Alexander the Great was a black man

[NoirDynosaur]

Okay, let's get this straight

The main reason why Mediterranean Europeans (Greece, So, Italy, Siciliy, Balkans) are dark looking caucasians because their haplogroup E-V13 and E1b1b migrated from Northern Africa towards Southern Europe.

This was during the Ice Age when Malta, Sicily and Italy constituted a land mass. You can read more here (Europe's African Genes - And The Final Nail In The Idea Of Race)

 

[Everythingg]

Take it up with the people that made this from way back when

 

[newworldafro]

 

[Reece]

Umm, no. He was definitely Macedonian. In modern day speak, he was more Albanian and Slavic than Greek. But yea history is a lot darker than whites like to admit and there were certainly a lot of blacks living in Europe.

 

[Wiirdo]

Because alot of "great" Europeans were actually black. Like Shakespeare for instance...

Source.

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

Son was pure greek.

I believe a few ancient Greek sects were black, breh. It's not either or with a lot of these ancient civilizations. Some civilizations have African origins, in fact most in Europe, but they also co existed with the whites in the general area. Black vs white didn't come until probably a millienium ago. They co existed as tribes and intermingled and bred with each other. So that's why I think it's hard to pinpoint where, why and when certain civilizations were homogenized into one race. But in general any and every country in the mediterrean and west of there had black roots.

 

[Roid Jones]

 

[UncleTomFord15]

Y'all realize op is joking right? Except for Hannibal its believed by many he was black, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Mr. Pink]

The Anunnaki were black!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

 

[Double Burger With Cheese]

O you said some racist shyt in a thread yeasterday and I asked was you black and you never responded. Told me all I needed to know. Troll or not, shut ya cracker ass up. I wish I could see some y’all in real life so I could slap literal shyt out of y’all

 

[Sukairain]

He wasn't, and we know he wasn't because historians understood enough about racial differences at the time to have remarked on it. Arrian, writing around 400 years after Alexander's life, is the best source on Alexander and we can see from his account that racial and cultural differences were well understood in antiquity:

India is not unlike Ethiopia, and the Indian rivers have crocodiles like the Ethiopian and Egyptian Nile; and some of the Indian rivers have fish and other large water animals like those of the Nile, save the hippopotamus: though Onesicritus states that they do have the hippopotamus also. The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as broad-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.

No Indian ever went outside his own country on a warlike expedition, so righteous were they. This also is related; that Indians do not put up memorials to the dead; but they regard their virtues as sufficient memorials for the departed, and the songs which they sing at their funerals. This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave.

The Indians wear linen garments, as Nearchus says, the linen coming from the trees of which I have already made mention. This linen is either brighter than the whiteness of other linen, or the people's own blackness makes it appear unusually bright. They have a linen tunic to the middle of the calf, and for outer garments, one thrown round about their shoulders, and one wound round their heads.

Indian war equipment differs; the infantry have a bow, of the height of the owner; this they poise on the ground, and set their left foot against it, and shoot thus; drawing the bowstring a very long way back; for their arrows are little short of three cubits, and nothing can stand against an arrow shot by an Indian archer, neither shield nor breastplate nor any strong armour. In their left hands they carry small shields of untanned hide, narrower than their bearers, but not much shorter. Some have javelins in place of bows. All carry a broad scimitar, its length not under three cubits; and this, when they have a hand-to-hand fight -- and Indians do not readily fight so among themselves -- they bring down with both hands in smiting, so that the stroke may be an effective one. Their horsemen have two javelins, like lances, and a small shield smaller than the infantry's. The horses have no saddles, nor do they use Greek bits nor any like the Celtic bits, but round the end of the horses' mouths they have an untanned stitched rein fitted.

The Indians in shape are thin and tall and much lighter in movement than the rest of mankind. They usually ride on camels, horses, and asses; the richer men on elephants. For the elephant in India is a royal mount; then next in dignity is a four-horse chariot, and camels come third; to ride on a single horse is low. Their women, such as are of great modesty, can be seduced by no other gift, but yield themselves to anyone who gives an elephant; and the Indians think it no disgrace to yield thus on the gift of an elephant, but rather it seems honourable for a woman that her beauty should be valued at an elephant.

Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander VIII.6 - 17.

Moreover we also know that there was no reason for Arrian or any other ancient writer to lie and falsify the origins of notable people. They respected foreign cultures and foreign people, as can be seen in Arrian's description of India, Xenophon's biography of Cyrus the Great, Aristotle's and Polybius' analysis of the Carthaginian political system, and many other examples. Why would you need to pretend somebody was white in a world that didn't care about whiteness? In fact to be 'white' like how we understand it today, blonde haired, blue eyed, northern European features, was an enormous disadvantage in the Greek and Roman world because those features were associated with the Celtic and Germanic tribes, who were looked down upon by Greeks and Romans. Everybody who did not speak Greek was regarded a barbarian - the Greek term barbaros literally meant a language which sounded like 'barbarbarbar' to Greek ears, incomprehensible gibberish. But nobody ever had anything good to say about the barbarians of Europe (see for example, Livy's comments on the Celts, or Caesar's description of the Gallic and Germanic tribes he encountered during his invasions of Gaul and Britannia), unlike African and Asian barbarians, whom they often did have many positive things to comment on. All things considered the idea that ancient writers lied about Alexander's true racial origins holds no water, the only reason they could have lied was if he was white - they would have denied his whiteness and emphasized his Greekness.

 

[Wisdomkeyz]

And Shaka zulu was white?

 

[Leasy]

Napolean too huh? This must be one of those cases of "everyone has Black roots, so everyone is Black."

I don’t know if he appeared black but Napoleon has E1BA2 or whatever that black maternal dna line. Somewhere down the line maybe his mom Gmom or whoever was black.

 

[Ya Sinning Mane]

*95 percent chance you're being trolled right now