History Channel Portrays Hannibal as Black, White People Cry Foul Over ‘Historical Revisionism’

[Colicat]

What are you talking about??? Why would the Romans be confused about Hannibal's race/ethnicity? Why would they need to lie. They didn't lie about describing the Ancient Egyptians as BLACK.

What makes you think that they wouldn't lie?
When you omit, destroy, and/or bury facts and evidence you lie through omission.

 

[714562]

There's no credible evidence as to what way Hannibal looked like one way or another. But it wouldn't be a stretch if he had what we recognize as "black" features.

Modern people always gotta racially politicize history, man.

Hannibal's ethnicity and physical appearance | Hannibal

The issue of Hannibal’s ethnicity and what he looked like are no doubt vital to many but remain contentious matters even to scholars. Let me try to explain why in the following several points.

First, we have no certain contemporary image from his own time to show us what he looked like. The primary source closest to his time is the Greek historian Polybius who lived almost a century later, and he gives no verbal description. No other ancient sources that have survived do either. We do have the curious information that he was possibly prone to disguising himself at times. There may be a few silver coins from the Punic culture in Spain, most likely minted around the mid-to-late 3rd century bce in what soon became known as Carthago Nova (now Cartagena), but these coin images are arguable because they may depict his father, Hamilcar, or other relatives instead. After Hannibal’s life, the Romans likely recalled every silver Punic coin they could find—including any that might have shown Hannibal—and melted them down to make new Roman coins with their own images. So we are left with mostly modern interpretations from long after the Roman Empire.

Second, regarding his DNA, as far as we know, we have no skeleton, fragmentary bones, or physical traces of him, so establishing his ethnicity would be mostly speculative. From what we think we know about his family ancestry, however, his Barcid family (if that’s even the right name) has been generally understood as descending from Phoenician aristocracy. If still the same relative ethnic or DNA group, which is also very difficult to prove since so many different peoples have moved into the region since, including peoples from Arabian homelands, his original ancestry would be located in what is modern Lebanon today. As far as we know, little to no Africanization—if that is an acceptable term—happened there in that region before or during his era. So attempting to say much about his original ancestry from Phoenicia is very difficult. On the other hand, since the Phoenicians arrived and then later settled in what is now Tunisia relatively early, possibly beginning around almost 1,000 years before Hannibal, it is very possible his family had intermixed in DNA with peoples then living in North Africa. But this too seems quite distant from any potential Nilotic DNA stream including via the “superhighway” of the Nile River. The distance between the Nile and Tunis is almost four times as far as the distance between the Nile and Tyre, but that may not be as important as our lack of knowledge about any potential spreading of African DNA overland across North Africa at that time, which is again possible but not known. The barrier of the Sahara would otherwise make any such ancient DNA distribution from south to north difficult but not impossible. New studies suggest that around Hannibal’s time there was likely more trans-Saharan travel via Garamantian oases [i.e., oases controlled by the Garamantes, a Berber people], so we shouldn’t deny any possible Africanization of the region of Carthage.

If Africanization was part of Hannibal’s heritage, I and other scholars would be most interested in seeing the evidence, as we should always be ready to learn and change our perceptions when needed. If our human ancestry derives originally from Africa, it was so long ago, possibly hundreds of thousands of years in the past, who can realistically say what that original DNA was like and what people looked like then? We still must have much more hard science conducted for years into the future to even come close to understanding that prehistory. I must add just as a personal note that my own father had some African ancestry because it appears in our DNA even if it may not show in external phenotypes. Sadly, “race” has too often been a divisive political term.

Ultimately, this is a difficult question that may be even more difficult to answer simply because of lack of information. History is an imperfect record and the further back we go, all too often the less evidence survives. For now, that seems true of Hannibal’s ethnicity.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

What makes you think that they wouldn't lie?
When you omit, destroy, and/or bury facts and evidence you lie through omission.

The Romans did that to EVERY group the conquered and yet the still did NOT lie about their ethnicity for black. Explain... And if you're thinking it has something to do with white supremacy then your wrong, because the concept of white supremacy did not exist at that time. The Romans actually considered their northern more paler skinned brethens as inferior while they saw Africans like the Garamentes, Nubians, Egyptians and Numidians as not only as superior as those northern Europeans, but they also willingly let those Africans assist them in battling those "inferior northerners." In fact I have recently read that the Romans thought of darker skinned people(including themselves) as smarter while those who were much paler like those more north as "slow minded."

So again what point would the Romans have to LIE about Barca's ethnicity??? The Romans were CLEAR in describing their enemies races. Hell they weren't even like the Ancient Egyptians who in fact made up lies or airbrushed away their defeats.

 

[Knicksman20]

@KidStranglehold

Still going through my computer to find my other sources but found this which I'm sure you've seen.

@Canadadry you'll like this too

 

[joeychizzle]

White people complaining about the revision of history
Will someone please think of the poor white historians
I never charge my phone cuz it stays charged up by white rage

 

[Colicat]

The Romans did that to EVERY group the conquered and yet the still did NOT lie about their ethnicity for black. Explain... And if you're thinking it has something to do with white supremacy then your wrong, because the concept of white supremacy did not exist at that time. The Romans actually considered their northern more paler skinned brethens as inferior while they saw Africans like the Garamentes, Nubians, Egyptians and Numidians as not only as superior as those northern Europeans, but they also willingly let those Africans assist them in battling those "inferior northerners." In fact I have recently read that the Romans thought of darker skinned people(including themselves) as smarter while those who were much paler like those more north as "slow minded."

So again what point would the Romans have to LIE about Barca's ethnicity??? The Romans were CLEAR in describing their enemies races. Hell they weren't even like the Ancient Egyptians who in fact made up lies or airbrushed away their defeats.

What makes you think that his ethnicity was never mentioned?

Why do you think that white supremacy never had an impact on the recounting of Roman history?

What makes you think accurate evidence was preserved?

What makes you think that Roman acknowledgement is the only way to discern information?

Why do you think that people who killed their own offspring didn't have a superiority complex?

The truth begins and ends with Rome I see.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

The berber people are indigenous to that area too they're not colonizers from Europe or the Middle East. Also there's a lot of different groups . Some of the are black like Tuareg.

And some are light skinned like this girl

(Note the ink, they're culture's tattoo's are so cool imo.)

Berbers are relatively new to Africa. Not a major part of its history. So no. They weren't a factor in this times.... North Africa was a lot more Black.

 

[yeyeye]

Berbers are relatively new to Africa. Not a major part of its history. So no. They weren't a factor in this times.... North Africa was a lot more Black.

No they're not nikka, they're indigenous to that part of africa lol.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

No they're not nikka, they're indigenous to that part of africa lol.

Lmao nah... not at all. They settled there over time and are of mixed origin.

Facts

 

[yeyeye]

Lmao nah... not at all. They settled there over time and are of mixed origin.

Facts

Where'd they settle there from?

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

can i watch this "on demand" if i have History Channel in my cable package?

 

[Mook]

Because anyone or anything that pertains to blackness where black people have been intellectually superior then cacs, the race of the said person or people has to be disputed to disporve black people are intellectually superior then cacs.

See Ancient Egypt, the Moors, Hannabal, Septimius Severus, Attila, etc.

All are still disputed by cacs because they cannot fathom black men being intellectually superior then cacs

They can let A-rabs have Saladin, or any other ethnic non-black icon, but a black man who embarrassed cacs cannot be black.

Only Pharaohs were white in Egypt and that was only after Alexander the great.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

What makes you think that his ethnicity was never mentioned?

Why do you think that white supremacy never had an impact on the recounting of Roman history?

What makes you think accurate evidence was preserved?

What makes you think that Roman acknowledgement is the only way to discern information?

Why do you think that people who killed their own offspring didn't have a superiority complex?

The truth begins and ends with Rome I see.

Right now you're just putting words in my mouth and just going off track. First off all I never even mentioned Rome to the poster I replied to. All I asked him was for sources that state Hannibal was referred to as a Moor. You just randomly jumped in. No one said the truth begins and ends with the Romans, thats just your imagination.

And I don't know why you're asking all these same questions when some of them have already been answered. As for the bolded, I NEVER thought that and if thats the case then we can't even have a FIXED opinion on who Hannibal Barca was in the first place. And again I was the ONE WHO ASKED for sources if Hannibal was referred Moor from someone who made that statement.

But more importantly you still have not explained why Rome would lie about Hannibal's ethnicity/race... But more importantly you ignored all the important points I made in my post.

 

[714562]

What makes you think that his ethnicity was never mentioned?

Why do you think that white supremacy never had an impact on the recounting of Roman history?

What makes you think accurate evidence was preserved?

What makes you think that Roman acknowledgement is the only way to discern information?

Why do you think that people who killed their own offspring didn't have a superiority complex?

The truth begins and ends with Rome I see.

Wow.

He literally didn't say any of the shyt you just mentioned.

Literally none of it.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Wow.

He literally didn't say any of the shyt you just mentioned.

Literally none of it.

Glad to see someone else seeing the weirdness that I'm dealing with.