 |
Map of the nations in the middle east during bible times. Image source. |
I recently read "Genesis for Normal People". I want to talk about what this book says about the curse of Ham.
What is the "curse of Ham," you ask? Well, you know the story of Noah's ark? Well, after Noah and his family survived the flood, after the water all receded and they were able to get out of the ark and start a new life, Noah got drunk and lay in his tent naked, and his son Ham saw him and went to tell his brothers about it. Kind of in a disrespectful, mocking way, I guess. (The other brothers, Shem and Japheth, got a sheet to cover Noah.) When Noah wakes up, he curses Ham's son Canaan- "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." He says Canaan's descendants will be slaves to Shem's and Japheth's descendants.
That's the story of the "curse of Ham." Yeah it doesn't exactly make sense that Noah cursed Ham's son Canaan, when he was mad at Ham, but that's what the bible says.
Later in the bible, the land of Canaan is the "promised land" that God leads the Israelites into, and God commands them to kill all of the Canaanites and take their land.
Page 59 of "Genesis for Normal People" says:
The flood story is Israel's vehicle for talking about how their God is different from the gods of the other nations. It is also a vehicle for the later Israelite writer to explain why the hated Canaanites deserved everything they got, including being violently driven from their homeland so it could be given to the Israelites: they have been an accursed race since the beginning-- because Ham saw Noah's nakedness.
In other words, the book says that the story of the curse of Ham was invented for political reasons- the Canaanites were the Israelites' enemies, and so the Israelites told this story to justify the claim that the Canaanites are all bad and deserve to die. See, their ancestor Ham was weird/disrespectful/creepy that one time when he saw his father naked, and so Noah cursed Canaan, and yeah all the Canaanites are trouble.
This is racist.
Like, I hope this is obvious to everyone. You tell a story about how some group's ancestors were bad, and therefore the whole group is bad and deserves to be punished- that's racist. That's just what it is.
But hold that thought, because first I want to talk about how I viewed this story (and similar bible stories- there are many of them!) when I was evangelical and believed the bible was inerrant.
I wasn't really aware that the "logic" of stories like this was "Ham was bad, therefore all of Ham's descendants are bad and deserve to be driven from their homes and/or killed." Because, uh, that doesn't make sense. I had no idea that when we read this story, we're supposed to make a connection between the bad behavior of the ancestor and the bad behavior of the demographic group that came from that ancestor. I didn't think that way at all- that would be racist, obviously. Everyone is their own person and can make their own choices- you can't just say an entire ethnic group all has the same bad character traits. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Also, it doesn't really make sense to talk about "the descendants of Ham" as a separate thing from the descendants of Shem or Japheth. The bible says the only humans who survived the flood were Noah, Noah's wife, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their three wives. You would have to have some incest going on after that. In the universe of this bible story, all of us are descendants of Shem and Ham and Japheth.
So these origin stories for the "bad" nations in the bible were kinda lost on me. Sure, I knew that the bible said their ancestor did this or that shady thing, but I didn't think that really had any bearing on what their descendants would be like. Sure, I knew that God said the Israelites should kill all the Canaanites- and I agreed with that because I was a good evangelical and I was required to agree with it- but that was because of the Canaanites' own bad behavior, and didn't have any connection to what Ham did.
But reading "Genesis for Normal People," I'm realizing how racist these bible stories were intended to be. "Genesis for Normal People" says we should read the bible with "ancient eyes"- don't bring in our modern ideas about how it's illogical to say that a group of people is bad because their ancestor was bad, or how racism is wrong, or how the flood was a genetic bottleneck. Just read it for what the writer was trying to say to the original audience.
Importantly, this means we shouldn't expect the bible to be true, and we shouldn't expect the bible to teach us meaningful moral lessons. If we expect those things from the bible, then we read the story of the curse of Ham with the assumptions "this story couldn't possibly be saying all the Canaanites are bad because Ham did something shady- that makes no sense" and "the bible couldn't possibly be making a racist argument here." And so we miss what the biblical writer was actually saying.
How bad is it to miss what the biblical writer was saying about the curse of Ham?
Well. Unfortunately, the curse of Ham is a big thing in the history of anti-Black racism in the US. There's a fan theory that says Black people are the descendants of Ham- and so Black people are under the curse of Ham, and they're supposed to be slaves. Really. This is a real thing that white American Christians have preached.
I never heard about that, until I was in college and started attending a racially-diverse church, and I heard a sermon that said "no, the curse of Ham does NOT mean Black people are inferior" and I had such a hard time figuring out what the pastor was even talking about. Sure, I knew the bible story, but this bible story doesn't say anything about race or skin color or Africa or anything along those lines. I didn't know that in modern times, white people used this story to claim that Black people were inferior and cursed.
It's important for white American Christians to know this history, though. To know what our ancestors did, the way they used the bible as a justification to mistreat other people. I don't mean "our ancestors did something bad, so now we should be punished"- I just said I don't believe in that- but we need to learn from this. We need to learn from what they did, to make sure we are not doing the same things.
So I didn't believe that entire populations in the bible deserved to die because their ancestor did something bad- that would be racist, of course I didn't believe in that. Instead I believed that entire populations in the bible deserved to die because they were worshiping the wrong gods, or some other such sin.
Uh, that's also kinda racist.
Ah, see this is the problem. When we read the bible, believing that it is our authority that teaches us morality- then we are unable to see the racism it promotes, even when it's right there staring us in the face. We aren't able to see that and call it out and say "hey, let's NOT treat people like this." And then we end up at the same place- the belief that sometimes an entire ethnic group deserves to die- but it doesn't register as racism because we just got there from following what the bible says, and of course the bible wouldn't be racist. Right?
Yes, we need to call it out. This story, about the curse of Ham, was written to justify Israel's hatred and violence toward the Canaanites. The message the reader is supposed to get is "the Canaanites are bad, just like their ancestor Ham was bad." Let's recognize this as racism, and say "This is wrong." The writer of the bible was wrong. And we need to learn from that, so we don't do the same thing.
---
Posts about "Genesis for Normal People":
"Genesis for Normal People": Separating "what the writer meant" from "what is true" and "what it means for us"
God Made the Firmament
When the Bible is Racist
Related:
For the Sunday School Kids Who Never Heard About "the Curse of Ham" Or "Black Simon"
The Bible Lied About Lot's Daughters
This "Do Not Intermarry With Them" Stuff Hits Different Now
The Slavery We Ignore in the Book of Exodus