Are Christians comfortable with the application of this narrative to justify the subjection of black people to slavery? How can non-white people willingly support such a fantastic lie that serves to make them inferior?
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
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.
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?
antabanta posted:My question is what manner of self-deprecating black person would still pay homage to such a religion in this age of enlightenment?
That's a tough question,anta.
Ham is connected to a mid-eastern myth. How you come up with the idea it means black ppl.
Do you believe in the ppl who made slaves out of Africans.
You know the African nations doan pay heed over Black Slavery. Only Guyanese Blacks seemed to be pre-occupied with it. The rest of Caribbean think of it as a study.
Maybe the Indians may have something to do with this consciousness.
The ppl who pays homage knows the difference. You should study those Black ppl who had hope in Christianity-yuh will go nuts trying to understand dem. Comfort and peace of mind they have.
seignet posted:Ham is connected to a mid-eastern myth. How you come up with the idea it means black ppl.
Do you believe in the ppl who made slaves out of Africans.
You know the African nations doan pay heed over Black Slavery. Only Guyanese Blacks seemed to be pre-occupied with it. The rest of Caribbean think of it as a study.
Maybe the Indians may have something to do with this consciousness.
The ppl who pays homage knows the difference. You should study those Black ppl who had hope in Christianity-yuh will go nuts trying to understand dem. Comfort and peace of mind they have.
I did not come up with the idea that the curse of Ham refers to black people. It looks like you completely missed the entire content of my post and chose to focus on mitigating the responsibility of white Christianity for its part in the travesty. Here's my post for you to read again: "Are Christians comfortable with the application of this narrative to justify the subjection of black people to slavery? How can non-white people willingly support such a fantastic lie that serves to make them inferior?"
Please try to read the works of Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, Maya Angelou, or any Black American authors who write about the black experience in America. I recommend you start with Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. You might learn about the impact of the Atlantic Slave trade on the USA and not make such embarrassing comments like only Guyanese blacks are pre-occupied with black slavery.
Django posted:antabanta posted:My question is what manner of self-deprecating black person would still pay homage to such a religion in this age of enlightenment?
That's a tough question,anta.
Indeed. Any answers?
''In 18th- and 19th-century Euro-America, Genesis 9:18-27 became the curse of Ham, a foundation myth for collective degradation, conventionally trotted out as God's reason for condemning generations of dark-skinned peoples from Africa to slavery,'' says Mr. Braude's paper for the Yale conference. ''In prior centuries, Jews, Christians and Muslims had exploited this story for other purposes, often tangential to the later peculiar preoccupation.''
Like other scholars, Mr. Braude concludes that later social and economic forces turned Ham into a justification for slavery. ''Before the 16th or 17th century, the racial interpretation of Ham is absent or contradictory,'' he said in an interview. ''The clearest element is in Islamic culture, but even there it is contested and not universally accepted.''
Is it the so called curse of Ham that prevents American Blacks from moving out of the poverty line?
Is it White discrimination?
Eric Williams in his book, slavery was not based on ethnicity. It was sound economics to choose Africans-cheap labour. If that labour was on the moon, the slave traders would have gone there instead.
Before Columbus coming to the New World, Africans were enslaved on the Sugar Plantations of Maderia and the Islands off the African Coast. Long before America was founded.
seignet posted:Is it the so called curse of Ham that prevents American Blacks from moving out of the poverty line?
Is it White discrimination?
Eric Williams in his book, slavery was not based on ethnicity. It was sound economics to choose Africans-cheap labour. If that labour was on the moon, the slave traders would have gone there instead.
Before Columbus coming to the New World, Africans were enslaved on the Sugar Plantations of Maderia and the Islands off the African Coast. Long before America was founded.
What do you think keeps American blacks in poverty? Africa's cheap labor was not there for the choosing. An entire industry was created, dedicated to enslave an entire race of people, brutalizing them, and dehumanizing them to justify their enslavement. The Curse of Ham was applied to blacks to convince people like you that the bible supports the enslavement of blacks. Are you arguing that the Curse of Ham was not used as justification for the slave trade?
The Bible DOES not say that Blacks were to be enslaved because of color. Slavery is not new to this planet. Pre-Columbus, the natives did exactly what Africans did. And in the rest of the old world, slavery existed.
Black slavery looks like racism. The white races would treat any other race inhumanely, given the opportunity.
seignet posted:The Bible DOES not say that Blacks were to be enslaved because of color. Slavery is not new to this planet. Pre-Columbus, the natives did exactly what Africans did. And in the rest of the old world, slavery existed.
Black slavery looks like racism. The white races would treat any other race inhumanely, given the opportunity.
What the bible says or not says is irrelevant. The issue is that the Curse of Ham has been applied to blacks to justify their enslavement and persecution. Although slavery is not new, no slavery prior to the Atlantic Slave Trade was as brutal and dehumanizing.
antabanta posted:seignet posted:Is it the so called curse of Ham that prevents American Blacks from moving out of the poverty line?
Is it White discrimination?
Eric Williams in his book, slavery was not based on ethnicity. It was sound economics to choose Africans-cheap labour. If that labour was on the moon, the slave traders would have gone there instead.
Before Columbus coming to the New World, Africans were enslaved on the Sugar Plantations of Maderia and the Islands off the African Coast. Long before America was founded.
What do you think keeps American blacks in poverty? Africa's cheap labor was not there for the choosing. An entire industry was created, dedicated to enslave an entire race of people, brutalizing them, and dehumanizing them to justify their enslavement. The Curse of Ham was applied to blacks to convince people like you that the bible supports the enslavement of blacks. Are you arguing that the Curse of Ham was not used as justification for the slave trade?
Systems of servitude and slavery were common in parts of Africa, as they were in much of the ancient world. In many African societies where slavery was prevalent, the enslaved people were not treated as chattel slaves and were given certain rights in a system similar to indentured servitude elsewhere in the world. When the Arab slave trade and Atlantic slave trade began, many of the local slave systems began supplying captives for slave markets outside Africa.
For over 200 years, powerful kings in what is now the country of Benin captured and sold slaves to Portuguese, French and British merchants. The slaves were usually men, women and children from rival tribes, gagged and jammed into boats bound for Brazil, Haiti and the US.
antabanta posted:seignet posted:The Bible DOES not say that Blacks were to be enslaved because of color. Slavery is not new to this planet. Pre-Columbus, the natives did exactly what Africans did. And in the rest of the old world, slavery existed.
Black slavery looks like racism. The white races would treat any other race inhumanely, given the opportunity.
The issue is that the Curse of Ham
Credit:
- Tim Robinson (2007), "Racism: a History", (BBC Documentary)
- David Brion Davis Sterling Professor of History Yale University
- Robert Boyle (1664), "Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours
antabanta posted:seignet posted:The Bible DOES not say that Blacks were to be enslaved because of color. Slavery is not new to this planet. Pre-Columbus, the natives did exactly what Africans did. And in the rest of the old world, slavery existed.
Black slavery looks like racism. The white races would treat any other race inhumanely, given the opportunity.
What the bible says or not says is irrelevant. The issue is that the Curse of Ham has been applied to blacks to justify their enslavement and persecution. Although slavery is not new, no slavery prior to the Atlantic Slave Trade was as brutal and dehumanizing.
The Isrealites in Eygpt.
seignet posted:antabanta posted:seignet posted:The Bible DOES not say that Blacks were to be enslaved because of color. Slavery is not new to this planet. Pre-Columbus, the natives did exactly what Africans did. And in the rest of the old world, slavery existed.
Black slavery looks like racism. The white races would treat any other race inhumanely, given the opportunity.
What the bible says or not says is irrelevant. The issue is that the Curse of Ham has been applied to blacks to justify their enslavement and persecution. Although slavery is not new, no slavery prior to the Atlantic Slave Trade was as brutal and dehumanizing.
The Isrealites in Eygpt.
Not even close.
antabanta posted:seignet posted:The Bible DOES not say that Blacks were to be enslaved because of color. Slavery is not new to this planet. Pre-Columbus, the natives did exactly what Africans did. And in the rest of the old world, slavery existed.
Black slavery looks like racism. The white races would treat any other race inhumanely, given the opportunity.
What the bible says or not says is irrelevant. The issue is that the Curse of Ham has been applied to blacks to justify their enslavement and persecution. Although slavery is not new, no slavery prior to the Atlantic Slave Trade was as brutal and dehumanizing.
The motivation behind this industry was pure, unadulterated greed. Free labor not only for the lifetime of the slave but also of the slave's descendants. Inhuman chattel to be disposed of at the whim of the owner or boiled in oil, hung, whipped, raped, beaten to death, or anything atrocity that crossed the owner's fancy. Such treatment was never before meted out en masse upon any single group of people. And the Curse of Ham, the bible, white christianity were all used to justify it. How can any non-white person pay homage to such a religion?
antabanta posted:seignet posted:antabanta posted:seignet posted:The Bible DOES not say that Blacks were to be enslaved because of color. Slavery is not new to this planet. Pre-Columbus, the natives did exactly what Africans did. And in the rest of the old world, slavery existed.
Black slavery looks like racism. The white races would treat any other race inhumanely, given the opportunity.
What the bible says or not says is irrelevant. The issue is that the Curse of Ham has been applied to blacks to justify their enslavement and persecution. Although slavery is not new, no slavery prior to the Atlantic Slave Trade was as brutal and dehumanizing.
The Isrealites in Eygpt.
Not even close.
The Jews think it was horrible.
You think that African slavery was horrible.
For the thousands of years for the Jews and hundreds of years for the New World Africans, it is a Generational Pre-occupation. Keeping it alive. It is a Generational Curse and should be in the History Books.
Christ sets such things free-a new mind.