Racism in Genesis 9

[redking10]

I know that many Christian churches nowadays have a somewhat egalitarian streak, and lean heavily on passages such as Galatians 3:28, which, when taken out of context, indicate total equality among believers.

However, I am almost convinced that the only reasonable interpretation of Genesis 9 is a racist one:

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
[SOURCE: biblegateway.com]

Scholars will debate until the end of time why Noah explicitly laid the curse upon Canaan and not explicitly upon Ham. They will debate whether the curse did or did not extend to Ham's other sons. They will speculate if Ham did more than just look.

However, the story makes at least these certain: A) All the Earth's people came from Shem, Japheth and Ham B) Noah blessed Shem C) Noah gave Japheth a lesser blessing. D) Noah cursed Canaan to be a slave to his brothers.

I believe this story is telling us that the "Shemite" races are superior to and more blessed than the "Japhethite" races. I believe this story is saying that "Canaanites" are an inferior slave race. While I'm not absolutely certain that the story is saying that all "Hamites" are cursed, that's being pretty generous. They certainly aren't mentioned as receiving any blessing (unlike Shem and Japheth), and if they had, that's a surprising omission of a salient detail.

If anyone has a (scripturally based) argument that this story is not racist and does not advocate a multi-tiered racial hierarchy, I will hear it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All of them were his sons. Thus, by simple human biology, they all would have been the same race. Strange and hard to understand? Yes. Racist? Hard to say, unless you think three brothers of the same race can beget 3 different races. Sounds to me more like social status hierarchy (Shem's bloodline given royalty status, Japheth's bloodline given merchant/middle class status, Ham's bloodline given slave/peasant status) all of which are based on birth in the past.

 

[redking10]

Racist? Hard to say, unless you think three brothers of the same race can beget 3 different races.

The Bible thinks they can. It says that all the peoples of the Earth are descended from Shem, Japheth and Ham.

Now back to my question: Does this story divide the human race according to a three-tiered racial hierarchy? Is it saying that some races such as black Africans and Canaanites (if they still existed) are better off knowing their places and are right to be oppressed by white Europeans and Shemites?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you interpret it that way, then yes, it is extremely racist. But, does the bible ever say that the descendants of these three individuals all founded different races?
By the way, the bible says lots of terrible stuff.

 

[Sketcher]

Now back to my question: Does this story divide the human race according to a three-tiered racial hierarchy?

No, because we all started with Adam and Eve.

Is it saying that some races such as black Africans and Canaanites (if they still existed) are better off knowing their places and are right to be oppressed by white Europeans and Shemites?

The Canaanites were cursed, and mostly dealt with when Israel occupied the Promised Land. Scripture does not mention a curse on black people in general, nor does it state that the curse on Canaan went to his brothers in any way.

 

[redking10]

No, because we all started with Adam and Eve.


The Canaanites were cursed, and mostly dealt with when Israel occupied the Promised Land. Scripture does not mention a curse on black people in general, nor does it state that the curse on Canaan went to his brothers in any way.

It seems that you're saying at least one race of human beings was cursed. How is that not racist? Also, what exactly was the nature of the curse?

 

[redking10]

By the way, the bible says lots of terrible stuff.

On that, you and I are in complete and total agreement.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then I wouldn't worry about just one of the awful things is says.

 

[elliott95]

....

 

[Sketcher]

It seems that you're saying at least one race of human beings was cursed. How is that not racist? Also, what exactly was the nature of the curse?

No, I'm saying a line of humans was cursed. As to the nature of the curse, the Bible doesn't give all the details.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Drunks do say a bunch of dumb stuff.

 

[redking10]

Elliot95: Are Shemites in any way superior to or more blessed than Japhethites?

 

[redking10]

No, I'm saying a line of humans was cursed. As to the nature of the curse, the Bible doesn't give all the details.

"Line of Humans." "Race." You gotta love semantics.

Setting aside the issue of curses, Noah said that God is the God of Shem, and blesses Shem. Then he says Japheth is blessed as well, and can dwell in Shem's tents.

The clearest interpretation is that Shemites are more blessed than and superior to Japhethites. If you have an argument against that, I will hear it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would agree with Sketcher. The Canaanites were cursed.

Any attempt to apply that to modern-day black races seems far fetched. I've heard the arguments before, but I know of no substantiation.

The Patriarchs blessed their sons in different ways, and gave better blessings to favored sons.

I imagine quite a few wealthy people today in their wills provide in special ways for favored children as well. I don't see much of a difference.

You can say the curse represents "racism", but it represents it against the Canaanites. It seems they ultimately fulfilled good reasons for God to be against them. In the same way, God was against Sodom. It wasn't so much racism though as a matter of local culture. Perhaps the same was true of the Canaanites.

I think it bears more of a burden to prove this *is* a racial bias, rather than require proof that it isn't.

Not being argumentative or picking on you, btw, just giving my opinion.

 

[redking10]

I would agree with Sketcher. The Canaanites were cursed.

Any attempt to apply that to modern-day black races seems far fetched. I've heard the arguments before, but I know of no substantiation.

The Patriarchs blessed their sons in different ways, and gave better blessings to favored sons.

I imagine quite a few wealthy people today in their wills provide in special ways for favored children as well. I don't see much of a difference.

You can say the curse represents "racism", but it represents it against the Canaanites. It seems they ultimately fulfilled good reasons for God to be against them. In the same way, God was against Sodom. It wasn't so much racism though as a matter of local culture. Perhaps the same was true of the Canaanites.

I think it bears more of a burden to prove this *is* a racial bias, rather than require proof that it isn't.

Not being argumentative or picking on you, btw, just giving my opinion.

Do you believe that Shemites are more blessed than Japhethites? Do you think that any of the blessings and curses in the OT cause some groups to be superior to others in the modern world?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do you believe that Shemites are more blessed than Japhethites? Do you think that any of the blessings and curses in the OT cause some groups to be superior to others in the modern world?

Yes, it appears the Shemites got a slightly better blessing than the Japhethites. Jacob got a better blessing than Esau. And so on.

But I don't believe that causes some groups to be superior to others in the modern world as you are speaking of "races" today.

Do you not think it likely that the descendants of Shem might not have married some of the descendants of Japheth? And so on? I seriously doubt it is possible to trace to three distinct "lines" all the way back to Noah out of all the people in the earth today.

As I said, it was common for different levels of blessing to be given. Sometimes (often) the blessings appeared to be prophetic, or else God fulfilled them according to the words of the fathers. Whichever case you want to argue.

But I don't think that translates into an effect on races all these thousands of years later, in my opinion.

 

[redking10]

Do you not think it likely that the descendants of Shem might not have married some of the descendants of Japheth? And so on? I seriously doubt it is possible to trace to three distinct "lines" all the way back to Noah out of all the people in the earth today.

But this intermarriage has hardly been uniform. Most Biblical scholars believe that black Africans are Hamites. Many areas of sub-Saharan Africa have always been very genetically isolated. Ham is not mentioned as receiving any blessing, as opposed to Shem and Japheth.

Don't you think it's possible that even today, black Africans lack the blessings of Shemites and Japhethites, and that explains black Africans hardships? Might not it be prudent for a European or a Jew to avoid marrying a black person, then, just to be safe, and to stick to marrying races more likely blessed?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Careful, you are beginning to sound a little racist.

 

[redking10]

Careful, you are beginning to sound a little racist.

I will clarify: I am not racist and do not believe that any of that is actually the case. I was just trying to hold Kylissa to her own logic.

If these passages lent themselves to racist interpretations in the past, they might do so in the present. Actually, until the latter half of the 20th century, many Christians used the Bible to justify racism.

 

[~Anastasia~]

But this intermarriage has hardly been uniform. Most Biblical scholars believe that black Africans are Hamites. Many areas of sub-Saharan Africa have always been very genetically isolated. Ham is not mentioned as receiving any blessing, as opposed to Shem and Japheth.

That may be so, but ... the curse was on Canaan specifically. And true that we don't hear Ham receiving a blessing, but I don't think we can conclude that a curse spoken on Canaan should apply to Hamites. The argument would be stronger if the CURSE was spoken over them, but just the lack of a blessing is a weak basis to argue from, imo. I think we need to be very careful in ascribing things like racism against black Africans to God on the basis of a lack of blessing provided to Ham.

Don't you think it's possible that even today, black Africans lack the blessings of Shemites and Japhethites, and that explains black Africans hardships? Might not it be prudent for a European or a Jew to avoid marrying a black person, then, just to be safe, and to stick to marrying races more likely blessed?

Is it POSSIBLE? Many things are possible - hard to unequivocally rule them out. But ...

It seems the Jews received more blessings, as a race, than any other. According to your premise, it would make more sense to argue that everyone should marry a Jew. However, some would argue that the Jews have experienced equal or greater hardships compared to Africans.

So ... does everyone marry a Jew so they are more likely to marry someone who has been blessed and can hope to avoid hardships? It may very well not give them the guarantee, but the opposite.

I really don't think it follows logically, no.

And by that token, how do you explain the hardships of other people groups? Native Americans, for example, who were nearly exterminated, and appear not to be descendants of Ham?

Of course, that is only taking into consideration the last few hundred years of history.

I'm just saying, in my opinion, a much stronger basis is needed to argue something like this.

I'm aware it's been said, but I don't think it's well supported, imo.