The lie about the “Curse of Ham” is wrong in so many, many ways.
For starters, God blessed Ham when he came out of the ark (Gen. 9:1, 9:8).
No one can curse what God has blessed (Num. 23:8, Prov. 26:2, Isaiah 44:25).
Ham had four sons: Cush, Phut, Mizraim, and Canaan (Gen 10:6).
“Cush” is the ancient word for Ethiopia. “Phut” is the ancient word for Libya. “Mizraim” is the ancient Hebrew word for Egypt. (It still is in the Hebrew Scriptures that Mizraim is used wherever an English Bible uses Egypt.) And “Canaan” is just Canaan.
Cush, Phut, and Mizraim became the fathers of Black nations, and those men were never cursed. Only Canaan. So being Black cannot be a curse.
I was told as a child that “Canaan” was Ham’s middle name; or, that they were Senior and Junior with identical names; or that they were the same person! Bunk, in other words.
As I grew older I was told that Noah cursed Canaan because he was angry at Ham but Noah could not curse what God had blessed. So he took it out on grandson Canaan.
Then they had to rationalize why Noah would curse a youngster. Some claimed that he “knew” that Canaan would grow up to be evil and the father of evil nations … that he “knew” that the Israelites would annihilate them someday.
But I also have heard atheists suggest that the real moral of this story is that drinking makes you abuse your family. No spell-casting was intended.
Finally there is the Jewish explanation. In ancient times a potentate would prove he was the new ruler in town by seizing the women of the old king he had deposed, like lions or stallions. Abner son of Ner did it (2 Sam. 3:6-12). Absalom did it (2 Sam. 16:20-22). Adonijah tried it (1 Kings 2:13-25).
So the theory is that Ham “saw his father’s nakedness” in the Torah sense of the word (Lev. 18:7-8). That is, Ham saw his father drunk. Ham tried to take over, since his father was incompetent. (And if Noah really was a mean drunk that would give someone an excuse to try to push him out.)
When Noah “learned what his son Ham had done to him” Noah cursed Canaan. But it says “what Ham had done” rather than “what Ham had seen.”
The theory is that accidentally seeing your father naked may be awful, but it is not necessarily a sin. Rather, Ham “saw his father’s nakedness” in the sense that Noah’s wife had a baby and Noah knew it wasn’t his baby. So he cursed it [Canaan]. Ham had something Noah could never have: a fourth son.
It also explained why Noah never had more children. Once his wife had been with another man (even if she had been forced), he couldn’t take her back (Deut. 24:1-4).
I don’t know if this theory is true. It just happens to fit some of the available facts.
Finally, Jesus chose Simon the Less, a.k.a. Simon the Cananean (Matt. 10:4). Some claim this is a translation of “Simon the Canaanite.”
But basically there is no “Curse of Ham.” It was made up. And any curse on the Canaanites would have been fulfilled when the Israelites obliterated them.
Hope this helps.
No. 
No. :no_good_man: Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (being of mixed race) Himself could not get into a Heaven like that.