The True Ham and the False Ham

“Ham: warm, hot, and hence the south; also an Egyptian word meaning “black” … One of the most important facts recorded in Genesis 10 is the foundation of the earliest monarchy in Babylonia by Nimrod the grandson of Ham (6, 8, 10). The primitive Babylonian empire was thus Hamitic, and of a cognate race with the primitive inhabitants of Arabia and of Ethiopia. (See ACCAD.)”

Easton, M.G., “Easton’s Bible Dictionary” article: Ham

It is important to note that Ham, the father of Mizraim was the source of many of the most important nations of the post flood world. The first nation-builder after the Flood was Nimrod, the son of Cush, the grandson of Ham. The first significant nations Babylon, Accad, Erech, Calneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen were established by this son of black Cush Genesis 10.12. The people who are acknowledged to be black when they are allegedly being cursed in Genesis 9, become, in the minds of the historians, not black in Genesis 10 when they are revealed to be the source of the post flood kingdoms which were the fountainhead of the Greeks and Romans.

“One of the most prominent facts alleged in Gen 10 is the foundation of the earliest monarchy by the grandson of Ham in Babylonia. “Cush [the eldest son of Ham] begat Nimrod the beginning of whose kingdom was Babel [Babylon], and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” (vers. 6, 8, 10). Here we have a primitive Babylonian empire distinctly declared to have been Hamitic through Cush. For the complete vindication of this statement of Genesis from the opposite statements of Bunsen, Niebuhr, Heeren, and others, we must refer the reader to Rawlisson’s (sic) Five great Monarchies, vol. 1, chap. 3, compared with his Historical Evidences, etc. (Bampton Lectures), p. 18, 68, 355-357. The idea of an “Asiatic Cush” was declared by Bunsen to be “an imagination of interpreters, the child of despair” (Phil. of Univ. History, 1, 191). But in 1858, Sir H. Rawlinson, having obtained a number of Babylonian documents more ancient than any previously discovered, was able to declare authoritatively that the early inhabitants of South Babylonia were of a cognate race with the primitive colonists both of Arabia and of the African Ethiopia (Rawlinson’s Herodotus, 1, 442). He found their vocabulary to be undoubtedly Cushite or Ethiopian, belonging to that stock of tongues which in the sequel were everywhere more or less mixed up with the Shemitic languages, but of which we have the purest modern specimens in the Mahra of southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia (ibid., note 9). He found, also, that the traditions both of Babylon and Assyria pointed to a connection in very early times between Ethiopia, Southern Arabia, and the cities on the lower Euphrates.

(from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) Article: Ham

Historians and anthropologists refute the black origin of the post flood nations by making the Hamites into a new fictitious race who are the source of all black achievement in ancient times, yet are not of the black race. Of course, this requires calling jet-black people whites, and whitening others who today would be subject to all the social and economic limitations of blackness in the USA. It is of this fictitious race, not the biblical Hamites, to which the quotation from Dr. Diop below refers.

“What we cannot understand however, is how it has been possible to make a white race of Kemit: Hamite, black, ebony, etc. (even in Egyptian). Obviously, according to the needs of the cause, Ham is cursed, blackened, and made into the ancestor of the Negroes. This is what happens whenever one refers to contemporary social relations.

“On the other hand, he is whitened whenever one seeks the origin of civilization, because there he is inhabiting the first civilized country in the world. So, the idea of Eastern and Western Hamites [a group of Caucasians originally from northern Africa] is conceived—nothing more than a convenient invention to deprive Blacks of the moral advantage of Egyptian civilization and of other African civilizations, as we shall see. Figure 2 enables us to perceive the biased nature of these theories.

“It is impossible to link the notion of Hamite, as we labor to understand it in official textbooks, with the slightest historical, geographical, linguistic, or ethnic reality. No specialist is able to pinpoint the birthplace of the Hamites (scientifically speaking), the language they spoke, the migratory route they followed, the countries they settled, or the form of civilization they may have left. On the contrary, all the experts agree that this term has no serious content, and yet not one of them fails to use it as a kind of master-key to explain the slightest evidence of civilization in Black Africa.”

Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origins of Civilization , Myth or Reality. Trans. by Mercer Cook, Lawrence Hill Books 1974 pg. 9

The ethnicity of the Mizraim, the father of the Egyptians, points backwards to the race of Ham.

“The Egyptians were of Nigritian origin; like modern Nigritians, the only orientals [Orientals: a word used by historians to confuse the issue regarding the blackness of people in Africa and Asia-rw] respectful of women. There was no harem system of seclusion; the wife was “lady of the house.” Their kindness to Israel, even during the latter’s bondservice, was probably the reason for their being admitted into the congregation in the third generation [Deut. 23:3-8]. An Arab or Semitic element of race and language is added to the Nigritian in forming the Egyptian people and their tongue. The language of the later dynasties appears in the demotic or enchorial writing, the connecting link between the ancient language and the present Coptic or Christian Egyptian”

“The Egyptians considered themselves and the Negroes, the red and the black races, as of one stock, children of the god Horus; and the Shemites and Europeans, the yellow and the white, as of another stock, children of the goddess Pesht.”

(from Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft article: Egypt

“Lepsius reaches the formal, major conclusion that the perfect Egyptian is Negritian. In other words, his bone structure is Negritic and that is why anthropologists say little about the osteology of the Egyptian.”

(from Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft article: Egypt

Mizraim, father of the Egyptians, was the brother of Cush. Cush is universally recognized as the father of the Ethiopians. Cush is often translated Ethiopia in the bible. Cush is the father of Nimrod, who in Asia became the father of modern nations. Mizraim was the uncle of Nimrod. Mizraim was a member of a black family, a family that functioned as a unit throughout the Old Testament.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s