Hannibal Was a Black Man

Alright. Now that I have your attention, a friend of mine recently told me (tounge-in-cheek) that I would very much enjoy a new series on "The History Channel" called "Balttles B.C." After having watched it after TVo-ing it, I owe him a good punch in the arm (do you hear me you arse...?:D).

Anyway, what are your thoughts on these programs that take no account of actual Race, and why do you think that they revise Hisory in this manner?


The actual Hannibal (first thumbnail) :


The 'History Channel's' version (second thumbnail) :

Looks like something out of The Scorpion King

http://cindyjacks.com/images/Dwayne%20Johnson.jpg

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuuT

What are your thoughts on these programs that take no account of actual Race, and why do you think that they revise History in this manner?

---

I'm not a fan of the film industry's use of casting just any old wotshisname for a part. I was upset enough when one John Grisham novel made into a movie starred Denzel Washington as the leading male character when in fact that very character in the novel was not even black. And this was a work of fiction on film!! So you can well imagine how I feel seeing a person from one race exchanged for another when casting historical documentary type of films!

In the end, it does us all a disservice when miscasting historical figures. I think that the film industry needs to be better accountable to its audience and not think of historical programs as solely 'entertainment' but as having some modicum of learning value for its audience. To this end, historical accuracy, especially in the casting of personages, should be primary.

I tend to see the film industry's preference for casting without due consideration to that historical figure's race as stemming from two motivational factors. Firstly, I think the industry attempts to reach a wider audience if indeed 'race' is taken out of the equation and blatantly scoffed at. Imagine that your Neilson ratings will be higher during May sweeps if you can attract people of any and all racial extractions to watch your program.

But secondly, and on a more insiduous level, I see it also as an attempt to, pardon the term, 'whitewash' all people of all races; to actively diminish the element of race, and better ethnicity and culture so that any historical figure becomes 'a man for all' and no longer 'a man for some'. Historical figures are no longer seen as belonging to one particular cultural or ethnic group but belonging to ALL of Mankind. In effect, cultural heroes who once upon a time spoke to their own endogenous groups now belong to everyone!

It is all but another attempt to surreptitiously have us swallow the uni/monocult agenda in my view. And I daresay, have a few children watching these types of programs as good wholesome educational tv viewing, and I will show you a generation of future adults who will not have any appreciation for the need to thoroughly study historical figures, much less the need to study and to know the details and more importantly the whys present in all historical sagas. Without acknowledging and more so understanding the importance of cultural/ethnic/racial motivations in the various histories of mankind, the sheer relevance, and in the end raison d'être of history is lost.

My two-bits' worth :D

Cheers SuuT and All!...Aemma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuuT

Anyway, what are your thoughts on these programs that take no account of actual Race, and why do you think that they revise Hisory in this manner?

---

On the contrary, this portrayal of Hannibal is directly resultant of their having taken race into consideration. To my knowledge, there is no known authentic, historical depiction of Hannibal neither on coin face or in bust form, which may allow for some amount of interpretation as to how he may have looked. This does not mean we may throw all logic out the window and invent a depiction which does not go with the grain of historical truth, however.

That they chose a black man is by no means a mistake. It is a calculated maneuver meant to serve the interest of political correctness. Carthaginians were not a "black" people; rather, they were most likely a Mediterranean group of comparable physical stock to the Romans, Greeks, and south-eastern Hispanics.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a wider agenda behind this; to depict Hannibal as such is to imply that Carthaginians were black Africans. To imply that Carthaginians were black Africans is to, therefore, suggest that they (black Africans) have been playing a major role in European history for over two millennia. To suggest black Africans have been playing a major role in European history for over two millennia is to, by extension, suggest that they are nothing particularly foreign to Europe, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuuT

The 'History Channel's' version (second thumbnail) :

---

Sacrilege! :mad:

That is incorrect historical revisionism at its ugliest. One would expect better from the History Channel. Not all Africans are/have been sub-Saharan. I'm sure they know it but are just playing dumb. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Turlogh

On the contrary, this portrayal of Hannibal is directly resultant of their having taken race into consideration.

---

You must excuse me...Really?.

Quote:

---

To my knowledge, there is no known authentic, historical depiction of Hannibal neither on coin face or in bust form,

---

I have provided an anthropoligically/etiologically correct 'bust'. - is it wrong...?

Quote:

---

which may allow for some amount of interpretation as to how he may have looked. This does not mean we may throw all logic out the window and invent a depiction which does not go with the grain of historical truth, however.

---

But this sounds a lot like what you are doing.

Quote:

---

That they chose a black man is by no means a mistake.

---

Black as pitch...?!?!? - Surely you jest.

Quote:

---

It is a calculated maneuver meant to serve the interest of political correctness. Carthaginians were not a "black" people; rather, they were most likely a Mediterranean group of comparable physical stock to the Romans, Greeks, and south-eastern Hispanics.

---

Elaborate, please.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a wider agenda behind this; to depict Hannibal as such is to imply that Carthaginians were black Africans.

---

Uhhhhhhhh...:suspicious: Duhh.

Quote:

---

To imply that Carthaginians were black Africans is to, therefore, suggest that they (black Africans) have been playing a major role in European history for over two millennia. To suggest black Africans have been playing a major role in European history for over two millennia is to, by extension, suggest that they are nothing particularly foreign to Europe, after all.

---

And, then, what do you make of this suggestion...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuuT

You must excuse me...Really?.

---

Yes, indeed. So much have they taken race into consideration that they have gone well out of their way to deviate from history merely in the name of an agenda of political correctness. They (and by "they" I mean whoever is responsible for producing the program) are as much a racist group as any.

Quote:

---

I have provided an anthropoligically/etiologically correct 'bust'. - is it wrong...?

---

There is no evidence that it is authentic, to my knowledge.

Quote:

---

But this sounds a lot like what you are doing.

---

How so? If you are trying to suggest that I am, in some way, in agreement with this depiction of Hannibal, then I assure you that you are quite mistaken.

Quote:

---

Black as pitch...?!?!? - Surely you jest.

---

I jest not. As I said, their choice is a calculated maneuver which purposely ignores history in the name of political correctness and what I have taken as a wider agenda. For that purpose, it is not a mistake in the least.

Quote:

---

Elaborate, please.

---

Which is it you would like me to elaborate on? My assertion that the Carthaginians were probably of comparable physical stock to the Romans, Greeks, and south-eastern Hispanic tribes? If so, I would be happy to later today.

Quote:

---

And, then, what do you make of this suggestion...?

---

That it is a highly insidious way to advocate the liberal immigration policies of European nations. If black Africans were not particularly foreign to Europe 2000 years ago, as the program is apparently implying, then surely they cannot be foreign today. A swindle, indeed.

Years ago, they came out with two television shows that were on the ridiculous side historically and phenotypically speaking: Hercules, the Legendary Journeys and Xena, Warrior Princess. Most of the characters were either British or Irish, with Kevin Sorbo, an American of Norwegian stock, as Hercules.It totally pushed the politically correct agenda, that wound up with Hercules not only murdering the Greek pantheon, but the Mesopotamian one as well.It seemed that every ethnicity under the sun was represented except for the Greek!Xena was good for eye candy, but that was about it. At least the guy who played Caesar actually looked Italian.

I find it hard to believe Hannibal was Negro. If so why did the busts & coins made in his likeness - even if struck after his death - show a European? And the people of the first century BC where not brainwashed by pc propaganda, there is no way the Carthagians would have had a Negro general. If there were any Negroes in the Carthagian state they would have been slaves & Hannibal was from an old noble Carthagian family. The only proof for Hannibal being a Negro is that he was born on the African continent, conviently ignoring the fact that the Maghreb was part of the Caucasian world in the 1st. century BC with the Sahara an effective barrier between the races until the trans-Saharan slave trade centuries later. Afrocentralists use the same argument to claim Cleopatra was a Negress, because she was born in Egypt, an African country. :rolleyes2:

Negroes just don't have the right stuff to be leaders, except of small criminal gangs. The reason there has never been an effective Negro uprising in the US is because Negroes have no organizational skills, all they have been able to muster is disorganized riots. New Orleans after Katrina showed just how capable Negroes are. Colin Powell was an affirmative action baby. Barack Obama was elected by non-Whites & pc brainwashed Whites.... and we are starting to see just how ineffective he is. No, there is just no way the ancients would have intrusted their fates to a Negro, they were too grounded in reality.

I thought Carthage was the "new city" for the Phoenicians from the Middle East. There could have possibly been some E3 from North Africa mixed in.

People who care about historical accuracy should own one of these: http://www.amazon.com/Not-Out-Africa.../dp/046509838X

If Hannibal was a negroid then his statues etc. should have been different. If you take a look at the image of the head in the first post then you can see that it is not a negroid. The face of a negroid is way different, lips are thicker, nose is smaller for example.

The people of the history channel are trying to change the history with this. Not so good of a history channel.

Hannibal


http://www.dkimages.com/discover/DKI...773/251136.JPG

Hasdrubal(Hannibal's brother)

http://www.livius.org/a/1/carthage/hasdrubal_coin.jpg


Ancient Coins.



Although I despise this current trend to stick any black with half a talent for acting in place of what should be a "white" role, it has to be noted that we have been doing this for sometime too.

Moses El Cid John the Baptist

But who can forget the biggest mindf**k of all!

John Wayne as Ghengis Khan???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeornWulfWer

But who can forget the biggest mindf**k of all!

John Wayne as Ghengis Khan???

---

Get off your yak and drink your milk! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeornWulfWer

Although I despise this current trend to stick any black with half a talent for acting in place of what should be a "white" role, it has to be noted that we have been doing this for sometime too.

Moses El Cid John the Baptist

---

You have something against Charlton Heston? Afaik all three were Caucasian. El Cid may have been of Visigothic descent.

Quote:

---

But who can forget the biggest mindf**k of all!

John Wayne as Ghengis Khan???

---

I heard they wanted Yul Brynner but he was unavailable.:coffee:


You might want to check out The Good Earth, Dragon Seed or any of the Charlie Chan movies. Of course back in the good-old-days there was a shortage of Asians (or Orientals as my mother still calls them:D) actors/actresses to play Asian roles.


What I find more annoying is Eurasian actors/actresses playing roles meant for Europids, such as Dean Cain, Keanu Reeves, Meg or Jennifer Tilly, Kristin Kreuk etc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Æmeric

[...] The only proof for Hannibal being a Negro is that he was born on the African continent, conviently ignoring the fact that the Maghreb was part of the Caucasian world in the 1st. century BC with the Sahara an effective barrier between the races until the trans-Saharan slave trade centuries later. Afrocentralists use the same argument to claim Cleopatra was a Negress, because she was born in Egypt, an African country. :rolleyes2:

---

This reminds of the B.S. series National Geographic did on "The Black Pharaohs". Not once was it mentioned in the article that Nubia's Aristocracy (present day Sudan) was 'Caucasian'/White/Europid at the time.



We've lost so much literal, and metaphorical, ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeornWulfWer

But who can forget the biggest mindf**k of all!

John Wayne as Ghengis Khan???

---

John Wayne didn't even try to sound Mongolian in that movie. He was his typical cowboy/soldier self, but dressed in Mongol garb. This was like John Goodman portraying Linda Tripp on Saturday Night Live. It was far more funny than insulting.