It's okay to talk about Black History, as long as we don't say we're the real Jews?

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The original quote you highlighted was PER THE BIBLE simpleton.

WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED, asswipe.

You're gonna have to do better than to just put up what the bible says WITHOUT any validation of what the bible says.

I think the bible, like books about sherlock holmes, CAN have some HISTORICAL truth about people that lived back then...but the buck stops at the super natural shyt.

So you're going to have to do WAY better in terms of showing why your specific claims about this topic are ACTUALLY true.

 

[Czar]

A. Shem

B. Ham

C. Japheth

That's pretty much how Zondervan lists the origins of the "negro"

Now, since you refuse to read that PDF, allow me to ether you some more and expose your c00nery.

http://www.cui-zy.cn/Recommended/Nature&glabolization/HamticAfrica.pdf

Journal of African History, x, 4 (I969), pp. 521-532 521
Printed in Great Britain

THE HAMITIC HYPOTHESIS; ITS ORIGIN
AND FUNCTIONS IN TIME PERSPECTIVE1
BY EDITH R. SANDERS

THE Hamitic hypothesis is well-known to students of Africa. It states
that everything of value ever found in Africa was brought there by the
Hamites, allegedly a branch of the Caucasian race. Seligman formulates it
as follows:
Apart from relatively late Semitic influence... the civilizations of Africa are the
civilizations of the Hamites, its history the record of these peoples and of their
interaction with the two other African stocks, the Negro and the Bushman,
whether this influence was exerted by highly civilized Egyptians or by such
wider pastoralists as are represented at the present day by the Beja and Somali
...The incoming Hamites were pastoral 'Europeans'-arriving wave after
wave-better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes.2
On closer examination of the history of the idea, there emerges a pre-
vious elaborate Hamitic theory, in which the Hamites are believed to be
Negroes. It becomes clear then that the hypothesis is symptomatic of the
nature of race relations, that it has changed its content if not its nomen-
clature through time, and that it has become a problem of epistemology.
In the beginning there was the Bible. The word 'Ham' appears there
for the first time in Genesis, chapter five. Noah cursed Ham, his youngest
son, and said:
Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants shall he be
unto his brethren.
And he said,
Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem;
And let Canaan be his servant.
God enlarge Japhet,
And let him dwell in the tent of Shem;
And let Canaan be his servant.
Then follows an enumeration of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, Japhet,
and their sons who were born to them after the flood. The Bible makes
no mention of racial differences among the ancestors of mankind. It is
much later that an idea of race appears with reference to the sons of Noah;
it concerns the descendants of Ham. The Babylonian Talmud, a collection
of oral traditions of the Jews, appeared in the sixth century A.D.; it states

(Cont)

 

[LionofJudah]

ALSO you know how hard the light skinned dudes go to prove how "black" and "african" they are.

I get it...since you're a homosexual and I called you out on it last week, you're back with a vengeance about the Most High huh? Well, if you repent, and follow the Laws, you MIGHT have a chance. No effeminate man is going to inherit the Kingdom though.

 

[Czar]

that the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black, and depicts Ham
as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates.3 Thus, early tradition
identified the Hamites with Negroes and endowed them with both certain
physiognomical attributes and an undesirable character. This notion
persisted in the Middle Ages, when fanciful rabbinical expansions of the
Genesis stories were still being made. Ham, some of them said, was
supposed to have emasculated Noah, who cursed him thus:
'Now I cannot beget the fourth son whose children I would have ordered to serve
you and your brothers! Therefore it must be Canaan, your firstborn, whom they
enslave. And since you have disabled me... doing ugly things in blackness of
night, Canaan's children shall be borne ugly and black! Moreover, because you
twisted your head around to see my nakedness, your grandchildren's hair shall
be twisted into kinks, and their eyes red; again because your lips jested at my
misfortune, theirs shall swell; and because you neglected my nakedness, they
shall go naked, and their male members shall be shamefully elongated! Men of
this race are called Negroes, their forefather Canaan commanded them to love
theft and fornication, to be banded together in hatred of their masters and never
to tell the truth.'4
Scholars who study the Hebrew myths of the Genesis claim that these
oral traditions grew out of a need of the Israelites to rationalize their
subjugation of Canaan, a historical fact validated by the myth of Noah's
curse. Talmudic or Midrashic explanations of the myth of Ham were well
known to Jewish writers in the Middle Ages, as seen in this description
by Benjamin of Tudela, a twelfth-century merchant and traveller south
of Aswan:
There is a people... who, like animals, eat of the herbs that grow on the banks
of the Nile and in their fields. They go about naked and have not the intelligence
of ordinary men. They cohabit with their sisters and anyone they can find...
they are taken as slaves and sold in Egypt and neighbouring countries. These
sons of Ham are black slaves.5
Ideas have a way of being accepted when they become useful as a rationali-
zation of an economic fact of life. As Graves and Patai put it: 'That
Negroes are doomed to serve men of lighter color was a view gratefully
borrowed by Christians in the Middle Ages; a severe shortage of cheap
manual labor caused by the plague made the reinstitution of slavery
attractive'.
The notion of the Negro-Hamite was generally accepted by the year
1600. In one of the earliest post-medieval references found, Leo Africanus,
the great Arab traveller and one-time protege of Pope Leo X, wrote about
Negro Africans as being descended from Ham. His translator, the English-
man John Pory, followed the text with his own commentary in which he

(Cont)

 

[emoney]

I read what you put, and again, you don't know shyt.

look idiot,

shem and ham were linguistic categorizations not racial

east african and north african peoples = hamitic

west asian peoples = shemitic

 

[LionofJudah]

WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED, asswipe.

You're gonna have to do better than to just put up what the bible says WITHOUT any validation of what the bible says.

I think the bible, like books about sherlock holmes, CAN have some HISTORICAL truth about people that lived back then...but the buck stops at the super natural shyt.

So you're going to have to do WAY better in terms of showing why your specific claims about this topic are ACTUALLY true.

Well, then you would have to post an African society that came from someone other than Ham. You want it substantiated. I don't.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Its always fascinating to see religious people get bodied

 

[Czar]

stressed the punishment suffered by Ham's descendants, thus reinforcing
the myth in modern times.6
Some seventeenth-century writers7 acquaint us with notions current
in their time by citing European authors, known or unknown today, who
wrote, directly or indirectly, about the low position of Negro-Hamites in
the world. This was further strengthened by European travellers who went
to Africa for reasons of trade8 or curiosity.9 Concurrently, there existed
another point of view, in which the term 'Hamite' denoted a sinner of
some sort, not necessarily a Negro, although the characteristics of the
Hamite were the same negative ones variously attributed to the Negro.10
The idea of a Negro-Hamite was not universally accepted. Some indi-
viduals1 believed that the blackness of the Negro was caused by the soil on
which he lived together with the extreme heat of the sun. Others doubted
that either the climate theory or the efficacy of Noah's curse were respon-
sible for the Negro's physiognomy, but reasoned that 'their colour and
wool are innate or seminal, from their first beginning.. '12
By and large, however, the Negro was seen as a descendant of Ham,
bearing the stigma of Noah's curse. This view was compatible with the
various interests extant at that time. On the one hand, it allowed exploita-
tion of the Negro for economic gain to remain undisturbed by any Christian
doubts as to the moral issues involved. 'A servant of servants shall he be'
clearly meant that the Negro was preordained for slavery. Neither indi-
vidual nor collective guilt was to be borne for a state of the world created
by the Almighty. On the other hand, Christian cosmology could remain at
peace, because identifying the Negro as a Hamite-thus as a brother-
kept him in the family of man in accordance with the biblical story of the
creation of mankind.
The eighteenth century saw an efflorescence of scientific inquiry, which
directed its efforts to the understanding of man's place in the world.
Modern science had developed a century earlier and had attempted to
establish order in the universe; the nature of man, however, was not part
of scientific investigation, but remained in the province of theology. This
state of affairs became unsatisfactory to the later scholars, namely the
philosophes of the Enlightenment, who tried to apply scientific methods
to the study of man and whose theories as to the origin of the race often
came into direct conflict with the Scriptures.
The Negro's place in nature was the subject of great debate at that time.
One of the crucial issues of this debate was the question of unity in
mankind, or monogenism, as opposed to the separate creation of races or
polygenism.13 The concept of the Negro-Hamite was steadily losing ground
because theological interpretation of the peopling of the world did not
satisfy the men of the Enlightenment. The myth was now kept alive
mainly by the clergy, who tried to keep their hold on the laity by discredit-
ing the savants as infidels.14
The polygenist theories led to a widespread belief that the Negro was
sub-human and at the same time de-emphasized his relationship to the
accursed Ham. The monogenist theories attempted to explain Negro
physical characteristics by natural rather than mythical causes. The con-
servative theologians still clung to the now classic exegesis of the Old
Testament and discouraged any attempt at a different interpretation.15 At
the end of the eighteenth century, many famous men espoused and popular-
ized one of two views regarding the Negro. One was that he was the result
of 'degeneration' due to various environmental conditions.16 The other
and more frequent view was that he was a separate creation, subhuman in
character."7
The Western world, which was growing increasingly rich on the insti-
tution of slavery, grew increasingly reluctant to look at the Negro slave
and see him as a brother under the skin. Some writers18 feel that the image
of the Negro deteriorated in direct proportion to his value as a commodity,
and the proudly rational and scientific white man was impatient to find
some definitive proof for the exclusion of the Negro from the family of
man and for ultimate denial of common ancestry.
The catalyst which made this possible was an historical event, namely
Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798. Because Napoleon shared the
passion for science and antiquities that was the hallmark of the Enlighten-
ment, he invited archaeologists and other scientists to join him. The experts
who had accompanied him discovered treasures that led them to found
the new science of Egyptology and an institute on Egyptian soil.

(Cont)

 

[Czar]

These discoveries were to revolutionize history's view of the Egyptian and lay
the basis for a new Hamitic myth.
Napoleon's scientists made the revolutionary discovery that the begin-
nings of Western civilization were earlier than the civilizations of the
Romans and the Greeks. Mysterious monuments, evidences of the begin-
nings of science, art, and well-preserved mummies were uncovered.
Attention was drawn to the population that lived among these ancient
splendours and was presumably descended from the people who had created
them. It was a well-mixed population, such as it is at the present time, with
physical types running from light to black and with many physiognomical
variations. The French scholars came to the conclusion that the Egyptians
were Negroids. Denon, one of Napoleon's original expedition, describes
them as such: '...a broad and flat nose, very short, a large flattened
mouth... thick lips, etc.'.19
The view that the Egyptians were 'Negroid' and highly civilized
apparently existed before the French expedition to Egypt. Count Volney,
a French traveller to the Middle East, spent four years in Egypt and Syria
and wrote in a well-known book:
How are we astonished... when we reflect that to the race of negroes, at present
our slaves, and the objects of our contempt, we owe our arts, sciences, and...
when we recollect that, in the midst of these nations, who call themselves the
friends of liberty and humanity, the most barbarous of slaveries is justified; and
that it is even a problem whether the understandings of negroes be of the same
species with that of white men!20
In spite of the deserved respect which Volney enjoyed, his opinions on
this subject were not accepted.
Nevertheless, the Egyptian expedition made it impossible to hide that
seeming paradox of a population of Negroids who were, once upon a time,
originators of the oldest civilization of the West. The conflicting ideologies
which existed in the West made it difficult for the various proponents of
these ideologies to deal with the notion as it stood. Such a notion upset the
main existing tenets; it could not be internalized by those individuals on
both sides of the Atlantic who were convinced of the innate inferiority of
the Negro, nor by those who adhered to the biblical explanation of the
origin of races. To the latter such an idea was blasphemous, as Noah's
curse condemned the Hamites to misery and precluded high original
achievement.
Egypt became the focus of great interest among the scientists as well as
among the lay public. The fruits of this interest were not long in coming.
A few short years after the Egyptian expedition, there appeared a large
number of publications dealing with Egypt and Egyptians. Many of these
works seemed to have had as their main purpose an attempt to prove in
some way that the Egyptians were not Negroes.

(Cont)

 

[LionofJudah]

look idiot,

shem and ham were linguistic categorizations not racial

east african peoples = hamitic

west asian peoples = shemitic

Where did these 'linguistic categorizations' come from?

 

[Czar]

The arguments which follow brought forth the questions of language, migration, ancient writers,
and the existence of mummies.21 The polygenist theories of race postulated
that as each race was created separately, so it was endowed with its own
language. Because the Coptic language was clearly related to Arabic, it was
convenient to draw the conclusion that the nations who spoke related lan-
guages must have proceeded from one parental stock. Since the Ethiopians,
Nubians and other allied peoples were declared not to be Negro by Euro-
pean travellers, the Egyptians could not be said to be of African (Negro)
race, as all of these peoples were colonists from Syria or Arabia Felix. Since
ancient writers were silent on the subject of the Negroid physiognomy of
the Egyptian, it was understood that in effect Egyptians were not Negroid,
as such a fact would have startled the ancients into a detailed description.
Herodotus himself, ran the argument, described them in comparative not
absolute terms. Thus 'black and woolly haired' meant black as compared
to the Greeks and woolly haired as compared to the Greeks. Some said
that the existence of the mummies itself constituted sufficient proof that
these people were non-Negro; to W. G. Browne the '... prescience of that
people concerning errors into which posterity might fall, exhibits irrefragable
proof of their features and of the colour of their skin...,'22 clearly im-
plying, therefore, that the ancient Egyptians knew they could be mistaken
for Negroes, and so left their bodies in evidence to refute such an allegation.
Browne insisted that the Egyptians were white. Although he himself did
not call them 'Hamites', he paved the way for his successors who were to
identify the Egyptians as such.
Modern times showed their influence on theological writings as well. The
new Hamitic concept made its appearance quite early in the nineteenth
century, spearheaded by the clergy. If the Negro was a descendant of Ham,
and Ham was cursed, how could he be the creator of a great civilization?
It follows logically that the theologians had to take another look, both at
the Bible and at its explanation of the origin of the races of man. The
veracity of the Scriptures obviously could not be denied. New interpreta-
tions of the meaning of Scriptures were offered. Egyptians, it was now
remembered, were descendants of Mizraim, a son of Ham. Noah had only
cursed Canaan-son-of-Ham, so that it was Canaan and his progeny alone
who suffered the malediction. Ham, his other sons, and their children were
not included in the curse.
For example, the Reverend M. Russell took up the issue of the Hamites
and the Egyptians:
In the sacred writings of the Hebrews it [Egypt] is called Mizraim... the name
which is applied to Egypt by the Arabs of the present day

(Cont)

 

[LionofJudah]

no idiot

I want to reply to you point by point to avoid any confusion...I tried putting in the quote/unquote myself but the output wasn't how I expected..so I just deleted all of it. I'm trying to figure out how to multi quote properly now. I'm not running.

If you can't multi-quote properly, it explains why you can't grasp the simple things i'm throwing at you.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Well, then you would have to post an African society that came from someone other than Ham. You want it substantiated. I don't.

DUDE WHAT THE fukk IS WRONG WITH YOU???

PROVE SUCH A STATEMENT IS TRUE.

I'm not out to disprove you. I'm out to find out things that are true or even plausible.

You haven't done that when you continue to sidestep shyt.

Show me what you're saying is true.

 

[Czar]

The Copts retain the native word 'Chemia' which perhaps has some relation to Cham, the son of
Noah; or as Plutarch insinuates, may only denote that darkness of colour which
appears in a rich soil or in the human eye.23
He admits that there is a peculiarity of feature common to all the Copts,
but asserts that neither in countenance nor personal form is there any
resemblance to the Negro.
He and other scholars re-read the Book of Genesis focusing on the
genealogy of the three ancestors of mankind, and especially Ham. The
histories of the sons of Ham were discussed, particularly those of Cush
and Mizraim. The question was raised then whether it was Ham who had
been cursed after all, or was it only Canaan?24 It was indeed Canaan who
was cursed, but the rest of the progeny of Ham went on to prosper.
So it came to pass that the Egyptians emerged as Hamites, Caucasoid,
uncursed and capable of high civilization. This view became widely accep-
ted and it is reflected in the theological literature of that era. A survey of
Biblical dictionaries of the period is quite revealing as to the wide accep-
tance of the new Hamites. Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, published in
1846 by John Kitto, D.D., F.S.A., has a long article under the name Ham.
It is stressed that the curse of Noah is directed only against Canaan. The
general opinion is stated that all southern nations derive from Ham. How-
ever, the article admits difficulties in tracing the history of the most
important Hamitic nations-the Cushytes, the Phoenicians and the Egyp-
tians-due to their great intermixture with foreign peoples. Thus, the early
decades of the nineteenth century greeted a new Hamitic myth, this time
with a Caucasoid protagonist. At the same time the scientific bases of the
new Hamitic myth were being devised and, allegedly, substantiated.
Perhaps because slavery was both still legal and profitable in the United
States, and because it was deemed necessary and right to protect it, there
arose an American school of anthropology which attempted to prove
scientifically that the Egyptian was a Caucasian, far removed from the
inferior Negro. As Mannheim said, each intellectual stand is functionally
dependent on the 'differentiated social group reality standing behind it.'25
Such workers as Dr Morton,26 assisted in various ways by Josiah Nott27 and
George Gliddon,28 collected, measured, interpreted and described the
human crania. The comparative studies made of these crania led Morton to
believe that the Egyptian osteological formation was Caucasian, and that
it was a race indigenous to the Nile Valley.

(Cont)

 

[Czar]

He also postulated fixity of species, considering it a primordial organic form, permanent through time.
Nott and Gliddon, who acted as Morton's apostles, also bolstered his
interpretation by explaining the Negroid admixture of the Egyptians as
being a population which descended from numerous Negro slaves kept by
Egyptians in ancient days. These theories attempted to include the Egyp-
tians in the branch of the Caucasoid race, to explain their accomplishments
on the basis of innate racial superiority, and to exclude the Negro from any
possibility of achievement by restating his alleged inferiority and his
position of 'natural slave'. The conclusions of American scholars found a
receptive audience in Europe, where craniology was considered to yield
positive and meaningful data, a point of view expressed by two scientists
of world renown, the Drs Retzius of Sweden and Broca of France. The
intellectual vogue of the day was the stress on 'facts', not abstract theories,
in all disciplines. Craniology provided a seemingly concrete 'fact', thus
fitting in neatly with the prevailing academic attitudes. Again, there was no
complete consensus among anthropologists. The most prominent opponent
of the American school of anthropology was James Prichard of England,29
who was not convinced that the Egyptians belonged to the Caucasian race.
The science of philology added weight to the new Hamitic theory. This
young science was developing at a time when language and race were
considered to be inextricably bound together, an approach which lent itself
to polygenist theories. Bunsen,30 a philologist and an Egyptologist, reported
two branches of cognate languages, the Semitic and what he called the
Iranian. Khamitic or Egyptian he postulated to be anterior to Semitic and
antedeluvian. Here was irrefutable proof, it seemed, that the Hamitic
language belonged to the Caucasoid peoples, and it was eagerly adopted
by scholars and theologians. The new Hamitic myth was gaining momentum.
The late nineteenth century provided two new ideologies which utilized
and expanded the concept of the Caucasoid Hamite: colonialism and
modem racism. Both shaped the European attitude to Africa and Africans.
The travellers found a variety of physical types in Africa, and their ethno-
centrism made them value those who looked more like themselves. These
were declared to be Hamitic, or of Hamitic descent, and endowed with the
myth of superior achievements and considerable beneficial influence on
their Negro brothers. John Hanning Speke31 was seminal to the Hamitic
hypothesis which we know today. Upon discovery of the kingdom of
Buganda with its complex political organization, he attributed its 'barbaric
civilization' to a nomadic pastoralist race related to the Hamitic Galla, thus
setting the tone for the interpreters to come. The Hamites were designated
as early culture-bearers in Africa owing to the natural superiority of intel-
lect and character of all Caucasoids.

(Cont)