Posted By:
Accipiter
in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. Jul 03, 2005
Here's something for those of you with an interest in history:
It seems that there are currently at least two movies being produced about Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian who fought Rome in the Second Punic War. One film company has cast Denzel Washington as Hannibal, the other has chosen Vin Diesel. Now a fuss has started over which actor is more realistic, racially.
This was the same technique used by that theatrical whore, James Cameron, in Titanic. Even though the subject was one of the most famous events in history and there were 2500 people on board (some of them being the richest and most famous of the time
Dan
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 | 08:41 PM
Alexander Siddig played Hannibal in a movie in 2006. Tunisians are Caucasians like most North Africans. You can see plainly if you have eyes. They are similar to Southern Europeans but of course they are different. They should stop the politcal correctness. They found through DNA that they are Haplogroup E but a branch of E that is related to other North Africans to the middle east to Southern Europe. North Africans like to think they are Caucasian but they do not think they are the same as Europeans and some say they are unique compared to Middle Easterners. They do think they are different from Sub Saharan Africans. Somalis and some Eithiopians think they are more mixed race. They are mixed with Sub Saharan and Caucasian types that are more related to Arabs or Egytpians. You can plainly see it. Why do Black people and people who are poltically correct want to link two different groups of people the same. Is it to make them feel better? It is rather silly in my mind. I am a Historian and I think I look at history with a good rational approach.
Jesiah Brock
in USA
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 10:07 AM
Sometimes it seems as though the world almost strives not to give people of color or anything/place associated with people of color the credit they deserve. Whether its historical figures such as Hannibal, Queen Sheba, Cleopatra, Nefertiti ect, or ideas that people of color were able to build grand structures such as the pyramids. If they weren’t still standing today most people wouldn’t even believe it existed, or that it could ever be in Africa.
White actors have been playing non-white characters in Hollywood for years. For example, actor David Carradine plays an Asian in the popular "Kung Fu" series because Bruce Lee looked “too Asian” for the part. I can bet the real Cleopatra looked nothing like Elizabeth Taylor but its one of her most famous roles! Even the recent "Passion of the Christ" doesn’t show Jesus as he probably was. The actor was Canadian for crying out loud!
I’m just amazed how people could actually have a problem with Denzel playing Hannibal because his skin color is darker than many would be comfortable with when Hollywood has never played close attention to historical accuracy before when it comes to race. Hannibal was a person of color. We cant say for sure how dark his skin was but he looked nothing like a European or an Arab. If Hannibal were alive today, we would categorize him as black, or a person of color.
mario majors
in Las Vegas
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 11:23 AM
Wheras I have to agree with the your view of Hollywood's ethnocentrism Jesiah, you are also making quite a leap. Cleopatra was a Ptolemy, and aside from her place of birth, she was quite Greek. Hannibal was Carthaginian, in other words he was Phoenician, which makes him a Semite. If by "person of color" you mean black in regards to either Cleaopatra or Hannibal, you are wrong and misinformed. I can certainly empathize with your position; my Sicilian grandfather was hardly lily white, and I highly doubt that my Roman ancestors ever spoke with British accents. However, I sincerely hope that when you "persons of color" you are not just referring to black, and I am sorry, Denzel Washington would be a poor choice to play Hannibal, just like picking James Caviezel was not an inspired choice to play Jesus; two wrongs do make a right.
Jesiah Brock
in USA
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 12:03 PM
Well first of all we need to dismiss, completely and forever, any overlap between ancient geographical terms such as “Europe”, “Asia”, and “Africa” and the ethnic meanings they sometimes have today. To the Greeks “Africa” then was the far side of the other big marker of the time, the Mediterranean. Its coastal strip–today’s Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya–was much more fertile back then and a source of grain. And, of course, this was 900 years before the Arab conquests, so nobody was speaking Arabic yet. Instead, there were people there such as the Numidians, who were probably the ancestors of today’s Berbers. But on to Carthage
Carthage means “new city” in Punic, their language, because the Phoenicians founded it as a colony. (Lots of colonies were named “new city”: the Greeks named some of theirs Nea-polis. You might know one of them. It’s Naples today.)
But who were the Phoenicians? They were ancient seafarers and traders who came from today’s Lebanon. Their main cities were Tyre, Side and Byblos but what did they look like? Check out the link.
From the picture of these modern day people from Lebanon we can say that the probablility of Hannibal being a person of color is very high.
Mario Majors
in Las Vegas
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 12:40 PM
I can see from the link that you provided that you and I are on the same sheet of music Jesiah, although I still think that Denzel would be a bad choice; there are some people that have tried to depict the Punic Wars as race wars, which they were not. I believe that picking Denzel to play Hannibal would just give intemperate individuals fuel for their fire. I personally would prefer a modern day Omar Sharif shall we say. I can see that you taken the time to read up on your history, but meaning no disrespect, the ancient Greek name of Naples was Partenopolis, I have family there; the Romans called it Neapolis.
Cheers and best regards
Emilio Primo
in Philadelphia
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 | 04:48 AM
Sorry Jesiah Brock, but were talking some 2000+ years ago, so the people who were living there more likely than not look nothing like the population there today. it is no doubt in that time span the population went through some drastic changes.
This is the reason that I get irate when people try to compare the ancient Phoenicians to the people of Lebanon today.
The thing of it is the is no source or reference that you can find that will tell you the racial characteristic of the Phoenicians of that time, except the Bible. Now you also have contemporaries of that time as well that speak of black cultures in Asia and Europe(So the refutes that myth of blacks only being a sub-Saharan culture)But the Bible, which states that the Phoenicians and the Canaanites were one and the same.
Now the question remains who were the Canaanites. The Bible states that they were descendants of Ham, son of Noah, father of the black race.
Even the History Channel depicts Hannibla Barca as black now.
Jesiah Brock
in Cincinnati
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 | 07:06 AM
Emilio,
I’m a little confused.. I don’t disagree with you. I think were saying the same thing. I do think that Hannibal was black or a person of color. However, our definition of "black" now is not the same as it was 2000 years ago. Black doesn’t have to mean he came from Africa. It can simply mean that he is a person of color. The idea of race was invented for the purpose of subjugation. Culture is what defined the people of that age and Its what separates us now scientifically.
Also I never said that "black" was only a sub-Saharan culture. There were and are people of color all over the world.. If you read my original post you would have seen were I said:
“we need to dismiss, completely and forever, any overlap between ancient geographical terms such as “Europe”, “Asia”, and “Africa” and the ethnic meanings they sometimes have today. To the Greeks “Africa” then was the far side of the other big marker of the time, the Mediterranean”
Whether you think the Phoenicians who did come modern day Lebanon looked like the picture I provided or not, history tells us that they were people of color, they did found Carthage. We may never know exactly what he looked like or how dark his skin was but if we follow history we can hypothesis that there is a high probability that Hannibal definitely did not resemble a European, as some would have us believe
Emilio Primo
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 | 03:41 AM
Sorry Jesiah, I was making general comments in that post but the one directed at you had more to do with the disagreement I have in the picture you provided.
And in regards to Mario Majors:
I assume when you say "Semitic appearance" you mean "white" or "Middle Eastern" looking. It's funny or should I say hypocritical when folks like you assume Semitic automatically translates to "white" or "Middle Eastern" in appearance and then from the same line of thought you say African does not automatically equate to "black".
You and people like you always bring up that fact he was Phoenician, a Semitic peoples without even knowing who or what the Phoenicians were.
The Phoenicians who came to be called that by the Greeks actually called themselves Canaanites who resided in what is now modern day Israel and Palestinian territories.
The ONLY source that will describe in detail the appearance of the Canaanites/Phoenicians is the Bible.
Now lets not get into the religious aspect of the Bible because that doesn't have anything to do with the matter. The point of the matter is that the witters of the Bible as well as peoples in Biblical times held traditions of the ethnic make-up of men(And these traditions actually carried over scientifically to very recent times) and this tradition was that Noah's 3 sons started what is known as the different races of men.
This tradition held that whatever your racial make-up was then that means you were a descendant of one of Noah's sons in accordance with your appearance. For instance if you had a "Semitic appearance" then that means you were a direct descendant of Shem son of Noah and so fourth.
In Bible times traditionally it was held that the Canaanites(who were later called Phoenicians by the Greeks) were direct descendants of Ham son of Noah because of what they looked like at this time, and Ham traditionally speaking was considered the father of the black race. Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian whose ancestry was that of a Canaanite or a Phoenician. Thus the History Channels latest portrayal of Hannibal Barca as................Black
joe truch
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 | 06:55 AM
Novices!
Probably no one that has commented has been in the military, nor studied history.
First lets look to his army.
His most trusted were his African infantry. He didn't have to pay them. He did have to pay conscripts such as the Gauls, Celts and other Euro races. But here is the key factor to any military leaders. Put your most expendable and less trusted or valued troops in the deadliest part of battle. I bring to you the formation at Cannae. Middle of the formation were composed of the Euro folks (more expendable). The African wings (Infantry) was preserved for last and is the key piece that did the most damage. Would any Euro man put Africans ahead of his brothers? Uh, no! And now, novices, research the coin found in the Chiana (clanis) valley. This is the only picture of Hannibal with his most trusted elephant. If I were in his army, would I want a picture of an elephant driver, or that of my great commander. I think the answer is clear. Face the truth racists and deal with it. Hannibal was as black as obsidian. Oh, almost forgot. Livy, a historian who live to talk to survivors of Hannibal's day, states that Hannibal wore wigs, to disguise himself from time to time. The only race of men to quickly change their hair with wigs (like Egyptians) were African tribes/races. Do your homework next time and you will not be having this debate. Peace.