the children of Ham which justifies treating them as subhumans. Slavery was a mid-east scenario, not black slavery. Black slavery, and only black slavery, is unique to the Atlantic Slave Trade. Please do not belittle yourself by trying to blame the inhuman treatment meted out by whites to blacks in the Atlantic Slave Trade on blacks. It is well established that whites used Christian doctrine as justification to promote their superiority and for subjugating blacks.  My question is what manner of self-deprecating black person would still pay homage to such a religion in this age of enlightenment?

×
×
×
×
×