nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
ScarsOrScabs wrote:And anyway, where in the article does it state the guy that got beat up was either dressing
Are you blind as well?
White America Has Lost Its Mind
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by nat turner,
- Start date
- 5,409
- 923
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2004
My issue with this is that I could just as easily find and article that is essentially based on opinion and discussing how black people CAN be racist. You posted an article from a website which, on its front page, discusses "Justin Bieber's next step in world domination."
I find it interesting that earlier you referred to a dictionary definition of "inherent" in order to attempt to prove your point in regards to the differences between racism and prejudice, but refuse to refer to a dictionary for the definition of racism, instead you choose something that is convenient to you because it may be what you were taught or just want you've chosen to believe.
racism
rac·ism
noun \ˈr
I find it interesting that earlier you referred to a dictionary definition of "inherent" in order to attempt to prove your point in regards to the differences between racism and prejudice, but refuse to refer to a dictionary for the definition of racism, instead you choose something that is convenient to you because it may be what you were taught or just want you've chosen to believe.
racism
rac·ism
noun \ˈr
- 732
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
I don't know which is worse, Nat Turner or the people arguing with him over this. Iron Man said it best.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by Nat Turner
ScarsOrScabs wrote:And anyway, where in the article does it state the guy that got beat up was either dressing
Are you blind as well?
For the record, this isn't a picture of the guy that got beat up. The first time I saw the story it was a picture of a random regular white guy with headphones on.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Sorry I couldn't find a picture of a black troll....google images is racist.
- 5,258
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
well, stop feeding him then
- 278
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2004
- 88,441
- 47,544
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Sorry I couldn't find a picture of a black troll....google images is racist.
- 11,939
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
Originally Posted by NobleKane
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Sorry I couldn't find a picture of a black troll....google images is racist.
- 8,406
- 41
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril
well, stop feeding him then
he gets hungry
real hungry
- 510
- 211
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
don't make me quad post this...
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
AntonLaVey wrote:
Sorry I couldn't find a picture of a black troll....google images is racist.
People here on Nike talk call people "trolls", when they simply do not agree with them.
I don't find that to be an insult here on this thread, then perhaps anywhere else on Nike talk.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
[h1]Curse of Ham[/h1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ov_noah.jpg/200px-Ksenophontov_noah.jpg[/img]
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Noah damning Ham, 19th century painting by Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov
The Curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to a story in the Book of Genesis 9:20-27 in which Ham's father Noah places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, after Ham "saw his father's nakedness" because of drunkenness in Noah's tent.
Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Canaan" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.[sup][1][/sup]
The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of Black African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham.[sup][2][/sup][sup][3][/sup] They were often called Hamites and were believed to have descended through Canaan or his older brothers. Proponents of slavery in the US increasingly invoked the 'curse of Ham' in the US during the 19th century, as a response to the growing abolitionist movement.[sup][4][/sup]
[table][tr][td]
[h2]Contents[/h2][hide]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...urses-Ham.jpg/220px-Noah-Curses-Ham.jpg[/img]
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Noah curses Ham by Gustave Dore
The story of the "curse of Ham" is told in Genesis 9:20-27, set soon after the flood:
[sup]20[/sup]And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: [sup]21[/sup] And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. [sup]22[/sup] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. [sup]23[/sup] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. [sup]24[/sup] And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. [sup]25[/sup] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. [sup]26[/sup] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. [sup]27[/sup] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (KJV)
Ham is not directly cursed for his actions; instead the curse falls upon his youngest son Canaan. The curse seems unduly severe for merely observing Noah unclothed. An explanation sometimes offered notes that the phrase "exposing or uncovering nakedness" is used several times elsewhere in the Pentateuch as a euphemism for sexual relations: the story may therefore be obliquely describing Canaan's origin as the result of an incestuous relationship between Ham and Noah's wife (his own mother); or it may be describing Ham sodomising his father, although in that case it is less obvious why the curse should fall on Canaan.
The story describes Yahweh ("the Lord" in older English translations) as "God of Shem", but not of Japhet. The story also says that while Shem is to be "blessed", only Japhet is to be "enlarged", and that he shall "dwell in the tents of Shem." These factors support a composition date in the post-Exilic period of Jewish history, i.e., after 539 BCE,[sup][5][/sup] when the Japhetic (i.e., descended from Iapetos) Persians took over the Semitic Babylonian empire and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem: thus after 539 Japhet/Persia was "enlarged" and "dwelt in the tents of Shem", while the Yahweh-worshiping Jews returned to their homeland with the national project of subjugating the "Canaanites", those who had remained in the land of Judah but did not share the same worship.
[h2][edit] Interpretations[/h2][h3][edit] Early Jewish interpretations[/h3]
Although the story in Genesis is actually about Canaan, and although the Torah assigns no racial characteristics or rankings to Ham, early Jewish writers turned the focus of their attention from Canaan to Ham and interpreted the Biblical narrative in a racial way. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b states: "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth], and Ham was smitten in his skin." {Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b} The nature of Ham's "smitten" skin is unexplained, but later commentaries described this as a darkening of skin. A later note to the text states that the "smitten" skin referred to the blackness of descendants, and a later comment by rabbis in the Bere**** Rabbah asserts that Ham himself emerged from the ark black-skinned.[sup][6][/sup][sup][7][/sup] The Zohar states that Ham's son Canaan "darkened the faces of mankind".[sup][8][/sup]
Rashi, the medieval Jewish commentator on Torah, explains the harshness of the curse: "Some say Cham saw his father naked and either sodomized or castrated him. His thought was "Perhaps my father's drunkenness will lead to intercourse with our mother and I will have to share the inheritance of the world with another brother! I will prevent this by taking his manhood from him! When Noah awoke, and he realized what Cham had done, he said, "Because you prevented me from having a fourth son, your fourth son, Canaan, shall forever be a slave to his brothers, who showed respect to me!"
Another notable medieval Jewish commentator on Torah, Abraham ibn Ezra, disagrees with Rashi: "And the meaning of '[Cursed be Canaan, he will be a slave] unto his brothers' is to Cush, Egypt, and Put [only], for they are his father's [other] sons. And there are those who say that the Cushim [black skinned people] are slaves because Noah cursed Ham [the father of Cush], but they forget that the first king after the flood [Nimrod] was a descendant of Cush, and so it is written, 'And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylonia.'[sup][9][/sup]" I.e. since Nimrod was descended from Cush, and Nimrod was king, this proves the Cu****es, i.e. black skinned people, cannot be under Canaan's curse of slavery.
[h4][edit] Jubilees[/h4]
The account given in the Book of Jubilees, now officially considered canonical only by Ethiopian Jews and Christians, mentions Canaan being cursed twice. Firstly in Jub. 7:7-13, Noah curses him for the actions of his father Ham, in language very similar to that found in Genesis, adding only the detail that Ham was so displeased in response, that he departed from his father and brothers and built a city at the foot of Mount Ararat named Ne'elatama'uk after his wife.
Canaan is cursed a second time in Jub. 10:29-34 — this time for his own action, of being the first to violate the agreed land division and refusing to travel to his allotted land "west of the sea", and for instead settling in territory (Lebanon) that was allotted to the sons of Shem, specifically to Arpachshad. In this way, the Israelite conquest of Canaan is attributed not only to the promise made by YHWH to Abraham, a descendant of Arpachshad, but also to this curse.
[h3][edit] Early and Early Modern Christian interpretations[/h3]
Many pre-modern Christian sources discuss the curse of Ham in connection with race and slavery:
Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ov_noah.jpg/200px-Ksenophontov_noah.jpg[/img]
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Noah damning Ham, 19th century painting by Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov
The Curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to a story in the Book of Genesis 9:20-27 in which Ham's father Noah places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, after Ham "saw his father's nakedness" because of drunkenness in Noah's tent.
Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Canaan" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.[sup][1][/sup]
The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of Black African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham.[sup][2][/sup][sup][3][/sup] They were often called Hamites and were believed to have descended through Canaan or his older brothers. Proponents of slavery in the US increasingly invoked the 'curse of Ham' in the US during the 19th century, as a response to the growing abolitionist movement.[sup][4][/sup]
[table][tr][td]
[h2]Contents[/h2][hide]
- 1 In the Hebrew Bible
- 2 Interpretations
- 2.1 Early Jewish interpretations
- 2.1.1 Jubilees
- 2.2 Early and Early Modern Christian interpretations
- 2.3 Pre-modern European interpretations
- 2.4 In the Latter-day Saint Movement
- 2.5 Islamic interpretations
- 2.1 Early Jewish interpretations
- 3 See also
- 4 References
- 5 Further reading
- 6 External links
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...urses-Ham.jpg/220px-Noah-Curses-Ham.jpg[/img]
[img]http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/img]
Noah curses Ham by Gustave Dore
The story of the "curse of Ham" is told in Genesis 9:20-27, set soon after the flood:
[sup]20[/sup]And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: [sup]21[/sup] And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. [sup]22[/sup] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. [sup]23[/sup] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. [sup]24[/sup] And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. [sup]25[/sup] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. [sup]26[/sup] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. [sup]27[/sup] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (KJV)
Ham is not directly cursed for his actions; instead the curse falls upon his youngest son Canaan. The curse seems unduly severe for merely observing Noah unclothed. An explanation sometimes offered notes that the phrase "exposing or uncovering nakedness" is used several times elsewhere in the Pentateuch as a euphemism for sexual relations: the story may therefore be obliquely describing Canaan's origin as the result of an incestuous relationship between Ham and Noah's wife (his own mother); or it may be describing Ham sodomising his father, although in that case it is less obvious why the curse should fall on Canaan.
The story describes Yahweh ("the Lord" in older English translations) as "God of Shem", but not of Japhet. The story also says that while Shem is to be "blessed", only Japhet is to be "enlarged", and that he shall "dwell in the tents of Shem." These factors support a composition date in the post-Exilic period of Jewish history, i.e., after 539 BCE,[sup][5][/sup] when the Japhetic (i.e., descended from Iapetos) Persians took over the Semitic Babylonian empire and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem: thus after 539 Japhet/Persia was "enlarged" and "dwelt in the tents of Shem", while the Yahweh-worshiping Jews returned to their homeland with the national project of subjugating the "Canaanites", those who had remained in the land of Judah but did not share the same worship.
[h2][edit] Interpretations[/h2][h3][edit] Early Jewish interpretations[/h3]
Although the story in Genesis is actually about Canaan, and although the Torah assigns no racial characteristics or rankings to Ham, early Jewish writers turned the focus of their attention from Canaan to Ham and interpreted the Biblical narrative in a racial way. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b states: "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth], and Ham was smitten in his skin." {Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b} The nature of Ham's "smitten" skin is unexplained, but later commentaries described this as a darkening of skin. A later note to the text states that the "smitten" skin referred to the blackness of descendants, and a later comment by rabbis in the Bere**** Rabbah asserts that Ham himself emerged from the ark black-skinned.[sup][6][/sup][sup][7][/sup] The Zohar states that Ham's son Canaan "darkened the faces of mankind".[sup][8][/sup]
Rashi, the medieval Jewish commentator on Torah, explains the harshness of the curse: "Some say Cham saw his father naked and either sodomized or castrated him. His thought was "Perhaps my father's drunkenness will lead to intercourse with our mother and I will have to share the inheritance of the world with another brother! I will prevent this by taking his manhood from him! When Noah awoke, and he realized what Cham had done, he said, "Because you prevented me from having a fourth son, your fourth son, Canaan, shall forever be a slave to his brothers, who showed respect to me!"
Another notable medieval Jewish commentator on Torah, Abraham ibn Ezra, disagrees with Rashi: "And the meaning of '[Cursed be Canaan, he will be a slave] unto his brothers' is to Cush, Egypt, and Put [only], for they are his father's [other] sons. And there are those who say that the Cushim [black skinned people] are slaves because Noah cursed Ham [the father of Cush], but they forget that the first king after the flood [Nimrod] was a descendant of Cush, and so it is written, 'And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylonia.'[sup][9][/sup]" I.e. since Nimrod was descended from Cush, and Nimrod was king, this proves the Cu****es, i.e. black skinned people, cannot be under Canaan's curse of slavery.
[h4][edit] Jubilees[/h4]
The account given in the Book of Jubilees, now officially considered canonical only by Ethiopian Jews and Christians, mentions Canaan being cursed twice. Firstly in Jub. 7:7-13, Noah curses him for the actions of his father Ham, in language very similar to that found in Genesis, adding only the detail that Ham was so displeased in response, that he departed from his father and brothers and built a city at the foot of Mount Ararat named Ne'elatama'uk after his wife.
Canaan is cursed a second time in Jub. 10:29-34 — this time for his own action, of being the first to violate the agreed land division and refusing to travel to his allotted land "west of the sea", and for instead settling in territory (Lebanon) that was allotted to the sons of Shem, specifically to Arpachshad. In this way, the Israelite conquest of Canaan is attributed not only to the promise made by YHWH to Abraham, a descendant of Arpachshad, but also to this curse.
[h3][edit] Early and Early Modern Christian interpretations[/h3]
Many pre-modern Christian sources discuss the curse of Ham in connection with race and slavery:
Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].
- 8,406
- 41
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
- 3,260
- 103
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
China is next
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49
Atleast my mans stopped beating around the Bush.
- 2,238
- 12
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2000
- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
Nat Turner is officially my favorite NTer.
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49
Atleast my mans stopped beating around the Bush.
You try too hard. I've stated that everyone has a right to their prejudices. Note, I did not suggest that she is a racist. Black people cannot be racists.
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Manglor,
I find it encouraging that you are willing to try and call me out. Why don't you try and take me on in debate of this subject, instead of popping in, attacking, piggy backing on others.
Are you man enough to stand alone?
I know that I am, then have throughout this very thread. I think that you are a coward who likes to pot shot.
Man up, stand on your own two feet.
I find it encouraging that you are willing to try and call me out. Why don't you try and take me on in debate of this subject, instead of popping in, attacking, piggy backing on others.
Are you man enough to stand alone?
I know that I am, then have throughout this very thread. I think that you are a coward who likes to pot shot.
Man up, stand on your own two feet.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by Nat Turner
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49
Atleast my mans stopped beating around the Bush.
You try too hard. I've stated that everyone has a right to their prejudices. Note, I did not suggest that she is a racist. Black people cannot be racists.
- 11,939
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
Yo Roy Halladay just threw a no-hitter!!!
