648 replies to this topic

[deuce]

Now we're back to that afrocentric thing. Back in the '60s activists started equating anything "African" with Black. There was even a Black Pride T-shirt depicting a black Hannibal.

Hey JMR! It just keeps coming up, doesn't it? Afrocentrists speak of reclaiming a "stolen" heritage and then turn around and "steal" the history of peoples like the Phoenicians/Carthaginians and the Berbers (and the KhoiSan). Strangely, you never see afrocentrists trying to claim deKlerk or Botha for their own. BOTH were born in Africa. In fact, they were "Afrikaners". Sub-Saharan Africans have plenty of things to be proud about, but Hannibal (and Carthage) or Cleopatra (and Ptolemaic Alexandria) aren't amongst those things. Stealing is wrong, doesn't matter who does it or why. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Roman writers referred to Hannibal as African, but they were referring to the Roman province of Africa, which was just a stretch of North Africa around Carthage. It was only centuries later that Africa became the name for a whole continent.

Exactly. There's nothing particularly mysterious about it. I can't figure out if afrocentrists are willfully distorting history, or if they're just sloppy historians. Sometimes it looks like both.

Incidentally, Hannibal lived almost his whole life in Spain. His army was mostly Spanish and Gallic, with only the senior officers Carthaginian.

Damn straight (though his Numidian/Morroccan cavalry were also a crucial element). That's the amazing thing about Hannibal and the other "military" Barcas. Without any real Punic military tradition, the Carthaginians managed to crank out excellent officers like the Barcas. Also, their ability to successfully deploy large numbers of foreigners/mercs is astonishing (NOT that the practice ALWAYS worked out; see Salammbo). The fact that Hannibal was able to keep his Gauls and Iberians loyal through years and years of war, far from home, continues to astound me. A natural-born leader of men.
IF they're going to make a "Hannibal" film (which I'd figure that the "Lector" movies would've muddied the water too much anyway), I nominate Jean Reno for the role. A Morroccan Spaniard who always projects quiet intensity and strength.
REH was a Hannibal fan, BTW. Check out Delenda Est.

[rabbits]

IF they're going to make a "Hannibal" film (which I'd figure that the "Lector" movies would've muddied the water too much anyway), I nominate Jean Reno for the role. A Morroccan Spaniard who always projects quiet intensity and strength.

Yes.

[deuce]

I think the general consensus is that the Carthaginians were Phoenicians. Having said that, there is a huge debate over the origins and ethnology of the that ancient people. The latest I have read is that the Phoenicians were Canaanites, and were probably the ancestors of today's Lebanese.

Hey Pilgrim! Other than the afrocentrist camp, there is an overwhelming concensus that the Carthaginians were Phoenician, AFAIK. Every scrap of evidence from every source contemporary with the Carthaginians says so. The Romans called the Carthaginians "Punics" (ie, "from Phoenicia") for just that reason. The Phoenicians were Canaanites who spoke a West Semitic language (King Hiram in the Bible was a Phoenician). After they were conquered by the Macedonians, they weren't exterminated, nor did they go anywhere. They went on to become part of the Roman Empire, then the Byzantine Empire, then the Islamic Caliphate. There is zero reason to believe that the Lebanese are NOT descended from the Phoenicians, at least in a large part.

Carthaginian/Punic culture, archaeologically, is nearly indistinguishable from the Phoenician. The Punics spoke the Phoenician language, wrote in the Phoenician script, worshipped Phoenician gods, lived in Phoenician-style homes and sailed Phoenician-style ships. By all accounts, they claimed direct descent from Phoenicians. Saying that the Punics weren't Phoenician is like trying to claim that the original New England colonists weren't English.

They are also linked to the ancient Minoans.

In what way do you mean "linked"?

The latest research shows the people of modern Tunisia and Malta share genetic similarities with the Phoenicians. The Carthaginians would have appeared similar to the olive skinned people who lined the Mediterranean in ancient times.

Exactly. The "Mediterranean" phenotype is anciently attested in artwork and skeletal remains from Lisbon to Ankara to Cairo to Tangiers. Why that should be swept under the carpet by afrocentrists is beyond me. AFAIK, no one is trying to take sub-Saharan Africa from the central Africans. Why then, do the afrocentrists try and wrest the Mediterranean from the "Mediterraneans"?

[deuce]

Slightly tangential to the above conversation, here's two quotes from Ronald Segal, author of the highly-praised The Black Diaspora.

"Most Berbers were light-skinned and blue-eyed, though there were also some dark-skinned ones, the progeny, near or distant, of miscegenation. Blacks were not Berbers." (p.83)

"Muslim settlements (around Cape Horn), established and settled by merchants from Arabia and countries around the Persian Gulf, were strengthened by intermarriage between the newcomers and the indigenous peoples of the Horn, who were called Berbers or sometimes, to distinguish them from the Berbers of North Africa, "black Berbers" by Arab geographers." (p.95)

from Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora

Here's Segal's obituary: http://www.guardian....ture.obituaries

Segal's books have been praised by none other than Basil Davidson (author of Lost Cities of Africa, et al), one of the most respected authorities on African history alive (he's also mentioned in Segal's obituary).

Davidson: http://en.wikipedia..../Basil_Davidson

Obviously, neither Davidson nor Segal were/are intent upon "keeping down" anyone or anything, especially sub-Saharan Africans.

[Ironhand]

The reason for studying history is to learn more about it or to spread information about what really happened. If we start revising history, we very rapidly risk losing history. And then 20 or 30 years later, nobody knows what the heck Hannibal looks like. "I know he must have been black because he was black in this movie I saw."

The idea that it's ok to revise history is related to the idea that it's ok to revise a story when transcribing it for the screen. It's ok to revise truth for whatever reason floats your boat. "I know Conan spent his youth in slavery because I saw it in a movie."

Edited by Ironhand, 11 March 2009 - 02:12 AM.

[thundarr]

Wow, thanks for all of the info and clarification guys. I was pretty sure Hannibal was of a Mediterranean/Semetic background but I had heard otherwise over the years and was curious if there was any evidence to back it up. I gotta say I'm a little disappointed with the History Channel for their depiction of Hannibal on that Battles BC show. For a lot of people, this is what they will take at face value and as fact. I totally agree with Ironhand's statement that, "The reason for studying history is to learn more about it or to spread information about what really happened." I watch these shows because I want to be informed, not propagandized. It makes me question the entire validity and accuracy of the show.

[deuce]

Wow, thanks for all of the info and clarification guys. I was pretty sure Hannibal was of a Mediterranean/Semetic background but I had heard otherwise over the years and was curious if there was any evidence to back it up.

You're very welcome, Thundarr. I'm just glad you brought this to everyone's attention. To me, when all is said and done, such things are no different than when proponents of the "British Israelites" theory claimed a "holy" origin for the British and denied Judaic heritage to the Jews , or when Nazi ideologues claimed that all advances by mankind originated with the "Aryans", or when numerous theorists claimed that Native Americans could not have constructed complexes like Cahokia, thus making the Mound Builders Phoenicians, Romans or Vikings. As I said before, this is "identity theft" of the most egregious kind, and does a disservice to all involved.

I gotta say I'm a little disappointed with the History Channel for their depiction of Hannibal on that Battles BC show. For a lot of people, this is what they will take at face value and as fact.

Unfortunately, I'm forced to agree. Why read a boring book, when one can just get all the "facts" from a show? THAT is why this type of revisionism/misinformation needs to be fought and given scant reward by anyone who loves history and the truth (as near as it can be determined).
BTW, was that pic you posted actually from Anheuser-Busch™? If so, I'm gravely disappointed in them as well.

I totally agree with Ironhand's statement that, "The reason for studying history is to learn more about it or to spread information about what really happened." I watch these shows because I want to be informed, not propagandized. It makes me question the entire validity and accuracy of the show.

Make yourself heard. Email the morons and say exactly that. THEN state you're considering canceling THEIR part of the package (I, myself, don't have cable). Ask them for references to legitimate, peer-reviewed publications/books that back up their revisionist horse-$h*t. If they reply, please post it here. They'll probably try and feed you some sort of muck about how it's a "cutting-edge" program, or somesuch twaddle. We can make their customer service department go through living hell. This passive-aggression against the heritage and achievements of entire peoples must not stand.

[John Maddox Roberts]

"BTW, was that pic you posted actually from Anheuser-Busch™? If so, I'm gravely disappointed in them as well."

Drink enough of their product and it starts to sort of make sense.

[deuce]

"BTW, was that pic you posted actually from Anheuser-Busch?? If so, I'm gravely disappointed in them as well."

Drink enough of their product and it starts to sort of make sense.

[deuce]

Regarding the "mysterious" Phoenicians and Carthaginians/Punics, here's a link to John Sweat's excellent The Anthropogene:

http://anthropogene....s-of-javan.html

Most of the blog is about the Tartessians, Atlantis etc... However, the first paragraph deals with what happened to the archives of Carthage/Kart Hadasht.

Between the loss of the Alexandrian Library (founded by Ptolemy), the burning of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, various book-burnings in Chinese history, the vigorous attempts by the English to dispose of all medieval Irish codices and the destruction of the archives of the Maya, mankind seems hell-bent upon some sort of self-inflicted amnesia (HPL had something to say about that). Agenda-driven efforts to revise history, like the one involving Hannibal Barca just discussed, fall into the same category, IMO.

Here's another blog by Sweat about the fall of the House of Wisdom (and the general decline of scientific enquiry in the Dar al-Islam:
http://anthropogene....hilafah_24.html

[Mark_Hall]

Between the loss of the Alexandrian Library (founded by Ptolemy), the burning of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, various book-burnings in Chinese history, the vigorous attempts by the English to dispose of all medieval Irish codices and the destruction of the archives of the Maya, mankind seems hell-bent upon some sort of self-inflicted amnesia (HPL had something to say about that). Agenda-driven efforts to revise history, like the one involving Hannibal Barca just discussed, fall into the same category, IMO.

Actually, when the IRA blew up the Public Records Office in Dublin in 1920 (or was it 1921), they did far more damage than the previous generations of British book burning...

Best, MEH

[deuce]

Between the loss of the Alexandrian Library (founded by Ptolemy), the burning of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, various book-burnings in Chinese history, the vigorous attempts by the English to dispose of all medieval Irish codices and the destruction of the archives of the Maya, mankind seems hell-bent upon some sort of self-inflicted amnesia (HPL had something to say about that). Agenda-driven efforts to revise history, like the one involving Hannibal Barca just discussed, fall into the same category, IMO.

Actually, when the IRA blew up the Public Records Office in Dublin in 1920 (or was it 1921), they did far more damage than the previous generations of British book burning...

Best, MEH

While I'll grant that it's possible, Mr. Hall, I'm not sure that can be objectively quantified, can it? What would be the criteria? I'll throw in the Scandinavian destruction of Irish manuscripts just to up the pre-twentieth century total.

Best, Deuce

[PainBrush]

Excellent topic .
my addition ?!?...........

'History' is nothing more than a set of lies agreed upon . - Napoleon Bonaparte

[rabbits]

Since we were on the topic of one group of people's history being absconded with by another group of people.. I had just finished reading the newest issue of the " Official Transformers Pre-quel comic " that leads into the upcoming film sequel.. and the film deals with Extra-terrestrial intervention in Egypt.. which is standard movie stuff.. But what aggrivated me is.. the comic showed the construction of the Pyramids and they were all Sub Saharan Africans with Dreds and loincloths... with flint tipped spears..



IDW (The Comic company).. fails at history (Though they really fail at pretty much everything...)

[thundarr]

Hey Deuce, that image i posted before does indeed seem to have been created by Anheuser-Busch? as some sort of promotion. I just happened to run across it as I was trying to find out about Hannibal being black or not. Apparently Anheuser-Busch? has some sort of African-American outreach program to inspire African-Americans to be proud of their culture and drink more beer. There's a whole series of images called the "Great Kings and Queens of Africa Cultural Arts Series". The images totally look like they could be used as beer labels.

africanamericanbud.com

Great Kings and Queens of Africa Cultural Arts Series

[rabbits]

well they can't brew beer for crap.. what makes us think they should be able to get History right either?

[Kortoso]

Damn, how cynical. Reminds me of that malt liquor named "Power Master". In the 40 ounce size...

[amster]

This is really interesting. I have a couple of questions. Its been a long time since I've been inside a classroom. Are these myths being perpetuated in our High Schools and Colleges now? And how do modern, Ethnic Egyptians feel about Sub-Saharan Africans claiming their history as their own? Purely anecdotal, but I've met a few Egyptians, and I wouldn't characterize them as "black". Do the revisionists claim there was some ethnic cleansing in Egypt that drove all of the Sub-Saharans out, are do they just ignore this inconvenient fact?

well they can't brew beer for crap.. what makes us think they should be able to get History right either?

Well, Anheiser Busch knows a little something about stealing one's heritage a claiming it as their own. After all, Budweiser, the "quintessential American beer" was invented in Czeckoslavakia (Budvar).

Edited by amsterdamaged, 12 March 2009 - 05:34 PM.

[Ironhand]

What little I know of Egyptian history, there were Nubian pharoahs, but they were documented as such. You can't just go around designating random extra pharoahs as being Nubian despite what is known about their ancestry.

Egyptian paintings on scrolls and wall murals make obvious distinctions between Nubians and Egyptians. They do not fade indistinguishably into each other.

[Ironhand]

See

http://www.flickr.co...her/2304066696/

and

http://www.geocities...foreigners.html