I happened across this term the other day while looking for other problematic terms and ended up doing a bit of a deep dive into its origins. It has its roots in scientific racism, referring to the Biblical character Ham in the book of Genesis and the faulty interpretation of Genesis 9:25 that 1) he was the ancestor of all dark-skinned African peoples, and 2) the curse placed on him was justification for the enslavement of African and Black peoples.
The term “Hamitic languages” is also no longer in linguistic use. The languages included in the group (Berber, Cushitic, and Egyptian) are part of the broader Afroasiatic family.
There are five headings right now using the term:
| LCCN | Current Heading |
| sh 85091958 | Nilo-Hamitic peoples |
| sh 85091957 | Nilo-Hamitic languages |
| sh 85058565 | Hamitic languages |
| sh2021015402 | Nilo-Hamitic languages–Foreign elements |
| sh2021014740 | Nilo-Hamitic languages–Foreign elements–Semitic |
I would (tentatively) make the following changes:
| Current Heading | Proposal |
| Nilo-Hamitic peoples | CANCEL: Already covered by the subject heading $a Nilotic peoples $0 sh 85091963 |
| Nilo-Hamitic languages | CANCEL: Already covered by the subject heading $a Nilotic languages $0 sh 85091962 |
| Hamitic languages | CANCEL: Already covered by the subject heading $a Afroasiatic languages $0 sh 85002020 |
| Nilo-Hamitic languages–Foreign elements | REVISE: Nilotic languages–Foreign elements |
| Nilo-Hamitic languages–Foreign elements–Semitic | REVISE: Nilotic languages–Foreign elements–Semitic |
Obviously, this is just a start. There’s plenty more work to be done here…