Religious justifications for slavery used curses to keep converts enslaved

Evidence

Prior to the nineteenth century, European colonialism was explained primarily through the lens of Christianity. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Europeans justified their slaughter and exploitation of the “Indians” in the New World through the argument that the Indian “savages” were wild animals, idolaters whom God had ordained to be dominated by Christians. They similarly justified their enslavement of Africans through the book of Genesis, arguing that Africans were a cursed people (drawn from the myth of the curse of Ham) whose black skin color marked their curse. The “curse” conveniently meant that even African slaves who converted to Christianity could still be retained as slaves. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 118

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s larger question of what material interest each justifying myth protects — the curse-justifies-retention point is a clean instance. — connects to: Slave-owning theologians justified the lash as biblically warranted parental discipline — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 4388; Aristotle’s doctrine framed medieval debates justifying or refuting slavery; Christian doctrine as taught to the enslaved seeded rather than suppressed Black rebellion (+6 more)