During my studies, I’m always reminded of the saying that those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. The past 500 years of world history is littered with colonization, slavery, rape and every imaginable injustice towards people of color. I’m just one small voice, echoing the past in an effort to ward it off as a repeat offender. My passion for educating people about the horrors of the past, the anxiety of the present and the uncertainty of the future is one of my driving motivations in life. For people of color, I am not sure that we can fully appreciate what it means to be black (or African America), because the historical accounts, that could give us a sense of pride and accomplishment, have gaps in them.
History books that have been published by Western scholars have removed or depreciated the contributions of blacks to civilization, and Western Bible commentaries have white-washed the black presence in the Bible. However, a study of black history burns a trail back to the cradle of human civilization in Africa and Asia, and a study of the black presence in the Bible is a study of the Bible itself. Genesis, chapter two gives us a short description of the birthplace of humanity; the Garden of Eden.
Theologians have debated the location of the Garden of Eden, and although most will concede that no one really knows its exact location, most Western, biblical scholars have agreed that it was somewhere between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. I take exception to that conclusion on two fronts: first, most of the area that is outlined to be possible locations have arid climates and are sand deserts. Second and more importantly, the Bible describes a river that flowed from Eden and explains that it was parted and became four rivers. The second river, Gihon, compassed the entire land of Ethiopia:
10. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia (Genesis 2:10-13).
I am not an archeologist or a geologist, but it would seem unlikely that a river originating in Saudi Arabia or Iraq could encompass the entire land of Ethiopia, and it’s doubtful that the deserts of Iraq or Saudi Arabia could produce the fertile ecology of the Garden of Eden. Consequently, I believe that it would be difficult to deny that the Garden of Eden was somewhere north of Ethiopia on the African continent. The apparent misplacement of the Garden of Eden, I believe is one of many examples of how Western scholars/theologians distort the historical significance of people of color and places occupied by people of color. In fact, I don’t like the word ‘history,’ because it is just that…his-story; consequently, his-story may not accurately reflect the truth of the past.
The historical record is dominated by those who control the media and the publishing apparatus in a society, and in the Western world the large Christian and secular publishing houses are not inclined to promote significant black presence in history or the Bible. Therefore many people take for granted that people of color have fulfilled the historical role of the laborer who hews wood and draws water. However, this is very, very far from the truth. Not only does the past reflect a technological genius that thrived in ancient Africa and in the Middle East that Western researchers have yet to comprehend, but the Bible depicts people of color in prominent roles from Genesis through the book of Revelation.
Is a discussion about the contributions of the people of color important from a biblical perspective? I would have to give that question a two-pronged response: Obviously to God, the idea of race plays no role in his word or in the plan of redemption. However, it is vitally important to those who have sanitized the color out of the Bible and has marginalized the historical contributions of the colored people of the world. The job of white-washing the Bible has been so effective, that if asked to meditate on Jesus hanging on the cross, most of us will conjure an imagination of a blond-haired, blue-eyed, white-skinned savoir. And if asked to name a dozen people of color in the Bible, most of us would have trouble doing so.
To understand why Western historians and theologians have removed the color from the Bible is the key to understand the world we live. Civilizations have been divided by race; wars have been fought because of race; country clubs have refused admission because of race; genocide exists because one race believe that they are superior to another; and the antichrist will use race as the dividing line to impose his fury on the human family. Race has been the line of demarcation between those who have lived free from harassment in society and those who have had to confront the brutality from a prejudiced society.
There is no easy way to discuss race in America. To the average citizen, race means the division of humanity based on skin color; to a politician, race is a campaign for public office; to an athlete, race is a contest in speed; and to a Western trained theologian, constrained by rigid primeval commentaries, race means only three alternatives: Hamitic, Semitic, and Japhethitic. The many uses of the word do not diminish its potency when applied to skin color. It is not unusual for discussions on race to initiate passions of rage, hatred, anger, resentment, indignation, arrogance, shame, pride, love, hope, admiration and dozens of other emotions.
If race is not relevant to God, then where did the notion of dividing people by color and physical characteristics originate? The concept of race has no basis in science and is not a matter that is addressed by the Bible. In fact, America’s 19th and 20th century concepts of race did not exist in the 17th century. Race is a social invention in the United States that was developed to permit slavery without trampling upon the Declaration of Independence. The preamble of this document begins with these magnificent words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
To promote the Declaration of Independence as the driving force behind the creation of the United States while embracing slavery would demonstrate the hypocrisy of the country’s forefathers. Consequently, hundreds of laws were passed in the South that brought a new form of servitude between slaves and their owners. The first African slaves that were brought to America during the 17th century were actually indentured servants, who worked under contract, usually for four to seven years, and then they were granted their freedom. However, by the early 18th century, racial laws had reduced Africans to permanent slaves and owners were prohibited from freeing them.
America’s antebellum psychology has had a lasting and perhaps a permanent effect on the thinking of many Americans – some blacks still suffer from a slave mentality, which prevents them of thinking that they are equal to all men, while some whites suffer from a superiority complex that makes them believe they are superior to others.
Andrew Hacker, in his book Two Nations, Black and White, Separate, Hostile and Unequal, describes the inequity and misfortunes of the black community better than any author that I have read. He asserts that
“[A]all of us [white people] have set up barriers to avoid facing an unpleasant sensation. At one time or another, all of us have refused to admit certain truths about ourselves. By engaging in what Psychology 101 calls “denial,” we seek to convince others and ourselves of our innocence of blame. All white Americans regardless of their political persuasions, are well aware of how black people have suffered due to the inequalities imposed upon them by white America. As has been emphasized, whites differ in how they handle that knowledge. Yet white people who disavow responsibility deny an everyday reality: that to be black is to be consigned to the margins of American life. It is because of this that no white American, including those who insist that opportunities exist for persons of every race, would change places with even the most successful black American. All white Americans realize that their skin comprises an inestimable asset. It opens doors and facilitates freedom of movement. It serves as a shield from insult and harassment. Indeed having been born white can be taken as a sign: your preferment is both ordained and deserved. Its value persists not because a white appearance automatically brings success and status, since there are no such guarantees. What it does ensure is that you will not be regarded as black, a security which is worth so much that no one who has it has ever given it away. This helps explain why white conservatives so vehemently oppose programs like affirmative action. They simply do not want to admit to themselves that the value imputed to being white has injured people who are black” (Andrew Hacker, Two Nations Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1992 p. 60.)
According to Hacker, we can see why white conservatives oppose affirmative action, but how do we explain why Western theologians have abridged the black presence in the Bible?
…to be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment