Read this excerpt from "the selling of joseph" that offers a justification for slavery and answer the question. obj.1 these blackamores are of the posterity of cham, and therefore are under the curse of slavery. gen.9.25,26,7. which statement does not refute the claim made by this reasoning?

few know the conditions of this curse of cham or canaan.

canaan actually received the curse instead of cham.

blackamores are descendents of cush who settled in ethiopia.

blackamores spread to many countries throughout africa.

I would argue that the right answer is the B) Canaan actually received the curse instead of Cham.

Explanation: Just to elaborate a little on the answer, it can be added that a statement that DOES NOT refute the claim made by this reasoning agrees with it. The claim made by this reasoning contends that the descendants (the posterity) of Cham (or Ham) are under the curse of slavery, since Noah cursed the descendants of Canaan, son of Ham, for the sin of drunkeness. Since dark skin was considered part of the curse, it was argued that black Africans were under this curse, and therefore should be enslaved—since the curse entailed enslavement as punishment. The statement that says that Canaan received the curse instead of Ham does not refute the claim, since the claim refers to the posterity of Ham, and Canaan represented that posterity.

A good counterclaim to this claim would be option C, since others, such as the author of "The Selling of Joseph" (Samuel Sewell), contended that black Africans descended indeed from Cush, another son of Ham, whose descendants, who also had dark skin but had not been cursed, populated Africa.    

yes

explanation: