The rabbi's argument had some weak points. He cops out on Polite's point about curses, saying curses can be lifted. But in fact there is no "curse of Ham" OR "curse on black people" in the writings of Moses. The so-called "curse" was something added by later Jewish, Arab and European commentators. Polite should have hit him with the various rabinnic commentary bashing blacks. But time and time again he misses this opportunity, showing that Polite was not prepared. Shrewdly, as a fall back, the rabbi says he has to check with higher authority for answers from his teachers. At least he realizes that he may be out of his depth on some questions.
Polite says "black people must be cursed" because they are catching hell via slavery, police brutality etc etc. But these conditions have noting to do with any "curse" of God. Polite seems confused on this point, and does not seem to grasp some basic facts about history. Black folk are only one of many groups catching hell in human history. We have caught in SOME respects, the most hell, but any people that are technologically or organizationally weak for their era of time, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, will be exploited by people who are organizationally and technologically stronger. Doesn't matter what race- the stronger will dominate. So when the Egyptians were organizationally and technologically stronger, they dominated their particular zone for a certain time. Same for the Kushites. Same for the empires of Mali etc. In the modern era, the once weakling Jews of Israel, gained enough organizational and technological strength (aided by America and Europe) to dominate their Arab opponents. This is the reverse of some patterns of ancient times. Hell, it was the African Pharaoh Tahrarqa (note- most pharaohs are African) that rescued the Hebrews of Jerusalem from the Assyrians at one point, as detailed in the book of Kings. The African pharaoh had enough strength to make it happen. Has nothing to do with any "curses" floating around.
From a religious standpoint sure a religious person could say the hand of God was manifested in some event, but it does not need that hand for the basic pattern of human folly above- the stronger overcoming the weaker. And the Hebrew God numerous times condemns this fact of human history- giving several examples of the weak overcoming the strong, and indeed, promising that Jehovah will fight for the weak against the strong. This comes down into Christianity, hence the Civil rights campaigns of Martin Luther King, drawing on the foot soldiers of the black churches, and their teaching about justice and redemption, time and time again invoked the same principle. In spite of brutal police, dogs, fire hoses, bombings etc etc, deployed by racist strongmen and strongholds, the "weak," the despised, the sufferahs, would eventually prevail over the strong with God's help. And so it turned out, if one looks at it from a religious angle. Likewise the Rastas prophesy along the same lines.
Polite allows this guy to get away into giving easy answers, and goes off on a tangent, complaining about black people being cursed, if the Hebrew God has "cursed" them. The Jewish guy gives the example of Joseph in Egypt and talks about moving forward, moving on purpose, doing something positive etc etc. He says focus on what you can do to combat evil today in the world. Basically he is telling Polite you are dwelling too much on this- quit complaining and do something positive.
Polite keeps asking him about "curses" - and complaining about how bad black folk got it. It is a totally weak line. Rabbi says he is throwing Polite and his crew off. This is partially correct. He did throw them off in the sense that they could not specifically hit them with specific examples and sub-arguments. They were not able to probe the weaknesses in the rabbi's spiel. Basically for most of the video they keep asking for "Jewish honesty" and harping on black disability/victimization, when there were much more profitable lines of attack. This is not arguing from a position of strength.
In some ways what the video comes off as is black folk complaining (incoherently) about Jews. Notice the second Jewish guy links "chosen people" with those "making a choice." There are a number of weaknesses with that assertion, and Polite is correct that the Jewish guys are not engaging that point. But why did he not hit them with specific arguments and examples, rather than dwelling ad infinitum on alleged "curses"? By failing to exploit those weaknesses, Polite lets numerous opportunities go hanging, and consumes 60 weak minutes. I would say that the Jewish guys successfully evaded the weak points and sidetracked Polite, who based on his lack of SPECIFIC counters and examples, seems unprepared.
Like you say, the consciousness community needs to step up their game if they are going to get into these debates.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FOR NEW READERS- RECAP FROM ES ON "CURSES" - HEBREW LAWGIVER MOSES pronounced no "curse" on black peopleFirst- Blacks in the Bible
1) Cush/Kush brother of Mizraim which means Egypt. We know from studies
that the closest people to the Egyptians are Nubians/Sudanics, not Yemenis,
or today's Ethiopians. 'Cush" also refers to people south of Egypt.
2) Cush/Kush means "black" in Hebrew- used sometimes in clear reference
to dark skin- "Can the Cushite or Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard
his spots?" asks Jeremiah. The use of "Cushite" is linked closer to Egypt
and Kush in the Bible generally refers to the Sudan, close to Egypt not today's
Ethiopia.
3) Genesis 10: Nimrod, son of Cush founded rh first large scale empires after the
Biblical flood beginning with Nineveh- so the lineage of "Cush" extends into
Yemen, Mesopotamia with perhaps some overlap into East/NE Africa. So there are
2 aspects of "Cush" in the Bible
4) Numbers 12 where they get upset at Moses wife- specifically references the
word Cushite, pointing to the Sudan again, not simply Ethiopians who might
be near Yemen
"And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian
woman whom he had taken; for he had taken a Cushite as wife."--Numbers 12:1
5) Acts 8- the Ethiopian chariot rider that was converted by the Apostle
Phillip was called a Cushite or "Ethiopian" who served as administrator of
the treasure of his queen- Candace. The Candaces are located in the Sudan
not the Horn- again near Egypt. It was these same Candace that won some
victories against Rome and negotiated a successfull and advantageous
peace treaty that exempted the Cushites from payingthe Romans tribute
6) Zerah the Ethiopian came out against Asa king of Judah in 2 Chronicles.
The Jewish Encyclopedia places Zerah near Egypt, indeed holding that he was
an Egyptian pharaoh (Osorkon II). The Biblical narrative says he was an Ethiopian,
literally "Cushite" as footnotes to the good, detailed translations show.
This again shows that Cush, in this context, is identified with the region
of Egypt/Nubia/Sudan.
7) The Sons of Mizraim are those renowned for handling the bow and shield- Cush, Lud etc
Jeremiah 46:9-
"let the mighty men go forth: Cush and Phut that handle the shield,
and the Ludim that handle the bow." Isa 66:19 also refers to Pul or Put and Lud "that draw the bow."
8) Per scholar David Goldenberg 2003 The Curse of Ham:
"In a description of the foreign contingents in the Egyptian army at the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E, Jer 46:9 says: "Let the warriors go forth, Kush and Put who grasp the shield. And the Ludim who grasp and draw the bow.".. However because Lud is grouped with Kush in Jer 46:9 and Ezek 30:5 and because Put, whether it is to be identified with modern Somalia or Libya is in Africa, most scholars today agree that Lud too is in Africa. And just as the bows, so too the shields of the Kushites must have made an impression. Apparently their striking feature was also their size. Similarly Strabo (17.1.54) mentions the Ethiopians' long oblong shields."--David M. Goldenberg. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
9) As Goldenberg shows the Biblical text often groups Cush, Put, Lud etc together.
They are all related- sons of Ham or sons of Mizraim (Egypt). This again leans
the weight towards the Egyptian-Sudanic side not the Horn.
10) The Pharaoh who came to help his Hebrew ally against the Assyrians was Shebitku,
who came from Kush (or Nubia), located in what it today northern Sudan.
He sent an expeditionary army to Jerusalem headed by his 21-year-old cousin,
Taharqa, ((2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9) Again this shows the weight of things
towards the Sudanic-Nubian-Egyptian area or zone in the Bible text..
=============
There are some books floating around on it like:
--The Black presence in the Bible and the table of nations, Genesis.. --Walter Arthur McCray
--The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, ... - by David M. Goldenberg - 2009
which break down some of the falsehoods regarding the "curse."
11) Alleged "black curse" is bogus- Moses says nothing of
the sort. There is no "curse of Ham" in the Bible"- that is
a later distortion invented by later Jewish, Christian and Arab
writers. There is a curse on the advanced nations of Caanan in that
the Hebrews would take them over, but this says nothig about
Africa, Egypt or the Sudan, or Ethiopia. "Caanan" is Palestine.
12) "Cursed be Caanan" is a prediction of the future, not a
slam of the Caananites per se. The prediction said
"servant of servants shall he be." Well this prediction
of Moses came through when the Hebrew ex-servants from Egypt
conquered Caanaan and made the Caanites tributary servants.
Hence people like to Gibeonites had to pay tribute to the Israelites
or perform labor. That is all it meant basically.
It is true that Moses had issues with Caanaanite religion,
like their multiple gods or child sacrifices, but
it is also clear that he freely finds their culture
advanced and superior in some ways to the Hebrew
migrants.
13) The "cursed be Caanaan" does not cancel out this
acknowledged superiority, only predicts that
parts of Caanan would be conquered by the Hebrew
ex-servants outta Egypt.
14) Jewish, Arab, and European Christian theologians
later transformed this into a non-existent 'Curse of Ham'
but as the books show, no such "curse of Ham" by Moses exists.
And in fact as others have pointed out elsewhere
Moses freely credits the Canaanites with superior
technology and material culture, noting that the
Hebrews received a windfall of already constructed
cities and thriving agriculture as part of the
Israelite conquest. Moses mentions opponents with
superior iron and chariot technology as well. So
it is clear that the "Hamitic" peoples, except in matters
of religious belief, get their due from Moses, as the
pacesetters in civilization. Note how he refers to
Nimrod, son of Cush for example.
15) Shem, according to the books referenced above, would
represent the Jews, who according to Jewish belief,
would be the Hebrews folks to receive their particular
religious revelation. Japheth would represent other
non-Hamitic Gentiles, perhaps of Europe and parts of Asia.
16) The "enlargement" of Japheth is viewed in a couple of ways
in the books above- various theories claim for example:
(a) General enlargement and expansion- as in the
spread of European culture across the globe, or
if various Asiatics are considered part of Japheth, the similar
"enlargement" of Asiatics, though in more limited
geographic range. The Mongol Empire for example
was the largest contiguous land empire in history,
bigger than Rome or England.
or
(b) A "spiritual" enlargement for Judaism derived
religion- so Europe's old gods were vanquished by
that of a Semitic people from the Mideast, and Europe
is the area that has the most, or has facilitated the most
spread of the derived religion, Christianity. This
is one of the reasons white supremacists hate Jews
because Jews bring home the fact that many things
associated with European advancement, in fact were
not native to Europe but derive from outside Europe.
Hence the main religion of Europe is not that of
the old cold-climate Gods like Odin, or Thor,
but depends on a religion from swarthy, semi-tropical
people- Jews. And the same Jews have much prominence
still as leaders in European culture, arts and technology.
Hitler railed continually against this state of
affairs, how white Europe was repeatedly schooled
by these outsiders, even adopting parts of their religion.
17) I don't buy any "racial" assignations to any of the above,
nor racist theories therefrom. It is clear that the
whole "Hamitic" thing, or Gentile "Table of Nations"
has nothing to do with modern racial obsessions,
but rather with those nations or peoples, RELATIVE
to Jews, or that would interact with Jews and their religion.
Moses is not dealing with any "races." He notes
some geographic locations of peoples and their
cultural/material developments, RELATIVE to Jews
and who would interact with Jews in various eras,
not so-called "Mongoloids" or any such modern era piffle.
18) Still some seem to want to inject modern "race"
notions into Moses. Curiously though, they don't want
to follow the guidelines laid down by Moses.
For example, it is clear that that the supposed
"black Hamitics" would include world famous
Egypt, and also the mightiest empires immediately
after the flood, according to Moses. So if anyone
were looking for bragging rights, Moses clearly
gives "Ham" the front-line credit- something later Jewish,
Arab and Christian writers (who claim to follow
his writings) conveniently dodge. Diop quotes
approvingly from Moses, suggesting that the Hebrew
lawgiver gave the brothers credit where due. He
married an Ethiopian too, that Moses, another "black mark"
against him ...
Likewise you sometimes run into Bob Jones Univ types who try
to argue that Shem (Jew), Ham (black and Asian)
and Japheth (white) represent the "three races".
Their hypocrisy is quickly exposed when you find
them trying to subsequently make the Egyptians
white because they realize that Moses put them
into the "black" column. Suddenly they ain't Bible
thumpin anymore when that inconsistency is exposed.
How come there are "3 races" until you find out
black folk will get credit for Egypt? Oh no, can't
have that.. "reinterpretation" required..
19) The info posted on the "shamefully black" sons of Ham is also interesting and ironic. In Genesis 10, Moses notes the sons of Ham as composing Mizraim (Egypt), Cush, Punt, Caanan and Libya. Ironically, assorted Jewish, Arab and European writers at certain times did not hesitate to pile on and say Ham was black, because some tinge of inferiority could be placed on his descendants. Weirdly enough though, that tune changes when their logic is followed through consistently. Egypt, Cush, Punt, etc suddenly became "non-black" when the realization struck that the Nile Valley civilizations and those of the Horn and Sahara would have to be credited to these "inferior" sons of Ham. Suddenly and curiously, the "Hamites" became "white" or "Middle Eastern", 'Eurasian" or a mysterious "Mediterranean brown race".
20) Moses at least was consistent. He assigned no racial characteristics to the tribal groupings he wrote about in Genesis 10, nor did he cast any badges of inferiority. The so-called "curse of Ham" doesn't exist in the Bible. It is entirely a creation of later Jewish, Arab and European writers, repeated and amplified over time. Moses noted that Canaan (the Lebanon/Sinai region peoples) would be conquered by the Semitic Hebrews, but there is no "curse of Ham". It is entirely bogus. Ironically, Moses also writes up Nimrod, son of Cush, in commendable terms, noting his descendants as among those most advanced culturally, materially and militarily. Since Moses' conception of Ham includes peoples with a wide range of physical variation, his "anthropology model," or concept so to speak, is much closer to modern researchers like Keita et al, than Aryanists who posit the artificial "Mediterranean" or "Eurasian" model where the only "Africans" are those located somewhere far south of the Sahara.
And even more ironically, the Hebrew prophet himself married a Cushite, as documented in Numbers 12. He certainly would not be welcome on the campus of Bob Jones University, although the denizens thereon quote his writings frequently.
---------------
Summary
21) Who did Moses say are the sons of Ham, which means hot, heat, or brown in Hebrew according to most translations?
-- Mizraim- Egypt
-- Cush- Sudanic zone near Egypt and less used -Mesopotamia/Ethiopia/Yemen and perhaps extending down to the Horn
-- Phut- Somalia, Southern Sudan or Eritrea
-- Caanan- the Palestine, Lebanon area
22) Who did Moses say built the first large-scale civilization? Was it a "white" "Japhetic" man? No, it was Nimrod, son of Cush, whose descendants built Babel, Akkad, Sumer, etc. Cush is the Bible is heavily used for the Sudanic area near Egypt, as would be expected since Chush and Mizrail (Egypt) are biological brothers, though it could also refer to partsof Mesopotami and Yemen and firther south in Africa to the Horn. Indeed the word Cush in Hebrew means black. There is no mistaking it sometimes refers to skin color- for a proverb used by the prophet Jeremiah to illustrate a moral principle goes: "Can the Ethiopian [or Cushite] change his skin, or the leopard his spots?"
23) Notice a pattern here from the Biblical narrative? All these powerful, prosperous large scale civilizations are derived from people strongly suggestive of "dark" Hamites- in particular, Mizraim and Cush. Mizraim, one of the greatest, means 'Egypt' in Hebrew. Those who built Babel and Sumer, etc did so under the line of Cush, meaning 'black', under the line of Nimrod, son of Cush.
Moses it could be said, at least gave the brothers credit.
25) Now some ask- Is there any modern research to back up Moses as to his language suggesting the involvement of these dark peoples as large scale civilization builders?
1) Hanihara 1996 analyzed remains from Iraq, the heart of the Babel area. His conclusions: "early West Asians looked like Africans."
2) Brace 2005 analyzed Neolithic remains incoming into Europe. His conclusion: The incoming Neolithic clustered with dark African types, and did not look like today's white Europeans. Brace also found that the early inhabitants of the Palestine area, the Natufians, (which would correspond to Moses' Caanan area), also had a distinct black sub-Saharan element.
c) Limb proportion studies cluster the inhabitants of ancient Egypt closer to dark tropical fellow Africans, than to whites.
26) Thus as can be seen, neither the writings of Moses for the period he wrote about above (4000-3000 BC roughly), or modern research in the 20th and 21st century support the notion of "white Hamites." We know all these people had physical variability, like most human populations, but those looking for Biblical support for a "white Ham" notion usually fail when the evidence is looked at.
27) Some wonder though:
Did Moses have insight into the essential unity of the Nilotic peoples?Interestingly enough one of the descendants of Mizraim recorded by Moses is Lud or the Ludim, renowned as bowmen.
Jeremiah 46:9- "let the mighty men go forth: Cush and Phut that handle the shield, and the Ludim that handle the bow."
Isa 66:19 also refers to Pul or Put and Lud "that draw the bow." Notice how Cush, Lud and Phut are all linked together- all related in the Biblical text. Could the "Ludim who handle the bow" possibly refer to the renowned archers of Ta Seti or various in the Sudanic area, since Lud descends from Mizraim (Egypt)? Not saying it is so, just speculating, for Moses, ties all these peoples together- Ham, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, Caanan...
If as Moses says, Lud descend form Mizraim, and Lud is renowned for the bow, then it seems that Moses is tying together a great area of the Nile Valley under the rubric of Mizraim, into the deserts and the nearby Sudan, from whence sprang the bowmen of "Nubia." Could it be argued then that Moses had insight into the essential unity of the Nile Valley or Nilotic peoples? Indeed he would have the background to provide such insight for (a) he spent a great deal of time in Egypt and was learned in the knowledge of Egypt and (b) Moses himself married a Cushite, a descendant of Ham, as the Book of Numbers records.
And if Moses had such insight into Nile valley unity, could it be argued that those who use his writing for a racist agenda are ironically undermined by said writings? Indeed his marriage to a Cushite (Book of Numbers) would seem to make him persona non grata in many places among some of those who claim to believe his writings..
