How Antebellum Christians Justified Slavery

[ProfessorPlum]

34. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic

I'm an atheist now, and this particular bit of church tradition was never taught at my church growing up. But the curse of Ham and Ham being the father of black people (just as Ishmael is traditionally the father of Arabs) is an ancient tradition in Christianity, super useful for racists, slavers, and bigots. As you imply, the war in Rwanda used the curse of Ham to really get the neighbor-killing going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

The Curse of Ham refers to the curse upon Canaan, Ham's son, that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah. The curse occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham, the father of Canaan

The story's original purpose may have been to justify the subjection of the Canaanite people to the Israelites,[3] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery.

I'd never heard of the mark of Cain being used in this way, but sure enough there it is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

At some point after the start of the slave trade in the United States, many[citation needed] Protestant denominations began teaching the belief that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone, although early descriptions of Romani as "descendants of Cain" written by Franciscan monk Symon Semeonis suggest that this belief had existed for some time. Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin