The poisonous myth of the Hamitic heritage

It should come as no surprise when people seek to justify immoral actions by appealing to a Biblical precedent. That was the case with the enslavement of black people by whites, which they claimed was sanctioned in the Book of Genesis.

Noah and Ham

Genesis Chapter 9 tells the story of Ham, the third son of Noah, finding the latter drunk and naked in his tent and telling his brothers, Shem and Japheth, who avert their gaze as they go into the tent to cover their father up and prevent any further embarrassment. On waking up, Noah is angry with Ham and lays a curse on the latter's youngest son, Canaan, which is that he is to be a bondservant to his two uncles. 

On the face of it, this seems to be particularly unfair to both Ham and Canaan. If Ham had not been first into the tent, presumably it would have been one of the other two. And why does Canaan, who was presumably only a child at the time, get it in the neck? However, that is the story as given, whatever the justice or otherwise of the case. Later interpreters have ascribed various degrees of significance to this passage. 

The descendants of Noah

Genesis Chapter 10 outlines the descendants of the three sons of Noah. This is not exactly a riveting read, but it is important as an account of how the world was repopulated after the Flood, bearing in mind that, according to Genesis, these were the only human beings left alive. 

Shem’s descendants are therefore the Semites, who include the Jews, with Abraham being a direct descendent of Shem by nine generations. Ham’s descendants are the Hamites, whose tribes include the Canaanites, who were to become the enemies of the Jews. This may explain the curse placed on Canaan. Other descendants of Ham were to populate much of North Africa.

Fact or myth?

Whether or not one regards the foregoing as fact or myth, depending on one’s interpretation of Genesis, what follows surely comes under the heading of myth, because it is based on such things as supposition, misreading and prejudice, with little if any Biblical justification. In short, Ham is judged to have been the father of the black races of the earth, and these are seen to be inferior to the white races.

For example, one early Jewish text has it that Ham was the only brother who had sexual intercourse during his time in the Ark (he is the only one mentioned as having a son immediately after the Flood) and for this he was “smitten in his skin”. Later writers also connected punishment with being made black, and linked blackness with slavery. For example, Patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria wrote: “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers … He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians…” 

The curse in modern times

These myths persisted down the centuries, so that the most terrible things could be written by people who were well-respected and venerated in their time and later. For example, the visionary Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), who was placed on the road to sainthood in 2004 by Pope John Paul II, was able to write: 

“I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang".

One of the worst Victorian exponents of the myth was the explorer John Hanning Speke (1827-1864) who made three explorations of Africa in searching for the source of the Nile. He claimed that the Tutsis of Rwanda were superior to the Hutus because they had more “white” characteristics and did not suffer from the curse of Ham. This division into “good” and “bad” races led indirectly to the genocide of 1994 in which maybe as many as a million Tutsis and thousands of Hutus died within a hundred days.

It is an undisputed fact that the curse of Ham has been used as a justification for the enslavement of black people. Indeed, some have even regarded it as a virtual duty of white people to enslave black people, because of the Biblical example. In seeking to defend slavery at the time of the American Civil War, the crime of Ham was blown up to include rape and incest, with the clear implication that his black descendants were still guilty and deserved his punishment.

It is unfortunate that, in the eyes of many misguided people even today, black is bad and white is good. The perniciousness of this view, that has caused so much misery and injustice down the centuries, is largely due to the Hamitic heritage, and it is high time that we, as the human race, grew up and came to recognize the evil of maintaining this belief, and others that have no basis in reality but lurk under the cloak of religion to destroy so many innocent lives.

© John Welford

An appalling historical example of Christian violence

Lest anyone should forget that unspeakable savagery in the name of religion is not the preserve of any particular faith, the date of 15^th July might be brought to mind. It was on this day in 1099 that the First Crusade achieved its aim of capturing Jerusalem from the Muslims who had occupied it for 400 years.

It had taken more than three years for the Crusading force to reach Jerusalem from western Europe, during which time the original army of 50,000 had been reduced by half. However, the force was still strong enough to breach the city’s defences, thus persuading the inhabitants to seek refuge in the Temple of Solomon.

When the Crusaders broke in they massacred everyone they could find – possibly as many as 10,000 men, women and children – and then cut open the bodies in case the victims had swallowed jewels or coins in the hope being able to escape with a little money to support themselves.

The Crusaders followed this episode by turning on the Jews of the city, herding them into the main synagogue which was then set on fire.

Having eliminated all opposition, the Crusaders set about establishing a permanent presence in Palestine in the form of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was to last for nearly 200 years. However, Jerusalem itself fell to the great Saracen leader Saladin in 1187, which led to another Crusade being launched, notably featuring England’s King Richard I as one of its leaders.

Although Christians at the time would have regarded the sack of Jerusalem as a major triumph that showed that God was definitely on their side, later generations have come to see these events in their true light, namely an utterly revolting episode that did absolutely no credit to the religion it purported to be championing.

© John Welford

Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, 630

On 11^th January 630 the Prophet Muhammad returned to Mecca, where he had been born some 60 years previously, at the head of an army of 10,000 followers. This show of force was enough to dissuade his opponents from putting up much resistance and so the conquest of Mecca was nearly bloodless.

Muhammad had spent most of his life in Mecca but had been forced to leave in about 622 due to the hostility he had aroused from some local people. His temporary home had been the rival city of Medina.

On his return, Muhammad negotiated a takeover of Mecca with Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraysh ruling tribe. As a result, only a few opponents tried to block his entry and most of those soon surrendered.

Muhammad also made sure that no reprisals were taken against his former enemies in Mecca, stating that “he who lays down arms will be safe. He who locks his door will be safe.”

Less assured of safety were the religious images that adorned the Kaaba, the holiest sanctuary in Mecca. Many idols were removed and destroyed, although some accounts maintain that images of Abraham, Jesus and Mary were spared. His main aim was to restore the status of the Kaaba as a sanctuary that was so “by virtue of the sanctity Allah has bestowed on it until the Day of Resurrection”. Mecca and the Kaaba have remained the focal points of Islam ever since.

© John Welford

The Shakers: The "Shaking Quakers" best known for their furniture

The Shaking Quakers, better known as Shakers, were a remarkable group of Christians that flourished in the United States during the late 18^th and early to mid 19^th centuries. Although their numbers were never all that large their name lives on mainly because of the artefacts they left behind them.

History of the Shakers

Although they are always thought of as an American religious sect, the Shakers had their origins in England. Their founder was Ann Lee, who was born in Manchester in 1742. She came from a very poor background and had to work in a factory. She sought solace in religion and joined a group that held meetings in which dancing and shouting in strange languages were encouraged.

Ann Lee fell out with this group over her belief that the root of all evil was lust, which was the real reason, according to her, why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. She felt herself called to spread the word about the need for chastity, and became convinced that the American colonies would be the most receptive place for her message. She therefore left England for America in 1774, accompanied by her husband and a few followers.

It was not until 1780 that Ann Lee began her public ministry (at Niskeyuna near Albany, New York), but this was followed by a missionary journey through New England from 1781 to 1783. This led to the setting-up of a number of “Shaker villages” that were to become the nucleus of the sect. Ann Lee’s message about the value of hard work, meekness and simple living went down well with the Yankees in their newly freed states, but many were not so happy about the idea of enforced celibacy and this led to physical attacks on Shaker worshippers.

Ann Lee and her husband both died in 1784, but the movement was then led by James Whittaker, who was followed by Joseph Meacham. Whittaker stressed the need for communal ownership of property and Meacham developed the blueprint for gathering Shakers into communal villages. He was joined in the leadership by Lucy Wright, and this established a pattern within the villages of a male leader or official being matched by a female one.

There were originally eleven villages in the New England states, and the movement later spread westwards into Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. 

Shaker communities

Shakers were allowed to marry but could not have sexual relationships. They therefore lived in separate dormitory-like buildings and children were raised in their own groups rather than directly by their parents.

Although new recruits to the movement would have brought their children with them, no further babies were born. Shakers therefore adopted orphans from outside their communities, and this no doubt solved many problems for non-Shaker women who bore children out of wedlock.

Shaker communities were founded on hard work and sharing various labours, but they did not believe in drudgery for its own sake. Shakers were responsible for producing several labour-saving devices, including the circular saw and a washing machine.

They traded extensively with the outside world, becoming known not only for the quality of their work but for their honesty in business dealings. Shakers became particularly well known for their furniture, which was basic in design but well-made and comfortable. Many pieces have survived to the present day.

By removing the burden of child-bearing from their women, the latter were able to play a full part in the life of their community to the extent that the sexes were regarded as equal in all material respects. It was true that certain tasks were regarded as men’s work and others as women’s work, but this did not mean that men’s tasks, such as blacksmithing and cabinet-making, were seen as being more important than the women’s tasks of cooking and cleaning. They were different in kind, not in status.

This attitude to gender roles and the importance of dual leadership were grounded in the Shakers’ theological view that God was both male and female and all creation was based on that duality. Ann Lee, who was revered as “Mother Ann” was the female counterpart to the male Jesus. 

The “shaking” of the Shakers continued to be an important feature of their worship meetings, in which the sober behaviour of the people in their day-to-day activities was replaced by dancing and shouting. However, at times during the 19^th century the Shakers adopted a less exuberant form of worship, with choreographed dance movements and songs that were sung unaccompanied. They allowed non-Shaker visitors into these more restrained Sabbath meetings and drew large crowds. 

The decline of the Shakers

The Shaker movement was not attuned to modern times and it eventually faded away, starting from the late 19^th century. The ban on sexual intercourse not only made it impossible for Shakers to maintain their numbers unless they adopted orphans, but it also made their way of life less attractive to those orphans when they grew up and, to be blunt, realised what they were missing. Many of them left the villages at the first opportunity. The Shaker lifestyle was in any case unappealing to most outsiders and recruitment became increasingly rare.

There is, however, one Shaker village still in existence. This is Sabbathday Lake in Maine, where the last few Shakers live out their days and the village acts as a museum of Shakerism. Meanwhile, genuine Shaker furniture attracts very good prices at antiques sales across the world on the rare occasions that it comes on the market.

© John Welford