How the Hamitic Myth came to be associated with Somalis and other ethnics

[Koora-Tuunshe]

Many of us still believe that we are Kushitic.

 

Hamitic is an obsolete ethno-linguistic classification of some ethnic groups within the Afroasiatic (previously termed "Semito-Hamitic") language family.

 

The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples believed to have been descended from the biblical Ham,

one of the Sons of Noah. Over history, there have been several separate, but interrelated, interpretations of the term.

In the Bible, the sons of Ham include peoples who were traditionally enemies of the Jews, notably the Egyptians and the Canaanites.

While the Canaanites competed with the Israelites for the same territory, Ham's sons were said to have fathered the peoples of Africa.

Of Ham's four sons, Canaan, fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Kushites and Phut the "Libyans".[1]

 

During the Middle Ages and up until the early 19th century the term Hamitic was used by some Europeans to refer indiscriminately to Africans. In the 19th century, a "Hamitic language group" was proposed by ethnolinguistics, uniting various, mainly North-African languages. A "Hamitic race" was also identified, referring to those Africans whom Europeans considered "advanced", or most similar to themselves and Semitic peoples.

 

Today the Hamitic concepts have been widely discredited, and are often referred to as the Hamitic Myth.[2] The Hamitic language group is no longer considered a useful concept, though the phrase Semito-Hamitic is a dated term for the Afro-Asiatic linguistic group. The notion of a "Hamitic race" is similarly widely abandoned.

 

The Hamitic Myth

was used as a justification for European colonial policy in Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as the slave trade in earlier times.[3][4]

 

 

As a result of this reevaluation, the term "Hamitic" took on a new, more positive connotation for Europeans. During the 19th century Europeans explored more and more of Africa. In their travels, they found many different physical types, and they valued those that appeared most like themselves or had a redeeming cultural characteristic. Soon the Hamitic theory became an important ideological instrument of colonialism, especially in German politics.

 

The term "Hamitic" was used for the first time in connection with languages by the German missionary Johann Ludwig Krapf (1810–1881), but with regard to all languages of Africa spoken by people deemed "black". It was the Egyptologist Karl Friedrich Lepsius (1810–1877) who restricted it to the non-Semitic languages in Africa which are characterized by a grammatical gender system.

 

As racial theories became increasingly complex and convoluted, the term Hamitic was used in different ways by different writers and was applied to many different groups, mainly comprising

Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis, Berbers and Nubians.

 

Racial theory was very hierarchical;

Europeans saw these peoples as leaders within Africa, "teaching" lesser peoples the ways of civilization, just as they saw themselves teaching the Hamitic peoples. This was illustrated, for instance, in Rudyard Kipling's poem

The White Man's Burden.

 

However, the allegedly Hamitic peoples themselves were often deemed to have failed as rulers, a failing that was sometimes explained by interbreeding with non-Hamites. For example, in the mid-20th century the German scholar Carl Meinhof claimed that the "Bantu race" was formed by a merger of Hamitic and "Negro races",[citation needed] and that the Hottentots (Nama or Khoi) were formed by the union of Hamitic and Bushmen (San) races. Such theories are now completely outdated. (In modern anthropology, the Khoi and San are grouped together as Khoisan.)

 

In 1917 George Wells Parker founded the Hamitic League of the World. Its aims were:

 

"To inspire the Negro with new hopes; to make him openly proud of his race and of its great contributions to the religious development and civilization of mankind and to place in the hands of every race man and woman and child the facts which support the League's claim that the Negro Race is the greatest race the world has ever known."

 

In Rwanda, the Hamitic hypothesis was a racialist hypothesis created by John Hanning Speke which stated that the supposedly "Hamitic" Tutsi people were superior to the "Bantu" Hutus

because they were deemed to be more "White" in their facial features, and thus destined to rule over the Hutus.[8]

 

Although the actual origin of the Tutsis is disputed, if they had once been a ruling-class of invaders, they had long since lost that social position.

 

This hypothesis is believed by many to be a significant factor in the Rwandan genocide. Because of the wide-spread tribalism in the area, and the belief among Tutsis that they were superior to the Hutus, the Hutus began to see the Tutsis as an outside invader to their land.

 

These ideas were still in wide circulation until the middle of the 20th century. The Hamitic hypothesis is rejected by most scholars today on a multitude of grounds. Most "scientific" observations of the time were heavily culturally biased and generally returned results that suited Europeans. Many observations of the time have been corrected since then to reveal a much more complex picture of ethnic groups than was initially conceived. Nonetheless, the term Hamitic is still used in some anthropological and historical academic settings.

 

 

References

^ William M. Evans, "From the Land of Canaan to the Land of Guinea: The Strange Odyssey of the 'Sons of Ham'". American Historical Review 85 (February 1980), 15–43

^ Peter Rohrbacher, "Die Geschichte des Hamiten-Mythos." (Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien; 96 Beiträge zur Afrikanistik; Bd. 71). Wien: Afro-Pub, 2002. ISBN 3-85043-096-0

^ Edith R. Sanders,

"The Hamitic Hypothesis; It Origin and Functions in Time Perspective,"

Journal of African History, 10 (1969), 521-23; William M. Evans, "From the Land of Canaan to the Land of Guinea: Michael D. Biddis, "Gobineau and the Origins of European Racism," Race, 7 (January 1966), 255-70; Frederickson, Black Image, 71-96.

 

 

Source: Wikipedia

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Bal ka waran those few misguided Soomaalis who believe the more mythical and unsubstantiated grand fantasy of Soomaalis originating from Carabs [who are Semitics]? Kuwaas ayaa ka daran kuwa aaminsan Kushtik inay yihiin.

 

Kushtik is not per se about ethnicity, it is classification of languages and loosely related cultures. We are Kushtik in that sense. The closest people to us Soomaalis on this Earth are Reer Diinle [Rendille], Canfars and Oromos, whom we share closest to from language to cultural costumes. We also share with them the closest distant biological DNA. They -- not Carabs -- are the only non-Soomaalis nearest to us, according to scientific research.

[Koora-Tuunshe]

^ Good point. It is a hiararchical racial system that had had negative impact on our us socially and politically. We are close to Oromos and then comes the Arabs.

[Fabregas]

Kush is one of the civilizations that existed in the modern day Sudan. Cushitic I believe is a term used to mean the language and ethnic classification of Oromos, Afars and Somalis, etc. Some Oromos integrated into Habesha culture, thus it is hard to make a distinction, " semetic vs Cushitic. So these distinctions help in so far as language is concerned; the Amhara and Tirgriniya languages have more of a relationship with Arabic and Hebrews rather than Somali and Oromo. But it is harder to draw a line "ethnically", since there are ancient Black Arabs and most Habeshas resemble other Horn Africans.

[Koora-Tuunshe]

Abu-Geeljira, just look our poems. They have lots of Arabic terms.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

so what did they replace the term hammites with?

[Koora-Tuunshe]

^ I don't know. The term Ham is a biblical term.

 

How can we believe in biblical terms to identify our ethnicity?

 

Worse yet, the Bible writes that Ham race was cursed by prophet Noah and his color transformed into darkness. Whereas Muslims believe in that Ham and his descendents were obliterated from the earth by tragic events, that none of them survived.

[Abtigiis]

I can't vouch for the veracity of these antropological discoveries, but i can definitely say one thing: SOMALI's are not Black African's (in the real letter and spirit of the word). And i am not referring to the colour and phyique only. The mental setup is quite different. I am not saying superior; i am just saying uniquely different. From Kenya downwards to the south or to west Africa, (except the nomadic people's in west Afirca-the Fulani, the Tuareg etc), there is something common to all these peoples. I beleive Somali's (the way they are today) are the product of a mix of an African and Asian bloods. And i think some people in somali's definitely have the blood of the Arab's.

But by the way, why does it matter whether we are Arabs or not? And why do some people tend to fend off that association. We share religion and a lot of culture with Arabs, and i think it is time to get over the (nagging complexity) and proudly look to the EAST! the west is not simply our way.

[Curly]

Interesting read, you know I for one believe all this obsessive categorisation and dissecting is just another tool for division. They proof we're different and we buy it.

 

I remember coming across some dated anthropology journal article posted on a forum much like ours. Interestingly enough back then anthropologist used very archaic techniques, such as measuring noses and foreheads to come to these far-fetched ideas that we are closer to Europeans. Well I’d sooner be called a human, before some scientist comes poking and prodding me like I’m sub-human.