To watch this episode, go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usm1v-CEAdI
- Can historians help explain the truth behind African Americans being Israelites and Africans being Hamites?
I haven’t seen the meme this question is based on, but the argument seems similar to the argument that was made in early US history when it came to defending slavery.
When the abolitionist movement really began building up in the states, various ministers went to the Bible in order to show that slavery was not just unChristian, but also was not Biblical.
In response, those supporting slavery also went to the Bible, and what they came up with as a defense revolves around the Curse of Ham, or Noah’s Curse. Stephen Haynes wrote a great article on this subject awhile back, called Original Dishonor.
So a bit of back of background. Noah’s curse appears in Genesis 9:20-29. This story happens post flood, and also is somewhat of an origin story of wine. Noah makes wine for the first time, and gets drunk. He passes out naked in his tent. Ham, who is said to be the father of Canaan, finds Noah like this, and tells his brothers Shem and Japheth. So Shem and Japheth take a blanket, or some garment, and walking into the tent backwards, places it on their naked father. Noah later wakes up, and the text says that he saw what Ham did to him, and curses Canaan. That curse is that Canaan will be the servant of both Shem and Japheth.
Its a fascinating story, because the Hebrew isn’t quite clear on what Ham did to his father, and scholars have long speculated. It is likely that whatever was done to Noah was left out of the final text, and we just get a hint of it. Some speculate that maybe Ham castrated Noah, or performed some lewd sexual act on him. We don’t know, but whatever it was, it angered Noah, and there is the curse.
So how does this story relate to slavery, and how was it used in defense of slavery? That is a wild road. But keep the name Ham present, as it is where Hamites comes from.
Now, the curse of Canaan, or Curse of Ham, was the primary Biblical justification for slavery in the south. Religious tracts from that time don’t really delve into what Ham’s crime was, but they make it clear that whatever it was, it was worthy of eternal punishment. What their arguments also make clear is that idea that the descendent of Ham, Hamites, were Africans.
So, for those southerners, slavery of Africans was justifiable because of Noah’s curse. The descendants of Ham, Africans, were bound by eternal servitude, or slavery, as the Bible never states that the curse is ever broken.
Why they chose the curse of Ham as defense, I have no idea. If one wanted to argue for slavery, there seems to be a lot easier passages to use, but that was their primary justification. And it is where we get the association of Hamites with Africans.
Now, for African Americans being Israelites. This is a much newer idea, and is associated with Black Hebrew Israelites. Now, it needs to be mentioned that for the most part, Jews don’t recognize them as part of the faith, or being Israelites.
So this view really begins in the late 19th century. It somewhat formalized in 1886 when Frank Cherry founded the Church of the Living God. Not saying that Cherry was the originator of the idea, but it appears he started the first church. The idea was somewhat of an offshoot a traditional view of Black Christians who, from a spiritual standpoint, identified with the Israelites. This, in the late 19th century, transformed to some Black Christians going one step further, and claiming to be biologically related to Israelites.
This was done for a couple reasons. One, it was an attempt to piece together their history. Basically, it allowed them to regain something of their past. The other reason was in response to socio-economic realities associated with slavery and discrimination, as well as the view that Blacks were inferior to Whites. Attaching themselves to the Israelite identity helped make sense of this.
Ironically, within this group, an extremist fringe did develop, that is seen as black supremacists. They believe that Jews are devilish imposters, and that whites are evil personified. But it has to be acknowledged that this is a fringe group within the larger movement.
Now obviously, the meme is rather ridiculous, as African Americans are descendants of Africans, at least in part. Some may be descendants of Israelites, but that has nothing to do with them being in America, or being African, or anything like that. But there are other reasons why the idea is ridiculous. First, it has to do with Ham and Canaan. Canaan didn’t move to Africa. He isn’t the ancestor of Africans. That was never the idea within Judaism (even though this story is largely taken as fictional). Canaan was seen as the ancestors to the Canaanites, in the Middle East. The story with Noah acts as just one more justification, or sign, that the Israelites were the proper rulers of the land called Canaan. Its one of these origin stories that often pops up in the Torah. So the descendants of Canaan would have been Middle Easterners. So the argument makes no sense on that ground (and the fact that they would take a racist idea and promote it is beyond me).
Second, the claim for Israelite dependency also doesn’t make any sense, as the whole argument with the Curse of Ham, and the designation of Hamites, was specifically made to justify slavery in the United States. Now, not all African Americans in the United States are descendants of slaves, but many were, and this whole idea of being a Hamite revolves around just that. So to keep the terminology and the ideology around the Hamites would mean that these Black Hebrews weren’t Israelites (at least many of them wouldn’t be) but were in fact themselves Hamites.
Third and final, tracings one lineage back to the Israelites is extremely difficult. One can trace back to a Jewish heritage, but that doesn’t necessarily make one a descendant of the Israelites. Whenever one makes such a bold claim, the need to have some bold evidence.
