Talk:Curse of Ham/Archive 1

Pronoun Ambiguity
the First sentince suffers form pronoun ambiguity. I am not farmiliar enough with the story to correct it, but the pronoun "his" should be replaced with either Ham or Noah, depending on which person it refers too.

Per the discussion on Curse of Cain, I've moved portions to Blacks and Mormonism that does not deal directly with the Curse of Ham. Mormon's views on blacks and slavery may or may not relate to these two doctrines, and is certainly intermingled, but the references do not specifically relate to the Curse. If all Mormon views in the early church on blacks are to be removed, then let's be consistent. -Visorstuff 18:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs references
This statement needs some reference

"especially as the principal enemy of Christendom was Islam, which dominated North Africa. Despite the fact that Islam originated with the Semitic Arabs, European imagery often stressed the blackness of the Islamic Moors and associated them with the 'cursed' sons of Ham."

Although I agree that Europeans had to deal with the Arab invasions, the Arabs also had written negative racist theories about Black people in the 8th century onwards.

Mormonism had universally accepted it
I removed "the racial interpretation of these references have never gained universal acceptance within all denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement" because this is statement is false.

When something is not univerally accepted, there is dissent. I found no dissent(no arguement against the Curse of Ham being on Black people) from the period of 1831 - 1950. ALl of the leaders, all of the officials, and any writer who wrote on the issue who had any representative position of the Mormon church wrote in favor of the Curse of Ham being on black people. No one wrote, "the curse of ham is not on black people". Universally, it was accepted from the outset of it's presentation in 1831 until at least 1950, and I am being very generous as it honestly wasn't even discussed until the late 70s. Any unilateral reverts will be removed--208.254.174.148 13:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You appear to be considering only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But there are some denominations who claim never to have accepted this doctrine, such as the Community of Christ, as well as many of the more recently-formed denominations. I do understand your point, however, for the period between 1831 and 1844. I'll change to reflect. CO GDEN  18:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Abrahamic category
The category is correct - this relates to abrahamic religions - christianity, judaism, etc. -Visorstuff 20:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Reference for dark skinned Christ
A reference you could check that clearly demonstrates how the very oldest portraits of Christ show Him as dark skinned, beginning with the Mandylion:

the book Holy Places, Secret Faces by Ian Wilson.

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi CS, Thanks for leaving a talk message and not just reverting. Here's the reference from a BBC article: "First - if the past 2,000 years of Western art were the judge, Jesus would be white, handsome, probably with long hair and an ethereal glow." This directly contradicts what the article now says (and the tone's a bit off, isn't it?).

And there's this:

The man in this portrait may have an olive cast to his skin, but that is not what's meant by "dark-skinned." IronDuke 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but if you would check the book by Wilson, who is a scholar on the subject, you would see that he directly conteadicts the BBC saying Jesus is depicted as white. The earliest pictures of him all show him as being dark skinned and there are numerous examples.  Do some research and look up the Wilson book before reverting again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Wilson is in fact a scholar, except in a very general, popular sense. He did graduate from college, but that's all I see. WP identifies him as "fringe." The book you cite is out of print, and available at few, if any, libraries. I suppose I could spend the 77 bucks and order it online, but I'm not gonna. Instead, can I direct your attention again to the BBC source and to the image that is right next to this paragraph?

Or perhaps these would sway you?







IronDuke 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not sway me, because no matter how many depictions showing him as white that you could come up with, it does not un-do all if the authentic depictions of a dark-skinned Christ that are far older that I have seen with my own eyes in the Wilson book. And he is most definitely a scholar and one of the foremost authorities who has written a number of books on this very subject, he is by no means "fringe", and his books are easily found in almost any public library. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we are talking past each other. I have no fixed idea as to the color of Jesus' skin: black, white, green -- doesn't matter to me. My concern is this paragraph:


 * "Needless to say, such a contorted and racialist interpretation of Scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches -- nor was it present in Europe before around 1400, as most of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. clearly depict them as being dark-skinned."


 * I've shown above how JC was presented as white (ish) in Europe prior to 1400. Indeed, almost all scholarship shows that JC tended to be represented in most cultures as having features of the dominant local race. I have no doubt that African churches had darker depictions, but we're speaking of Europe in the above graf, no? And as for Wilson, I see no advanced degrees, and no professional affiliation with any University in his bio. IronDuke


 * Yes, we are speaking of Europe. The pictures in question showing Him as dark skinned are located mostly in Italy.  No matter what Wilson's credentials are, the pictures in his books do exist and they are far, far older than 1400.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, can we quote Wilson then on what pictures he's referring to? I'm thinking here of a graf that will basically state that there are different European renderings and quoting the experts who've made the various assertions. IronDuke  19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wilson devotes a large part of this book to discussing one particular image similar to the one above in the Vatican, that is now located in Genoa. This Genoa image stands out from all the rest, because it is infinitely more life-like than the others.  He reasons that the Genoa image is the real original that was reputed in the Middle Ages to be "Made without hands" and that the others, including the Vatican one, are all copies.  However, the Genoa image clearly shows a man of color.  Other old copies or images that also show the dark skin color, as reproduced in his book, include:


 * The 'holy face' 'Santa Faz' or 'Santo Rostro' as preserved in the Cathedral of Jaén, southern Spain
 * the 'holy face' preserved in the Convent of Santa Clara, near Alicante, southern Spain
 * An attempted 'facsimile' made in 1617 by Pietro Strozzi, secretary to Pope Paul V, now in the Schatzkammer of the Hofburg Palace in Vienna
 * the 'holy face' of Laon, made as a copy ca. 1249 by Jacques Pantaléon of Troyes; in his accompanying letter Pantaléon even writes: "Do not be surprised if you find his [Christ's] face blackened and sunburnt, for those who dwell in temperate and cold climates and who live all the time in pleasant places, have fair, delicate skin, whereas those who are always in the fields have burnt, darkened skin. This is the case with the Holy Face, bronzed by the heat of the sun, as the SOng of Songs has it..."
 * The representation of the Veronica shown in the early 15th c. Prayer Book of Philippe le Hardi, Duke of Burgundy, shows a face that is entirely black.

Then there is the 'Acheropita' icon in the Vatican that dates to at lest 754, but as it actually shows more of a dark olive-skinned man, the "race" could be debateable. This is also the case with other ancient depictions of the Veronica seen in an 11th C. Vatican Codex (Bib. Vat. Codex Rossianus 251, fol. 12v); an 11th c. Greek Menologion in the Patriarchal Library, Alexandria; the 11th c. Christ Pantocrator fresco in the Basilica of Sant'Angelo in Formis, near Capua, Italy, and many others. Plates clearly showing all of these images may be seen in Wilson's book. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but the crux of the issue for me is this: "as most of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. clearly depict them as being dark-skinned." Some expert has to say that -- neither you nor I may simply assert that. I don't doubt that you believe the pictures in your book show a dark-skinned man, but we cannot accept your interpretation of them, nor mine, and make a sweeping generalization. We can only refer to experts.  IronDuke  23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of interpretation. All the pictures I listed clearly show a dark skinned man, period. It's like arguing what color the sky is and demanding a reference.  Except that you refuse to even look in the book yourself that I gave as a reference, so you are arguing about what these images show, without having even seen them.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Em, I don't have the book, and it is not available anywhere near me. And that's leaving aside whether Wilson is really a "Scholar" for WP purposes. But all of that is beside the point: we are assessing whether "most" early interpretations show a dark-skinned man. Someone reputable has to say that. I see no evidence that any scholar of any sort has. Even if I looked at your book and agreed with your conclusions, our putting those conclusions in would be WP:OR. IronDuke  00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is completely ridiculous. Even most Coptic images of Jesus show him as lighter skinned than is the norm in Ethiopia. Almost all early images of Jesus are Greco-Roman, using fairly standard conventions typical of those cultures. They are not dark-skinned. Paul B 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, Not only did I read the talk page, I added a comment as you can see. Don't you think you should read the talk page before commenting on whether or not a person has read the talk page? I have seen many many early images of Jesus and have many books on the subject. I don't know of a single early image that depicts him as "dark skinned" in any meaningful sense. Show me one. This is an Afrocentrist myth. Paul B 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not an Afrocentrist myth. The dark skinend images are found all over Italy.  Please pick up the source I already gave for evidence, Holy Faces, Secret Places, by the expert Ian Wilson, before reverting again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have given no evidence at all. You just refer to one rather obscure book, but don't name any of these alleged images. You could link to images on the web. There aren't that many pictures of Jesus from ther Roman era - which is the only period that can reasonably be called "early". Do you even have a clear idea of the date of these images? Do you know anything about the history of art - in particular of the effects of weathering and soot on icons? There are many damaged and darkened icons that's for sure, but genuinely early images such as the one from the from the catacomb of Commodilla bear no resemblance to these. Paul B 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have indeed given evidence, are you sure you read the above? I have now bolded part of my earlier response for you to be able to find easier. Please find this book in any public library, it is the foremost authority on early images of Christ. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This book is by a journalist not an art historian. It is not in my academic library - which has several serious books on the history of Christian art. His theory is little more than pure journalistic speculation. The other images that you refer to are typical of the kinds of icons that suffer extreme discolouration due to long use. They are worthless as evidence and they are clearly not images that date to before the fourth century. Paul B 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't know what you are speaking about and haven't even seen the book. It is unrivalled for scholarly detail regarding images of Christ, he is an art historian and not a journalist, and it was not written to push any theory.  Find the book first before writing a review of it, for crying out loud. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it is you who evidently know nothing whatever about this subject. Have you read any serious books on the art history of images of Jesus? Farrar's classic "Christ in Art" is the foundation of modern literature on the subject. No, I have not seen this totally non-notable book, which is not written by an art historian with any legitimate expertise in religious iconography. Ian Wilson has no qualifications in art history. He is essentially a journalist who is a "Turin Shroud" fan and has written books on ghosts, reincarnation, Nostradamus, and other sensationalist subjects. His approach seems to be based on notions of the transmission of "special" images that have nothing to do with real art history, in which we can clearly see the development of portrayals of Jesus from Greco-Roman traditions onwards. None of the genuinely datable early images show Jesus as dark skinned. Of course, that tells us nothing about the appearence of Jesus, only about the artistic conventions that were used. Indeed the notion that ancient artists would have preserved a tradition of representing his distinctive skin colour is frankly absurd. Only someone with no understanding of ancient and medieval art could suggest this. Have you read Theophilus's treatise on painting faces? I have. There is almost no concept of depicting the distinctive skin pigmentation of an individual until the Renaissance. You would have to prove that an artist specifically chose to vary pigmentation to represent a particular person, and that this was not for symbolic reasons. You are are attributing concepts of realism to the period that did not exist at this time. Paul B 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have picked up this argument with Vandalproof, and I think everyone involved needs to chill. Is the race of Jesus so important? Everyone please remember WP:CIVIL, especially on talk pages. Also note that superfluous images wreak a hell on dial-up users. ~  PH  DrillSergeant ... §  00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * False statements should not be included in articles. Simple. The images have been here since June. Are you saying there should be minimal use of images in articles? Paul B 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition of a "false" statement is a statement that can be either wilfully or unknowingly untrue. We do not know of which race Jesus was/is, and thus we cannot say one or the other as a fact. What we CAN say is that the generally accepted western view of Jesus is white, while the generally accepted eastern view of Jesus was dark-skinned (Middle-eastern, black, etc.) Paintings made 400 years after Jesus' death are not tangible proof. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor is it a place to push religious beliefs.
 * As for the images, What i meant were the clump of images above in the talk page that were posted. Cheers.~  PH  DrillSergeant ... §  00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PHDrillSergeant, if you are going to contribute to a debate please be sure to identify what the debate is about. It is not about the actual race of Jesus. It is about this sentence currently in the article: "in Europe, some of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. depict them as being dark-skinned." This is a false statement. None of the "earlier respresentations of Christ Mary etc." depict them as dark skined. All of the earliest representations are of Jesus, and they depict him according to Greco-Roman artistic conventions (depictions of Mary come later). There are some medieval icons that appear very dark, but that's due to discolouration and pigment degredation. None of these are genuinely documented as early images. Also, if you are going to quote WP policy, be sure you do so where it is relevant. This debate is about the content of the article and about notability of sources. It has nothing to do with soapboxes or pushing "religious beliefs". Paul B 08:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this flaring up again. Paul, I am inclined to agree with you. Do you by chance have any sources that debunk the idea that Europeans depicted Jesus as in some way black? It would help. IronDuke  14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes I do, but of course they are mostly negative. The evidence concerning the so-called "black Madonnas" and icons that are used in these arguments suggest that they date from the 12th century and onwards – old from our pov, but still nearer to our own day than to the life of Jesus. There have been several studies of these, mostly by French art historians. There is l'Enigme des Vierge Noires by Jacques Huynen (1972) and Leonard Moss's 1952 article, which divides them into three categories: those that were painted by people of non-European background; those that have darkened due to the use of lead-based pigments and aggregation of soot from tallow candles, and others that have no clear explanation: some of which are probably copies reproducing the tonality of revered icons. Note that all of these are from the 12th century or later. They are notearly images in any meaningful sense. The picture that Codex refers to is the Genoa Mandylion. As it happens this was subject to a battery of tests and historical analyses in 2004 as part of a major exhibition. These established that it dated from the 12th to 13th century – pretty much in line with other comparable icons. Details were reported in the Art Newspaper, June 8 2004   It's a sort-of axiom with Turin Shroud fans that the standard bearded-long-haired image of Jesus has to be traced to some authentic original, so they create these fantasies about icons that must trace back to some prototype inspired by the shroud. I guess that's what Wilson is doing, though I accept I haven't read his book. Its conclusions are anyway rendered obsolete by the 2004 study. In reality the earliest images show Jesus as clean-shaven and short haired. They are far far older than the icons referred to by Codex (one of which is 17th century!). Note that I don't want to replace the the text with one saying "all early images of Jesus show a white guy", I think the sentence should be deleted altogether, because it is both false and misleading. The dark-skinned images are late, not early. They are not evidence of some early tradition that was "whitewashed" away. They are more probably evidence of a late tradition to do with venerating "ancient looking" images, in which the darkness and weathering comes to be a sign of authentic age. Paul B 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think that does it. Thanks for that, Paul. I'm taking out the sentence until someone can find an authoritative source that says "in Europe, some of the earlier representations of Christ, Mary etc. depict them as being dark-skinned." IronDuke  20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words
The following statements require editing in order to remove weasel words;
 * Other church leaders had taught that Ham, ... was cursed for taking Noah's Temple garment without authorization
 * As the sacred text states that Ham's descendants settled in Egypt after the flood, Mormon apologists often use this as an argument in favour of the similarity between some Egyptian rituals and some Mormon temple rites, ...
 * When asked, church spokespeople generally repudiate the curse of Ham doctrine.
 * However, despite urging from a number of black Mormons, there has not yet been an official and explicit church repudiation of the doctrine, or an admission that it was a mistake. --ErinHowarth 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Brigham Young and the curse of Ham
I don't believe it is accurate to attribute the teaching of the Curse of Ham and the references to the Pearl of Great Price for justification of the preisthood ban. According to Lester Bush, Brigham Young exclusively referred to the Curse of Cain for justification of the priesthood ban. The Pearl of Great Price had not been cannonized yet. The fact that blacks were descended from Cain was a widely accepted fact in the days of Brigham Young, and his rhetoric never required the complexity of the Curse the Ham theory. According to Lester Bush, the Curse of Ham and the Pearl of Great Price were not used by the First Presidency to justify the prieshood ban until after the turn of the century (1900). Bush's book on this topic is out of print. Fortunately, the entire text is available online. Enjoy: —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinHowarth (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Kushites' Black Skin -- from the Talmud
According to the Babylonian Talmud, all passengers on the Ark were under strict orders not to copulate with their mates. There were three rulebreakers:

"Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates (his seed into his mate's mouth), and Ham was smitten in his skin." The footnote to this online version of the passage reads, "I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned."

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_108.html#PARTb Perhaps someone can add this to the main article?


 * Is it relevant to the curse of Ham? The curse was that Canaan (not Cush) would be a slave to Shem and Japhet. PiCo 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My fault
I am sorry. I never believed it necessary to enlighten Noah, his descendents, or his progenitors about the concept of personal responsibility. Noah is responsible for his own drunkenness and nakedness and therefore should have cursed only himself. I apologize for three thousand years of human suffering and misunderstanding.DearGod 06:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If not black then at the very LEAST olive skinned!
Bold text When looking at the color demographics of the region of Nazareth, Egypt, and Africa in general..... one will find that the predominant color scheme is very dark to light brown. Mary herself was an African, there is no possible way immaculate or not that she could have bore a white child. Even if God Himself were white, with Mary being in a region that is filled with people that have very dark to light brown skin, they could not have had a white child. The Garden of Eden is thought to have been in Africa, if the first people were created in a predominantly dark region, and God created Adam and Eve in his Holy image, would it not also be correct to assume that even God had dark skin? Although I don't know much on the subject, I would absolutely love to hear everyone's comments/thoughts on that perspective. Oh and just to give everyone a better view of who I am.... I am Black, and being experienced in the field of having Black children by a person with "white" skin, I think it's also fair to add that my own children are complexed anywhere from brown to olive........ but DEFINITELY not white. X.n Queen 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mary was presumably from Nazareth, so it's meaningless toi call her an "African". Talking about God having dark skin or light skin is simply silly. Paul B 00:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Garden of Eden is also thought to have been... 1)hidden within the Himalayas  2)in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates  3)with Atlantis beneath the sea  4)in Lemuria.  Conclusions based on unproven assumptions are only as reliable as the assumptions.  Case in point, Eden was in Africa therefore God is dark skinned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washicd (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to the article
Just a fwe notes on how I see this article being improved: 1. More attention to the meaning of the curse in the context of the first millenium BC, which is when it was written; 2. Far less attention to 20th century American ideas - can keep a little about Mormon ideas, as it really is relevant, but not so much as at present, but Nuwaibianism (or whatever it's called) can be lost. Cheers, PiCo 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? The Curse of Ham is a continuing concept. If anything it was most influential - as an idea - in the 19th century. Paul B 12:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the use of the Curse to justify slavery, though a point worth making, is given far too much attention. The article could and should be much more succinct. PiCo 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Succinct is good - and there is certainly too much special pleading and prolixity here - but we still need to be comprehensive. One of the charms of such subjects are the weird and wonderful oddities of exegesis. Paul B 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Blacks are not cursed
I removed the following, recent addition from the main article because it is poorly-written.


 * BLACKS ARE NOT CURSE
 * In the bible it talks about ham the father of canaan ham finding out his father nakedness(gen 9.22) but then it says vs 25 cursed be canaan to understand this text you have to look at all of ham children lets take a look nimrod it says that his kingdom was babel or babylon and out of babylon went forth asshur and built nineveh so it fare to say that out of ham came many mighty nations also the hewbrews an akkadian people that settled in kanaan and assimilated some kanaanite groups.They adopted the national name of israelites after jacob there father and they were divided into 12 tribes. they are actually the oldest existing people that has ever owned the land of kanaan and the only one that has right to claim its total possession. in early times the israelites settled colonies in the lands of sheva and ofir or sofala or mozambique subsequently as consequence of wars and slavery and deportations, they are present in every country like it says in the bible talk to the rebellious house it also says in the bible thus saith the lord god although i have cast them far off among the heathen and although i have scattered them amoung the countries yet will i be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come it also says in the bible her gates are sunk into the ground he hath destroyed and broken her bars her king and her princes are amoung the gentiles the law is no more her prophets aslo find no vision from the lord their visage is blacker than a coal they are not known in the streets their skin cleaveth to their bones it is withered it is become like a stick they that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger the israelites will never be a nation again in the book of ezekiel Thus saith the lord god unto the land of israel an end the end is come upon the four corners of of the the land now is the end come upon thee and  will judge thee according to thy ways and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations also in the book of judges read it for yourself the canaanites ham children dwelt and inter bread with israelites/ hebrews akkadian people semitic peoples may god bless u as u study.

Someone please look over this text, gather the useful information and add it to the article. &mdash; Val42 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll reformat it (based on some biblical background), and let you decide its usefulness:
 * In the bible it talks about Ham, the father of canaan, Ham finding out his father nakedness(gen 9.22), but then it says vs 25
 * "Cursed be canaan"
 * To understand this text you have to look at all of Ham's children. Lets take a look at Nimrod. It says that his kingdom was babel, or babylon,
 * "... and out of babylon went forth asshur and built nineveh ..."
 * So it's fair to say that out of Ham came many mighty nations, also the Hebrews, an akkadian people, that settled in kanaan and assimilated some kanaanite groups. They adopted the national name of Israelites after jacob their father and were divided into 12 tribes. They are actually the oldest existing people that has ever owned the land of kanaan and the only one that has right to claim its total possession.


 * In early times the Israelites settled colonies in the lands of sheva and ofir (or Sofala or Mozambique). Subsequently, as a consequence of wars, slavery and deportation, they are present in every country, like it says in the bible:
 * "... Talk to the rebellious house ..."
 * It also says in the bible,
 * "... thus saith the lord god, 'Although i have cast them far off among the heathen, and although i have scattered them among the countries, yet will i be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.'..."
 * It also says in the bible that her gates are sunk into the ground,
 * "... He hath destroyed and broken her bars; her king and her princes are among the gentiles; the law is no more, her prophets also find no vision from the lord, their visage is blacker than a coal, they are not known in the streets, their skin cleaveth to their bones, it is withered, it is become like a stick. They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger..."
 * The Israelites will never be a nation again. In the book of Ezekiel, for example:
 * "... Thus saith the lord god,"Unto the land of Israel: an end, the end is come upon the four corners of of the the land. Now is the end come upon thee and will judge thee according to thy ways and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations.'..."
 * Also in the book of judges (read it for yourself) the Canaanites, Ham's children, dwelt and inter-bread with the Israelites, Hebrews, Akkadian, and semitic peoples.
 * may god bless u as u study.

(I am not the author of the text, nor associate with any POV it may present, but edited it in a hopefully unbaised manner wrt the author's intent. PeterMG (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Well, that's great, but it isn't remotely clear what relevance this melange is supposed to have to this article. Paul B (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits in the LDS section
It was a surprise to see that some of the official scripture of the LDS faith was not included. Even more surprising was that the article implies that there is nothing to include, even going as far as to say that passages in the Book of Abraham could be read in the same way as the bible in regards to this topic. Firstly that is impossible whereas the word black is not found in the bible relating to any curse on anyone, but in the LDS scriptures, the word black is found. It is found clearly, I might add, thus negating the notion that the Bible and LDS scripture can be read in a similar fashion. --Ayete 11:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To add, it's important to clearly add the scripture itself to this article, instead of merely referencing. The LDS scripture of the Pearl of Great Price is clear in it's citation. The Book of Moses in Pearl of Great Price is considered vital divinely inspirated scripture by the LDS church. it's presence becomes significant as the Pearl of Great Price is considered, according to the LDS.org website:

''Selections from the Book of Moses. An extract from the book of Genesis of Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, which he began in June 1830. See History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 98-101, 131-139. The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.''

In that, it is essential to the quality of this article, that the quotes I added are kept, as it ensures the article's integrity and neutrality. --Ayete 11:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph does not make sense:

"In Mormonism, the racial interpretation of the curse of Ham has taken a circuitous route. There was never an 'introduction' of the doctrine into Mormonism by the movement's founder Joseph Smith, Jr., because he took the doctrine for granted, like most other white Christian Americans of his era."

The phrase circuitous route is ambigious and confusing. Furthermore, there had to BE an introduction of the doctrine into Mormonism, as we find this doctrine IN Mormonism. So it had to come from somewhere else, then be literally introduced from that somewhere else, into Mormonism. I updated the article to reflect that undeniable reality. --Ayete 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus (Yeshu Chrestus) was black
There is plenty of proof that Christ was black. Look at the Black Madonna and Child statue in every european country there is. You will find a black Christ. How else was jesus able to hide in egypt when king Herod was looking for him? And besides, rather if he was black or not. The model for Christ is african. The mythical side of Christ comes from a african god called Horus (Heru). Everything from walking on water to the resurrection came from this god. He was also born on december 25. He also was called the lamb. And he was born of immaculent conception. All you and other christians have been doing is worshiping the sun in the closet. Everything about the bible comes from africa, like the ten commandments which originally comes from the 42 oricales of MA'AT ( Egyptian Book of the Dead). The word Amen comes from the god Amen-Ra. Also Holy Bible comes from the latin word Helios Biblos meaning Sun Book. And you dont have to go to africa to find such proof. Look at the attachment I sent you. I bet you this painting will tell you something. It is a catacomb painting as well. It is Christ and the Apostels on the Domitilla Catacombs in Rome (300 A.D.). And I have plenty more if you like. You need not to worry what black people say about Christ. Just look at what white so-called jews say about him. In the Babylonian Talmud they say jesus (yeshu) is a bastard son of mary and a roman soldier. Mary who commited adultry. And there not the only ones who say that. But hey, there the choosen so they can get away with that. Not that I believe in such garbage. The choosen concept is undenialbly anti life.Why would god choose some people over others? Oh I know the answer because he is racsist intollerable jealous god. This guy sounds alot like Zeus don't he? --Thetruth170 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He was able to 'hide' in Egypt because Egypt was a different country. The people of the Nile delta were probably visually indistingishable from those of Canaan, but even if they weren't, it's rather irrelevant. None of these black images are early. They are medieval, dating from over a 1000 years after the life of Jesus. Sun worship is rather irrelevant here too, but there's nothing specifically African about it. The word Holy has nothing to do with Helios. It's from a Germanic root. What attachment? There is a red link, that's all. If you are referring to this image , as you can see it looks rather different depending on how you photograph it!  Paul B 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
Blue Tie made a series of edits here. I made a later edit which I thought would be entirely uncontroversial, but got reverted by Blue Tie. Huh. Anyway, comments:


 * This racist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.

You added a fact tag to this. While it's a given that this article (and any non-featured article) could use more cites, this is obviously true. I'm not sure even insane types like the Westboro Baptist Church hold to this nowadays, and certainly 100% of mainstream churches don't. Do you have some reason for doubting the veracity of this?


 * A possible explanation for pronouncing the curse on Ham's youngest instead of his eldest son, as might be more traditionally expected, or directly at Ham himself is that the story is implying Canaan was the incestuous offspring of Ham and his mother, although this requires interpretating Noah's cursing Canaan by name as occurring later. To see Canaan as more than just cursed but also a product of matriarchial incest would exacerbate his and the Canaanites' contemptible status.

This is horribly written, however it's worthy of being brought to the talk page or slapped with a cite tag. I have no clue who holds this interpretation, if anyone, but it sounds plausible. So if anyone else has a cite or knows what the deal is here... I've restored a shortened version to the article with a cite request.


 * Various Mormonism related items

No comment on some of the removals that were aggressively pointing out that this was part of Mormon scripture, but the line about "incorporated it as part of the scriptural doctrine of the Pearl of Great Price, which is currently in use as canon scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." sounds relevant to me. Assuming, of course, it is true, having a reference in that book as well is worth a mention.

As for my edit: "more properly" vs. "also" seems like it should clearly go to also. Who's to say what's more proper? It's a name. I also weakened the misnomer comments somewhat- I'd certainly consider it a curse to have your line cursed, so Ham was only not cursed indirectly. Not even certain I can say that, with the attitudes of "familial ownership" seen in the Old Testament (a la Lot offering his daughters or Job being tormented by having his relatives killed); it's entirely plausible to read the curse as aimed at Ham, just in a way that reads oddly to modern eyes.

Not sure why you took away the note on the Bible verse- it's quite important to say which translation is being used. The random bolding in the other scripture passages is unnecessary; they aren't so long as to let them get lost. MOS:BOLD indicates that boldface should be used sparingly.

As for the Islamic interpretations passage, um, the old one is awful and gets on a completely irrelevant track about how in Islam there is no racism. Those parentheses are a dead giveaway that someone is preaching; while it's a reasonable interpretation, my Qur'an certainly doesn't contain those lines. I cut it down to the heart of the matter: all prophets in Islam kept Islamic law, which means that the story doesn't make sense from an Islamic perspective. Not sure why you disagree with that.

Comments welcome. SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My objection is that you added uncited original research throughout and in the one instance where a citation was requested, you removed that request claiming "it is obvious". That is bad logic.  I think you also removed a cited reference -- on Islam.  Perhaps you consider it preaching.  Maybe it is.  But you did not make a case for that.  . Note also, "More properly" is not better than the original wording -- it is original research to claim something is "more proper" unless it is cited.  In short, you have, in one single edit, made the article even less reliable than it was.  That is my problem. with your edit


 * But.. The note on the bible verse, I do not mind keeping.
 * However, unless these problems I describe above are remedied, I will remove them again. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How to phrase this... I would request that you examine my edit again.  In all seriousness, are you looking at the older version and thinking its mine compared to the newer one?  I removed "more properly."  The "cite" in the older version was to the Qur'an itself, except a version with extra commentary added in-line, and it's a wholly irrelevant quote in any case.  I replaced bad soapboxing with easily sourceable correct content.  If you look up prophets in Islam, you'll find plenty of confirmation in both the Wikipedia article and any other source on the subject that say they kept Islamic law.


 * As for the comment in the lead, aside from the fact that citations are not typically needed in the lead as per WP:LEAD, citation requests should only be placed for material you are challenging. If you'd like to challenge it, then please provide some rationale as to why you disagree with that but not the many, many other lines that are more questionable than this. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The true curse of Canaan
Has nothing to do with dark skin. It is a curse of the Caucasian and explains your pale skin. Ham's son Canaan and all his seed are cursed with leprosy. All the references are there in your Torah and can be detailed. Please DO NOT remove the Nuwaubic part of the article without an explanation. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You take an offensive stance. Never mind. I think that there could be an issue of notability regarding this matter and whether this is an example of WP:SOAP. If the information remains, I do not believe the "Convicted" Sex Molester part should stay in the article.  It has nothing to do with the topic and it is extremely biased.  On the other hand, I do not know if the paragraph should even remain there.--Blue Tie (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree.. I'll remove the convicted child molester part. And this portion of the article should remain simply because it's true in accords to biblical text. If anyone disagrees please provide a valid reason.  Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about "truth". Your standards for why it should remain are not sufficiently valid in this arena.  There may be other reasons for it to remain, but right now I do not see them.  It looks like a kind of cruft.  It looks like Soapboxing. However, I have not removed the information because I think it needs to be reviewed. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not about truth?" Then what exactly do you think Wikipedia is about? And why did you remove the biblical quote leaving only the verse #?  There are other biblical quotes listed in the article?  I'm going to reinsert the biblical quote. It's valid and should remain.  Let's not turn this into an edit war.  If you make an edit please list the reason why.  It's called courtesy.   My standard for why is should remain is the biblical reference quoted. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

References: Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. 2Ki 5:27 "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper [as white] as snow."
 * 2. Luk 4:27 "And many lepers were in Israel [aka Canaan] in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian."
 * 3. Num 12:10	"And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous."


 * Bluetie, I listed my references of which are QUITE valid. If anyone isn't taking a NPOV stance it's you.  Why would you undo my edits without listing a reason other than using the NPOV acronym in the summary?  It's appears that you only want to present one interpretation of this thesis.  Sorry, but I cannot allow that.

By-the-way. I also added the Black Hebrew Israelite to this section as many from this community prescribe to this idiom as well Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is not one of references being invalid but of neutrality. Your wording is not exactly neutral. I notice that when I wanted to remove the non-neutral appellations to York, you were ok, but when I want to remove the bias in the phrasing (and undue weight) you object.


 * Here are my problems. The word "racist" is applied to these teachings, though the teachings were not universally racist (in the sense that they were used to justify one race being superior to another).  I find that when we apply adjectives and adverbs, they are easy to become pov.
 * The wording can be improved. What do I mean by improved?  The same basic information but more concisely.
 * The quote from the bible does not directly support the statement (except by just accepting it on faith per York's teachings) and is superfluous in the article.--Blue Tie (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I further note that the Black Hebrew Israelites source does NOT discuss the Curse of Ham. It does not even belong on this page, except as bolstering of York's thesus but this page is not really about his thesus, so it does not belong here. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is about the theory that there is a curse on the descendents of Ham. That York's interpretation is utterly absurd is not more reason to exclude it than to exclude the other theories - about dark skin being a curse - which are equally absurd and equally unsupported by the biblical text without misrepresenting it. It's true that the text quoted actually says nothing whatever about Canaanites being cursed with leprosy. It's a quotation of half a sentence, which is actually part of a passage about what to do when Israelite families get leprosy. However, if York says that refers to Canaanites, we can simply report it. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, report it. But I do not think we should clutter the page with very obscure justifications of his views like quoting half an unrelated sentence from the Bible.  I say just say he uses Lev 14 and argues that it means X, but do not bother to quote Lev 14. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluetie, if you're read my comments in the African Diaspora section of this discussion page, you'll find that I have presented my case meticulously. You on the other hand are simply spouting rhetoric. In addition, I have proven that certain Black Hebrew Israelites subscribe to this theorem, so the removal of their name from this section only shows bias on your part. Further attempts at a redundant edits will force me to enact a WP:RFC Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this entire article has been about whether only canaan was cursed or all of black mankind. Paul was clear enough when he likened it to theory, but there are others who are debating whether there is actually a curse that created black mankind. If black mankind was cursed into existence from non black mankind, then non black mankind has to show an earlier existence that predates black mankind. So far archeaology and DNA research are at a loss to do this. But let's explore the genetic consequences of the curse. Virtually wrinkleless skin with enough melanin to give considerable protection from sun rays, phenomenal physical abilities, enormous speed and endurance on top of lightning fast reflexes. Not a bad curse I think. If Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali and Carl Lewis were cursed into their physical abilities, then Superman was cursed because he could fly. I wouldn't give up my so called curse for anything on this earth. Tom 03/15/08

Categories: B-Class African diaspora articles | High-importance African diaspora articles
The etymology of hebrew teaches us that Ham son of Noah had black skin, not Canaan; and black skin is not necessary an indication of being of "African" descent. In fact, as per the Wikipedia reference it was Ham who moved southwest into Africa and parts of the near Middle East. This article belongs within the Category:Torah_events related section of Wikipedia, not the African diaspora. To list it here is simply racist and is a completely unverified reference. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

African Disapora Badge
It is simply racist and invalid to relate the Curse of Ham (Canaan) to the African Diaspora. I don't know who's idea that was but it was a bad one. I have removed the badge from this page. And I will defend this action into Wikipedia's halo. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it racist and invalid? Actually it does not exactly matter to wikipedia editing if it is racist, but why is it invalid?--Blue Tie (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of the article the historical conception of the curse of Ham being leveraged towards Black Africans is mentioned. This, an historical, truthful action is a racist event, and it is quite absurd that you Bluetie do not agree. Ergo, the use of the term "racist" in my contribution is valid based on the premise of historical racism that was enacted, not a point-of-view but an accurate assessment.  The inclusion of the African Diaspora Badge in the discussion tab of this article is invalid because (as I have proven with biblical quotes) the curse of Ham isn't about dark skin, but rather the disease of leprosy, of which a side effect causes whitened skin. Not only that, this has absolutely nothing to do with the African diaspora overall and is simply nothing more than biblical, rhetorical fable of which a certain Caucasoid sector (Mormons, Jews) chose to promote and turn into a racial leverage against Black Africans.  That is, until the linguistic genius of Dr. York comes along and reinterprets this biblical passage from it's Hebraic root correctly.  So now, and as of a result we have a new sector within Semitic religious community gwho have applied the curse of Canaan to the Caucasian.  This would include the Black Hebrew Israelites such as Yahweh Ben Yahweh, and although not currently mentioned on their Wikipedia pages, it is never-the-less true, and should be listed here.  This concept predates Nuwaubu and can be found in the works of other biblical writers such as Reverend S.C. Blackledge, who stated in his book "An Open Book On Hidden Mystery" p.55 that Canaan is the cursed albino seed that spawned the Caucasian race.  Albinism and vitiligo was historically was known as "white leprosy" of which this particular form of leprosy is now referred to as Alphos.  Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam have also made references to the Caucasian being a cursed seed, and the list goes on.  Overall, there is abundant amount of historical evidence as to why this section should be included and written in the manner that I have composed.  Finally, I have listed the biblical source references for my thesis, simply stating it's not true doesn't disprove it.  I have provided evidence, where is yours?  Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blackledge's book was published in 1925 and does not appear to qualify as the type of peer-reviewed scholarly source Wikipedia is supposed to rely on. I can't even find who published it in an Internet search. This is not supposed to be about our original research. People have probably applied the African Diaspora badge because in the western hemisphere, some people's application of the "Curse of Ham" interpretation led them to have additional reasons for enslaving Africans. That's why this issue is related to the African diaspora, however faulty the interpretation. --Parkwells (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not true because the biblical sources say zip about leprosy being a product of the curse of Ham, or indeed of the Canaanites. The people who have leprosy in these sources are all Israelites, apart from one, who was a Syrian, and who was cured. But this is irrelevant. It is fine to discuss the interpretations that have been made, as long as they are ascribed to their sources in context. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Curse of Ham is not about dark skin, but rather disease. Where does it state in the Tanakh the nature of a curse against Canaan other than the land of Canaan being riddled with leprosy in the book of Leviticus? The land of Canaan (aka Israel) of course being where Ham's son settled. The African diaspora badge does not belong on this page. You won't find the African Diaspora badge on the Klu Klux Klan's page, and yet given their blatant racism against Blacks as per your thesis, they would have more of a right to use it than the Curse of Ham article. The problem here is the appliance and alluding incorrect useage of the etymology for the word Ham, defined as the land of the Egyptians who were of dark skin. But if this was his name from birth then it had absolutely nothing to do with a curse implemented for his son as a result of an action proformed in his adulthood.  Definition two of Strong's Concordance defines the word Canaan (כנען) as follows " the land west of the Jordan peopled by the descendants of Canaan and subsequently conquered by the Israelites under Joshua", and Leviticus 14:34 confirmed that the land was riddled with leprosy. As defined, the land was not conqured by the Israelites until the book of Joshua. So, clearly the Leviticus biblical verse (14:34) is the only consenting reference and defines a plague which could be considered the "curse of Canaan" as prophesied.  Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, learn to use the "Show preview" button! Pairadox (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Where does it state in the Tanakh the nature of a curse against Canaan other than the land of Canaan being riddled with leprosy in the book of Leviticus?" It nowhere says anything whatever about the land of Canaan being riddled with leprosy (or more strictly, "tzaraath", which is a generic word for skin diseases and moulds) at all, let alone as a result of the curse of Ham. The curse on Canaan is that his descendents will be "servants of servants". That's completely clear. See Genesis 9: "a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." There is nothing whatever here about skin-pigmentation, whether white or black. The references to tzaraath are all about members of the Israelite community. The passage in Leviticus clearly refers to the future.


 * "When ye be come into the land of Canaan, 'which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house. Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house: And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall; Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days..."


 * In other words, this refers to events in the future and goes on to describe how Israelite families should behave when they get this disease, which, as you can see, essentially affects the house, and is clearly not what we call leprosy today. Some modern translations say that this particular passage actually refers to mildew, but that's arguable. The exact same formula "When ye be come into the land.." is used repeatedly in Leviticus e.g. "When you be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest, then you shall bring an omer of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the omer before Yahweh." These are all rules for Israelites, as every single commentator on Leviticus has always accepted. I have no idea what your comments on etymology and Egypt have to do with this. Paul B (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated that the biblical reference of leprosy does not apply to it's modern day term but rather a form of leprosy called Alphos which whitens the skin. As evidence, I have listed several biblical quotes that associates whitened skin with leprosy. The passage that reads "servant of servants" is applicable but it not an ethnic trait. The basis of the discussion is that this curse is additionally based in ethnicity, as per the attempt at associating the African Diaspora badge with this article. The etymological root of the name "Ham" is defined as "a name of Egyptians" and is where the reference of Ham having dark skin originates. I'll agree Leviticus 14:34 is vague and is open for interpretation (ex: "house" as in the physical home or "house" as in family lineage. Either way the plague wasn't just for the Israelites because the land was conquered meaning the Canaanites were still there.  And this being the only reference other than being a slave that can be applied to Canaan and his seed.  Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you can claim whatever you like about what "tzaraath" in this instance refers to, but we can only include what reliable sources say. The Leviticus passage clearly refers to buildings ('houses' in the sense of dynasties do not have walls and doors do they?). It applies to Israelites for the simple reason that Leviticus is specifically a set of rules for the Israelite community. The etymology of Ham is not usually interpreted as "a name of Egyptians", unless you are referring to the theory that it is a variant of the native Egyptian word for Egypt: Khemet. However, I still fail to see what relevance this has. Genesis is clear that Africans descend from Ham, though it also says that some non-Africans did too. Paul B (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hebraic word for "house" is "bayith" [בית] ( Strong's H1004) defined in definition 5b as: "family of descendants, descendants as organized body". This definition can be applied in Leviticus verse 14:34 and can describe lineage (in a house of the land...) and NOT a physical home.  Ham is defined in definition 2 of Strong's Concordance as "a collective name for Egyptians".  The book of Genesis is clear that NORTH Africans, not all Africans descended from Ham as per the Gesenius Lexicon commentary: "חם a name of Egypt; properly it's domestic name amongst the Egyptians themselves..." I haven't "claimed" anything, simply stating fact, you're the one editing pages (ex: Ham) to suit your thesis. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In describing cures for the plague of leprosy upon his people Moses writes in Leviticus 14:32 "This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing." This clearly does not described a home, or a wall, but rather a person who has leprosy. The continuing passage from Leviticus 14:34 is quite clear in some regard and vague in others.  But it concludes at the end of the passage as such:
 * Leviticus 14:54-57 "This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house, And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot: To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy.
 * This is a directive in the form of towrah (law) to be applied to "a house", not "the house", meaning it is a directive to cure the sickness of leprosy for a people, their homes and their land; not just one particular home. We can also conclude from this passage that Leviticus 14:34 could also very well be defining in allegory lineage.  Finally, all of Ham's sons (Gen 10:6 Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan) are described as being black except Canaan.   Cush = Ethiopian, Phut = Libyan, Mitsrayim = Egyptian.  Obviously, because he wasn't.  Canaan is defined as simply "the son of Ham" and "lowland" as in another name for modern day Israel.  I can find no black nor African references associated with the name of Canaan who has historically been associated with Phoenicians. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. Definition one in Stong, as you know because you have read it, is a physical building, so why do you pretend it does not mean that? Only physical buildings have walls and doors, a fact you are simply covering your eyes to ignore in order to persist with fantasy. My only editrs to Ham page were stylistic. I didn't change meaning at all or express any "thesis". Paul B (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This has become circular... I have presented my evidence. I stand adjourned. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have, and amid all the verbiage you have not identified a sngle word saying that Canaanites were cursed with leprosy. There is a Hebrew word that is used for disfiguring conditions, some of which affect people and some of which affect houses. The only one you quote on the main page refers to a building. Other instances refer to human skin-conditions, but are never once connected to a Curse on Ham or on Canaan. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been really silly. Genesis 9:25-27. 25: And he (Noah) said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. (Meaning Cush, Mizraim and phut) 26: And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Meaning as written) 27: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Meaning as written). These verses are true and accurate. Canaan was the servant of those written in these verses. That's it. His children were not cursed and Ham was not cursed. Ham actually couldn't be cursed because of Gen 9:1 "And God blessed Noah and his sons and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". Noah did not have the power to curse what God had blessed. Canaan's curse was upon his head only. The actual servants were the Israelites unto the Egyptians after which they were given the land of seven nations including the land of Canaan (Deu 7:1). The Canaanites were to be destroyed by the Israelites not made slaves (Deu 7:2-3). From these Israelites and Canaanites are the people that we now refer to as Palestinians. Not the Jews of Europeon descent that have inhabited the land since 1948. Not white men at all. The exodus was complete centuries ago and is as old as the story itself. Canaan's curse had nothing to do with slavery as we know it and did not in any way mimic slavery as we know it or any geneological generational curses that we may try to invent. Ham was black from birth. People have tried to use God's threat of a curse upon the Israelites (Ex 20:5} to mimic the characteristics of Noah's curse on Canaan. As if Noah and God compare. Neither whites blacks and all ethnics in between are cursed. Tom 03/17/08

Jewish Interpretation
The lead provides some historic context for the inclusion of the Curse of Ham in the Torah, that it was justification for Israelites' conquering of Canaan. This historical context does not appear below, however, and that support would be useful, with sources. Much Biblical research has looked at historical sources for the context in which portions were written. Those could be useful additions to this article, which seems mostly based on quotations from the Torah and Bible.--Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "below"? Where do you think it should be placed? Paul B (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There really does not seem to be any place for it - a new section of "Contemporary Interpretation" is needed, for what would be more recent scholars' reflections, including assessment of the historic context for this portion of the Torah (as you note, justification for conquering the Canaanites.)--Parkwells (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic Ambiguity
Ive changed the term "Abrahimic religions" to Jews and Christians, becuase other Abrahamic relgions (Islam, Bahai, etc.) do not subscribe to the theory of the Curse of Ham. No mention in religious texts.

72.251.79.160 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Marcus, March 28th, 2008


 * This is not true. There is already a section discussing this. The idea of the curse does not occur in the Qur'an, but the Qur'an alludes to Christian and Jewish narratives, and there is a long tradition in Islam of explaining allusions with reference to Judeo-Christian texts and traditions. Many Islamic scholars used the concept of the curse of Ham, which was also a popularly known story in Muslim countries. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you are incorrect. Muslims are not allowed to use Judeo-Christian stories at all, unless they find support in the Quran or hadith. It is considered forbidden to do so in Islamic theology. Please don't speak about Islam if you don't know the basics about the religion. There is an EXPLICIT hadith in which Muhammad forbids his followers from taking the stories of the Jews and Christians, and he says that we only accept those stories of theirs which are supported by Muslim texts (i.e. Quran and Sunnah). Furthermore, you claim that "Muslim scholars" have used the concept of the curse of Ham. Which ones? Name them! Please don't tell me you will cite One Thousand and One Nights, which is a book of fairy-tales, a fictional book...it is like citing a Nancy Drew book to prove Christian theology! As for Abrégé des merveilles, then that book is falsely attributed to a man named Masudi, whom mainstream Islamic scholars called a heretic anyways. In any case, the book cannot be attributed to Masudi to begin with, and I've cited the reference for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.196.171 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And you are ignorant. The "Abrégé des merveilles" is not a French text, it's Arabic. It was first transtated into French, so is usually known by the French version of the name. The thousand and one nights can be quoted in the same way as any book can, and both are cited to a reliable source. Both are evidence that thjis view exited within Islamic culture. This is not the same as saying that it is an official belief, any more than that the racial interpretation of the curse was ever and official belief in any Christian religious sect (except perhaps Mormonism). It was, however, common in Christian culture. The same applies to Islam. What you say about what Muslims are not allowed to do is not supported by many traditions of interpretation. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This tale goes against explicit verses and narrations in Islamic primary sources, to cite al-Masudi or 1001 nights and the like against primary sources is a joke. Israeli narrations are only used when they do not go against the Quran and the Sunnah.

And yes, "the curse of Ham" has been championed in the past by American protestant religious heads http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

HussaynKhariq (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are still confusing the distinction between culture and theology. The very fact that Ibn Khaldun disussed the idea shows that he has to argue against a theory that existed. Paul B (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The book falsely attributed to Masudi said "hey, here is an Israeli narration". It's like a Hindu book saying "hey, here is a Jewish story." And then Ibn Khaldun refuted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.196.171 (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. The story is specifically interpreted in the Abrege with reference to Islamic assumptions. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Section
It seems this phrasing is biased when it gets to the last paragraph and takes a tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia:


 * Rashi, the main commentator on Torah, explains the harshness of the curse: "Some say Cham saw his father naked and either sodomized or castrated him. His thought was "Perhaps my father's drunkenness will lead to intercourse with our mother and I will have to share the inheritance of the world with another brother! I will prevent this by taking his manhood from him! When Noah awoke, and he realized what Cham had done, he said, "Because you prevented me from having a fourth son, your fourth son, Canaan, shall forever be a slave to his brothers, who showed respect to me!"


 * Another notable Jewish commentator on Torah, Avraham Ibn Ezra, disagrees with Rashi: "And the meaning of '[Cursed be Canaan, he will be a slave] unto his brothers' is to Cush, Egypt, and Put [only], for they are his father's [other] sons. And there are those who say that the Cushim [black skinned people] are slaves because Noah cursed Ham [the father of Cush], but they forget that the first king after the flood was a descendant of Cush, and so it is written, 'And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylonia.'"


 * It is clear that he understands the Biblical curse as confined to one generation alone, and thus, mitigates the idea that the curse of slavery would continue through Ham's descendants. He also points out the logical flaw that if Cushites were cursed with slavery, then how is it that the first descendent of Cush, Nimrod, is listed as a king of Babylonia (Genesis 10:8-10).

"It is clear that he understands the Biblical curse..." seems to violate this especially.

Cornince (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough with Racial Issues
If your that concerned over appearence, you must have other motives other than trying to prove He was this or that. Quit being racist or prone to one race as opposed to another. He is decended from David and Abraham, so He is an Israelite. Hes not black(African) or white(Caucasian). In fact the Middle Eastern Race tends to be in between. So He was either light skinned or tanned. So racial wise he isn't black or white. Skin colored wise we don't know. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)