Sunday, July 6, 2008

Are Blacks cursed in the Bible?

For thousands of years the Black race has been subjected to great brutality at the hands of mostly Whites and near Whites. To justify their satanic feelings towards Blacks this hatred has been preserved in a number of religious works.

In Alma 3:6 of the Book of Mormon we are told that the “Skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them, because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

In Mormon 5:15 we are told that the Lamanites, “Shall become a dark, a filthy and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us.”

The Aryan invasion of ancient India was marked by great savagery against the indigenous Blacks. The strife between the White Aryans and the Blacks (sometimes called Dasyus) are mentioned in the Vedas. These Blacks were highly civilized and had great cities with sophisticated sewers, their own writings, and so on.

In the Rig-Veda we see that Indra, the White god is praised for murdering 50,000 Blacks. The hatred of Indra and the Aryans for the Blacks is evident in this work. For instance, Indra is said to be “Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the black skin which Indra hates.”

Similar racism can be found in the Bible. It has been proved that humanity originated in Africa. According to tradition, with the dispersal at Babel Noah’s sons migrated to different parts of the world. Noah’s son Japeth is said to have migrated north of the Mediterranean Sea and fathered the White race. Shem went to the Persian Gulf Area and Assyria and fathered the Semites, etc., while Ham became the father of the Black race. His youngest son Canaan migrated to Canaan (Palestine). The Greeks called these Black Canaanites, Phoenicians. By the 17th century Europeans had begun using “Hamite” in reference to Blacks. This was a period of slavery and thus the so-called Hamitic curse was used to justify this barbaric act.

According to the Bible, Ham looked at the nakedness of his father Noah when he was drunk with wine. Noah then cursed Canaan, Ham’s first son. Why did he not curse Ham, the alleged perpetrator? He could not because God had already blessed him. We are told in Genesis 9:1: “And God blessed Noah and his sons.” This is proof that the so-called father of the Black race was never cursed.

Noah’s curse:

“And cursed be Canaan; 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 Canaan shall be his servant” (Genesis 9:25-27).

We see the same type of racism in the Babylonian Talmud. The Hebrews were Blacks. We have to consider the words of the Roman historian Tacitus who said that “many again say that they [the Jews] were a race of Ethiopian origin (Book V Chapter 2). There are many other instances to prove the Blackness of the Hebrews. The term “Jew” was derived from the Hebrew “Yehudi” meaning “belonging to the tribe of Judah.” Therefore, the Jews were strictly from the tribe of Judah.

Later on, however, we find many Whites in Palestine. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Gentile, Scribes and so on were mostly Whites.

The Pharisees engaged in an Apartheid system against the Blacks. They formed the major element of the Sanhedrin. Intermingling occurred. From a reading of the Bible we learn that Palestine was divided into two – the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah and that that the Israelites and Jews were later carried into captivity.

It must be understood that due to intermarriage, migration and so on, many White Jews and Israelites came into existence.

Arthur Koestler (himself an Ashkenazi Jew) has made it clear that the so-called Jews of today are not the real Jews but rather Khazars.

According to an old version of the Babylonian Talmud that is no longer used, Ham castrated Noah when he was asleep and so Noah cursed his son when he awoke. Thus Blacks became cursed with slavery and blackness. Racial slurs can be found in the Talmud and other rabbinical writings against the original Black Jews (Essenes, Zealots, Nazarenes, etc.). Jesus Christ was called the son of a prostitute.

This is the so-called Hamitic curse first recorded in the Babylonian Talmud in the sixth century AD.



“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 first born, whom they enslave. And since you have disabled me from doing ugly things in the blackness of night, Canaan’s children shall be born 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.” (See “Hebrew Myths” by Graves and Patai).



The Bible contains much truth, but here have been many versions of this work. For instance, we have the King James Version. We must also realize that these racial slurs were created from evil minds to justify the enslavement of Blacks.

Ham was never cursed in the Bible. But was he the father of the Black race? If he was Black then it stands to reason that his father Noah was also Black as well as his siblings Japheth and Shem. What color was Noah’s father? It stands to reason that he was also Black.

The origin of the Hamitic curse originated from a Jewish oral tradition dating from the sixth century. It is just one of many racial slurs against Blacks in religious works.

The Black race is blessed.

4 comments:

Proud Canadian said...

Your claim of "racism in the Bible" doesnt hold up. In Genesis 10, Moses notes the sons of Ham as composing Mizraim (Egypt), Cush, Punt, Caanan and Libya. It is LATER, much later Jewish, Arab and European writers at certain times did not hesitate to pile on and say Ham was black, because some tinge of inferiority could be placed on his descendants. Weirdly enough though, that tune changes when their logic is followed through consistently. Egypt, Cush, Punt, etc suddenly became "non-black" when the realization struck that the Nile Valley civilizations and those of the Horn and Sahara would have to be credited to these "inferior" sons of Ham. Suddenly and curiously, the "Hamites" became "white" or "Middle Eastern", 'Eurasian" or a mysterious "Mediterranean brown race".


Moses at least was consistent. He assigned no racial characteristics to the tribal groupings he wrote about in Genesis 10, nor did he cast any badges of inferiority. The so-called "curse of Ham" doesn't exist in the Bible. It is entirely a creation of later Jewish, Arab and European writers, repeated and amplified over time. Moses noted that Caanan (the Lebanon/Sinai region peoples) would be conquered by the Semitic Hebrews, but there is no "curse of Ham". It is entirely bogus. Ironically, Moses also writes up Nimrod, son of Cush, in commendable terms, noting his descendants as among those most advanced culturally, materially and militarily. Since Moses' conception of Ham includes peoples with a wide range of physical variation, his "anthropology model," or concept so to speak, is much closer to modern researchers like Keita et al, than Aryanists who posit the artifical "Mediterranean" or "Eurasian" model where the only "Africans" are those located somewhere far south of the Sahara.

And even more ironically, the Hebrew prophet himself married a Cushite, as documented in Numbers 12. He certainly would not have been welcome on the campus of Bob Jones University, although the denizens thereon quote his writings frequently.

You need to get your facts straight before making pronouncements on the Bible.

Retake Your Fame said...

Moses was Black.

scatlas cassady said...

Great discussion. But keep in mind that the "black race" is anthropologically dated thousands of years before this whole Noah, flood, curse story. On this basis to take the bible as absolute truth or as a historical document would be false. When you really take a good, honest look at the bible, while suspending blind and indoctrinated belief,and perform independent, unbiased research, you can see that there is no credible historical documentation of any of the stories in the bible- much less a flood or the cursing "black" of a people who already existed for thousands of years. More accurately, the stories in the bible have, for the most part, been plagiarized from Egyptian texts. However, debating the content and interpretation of the bible is an interesting academic exercise, not much unlike debating The Lord of the Rings or Narnia.

scatlas cassady said...

Great discussion. But keep in mind that the "black race" is anthropologically dated thousands of years before this whole Noah, flood, curse story. On this basis to take the bible as absolute truth or as a historical document would be false. When you really take a good, honest look at the bible, while suspending blind and indoctrinated belief,and perform independent, unbiased research, you can see that there is no credible historical documentation of any of the stories in the bible- much less a flood or the cursing "black" of a people who already existed for thousands of years. More accurately, the stories in the bible have, for the most part, been plagiarized from Egyptian texts. However, debating the content and interpretation of the bible is an interesting academic exercise, not much unlike debating The Lord of the Rings or Narnia.