The phrase that "now and then you will hear grown–ups say" is from Jeremiah 13:23, and there's a compelling argument that the ‘racist reading’ is itself a mistranslation issue. David Tuesday Adamo (African biblical scholar) argues the Hebrew construction is closer to "Would Black Africans change their skin, or the leopard their spots?" Rhetorical question, answer being no. Why would they?
His insight is that ancient Israel knew Cush/Ethiopia as powerful, wealthy, wise civilizations with massive armies. They weren't looked down on, but respected and feared. So when Jeremiah uses Ethiopian skin as his example of "something unchangeable," he's not picking something shameful. He's picking something admirable that's permanent, like saying "can a diamond stop being hard?"
The problem with translations like "can the Ethiopian change his skin" is they imply the Ethiopian should want to change. Adamo points out that the leopard parallel tells you everything. Nobody thinks leopard spots are ugly or shameful— everyone knows they’re beautiful. So why assume the Ethiopian reference is negative when it's the same grammatical structure?
Basically, post-colonial racism got read backwards onto an ancient text that was actually expressing respect. The point is that black skin, like leopard spots, is being used as the example of something beautiful and permanent, not a flaw to be corrected. The irony is that Judah's sin, which IS a flaw, has become just as permanent.
re: books, Richard Scarry has a ton of books for different ages, starting very young. Still classics!
The phrase that "now and then you will hear grown–ups say" is from Jeremiah 13:23, and there's a compelling argument that the ‘racist reading’ is itself a mistranslation issue. David Tuesday Adamo (African biblical scholar) argues the Hebrew construction is closer to "Would Black Africans change their skin, or the leopard their spots?" Rhetorical question, answer being no. Why would they?
His insight is that ancient Israel knew Cush/Ethiopia as powerful, wealthy, wise civilizations with massive armies. They weren't looked down on, but respected and feared. So when Jeremiah uses Ethiopian skin as his example of "something unchangeable," he's not picking something shameful. He's picking something admirable that's permanent, like saying "can a diamond stop being hard?"
The problem with translations like "can the Ethiopian change his skin" is they imply the Ethiopian should want to change. Adamo points out that the leopard parallel tells you everything. Nobody thinks leopard spots are ugly or shameful— everyone knows they’re beautiful. So why assume the Ethiopian reference is negative when it's the same grammatical structure?
Basically, post-colonial racism got read backwards onto an ancient text that was actually expressing respect. The point is that black skin, like leopard spots, is being used as the example of something beautiful and permanent, not a flaw to be corrected. The irony is that Judah's sin, which IS a flaw, has become just as permanent.
link if you're interested: https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/JSEM/article/view/3503/1895
שָׁלוֹם