It’s nasty, but very common, in clan-based societies. The fundamental unit of society was the patriarchal clan, not the individual.
For all our familiarity with the OT, it was created in a society very different from out own, and of course considerably more primitive.
Indeed, even unto the 7th generation and all that. But it is unusual in this case that dad wasn’t punished too. Only Canaan is mentioned.
To my mind, it is only explicable if the twin purposes of the myth are understood.
On the one hand, it’s an origin myth: the sons of Noah and their descendants explain the groupings of peoples and nations that populate the earth.
On the other hand, the myth also explains the “natural-ness” of the Israelite domination over Caanan. Caanan was cursed.
The reason for this convoluted story, I think, is that the Noah story with the sons of Noah probably predates the Israelite conquest of Caanan and for that matter the Istraelites (a version of the Noah story shows up in the Epic of Gilgamesh and in the Greek Deucalion, indicating a possible ancient common origin). The Noah story was of course redacted much later, at which point a “just-so” story was “retconned” into the origin myth. Because the sequence of Noah’s sons was already well-established in the mythology, the curse had to be directed at Caanan and only Caanan (else it would be spread too widely - another of Ham’s sons was Mizraim, ancestor of Egyptians, definitely not enslaved by Israelites! Rather, the other way 'round 
).
As to why not have Caanan do something to earn the curse - the authors probably wanted the story to “star” the main attractions.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the subject yet, but the biblical term “uncovered his father’s nakedness” means that he slept with his father’s wife. In other words, Ham had sex with his mother.
Noah had reason to be cursing. And if it’s true, it might be the reason blacks say Mutha Fugga about 20 times in every sentence.
SD’rs seem to pride themselves on telling the straght dope except when it comes to religious questions or racial questions.
Could you provide some evidence for any of these extraordinary claims?
That interpretation comes from Leviticus 20:11
However it makes absolutely no sense applied here, as the story begins by saying Noah was naked and goes on to say the first thing the brothers did when they got there was cover him up.
That theory is discounted by biblical scholars in general as are many other theories that have been kicked around. Do you have a cite for a serious argument in favor of it?
I appreciate the answers you’ve given me; I wish I had been more knowledgeable about the points raised when I had the argument with my father; my only defense was that it made no sense whatever. He believed what he believed because his Southern Baptist religion told him to; he hated Jews, for instance, because “the Jews killed Christ.” Even if I had been an expert in all matters biblical, he would have continued to be a racist bastard and nothing I could have said would have changed his mind. He lived and died a racist and that was one of the most salient things about him; he specifically cut me from his will because I refused to accept his beliefs. At the same time, he was, in many matters, a very smart man and had a successful career. I don’t dream of him very often and when I do, the dreams leave me mostly confused: How could a smart man, which he really was, believe the things he did and he did honestly believe them. Oh, well; it can’t be helped now. Thanks again for all the inputs; my ignorance has been at least partly fought.
I have heard the suggestion that Ham/Caanan did something of the “uncover nakedness” in the biblical sense and like Lot’s daughters, took advantage of a drunk man. That would explain the cursing going on when he woke up hung over and with a sore something-or-other.
So…there’s a continuous spectrum of human skin colours with no obvious cut offs.
Does god mete out punishment via fuzzy logic?
But at least god sympathetically banished people to just the latitudes where their skin colour would be most beneficial…
It’s interesting to note that Joseph Smith was an abolitionist; Brigham Young was the bigot who really promoted the more racist views of the LDS Church. Young seems to have bought into the beliefs of some other Christian denominations of his era, so the old views of the LDS might shed some light on this thread.
Here’s what I found on ReligiousTolerance.org (BTV168: Slot Gacor Setiap Hari Tanpa Modal Besar Gampang Menang):
*Nephi 5:21 refers to God cursing some of the early inhabitants of America, the Lamanites: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”
…Prior to 1978, the LDS Church taught the racist revelation that blacks have been cursed by God with the “mark of Ham.” As Elder Mark E. Petersen of the LDS Council of the Twelve Apostles said in 1954: “At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse – as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…” *
But there again, black skin would only seem like a curse to people who were already prejudiced.
LouisB., I respect you for rejecting your father’s racism. Sorry you’re still grappling with the old man’s hatred. Maybe this is how the children are marked by the sins of their fathers. 
We may see it as nasty, but I think it’s a little naive to think you can punish a father without punishing his sons/family. I mean, even in the American system of justice, are the kids of an incarcerated man not at a significant disadvantage compared to the kids of some other man? They’ve lost a father figure, a two-parent family, a source of income for the family, etc. And the kids of disadvantaged kids are more likely to be disadvantaged themselves. We may not be as Ham-handed (ha ha) about it as Noah was, but it’s kind of unavoidable.
Of course, one of the interesting points relevant to this thread is that Noah specifically mentions the son Canaan. Where we’d expect all of Ham’s sons to normally suffer, Noah singles out the one who is NOT black. It really points out how tortured the interpretation has to be to support slavery.
Indeed.
Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan. Rougly, they are the ancestors of the following:
Cush: peoples of south Arabia and Ethiopia.
Mizraim: peoples of Egypt.
Phut: peoples of Lybia.
Caanan: Caananites.
Note that the ancient Israelites had only the haziest notions of sub-saharan Africa, who aren’t really included in this list, probably because they had little contact with them except through Egypt or Arabia/Ethiopia. Of the descendants of the four sons of Ham, the least “Black” in ethnicity are the descendants of Caanan. Yet it is they, who are neither Black nor African, who are cursed with slavery.
Of course the notion that Africans are of inherently lower civilization or are natural slaves would have been nonsense to the ancient Israelites, who were well aware of the ancient civilized glories of Egypt, and whose national mythology was based on escaping from Egyptian slavery! (Mind you, Egyptians were of course not sub-Saharan Blacks, but still …).
Bacon, Pork Rind, and Chop. They all went on to become extremely successful.
That’s a good point, but there is a fundamental difference between the two. The latter is an unfortunate and often unavoidable side effect. The former is setting a divine precedent that children can be punished for the actions of their parents.
What about the Hock people? I’ve always been partial to Ham Hocks, not to mention the Pickled Pig Feet clan.
Just to clarify further, I don’t think it’s sensible to apply modern morals to historical times. It was a very different, and much harsher world, where punishing the father could easily have terminal consequences for his family. I read the old testament as the document of a tribe’s struggle and attempt to make sense of the world, against a background of disease, famine and conflict. Whereas the new testament is the story of a dispossesed people in a more civilised time. However, this is why it’s a bad idea to use an ancient book as a moral compass.
What about the addicted baby of a crack addict? Do you think that baby is suffering because of the sins of the parents?
How about inbreeding…does the father suffer for his sins, or do the offspring? Could it be said that the children are held responsible for the sins of the father?
How about crossbreeding with undesirables…the story of Abraham comes to mind here…
It seems that “hatred” and “torturous logic” is working both ways in this thread.
What about HIV postive babies? Are they suffering for the sins of their parents? Oh wait, I forgot…ancient knowledge = bad…modern morality = good.
I don’t have a problem with the interpretation that the children suffer for the sins of the father, it’s the literalist interpretation I object to. I don’t think GQ is the place to debate this. If you want to start another thread I’d be happy to respond.
Former president Carter was a Southern Baptist and his prejudices are quite evident; witness his antisemitic viewpoints and his book on Israel. He was also very smart. Apparently, when you are indoctrinated at an early age in a point of view, however biased and inaccurate it is, that bias remains part of the person.