Creationism and inferior races

[Omniskeptical]

There is no racism in that sense in the bible. Racism was invented relatively recently by Christians wanting to rationalise trading and keeping slaves, and they used the Bible, especially the curse of Ham, to show that there were (at least) two races, and it was only right and proper that the white man should keep the black man as a slave.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/ar...rationale.html
http://www.darronsmith.com/2012/11/u...terpretations/

Yeah, sure.

[Outis]

Yeah, sure.

Pixie is quite correct. While I am not a literalist (and not a Christian at all), a literalist interpretation of the Bible would demonstrate that any descendants of Cain would have perished in the flood.

[Omniskeptical]

Pixie is quite correct. While I am not a literalist (and not a Christian at all), a literalist interpretation of the Bible would demonstrate that any descendants of Cain would have perished in the flood.

Where did Japeth or Ham come from then?

[Outis]

Where did Japeth or Ham come from then?

Those are children of Noah, not descendants of Cain, and according to the narrative were on the ark with their faither and their brother Shem.

An interesting point to note here. There was a separate "Curse of Ham", cited in Protestant and Mormon doctrine. But one of Ham's sons was also mentioned in that curse. What was the name of Ham's son?

[Omniskeptical]

Those are children of Noah, not descendants of Cain, and according to the narrative were on the ark with their faither and their brother Shem.

An interesting point to note here. There was a separate "Curse of Ham", cited in Protestant and Mormon doctrine. But one of Ham's sons was also mentioned in that curse. What was the name of Ham's son?

Canaan was. Evidently misbehavior which might be easier to understand in the hebrew, had happened. Noah didn't take nicely to Ham's son after whatever misdeed, and condemned him thoroughly. Now the bible does seem to say Cain was not a good farmer, but it doesn't mention any advantages Blacks might have in a cold climate, for example.

And I don't believe black people are good farmers without serious technological help.

[Outis]

Canaan was. Evidently misbehavior which might be easier to understand in the hebrew, had happened. Noah didn't take nicely to Ham's son after whatever misdeed, and condemned him thoroughly.

The language of the passage is euphemistic, but indicates that Ham may have either sexually assaulted or sexually injured Noah. Scholars who identify this passage as an etiological myth see this as a post-dated justification for the traditional hatred between the Hebrews and Canaanites. However, the relevant interpretation here is that the idea that sub-saharan Africans were "descendants of Ham" did not develop until the slave trade became economically viable, and the concept was used to morally justify slavery.

[Outis]

And I don't believe black people are good farmers without serious technological help.

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic at hand. I know several farmers: their skin color has nothing to do with their abilities to farm, regardless of technology available.

[Darth Executor]

There is no racism in that sense in the bible.

There is no racism endorsed, but it certainly existed (not explicitly stated but Cushites were black).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...12&version=NIV

Racism was invented relatively recently by Christians wanting to rationalise trading and keeping slaves,

Racism is an instinct (or more specifically, disliking people who aren't like you is an instinct) in most people and wasn't invented by anyone. Views of ethnic superiority can be traced at least as far back as the Greeks. When there wasn't much contact with blacks or Asians Europeans were racist to each other. Africa is full of tribes of people who are genetically distinct (some are closer to Europeans than to each other) and hate/kill each other, which is no different from ethnic strife elsewhere. Historically, slave traders have been quite egalitarian and globalist, much closer in character to metropolitan liberals than xenophobic conservatives, and enslaved white people too when they could. Meanwhile many, if not most abolitionists were racists who just didn't think that blacks being inferior meant they had to be treated like animals. It's important not to conflate racism with slavery, the relationship between the two isn't particularly proportional.

[The Pixie]

There is no racism endorsed, but it certainly existed (not explicitly stated but Cushites were black).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...12&version=NIV

Was the dislike of Moses' wife specifically because she was black? I see nothing to suggest that. More likely, I would guess, they did not like her because she was not Hebrew.

Racism is an instinct (or more specifically, disliking people who aren't like you is an instinct) in most people and wasn't invented by anyone.

Exactly. Disliking people outside your group is an instinct.

Racism is claiming one group of people is an inferior race to what you claim is your own race.

The Cushites were considered another tribe - and were traditionally thought to be descended from Noah via Ham and Cush, so that would make them the same race. Originally, no one linked the Cushites to the curse of Ham, as this text by Josephus indicates:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html
The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus and the mountains of Libanus, seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts; and as far as the ocean; and keeping it as their own. Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered: yet a few there are which have kept their denominations intire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves, and by all men in Asia, called Chusites.

The idea that the Cushites were born to slavery was in invention of slavers just a few centuries ago.

Views of ethnic superiority can be traced at least as far back as the Greeks. When there wasn't much contact with blacks or Asians Europeans were racist to each other. Africa is full of tribes of people who are genetically distinct (some are closer to Europeans than to each other) and hate/kill each other, which is no different from ethnic strife elsewhere.

This is why I said "in that sense" in my post.

Historically, slave traders have been quite egalitarian and globalist, much closer in character to metropolitan liberals than xenophobic conservatives, and enslaved white people too when they could.

When are you talking about? Can you give a link? Please do include something that indicates their political leanings.

I would guess slave traders are in it for the money, and political leaning was not important. At least until abolition was proposed.

Meanwhile many, if not most abolitionists were racists who just didn't think that blacks being inferior meant they had to be treated like animals. It's important not to conflate racism with slavery, the relationship between the two isn't particularly proportional.

Sure, slavery dates back much much longer than racism (again, in this sense). That does not mean racism was not invented to rationalise the specific slavery of African people in America. Abolitionists had been raised to believe white men and black men were two different races, so yes, evben they considered the white man to be superior. It took a book by a certain Englishman to make the case for a single race of man before that attitude started to change.

[rogue06]

There is no racism in that sense in the bible. Racism was invented relatively recently by Christians wanting to rationalise trading and keeping slaves, and they used the Bible, especially the curse of Ham, to show that there were (at least) two races, and it was only right and proper that the white man should keep the black man as a slave.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/ar...rationale.html
http://www.darronsmith.com/2012/11/u...terpretations/

Racism is a worldwide phenomena that has been around long before the European slave trade began. China treats Africans (many who came as students on scholarships) in their country very poorly rounding up large numbers of them before the Beijing Olympics because they assumed many if not most of them are criminals -- and that wasn't because Europeans once used it to rationalize slavery. Japan's discrimination against the Ainu had nothing to do with attempts to justify slavery but was based upon the belief/desire that the nation has but one race.

[The Pixie]

Again, that is why I qualified it as "no racism in that sense".

[Roy]

Racism is an instinct (or more specifically, disliking people who aren't like you is an instinct) in most people and wasn't invented by anyone.

Dislike and distrust is only a subset of racism. There is a difference between a person holding the view that 'I wouldn't want to live next door to an [ethnic] or let my daughter marry one', which could be instinctive, and one holding the view that 'all [ethnics] are stupid, lazy and incompetent, which is unlikely to be instinctive. The distinction is in whether one sees those of a different race as being different, or as being inferior.

Roy

[rogue06]

Dislike and distrust is only a subset of racism. There is a difference between a person holding the view that 'I wouldn't want to live next door to an [ethnic] or let my daughter marry one', which could be instinctive, and one holding the view that 'all [ethnics] are stupid, lazy and incompetent, which is unlikely to be instinctive. The distinction is in whether one sees those of a different race as being different, or as being inferior.

Roy

Recently racism was defined as think that another race was inferior whereas prejudice was more or less thinking they were different but in the last few years these boundaries have blurred where the distinction between the terms is no longer as distinct.