Curse of Ham

Author’s Note: This post talks about some very racist ideas. We here at Spirituality & Religious Studies DO NOT agree with ANY racist rhetoric at all, EVER! If this post triggers you, please move on to 1 of our other posts. Thank you.

In the Book of Genesis, the curse of Ham is described as a curse that was imposed upon Ham’s son, Canaan, by the patriarch Noah. It happens in the context of Noah’s drunkenness & it’s provoked by a “shameful” act that was perpetrated by Noah’s son, Ham, who “saw the nakedness of his father.”

The exact reason for Ham’s transgressions & the reason Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned has been debated for over 2,000 years.

The story’s original purpose may have been to justify the biblical subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites, or a land claim to a portion of the New Kingdom of Egypt, which ruled Canaan in the late Bronze Age.

In later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Jews, Christians, & Muslims as an explanation for black skin. As well as a justification for the enslavement of black people. Many Christians, Muslims, & Jews now disagree with such interpretations. Because in the biblical text, Ham himself isn’t cursed. Race or skin color isn’t even mentioned in the text at all, anywhere.

The idea of this curse has its beginnings in Genesis 9:20-27. The story goes:

Noah began to be a farmer. He planted a vineyard. He drank some of the wine that the vineyard produced & enjoyed the drink a little too much. Noah was naked in his tent. Ham (the dad of Canaan) saw Noah’s nakedness. Ham told his 2 brothers. Shem & Jepheth took a garment & put the garment on both their shoulders & covered Noah’s nakedness, while they walked backwards. They kept their faces turned away from Noah so they didn’t see him naked.

Noah woke up from his drunken stupor. He knew what Ham had done. “Cursed be Canaan. A servant of servants will be to his brothers. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. Canaan will be his servant. God will enlarge Japheth. He’ll live in the tents of Shem. Canaan will be his servant,” Noah said. (Genesis 9:20-27)

The objection of the story may have been to justify the subject status of the Canaanites (the descendants of Ham) to the Israelites (the descendants of Shem). The narrative of the curse is replete with difficulties. It’s uncertain what the exact nature of Ham’s offense is.

In verse 25 of the Genesis story, Noah refers to Shem & Japheth as the “brethren” of Canaan. However, in verse 18, they’re identified as his uncles.

The Table of Nations introduces Canaan & Mizraim (Egypt) among the sons of Ham. The Table of Nations is a genealogy of the sons of Noah & their dispersion into many lands after the Flood. In the Psalms, Egypt is identified with Ham.

A land claim on Canaan, which fell under the rule of the New Kingdom of Egypt in the late Bronze Age, has been suggested as a motive for the curse on Canaan & the association with Ham via Ancient Egypt’s rule over Canaan.

It’s important to realize that the curse was placed/made by Noah, not by God. The curse of Ham (& his descendants) wasn’t confirmed by God. Because the text would mention that, or at least you’d think it would if God had confirmed it. And if God had actually confirmed the curse, then why was the “promised land” called Canaan?

A pesher (interpretation) of the Book of Genesis found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, explains that since Ham was already blessed by God, it made Noah’s curse null & void (Genesis 9:1).

The Book of Jubilees also tells the tale. Jubilees gives a bit more info that Ham had assigned to Canaan a land west of the Nile. All of Noah’s sons agreed to invoke a curse on anyone who tries to seize land that wasn’t assigned to them. Well, Canaan violates this agreement & instead chooses to squat in the land set forth to Shem & his descendants. So Canaan brought on himself the full force of this second curse.

In the past, some groups have claimed that the curse of Ham was a biblical justification for imposing slavery & racial discrimination.

In the 15th century, Dominican Friar Annius of Viterbo invoked Ham’s curse to explain the differences between Europeans & Africans in his writings. Annius doubled down on the racism. He claimed that due to the curse imposed on black people, they would inevitably remain permanently subjugated by Arabs & other Muslims.

Similarly, the Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich said in her visions that she discovered that black people are, in fact, descendants of Ham.

In 1835, Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon faith) published a work called the Book of Abraham. Get ready, it’s going to be a very bumpy & cringy ride. This is your trigger warning.

This “work” states that the Pharaoh was a descendant of Ham & the Canaanites. Pharaoh ruled justly & was blessed with wisdom, but was barred from getting into the priesthood because of the curse on Ham. According to the Book of Abraham, ALL Egyptians descended from the Canaanite lineage.

The Book of Abraham was eventually made into Scripture by the Mormon Church. And it is still in active use today. This passage is the only 1 found in any Mormon scripture that bars a particular “lineage” of people from holding the priesthood.

While there’s nothing in the Book of Abraham that explicitly states that Noah’s curse was the same curse that is mentioned in the Bible, or that the Egyptians were related to other black Africans. Some leaders later used the verses of this text as justification for the church policy with regard to the priesthood ban.

The 2002 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants Student Manual pointed to Abraham 1:21-27 as the reason why highly melaninated friends of the male gender weren’t given the priesthood until 1978. That’s 148 years, y’all. Really? That’s almost 150 years, guys. We can’t. We just can’t. And here’s the kicker: they also said that those who tried to abolish slavery were going against the decrees of God.

Make a one-time donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a monthly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a yearly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Repubblica.it: La tela di Xi per la pace in Iran: europei, russi e arabi a Pechino. La Cina attacca gli Usa

Colloqui con Pedro Sánchez, Lavrov e il principe emiratino. Il presidente invoca il rispetto dell’ordine internazionale: “No alla legge della giungla”

Xi’s canvas for peace in Iran: Europeans, Russians and Arabs in Beijing. China attacks the US.

Meetings with Pedro Sánchez, Lavrov, and the Emirati prince. The president invokes respect for the international order: “No to the law of the jungle.”

#Europeans #Russians #Arabs #Beijing #China #PedroSánchez #Lavrov #Emirati

https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2026/04/14/news/cina_iran_guerra_usa_xi_sanchez-425282886/

#BrownSkin #BrownArabs #Arabs #Persians

Brown Skin, Arabs, Iran, North Africans #ArabSpring2010

#April year 1967.

There is something wrong with the social media #press , the social media posters and comment creators, who constantly fixate on hate of orange #skin color #PeopleWhoHate

Domani: Per questa sconfitta Trump deve ringraziare Netanyahu

Gli Usa si erano illusi che bastasse una spallata per far crollare il regime: niente di più falso, come avevano loro ripetuto più volte arabi del Golfo ed europei. Se deve prendersela con qualcuno, Trump farebbe bene a rivolgersi al premier israeliano che l’ha trascinato in una trappola micidiale. E nel frattempo l’Asia diventa – senza averlo davvero voluto - la chiave della stabilità mondiale futura

For this defeat, Trump must thank Netanyahu.

The US had hoped that a single punch would be enough to bring down the regime: nothing could be further from the truth, as had been repeated many times by Arabs from the Gulf and Europeans. If he wants to take someone to task, Trump would do well to turn to the Israeli prime minister, who has dragged him into a deadly trap. And in the meantime, Asia is becoming – without truly wanting it – the key to the future stability of the world.

#Netanyahu #Arabs #Europeans #Trump #Israeli

https://www.editorialedomani.it/idee/commenti/trump-sconfitta-iran-trattative-deve-ringraziare-netanyahu-b4x6mc9q

MAGA Turncoats

https://sideshowhost.wordpress.com/2026/03/18/maga-turncoats/

The moral compass: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-moral-compass/

#Arabs, #art, #aurianneor, #Cassin, #civilians, #democracy, #dictatorship, #ethics, #extremists, #Gaza, #GenevaConvention, #Hamas, #humanrights, #human, #Iran, #Israel, #Israeli, #Jews, #justice, #Lebanon, #Mariupol, #massacres, #migrants, #military, #morality, #Photomontage, #politics, #religion, #Roosevelt, #Russia, #Syria, #Taiwan, #terrorism, #Ukraine, #UN, #UnitedStates, #universality, #war, #warcrimes, #world

Trump’s War Alliance With Israel Is Reshaping the Middle East. But It Carries Risks.

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/13/us/politics/trumps-war-alliance-with-israel-is-reshaping-the-middle-east-but-it-carries-risks.html

Commodities Over Principles: The Economic Logic Behind The UNSC Vote On Iran

Commodities Over Principles: The Economic Logic Behind The UNSC Vote On Iran

By Andrew Korybko

The lack of any meaningful economic relationship with Iran predetermined that most countries would support any resolution against it if unofficially forced to choose between the Islamic Republic and the Gulf Kingdoms to whom they’re dependent to some degree on energy imports.

The UNSC just adopted a resolution condemning Iran for its attacks against the Gulf Kingdoms, including against civilian and residential areas, after Russia and China abstained just like they abstained from last fall’s resolution on Gaza due to their Arab partners’ support for these two measures. Russia proposed a second draft that its permanent representative said was “aimed at urgently de-escalating the situation… (and is) simple, direct and unequivocal, and intentionally does not name any parties to the conflict.”

The US predictably vetoed it, hence why Russia and China then felt compelled to abstain from the initial draft, but this nevertheless showed that Russia did its best to support Iran at the UNSC. As for the resolution that ultimately passed, it was backed by a whopping 135 countries, which Al Jazeera’s corresponded described as “the largest number of countries ever to cosponsor a Security Council draft resolution.” The reasons for this historic condemnation of Iran are pretty straightforward.

Simply put, most of the world is dependent to some degree on energy imports from the Gulf Kingdoms, while Iran provides pretty much nothing to most of them since few apart from China are willing to defy the US’ secondary sanctions threats by significantly trading with it. They therefore stand to lose much more from the disruption of Gulf Kingdoms’ energy exports caused by Iran’s attacks against them than from the joint US-Israel campaign against Iran that’s devastating the Islamic Republic.

The international community’s lack of any meaningful economic relationship with Iran at the start of the Third Gulf War sharply contrasts with the relationship that they had with Russia at the start of NATO’s proxy war on it through Ukraine that entered its most intense phase four years ago. Back then and still to this day to a large extent, many of them were dependent to some degree on its agricultural, energy, and/or fertilizer exports, ergo why they all in some way defied the US’ secondary sanctions threats.

Even though most of the international community voted to condemn Russia at the UNGA, they all still retained some level of their commodity imports from it, including the EU. They and their US patron did agree to a so-called “price cap” for limiting Russia’s oil profits, but the point is that even they acknowledged that the world could not continue to function if these exports were instantly cut off. The US has since tried to wean everyone off of them, but this is no longer possible amidst the global oil crisis.

In any case, this insight enables one to retrospectively conclude that the World Majority’s defiance of the US’ secondary sanctions threats vis-à-vis maintaining trade with Russia was driven by their self-interests, not by their collective commitment to some nebulous multipolar principle. Likewise, the same goes for why most of them just condemned Iran at the UN by cosponsoring the latest Security Council Resolution, which was also in their interests to do no matter how much it disappointed some multipolar enthusiasts.

At the end of the day, the lack of any meaningful economic relationship with Iran predetermined that the majority of the world would support any resolution against it if unofficially forced to choose between the Islamic Republic and the Gulf Kingdoms to whom they’re dependent to some degree on energy imports. This is the cold reality of International Relations, which is an unpleasant reminder to the well-intentioned activists who want to change the way that the world works that this is a lot easier said than done.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Why Trump’s Iranian Strategic Mistake Is Redrawing The Global Map From Hormuz To Eurasia

Why Trump’s Iranian Strategic Mistake Is Redrawing The Global Map From Hormuz To Eurasia

By Uriel Araujo

Escalation with Iran is generating worldwide consequences. Oil market volatility, regional instability, and Eurasian security concerns beyond the Middle East highlight the broader geopolitical stakes. Iran’s resilience and the risk of prolonged conflict challenge Washington’s objectives. The war may thus prove far more costly than expected.

The past weekend offered, once again, a blunt reminder that the US-Israel war against Iran is not unfolding as many in Washington and Tel Aviv had hoped. Iranian missile and drone strikes have caused casualties inside Israel, while attacks on Gulf facilities and US allies have intensified. Reports of mounting US military casualties are circulating, even as the Pentagon attempts to limit details. Meanwhile, despite American naval deployments, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz continue, reducing tanker transits dramatically and basically keeping global energy markets on edge. Moreover, perhaps most importantly, Iran’s political system has not collapsed. The Islamic Republic stands in fact defiant and fully operational. This has wider consequences, even globally.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to escalate the conflict alongside Israel marked a dramatic departure from the “no more wars” narrative that used to energize his “MAGA” (“Make America Great Again”) political base. I’ve recently argued that entering a large-scale war against Iran could destroy this very political coalition. The core promise of “America First” was, after all, precisely to avoid endless Middle Eastern wars while rebuilding the American economy at home.

In June 2025, I warned that direct US intervention in an Iran-Israel war would likely send oil prices toward $120–$150 per barrel and push American gasoline prices into the politically dangerous $4–$5 per gallon range . Well, on Monday (March 9), Brent crude briefly surged past $119 per barrel, the highest level since June 2022

The spike followed weeks of escalating tensions and fears that the Strait of Hormuz could effectively close completely. At one point, tanker transits dropped from roughly two dozen per day to only a handful, while overall ship traffic through the Strait fell from about one hundred vessels daily to single digits. Prices have since retreated somewhat, hovering around $84–$86 on Tuesday, but the market remains extremely volatile. Energy traders are reacting to every military development, with options markets still betting on scenarios where crude climbs toward $135 or even $150.

Thus, even if oil stabilizes for now, the geopolitical risk premium is here to stay for as long as the conflict continues. Hormuz remains the world’s most sensitive energy chokepoint, and the attacks on Gulf infrastructure have added further uncertainty.

That being said, Trump may still try to extract advantages from the situation. Trump’s foreign policy style often is bluntly “transactional”. One just needs to point out how he has repeatedly attempted to leverage previous US aid to Ukraine in order to obtain political concessions (regarding rare-earth minerals and so on). Similarly, he has also angered the Israeli right with proposals such as his Gaza “development” plan.

In the context of the current war, a similar logic could emerge. Analysts have noted that the conflict is already costing Washington billions of dollars in munitions and logistical support. If the campaign drags on, Trump may seek to “reimburse” the United States by demanding expanded basing rights or economic concessions in the region. The US President, in his typical manner, has already floated the idea of “taking over” the strait.

In other words, if Washington and Tel Aviv were to declare victory, Trump could push for expanded US military bases, control of strategic infrastructure, and privileged access to Iran’s energy sector.

Such an outcome, in this scenario, would carry considerable strategic costs for Israel, naturally. A prolonged US military presence across Iranian territory would shift the regional balance in Washington’s favour. The Jewish state might then win the war (in this scenario) but find itself sharing the geopolitical spoils with its superpower ally: I’ve written before about how Trump was apparently seeking to “recalibrate” the complex US-Israeli relationship.

Be as it may, emerging reports already suggest divergences between Washington and Tel Aviv. Trump in any case already seems eager to limit the war’s duration due to domestic political risks and rising oil prices, while Israeli leaders seem determined to continue until Iranian military capabilities are fully degraded.

The stakes of course go beyond US and regional actors: China, for one thing, is being severely impacted, there being no broad exception for Chinese vessels in the Strait.

Moscow in turn has long regarded its Iranian ally as also a crucial buffer state helping stabilize Russia’s southern strategic arc. If the United States were to gain military access to Iran, the implications would thus be profound enough. American forces could, in such a scenario, position themselves near the Caspian basin, within logistical reach of the Caucasus and Central Asia and much closer to southern Russia. This would amount to further layers of the geopolitical “encirclement” of Russia.

In addition, from an American perspective, a weakened Iran would ripple across Eurasia: accelerating Western influence in the South Caucasus, also potentially pushing Central Asian states toward greater Western cooperation

A decisive US-Israeli victory, however, is very far from assured. Iran’s asymmetric capabilities (missiles, maritime disruption) remain potent, and prolonged Hormuz instability could inflict massive economic costs globally, thereby turning tactical wins into strategic failures.

And yet, there may be no easy exit, for the Rubicon has already been crossed, so to speak. The ongoing war may very well be Trump’s greatest strategic mistake (perhaps motivated by Israeli pressures, including blackmail – a possibility that even political scientist John Mearsheimer concedes). The consequences, however, should be global and long-lasting, with unpredictable enough outcomes.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.