How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[Ghafhi]

Ghahfi, Hannibal was never black, no matter how many revisionists try to claim he was.

I refer to this website:

http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/hannibal.html

Notice the coin. This is clearly not a black profile.

As for Carthage not being Phoenician:

http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/carthage/carthage.html

This helps clearly show the origins of Carthage.

And Phoenicia itself:

http://www.cedarland.org/phoenicia.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/P/Phoenici.asp

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Phoenicia.html

They clearly show the Phoenician empire began in Lebanon, and that the ancient people were Canaanite, or Syrian. These also show that the Phoenicians were Middle Eastern, not Black African.

As for Hannibal being of possible Berber decent, well let's look at a famous modern Berber, the former president of Algieria, Liamine Zeroual, is of Berber decent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liamine_zeroual.jpg

As one will readily see, this man is not black.

Additional primary source proof that Hannibal is not of Subsaharan African decent:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-coin-hannibal.htm

Not black.

Other coins from Carthage:

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/015.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/018.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/023.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/024.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/028.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/030.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/031.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/032.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/038.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/039.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/050.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/051.jpg

Still not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/058.jpg

She's not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/059.jpg

She isn't black either.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/060.jpg

Also not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/061.jpg

Nope.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/062.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/063.jpg

Not here either.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/064.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/065.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/071.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/072.jpg

Also not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/073.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/074.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/075.jpg

Not black.

If Carthage was a great black empire, surely their coinage would reflect that, right?

Additional primary source proof that Hannibal is not of Subsaharan African decent.

A coin:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-coin-hannibal.htm

A bust:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2100/images/gallery/hannibal02.jpg

Another bust:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/hannibal.htm

Hannibal was not black. The Carthagenians were Phoenician. The Phoenicians came from the Middle East.

Alright one of your website is a porno one and anyone can create their own thing on geocities. Carthgians weren't phoencians. You have to prove this. Most of your websites are created by people who errors in basic spelling so I call them into question. If Carthgians were white then where did they get elephants from when they crossed into rome? Maybe you believe all black people look the same well your wrong. North, central and east African people don't look shaka zulu like you think. Also as I said there were white places that were occupied by carthage there were also carthgians of mixed descent and if you look at any non-white nation u will notice an exceptional high amount of mixed(white and whatever) people in government.
Get a bible or got to an REAL encylopedia and research the black race of the canaanities.
Looking at a modern berber from northern algeria is like looking at a modern native american in winnipeg. As a said before there are a high amount of mixed people in government in Algeria the president being one.

 

[doronron]

Alright one of your website is a porno one and anyone can create their own thing on geocities. Carthgians weren't phoencians. You have to prove this. Most of your websites are created by people who errors in basic spelling so I call them into question. If Carthgians were white then where did they get elephants from when they crossed into rome? Maybe you believe all black people look the same well your wrong. North, central and east African people don't look shaka zulu like you think. Also as I said there were white places that were occupied by carthage there were also carthgians of mixed descent and if you look at any non-white nation u will notice an exceptional high amount of mixed(white and whatever) people in government.
Get a bible or got to an REAL encylopedia and research the black race of the canaanities.
Looking at a modern berber from northern algeria is like looking at a modern native american in winnipeg. As a said before there are a high amount of mixed people in government in Algeria the president being one.

Which was the pornographic one? Post the link. I've read them all and not one was pornographic or inappropriate -- unless you consider the truth pornographic and inappropriate.

My primary research comes from traditional sources, but one can't exactly post paper or display physical pieces of art through the web. You yourself are using internet sources to prove your claims, so your attack on my material's validity just because it is posted online is fallacious.

Your own writing skills are also quite poor. Using your own litmus test for authenticity, I suppose you would have to consider your repeated assertions to be invalid (as we do).

Carthage was a Phoenician colony -- that means they came from Phoenicia. Phoenicians came from the Middle East. Middle Easterners are not black. They are also not white, and I never asserted they were. I simply stated they were not black. You attempting to claim their heritage for yourself takes away from those who truly own it, the Arabian people. That is wrong. You are basing your assumptions more on modern day Africa and your own politically charged beliefs rather than archeaological facts

Carthage possessed domesticated animals. Elephants were among them. People tend to gather animals from other places if they should prove useful. Europe introduced the horse to America, but owning domesticated horses did not make Native American Indians suddenly become European.

Your assertion that a race or a culture is black simply because black people moved into that region can equally be applied to white, asian, or middle eastern ethnicities. Congratulations, Africa is now white because white people have lived there and continue to do so.

 

[Ghafhi]

"My primary research comes from traditional sources, but one can't exactly post paper or display physical pieces of art through the web. You yourself are using internet sources to prove your claims, so your attack on my material's validity just because it is posted online is fallacious."
-I'm not saying its neccessarily false but questionable because anyone with knowledge or back ground could have written. I would prefer to see some information from a source that has substance like an encyclopedia online that is not wirtten by random net users like wikipedia. One of the reasons why I don't use it.

Your own writing skills are also quite poor. Using your own litmus test for authenticity, I suppose you would have to consider your repeated assertions to be invalid (as we do).
-My writing skills suck cause 1) I'm rushing 2) English is my third language gime a break

"Carthage was a Phoenician colony -- that means they came from Phoenicia."
Israel was a Roman colony-- that means that the Israelis came from Rome.
See how what you said didn't make sense. We both know Israelis aren't from Rome. The fact that they were a colony proves how different Romans and Israelis are because Israelis are too different to be intergrated into Roman society. Same deal with Carthgians being different from Phoencians. I don't beleive that Carthage and phoencia even existed at the same time so I don't know how carthage was a phoencian colony.

"Phoenicians came from the Middle East. Middle Easterners are not black. "
-This is your personal belief and it is based on ignorance and racism. You believe that black people only come from africa and never went anywhere else. This leads back to my argument of most of the middle east being part of Ancient Africa. Get an encyclopedia and you will see that semtic languages originate in africa.

"They are also not white, and I never asserted they were. I simply stated they were not black."
Whenerver some one tells me they were not white and they were not black then the question is what were they. They were black they were from africa. If I were to make such a statement about one of your white europeans countries I would be eaten alive in this forums and be told I'm crazy. If they were semities then what race are semities. You will soon realize that there is no such thing as a semtic race. But there are semitic cultural groups. Know lets say the Carthgians were of the semitic cultural group. Unless they were Greeks there appears no other reasonable race that these people could have been. There is no other race or culture that had invaded ancient africa and displaced its black population. Unless you can prove to me that at some point and time there were mass amounts of whites emigrating to anceient africa your argument is farce. The not white/black theory is used by people who simply don't know a race or don't want to accept the race for what it is.
"You attempting to claim their heritage for yourself takes away from those who truly own it, the Arabian people."
There were never any people who orginated from Arabia to enter Algeria. The closet thing to arabian invasion would be the turks. I'm sure you will try to argue that 80% of algerians are arabs and I would laugh because 99% of Algerians are Amazighs. However Amazighs can follow arabic tradition making them arabs just like any other people.
"That is wrong. You are basing your assumptions more on modern day Africa and your own politically charged beliefs rather than archeaological facts"
There is no Arabic influence or culture or writing ever found in North Africa that predates the moors and muslims jihadist. I have no politically charged beliefs. Arachealogical facts and all the people of the mediterrain believe hannibal and the carthgians were black. You are a lone on your non white/black carthgian argument

Carthage possessed domesticated animals. Elephants were among them. People tend to gather animals from other places if they should prove useful. Europe introduced the horse to America, but owning domesticated horses did not make Native American Indians suddenly become European.

"Your assertion that a race or a culture is black simply because black people moved into that region can equally be applied to white, asian, or middle eastern ethnicities. "
Well if people don't create the race then tell me what does the land. Ancient Africa is Ancient Africa because blacks were there before any other race. If there are only black people there then what should It be called anceint Europe? Makes no sense

 

[Kyriakos]

It is debatable that "blacks" were in the north of africa, that is the object of the debate. It isnt debatable at all that europe had indigenous black people though, i have never heard of anyone claiming it.
I dont think that it follows from anything that people of very dark skin should populate an entire continent, especially one of the size of africa, so i dont think that it is irrational that the northern part had people of more pale colour.

 

[doronron]

-I'm not saying its neccessarily false but questionable because anyone with knowledge or back ground could have written. I would prefer to see some information from a source that has substance like an encyclopedia online that is not wirtten by random net users like wikipedia. One of the reasons why I don't use it.

The only thing I pulled from wikipedia was a picture. That still proves your dismissal of my material as false as you have used internet sources as your primary material. Case in point:

Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba borne.

about 8000 years before china a central gov was in ethiopia.

from the thread "Two biggest problems with Civ right now"
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=123377&page=4&pp=20

Where you pulled the material was:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/ethiopia_history.asp

You didn't even bother to cite your source.

-My writing skills suck cause 1) I'm rushing 2) English is my third language gime a break

Then you should not judge others' writing skills and consider them lesser than you in a particular field. Their english might be their fourth language.

Israel was a Roman colony-- that means that the Israelis came from Rome. See how what you said didn't make sense. We both know Israelis aren't from Rome. The fact that they were a colony proves how different Romans and Israelis are because Israelis are too different to be intergrated into Roman society. Same deal with Carthgians being different from Phoencians. I don't beleive that Carthage and phoencia even existed at the same time so I don't know how carthage was a phoencian colony.

No. Phoenicia FOUNDED Carthage. Rome CONQUERED Isreal. There's a world of difference. Carthage rose in power after the Phoenician empire waned and eventually became Rome's rival for the Western Mediterranean.

-This is your personal belief and it is based on ignorance and racism. You believe that black people only come from africa and never went anywhere else. This leads back to my argument of most of the middle east being part of Ancient Africa. Get an encyclopedia and you will see that semtic languages originate in africa.

Like your claim that most of Europe was part of Moorish Africa?

You're the one with a serious racial bent. You're not willing to even consider the possibility that other cultures could possibly even exist outside of this mythical African supergroup. The Middle Eastern cultures are Middle Eastern. They are the cultural heritage of Persia, Arabia, Iraq...all of them. You do them an injustice to not recognize the Middle East's accomplishments, or those of Asia, or Europe, for that matter. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't state that black Africa was all powerful. It was just another group of people in the ancient world, along side Greece, Rome, Persia, and Egypt. The difference is, Africa got left behind because it was so far off the trade routes.

Whenerver some one tells me they were not white and they were not black then the question is what were they. They were black they were from africa. If I were to make such a statement about one of your white europeans countries I would be eaten alive in this forums and be told I'm crazy. If they were semities then what race are semities. You will soon realize that there is no such thing as a semtic race. But there are semitic cultural groups. Know lets say the Carthgians were of the semitic cultural group. Unless they were Greeks there appears no other reasonable race that these people could have been. There is no other race or culture that had invaded ancient africa and displaced its black population. Unless you can prove to me that at some point and time there were mass amounts of whites emigrating to anceient africa your argument is farce. The not white/black theory is used by people who simply don't know a race or don't want to accept the race for what it is.

And that's where your problem lies. You see things in ONLY black or white. You don't take into account Native American peoples, nor Asian, nor Middle Eastern. And you're pissed off that just about every other cultural or racial group on the planet can lay claim to something important that shaped the modern world.

There were never any people who orginated from Arabia to enter Algeria. The closet thing to arabian invasion would be the turks. I'm sure you will try to argue that 80% of algerians are arabs and I would laugh because 99% of Algerians are Amazighs. However Amazighs can follow arabic tradition making them arabs just like any other people.

Here's two: The Berbers, and the ancient Syrians (aka Phoenicia).

There is no Arabic influence or culture or writing ever found in North Africa that predates the moors and muslims jihadist. I have no politically charged beliefs. Arachealogical facts and all the people of the mediterrain believe hannibal and the carthgians were black. You are a lone on your non white/black carthgian argument

Then explain the large amount of artifacts (only a small fraction of which I've linked) that show otherwise, along with the copious amounts of academic material based off of it. And I am not alone in thinking Carthage was not black. Look at all the posters here refuting you. Look at the evidence I've provided.

Well if people don't create the race then tell me what does the land. Ancient Africa is Ancient Africa because blacks were there before any other race. If there are only black people there then what should It be called anceint Europe? Makes no sense

The gene pool of the population creates the race. Ancient peoples lived isolated from each other for successive generations, simple mountain ranges presented significant barriers. These people interbred among themselves over hundreds of thousands of years, creating the earmarks of each group. Sothern African was subsaharan black. Their influence further north was hindered by the desert. The near east was an entirely different group that bled into Northern Africa and the Eastern European portions of the Mediterrenean (hindered by mountains in Europe and the Saharan desert in Africa). Those that managed another way around (circling the black sea or crossing the mountains) eventually spread into Europe and found themselves geographically isolated from the Middle East. Vast expanses of land isolated the Asiatic groups. Amerindians are descendents of the Asiatic groups that crossed over into the Americas during the ice age. Australia was also populated by some of the early peoples, but the ocean isolated them from Asia.

Your statements that an area should be considered African simply because Africans lived there for a period of history is wrong. As I had stated before, that argument can be made for any of the ethnic groups. Since European whites laid claim to African lands and many of their descendants still live there today, your argument can apply to Africa being part of Europe.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

You can actually post book references on the web. It's called citation. I wouldn't really consider a website a credible reference for a historical fact, even if its something like "Rome was a Roman city" i'd still say get it cooborated from an actual source

@ Ghafhi : A lot of my heroes are black (and I know this for a fact with the ones that are still living at least ). I don't admire people because of the color of their skin, I admire people becasue of what they accomplished.

p.s. A historian by definition is a "revisionist" There is no such thing as a "non-revisionist" Historian.

 

[rhialto]

Since someone upthread said Maltese people have a better view of things, perhaps it is time I chipped in...

The common man in Carthage was a mix of Phoenician and berber ancestry, with varying degrees of bloodline between individuals, some being 'pureblood' one or the other, most being fairly mixed.

Note that berber does NOT mean 'black'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber has some photos of famous (and therefore independantly verifiable) berbers.

However, the ruling classes of Carthage were almost certainly 'pureblood' (or nearly so) Phoenicians.

 

[frekk]

If Carthgians were white then where did they get elephants from when they crossed into rome?

Same place the Greeks and Persians did - India.

Carthgians weren't phoencians.

Yes, they were ... the evidence is overwhelming.

Also as I said there were white places that were occupied by carthage

What exactly do you mean by "white" here? Carthaginians were Semitic, and most of the races in areas they occupied were either Semitic or Hammitic, with a few Meditteranean groups thrown in. Hannibal's army was mostly "Celtic" but comprised of Spanish Celts ... who were olive-skinned and dark haired like most Meditteranean peoples. "Africa" isn't a magical synomyn for "black", where Africa met the Meditteranean it was populated by Meditteranean peoples.

Get a bible or got to an REAL encylopedia and research the black race of the canaanities.

The Canaanites were not black. If they were, I don't see why you're insisting the Carthaginians weren't Phoenician since the Phoenicians were Canaanites. All three groups were Semitic Mesopotamians and are very obviously members of the Mesopotamian cultural sphere.

The point is there aren't many multinational hero's in North Africa and to have some ignorant fool come and try to tell me that my ancestors are white is ridiculous. How would you like if I told you Napolean and all the great white guys were black. Maybe you wouldn't care. But if you were from a country where there were few heroes you would

Nobody said your ancestors are white. You're the one claiming to be descended from a known Semitic group. If I said my ancestors were Zulus and they were white, it would be similar to what you're doing. You can't change history just because you need it to give you "heroes" ... altering it to suit nationalist or racial hopes is extremely wrong, its been done and certainly history as it's written now contains a few examples of that, but, Classical history has long ago been very well understood and purged of these sorts of ideas because of the overwhelming abundance of primary source materials there to correct any "projecting" made out of nationalist or racial sentiments. This is the kind of thing you should be working against, not promoting. There is a definite tendency in modern history to ignore Africa, but the solution isn't to turn Canaanites and Carthaginians into Africans when they weren't ... the solution is to develop a better understanding of groups that really were black. There were many complex, iron age socities throughout Africa from an early time, more than a few of which were easily comparable with contemporaries in the Middle East. They had cities, iron tools, agriculture, trade networks, and so on ... rather than trying to usurp and warp other people's history, blacks ought to work on promoting their own.

 

[Belcarius]

I don't suppose Ghafi would care to provide any evidence for the idea that Hannibal was Black? I got interested in this and trawling through a few encyclopedias revealed: 1. Carthage was a Phonecian city which grew rather powerful. 2. Hannibal a member of the Barca family, which does not appear to be black. 3. The only blacks that were a part of Carthage were the Numidians (and possibly slaves), and they were treated as no better than mercenaries. It is doubtful that one of them could ever rise to command the Carthaginian army. So until I see something more conclusive, I'm siding with these guys.

 

[Ghafhi]

It is debatable that "blacks" were in the north of africa, that is the object of the debate. It isnt debatable at all that europe had indigenous black people though, i have never heard of anyone claiming it.
I dont think that it follows from anything that people of very dark skin should populate an entire continent, especially one of the size of africa, so i dont think that it is irrational that the northern part had people of more pale colour.

I agree it is not debatable that their are indigenous blacks in Europe because that is a fact, but thats not what I am arguing. I could as easily use your argument for any other continent. Considering that Africa isn't the largest continent. But the debate is whether North Africans are White or Black.

 

[rhialto]

I'd love to reply to you, but I can't tell what you wrote and what the other guys before you wrote. If you can't use the QUOTE function for formatting text, at least separate your paragraphs from the other guys' with blank lines or something. I know English isn't your first language, but I assume the text layout conventions are the same, no?

 

[Ghafhi]

Since someone upthread said Maltese people have a better view of things, perhaps it is time I chipped in...

The common man in Carthage was a mix of Phoenician and berber ancestry, with varying degrees of bloodline between individuals, some being 'pureblood' one or the other, most being fairly mixed.

Note that berber does NOT mean 'black'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber has some photos of famous (and therefore independantly verifiable) berbers.

However, the ruling classes of Carthage were almost certainly 'pureblood' (or nearly so) Phoenicians.

From you own source it says that Berbers not only speak and african language but they seem to be mostly west africa people. Going as far south as burkin faso. I'm sorry but I don't know of any people besides white europeans who haven't left since colonization that exist in west africa. Even your own source proves that berbers are black. Why would semites speak an african language. if they are so different. This also shatters that guy I am arguing with theory that you can't cross the sahara desert in ancient times. Berber doesn't mean black berber is actually considered to be a negative racial slur that is why I have been using the term amazighs up until this point. Berber means barbarian and I don't think you would like to be called one. What you said was correct and incorrect. Carthgians aren't mixed with Phoencians because the amazighs who lived in North Africa during the phoencians colonization were the same Amazighs who lived in North Africa during the Carthgians.

 

[Kyriakos]

Ghafhi: i am not trying to be annoying here, but Hannibal isnt algerian (i trust you were reffering to him as an algerian national hero).
And although modern Greece isnt the same as ancient Greece, there is still more logic (since the language is largely the same as in the ancient days, although not entirely, and ofcourse genetically no race would remain the same for 3000 years) in saying that Odysseus is a greek hero (calling him a greek national hero would sound stupid though) albeit very few people would bother to do even that, and rightly so in my opinnion, since greek history (ancient) is global and not just limited to Greece.
And although i understand that this isnt the same as with Algeria, still it sounds a bit strange to call Hannibal an algerian hero (i am repeating here that i am not sure that you meant that).

 

[rhialto]

From you own source it says that Berbers not only speak and african language but they seem to be mostly west africa people. Going as far south as burkin faso.

1) Did you notice the photos of berbers on that site, especially the famous ones? they were, clearly, not black.

I'm sorry but I don't know of any people besides white europeans who haven't left since colonization that exist in west africa.

I can't quite parse this sentence. Care to rephrase this? (What is your native language anyway?)

Even your own source proves that berbers are black.

This I will take as evidence that you did not look at the photos.

Why would semites speak an african language, if they are so different.

Practical communication. Why do you think many Gauls learnt latin in Romand times? Why do you think I speak Japanese? It certainly isn't true to say i am Japanese, which your logic would insist upon.

This also shatters that guy I am arguing with theory that you can't cross the sahara desert in ancient times. Berber doesn't mean black berber is actually considered to be a negative racial slur that is why I have been using the term amazighs up until this point. Berber means barbarian and I don't think you would like to be called one. What you said was correct and incorrect. Carthgians aren't mixed with Phoencians because the amazighs who lived in North Africa during the phoencians colonization were the same Amazighs who lived in North Africa during the Carthgians.

Perhaps in some circles berber is an insult. Nonetheless, that remains the standard term used to describe those peoples.

And nowhere did I say that the semite blood replaced the berber blood in that region. It mixed in, and the dominant ethnicity remained berber. But teh ruling classes in Carthage were semites.

And yes, in ancient times the Sahara trek represented one of the most valuable trade routes. Nothing I wrote contradicted that. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

 

[Ghafhi]

"Same place the Greeks and Persians did - India. "
Ah ha. Hannibals army rode in on mostly female elephants and they all had tusks. Only african female elphants have tusks.



"What exactly do you mean by "white" here? Carthaginians were Semitic, and most of the races in areas they occupied were either Semitic or Hammitic, with a few Meditteranean groups thrown in. Hannibal's army was mostly "Celtic" but comprised of Spanish Celts ... who were olive-skinned and dark haired like most Meditteranean peoples. "Africa" isn't a magical synomyn for "black", where Africa met the Meditteranean it was populated by Meditteranean peoples."
CARTHGIANS were black semities that is correct. I doubt there were celts from britain but Spain was a carthgian colony so that could be true.



The Canaanites were not black. If they were, I don't see why you're insisting the Carthaginians weren't Phoenician since the Phoenicians were Canaanites. All three groups were Semitic Mesopotamians and are very obviously members of the Mesopotamian cultural sphere.
Canaanites were black read a history book. The difference is that the centre of phoencia, sidon, were not mostly blacks, but the empire had colonized many black places.



"Nobody said your ancestors are white. "
Saying there not black is saying they are white,chinese or indian
'You're the one claiming to be descended from a known Semitic group. If I said my ancestors were Zulus and they were white, it would be similar to what you're doing."
If you proved that there was a white population around the time of Zulus I would believe you.
"You can't change history just because you need it to give you "heroes" ... altering it to suit nationalist or racial hopes is extremely wrong, its been done and certainly history as it's written now contains a few examples of that, but, Classical history has long ago been very well understood and purged of these sorts of ideas because of the overwhelming abundance of primary source materials there to correct any "projecting" made out of nationalist or racial sentiments. This is the kind of thing you should be working against, not promoting. There is a definite tendency in modern history to ignore Africa, but the solution isn't to turn Canaanites and Carthaginians into Africans when they weren't ... the solution is to develop a better understanding of groups that really were black. There were many complex, iron age socities throughout Africa from an early time, more than a few of which were easily comparable with contemporaries in the Middle East. They had cities, iron tools, agriculture, trade networks, and so on ... rather than trying to usurp and warp other people's history, blacks ought to work on promoting their own."
Well you need to research Cannaities and Carthgian history. If I was white or whatever race you are trying to tell me I am them I would agree with you. When I go to Algeria I don't see white people. When I read Algerian history books its not a white man on the cover named jugartha or hannibal it is a black man. I guess everyone who went to school in Algeria is a as crazy me and is a black guy trying to steal white history like me. I don't care if white people want zulu or ethiopian or egyptian ancestry for all I care in 50 years you can say mandela and shaka zulu is white but don't try to con me and tell me that Hannibal is white because I have way more background on the issue than probably anyone else here.
[/QUOTE]

 

[doronron]

-Phoencia never found Carthage

Excuse me, I forget that English is your third language. The word "Founded" means settled or created. Phoenicia settled and created the city state of Carthage.

Most of Western Europe. This is an accrurate statement

The southern half of Spain and the island of Sicily does not equate to most of Western Europe. You were also claiming northern Italy (and that beethoven was moorish, nevermind he was born in Germany), France, and Belgium.

-Sure there are many great non-africans. But the Mid-east never existed until midlle easterns did. The Ancient African cultures are ancient african.

And the middle easterns are not black. I suppose you mean the empires of Mesopotamia, Babylon, Ur, Sumeria, etc. weren't ancient? That's patently false.

-Persia is not part of the mid-east. The mid-east is usually compromised of all the arabic speaking and cultural people between Iraq and Egypt, South of Syria.

Persia is the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent, which is the foundation for the whole of the middle eastern culture.

-Ask any Iraqi who knows there history very well and they will tell you there ancestors were black. Ask any Torahic Rabinical scholar anf they will tell that 95% of the mid-east nations had a majoraly black population. The exception is Syria and when Persia starts to invade the mid-east.

Middle Eastern people will claim to be Arabic, not black. They have their own culture to be proud of.

-I disagree with your missing trade route theory Carthage was so rich that Rome got jealous and invaded us this is what started one of the punic wars.

Carthage is located in Tunis, part of the Mediterranean and a major hub of the trade routes (which is why Phoenicians chose to settle there). It was a war for supremacy of the seas. Subsaharan Africa, which you are so proud of you try to rewrite the history of the mediterranean and middle eastern populations for, were not on the trade routes, which is why nations such as Ethiopia fell behind.

-Ancient Mali was even richer. Possible the richest civlization ever to exist along with what native people tell me the Aztecs or Mayans.

Which is one of the reasons why the Mali are in the new game instead of the Zulu.

Sure I take into account Native Americans and Asians but that is not what I am currently talking about. The truth is most of the Great mid-east civilizations where black or half black and that the truth.

You only take Native Americans and Asians into account long enough to insult and belittle them:

I don't see why the Iroquois or the Incas are there they didn't build nothing great or they don't have no great culture.

The dutch or one of those bear drinking indian civs who dont do nothing.

I would argue that asia until recently has done nothing with the exception of the japanese.

All of these quotes came from the thread linked below:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...77&page=4&pp=20

The great middle eastern cultures had no contact with black Africa. They were kept at bay by Ancient Egypt, who themselves were more middle eastern than anything else.


Here's two: The Berbers, and the ancient Syrians (aka Phoenicia).

These are two groups that are not subsaharan black that controlled northern and northwestern Africa...does that help?

I look at it soon and reply. Just because many people are ignorant doesn't make what they true. Nonethe less I will look at your evidence.

Sounds like you already made up your mind, Ghafhi. This is what bigoted people do. Guess your faith is stronger than archeaological fact.

By the way, one of the links you claimed was a porno site. I guess you didn't look at any of the links I provided? Does this make you a liar?

One person, like yourself, can be just as ignorant as many. We've provided evidence to refute your claims. You still choose to be ignorant.

Well if only black african people live in an area then why should it be called white. If only black africans have lived in what you call the mid-east since the begining of time until the invasions by the greeks and persians and etc. tHEN WHY aren't they black before the invasions.

The only black africans that lived in the middle east were either trading outposts that dried up, or those who were kidnapped by arabian traders and sold into slavery. Middle Easterners are an entirely different group. They are not black.

Ah ha. Hannibals army rode in on mostly female elephants and they all had tusks. Only african female elphants have tusks.

I refer you back to an earlier point I made about domesticated animals. One which you avoided providing any comment:

Carthage possessed domesticated animals. Elephants were among them. People tend to gather animals from other places if they should prove useful. Europe introduced the horse to America, but owning domesticated horses did not make Native American Indians suddenly become European.

 

[Kyriakos]

-What isnt very clear is why an algerian would be so interested in the tautology: berber=carthaginian=algerian=black.
There are many algerians who, i am sure, look mostly white, a famous one was Albert Camus, some writer, imo not a very good writer but still a white person of algerian decent, obviously from one parent who was white french, and one who was of darker complexion.
I dont understand why it is that important to you that the northern african people are seen as black, and moreover than even the ancient empires, that is Carthage and Egypt, are seen as black. You had said, i think, that you arent black yourself, so it doesnt make sense as things stand at the moment.

-Most europeans, as i have stated again, define "black people" as those who have mostly nubian characteristics, or at least afro-americans (they are just a more common image, due to the movies and tv). But arabs have clearly middle-eastern characteristics.
But i will suppose (since anyway i do not know much at all about this matter) that the people west of Egypt, in norther africa, have different characteristics than the arabs; even so this doesnt mean at all that they are linked to Carthage, and neither does this mean that Carthage and ancient Egypt were populated by black people. The images in the coins of which links were posted in this thread clearly show that the carthagenian ruling class didnt have any black characteristic at all; if anything they look more greco-roman, and at any rate not subsaharan.

-Ethiopia was an ancient kingdom, with a continuous history, but that was mostly because no one had much to gain by invading it, the country always was poor, as it is today still, and, like it has been said, was far away from the lucrative trade roots, which was why it was left behind.

-There really is no need, and neither is there any hope for it to be achieved, of trying to create a mythical black united superculture, which would rise just so that it could rival a similarly united european superculture; if anything at least in europe the uniting part was mostly ancient Greece, and Rome, and less christianity, at least in later aeons.
Whereas there is simply no uniting factor for the entire african continent, and even less of such a thing that would unite africa and the middle east.

-Africas geographical place is what made it less important for world history (apart from its mediterrenian part ofcourse). Also the mere vastness of the continent would make it hard for ancient people there to have a reason for organising themselves better so as to fight their neighbours, whereas ancient Greece had hundreds of city states which were competing for supremacy in a very small and mostly mountenous space.

 

[frekk]

Ah ha. Hannibals army rode in on mostly female elephants and they all had tusks. Only african female elphants have tusks.

WRONG!!!

[quotes]
CARTHGIANS were black semities that is correct. I doubt there were celts from britain but Spain was a carthgian colony so that could be true.[/quotes]

You are nuts. No Celts in Britain? I guess all the Romans who wrote records of Britain and all the archaeologists working on pre-Roman Britain are all on crack. No Semites are black, thats like saying there are blacks who are white.

Well you need to research Cannaities and Carthgian history.

You need to research the broader contexts of Meditteranean and Mesopotamian history to comprehend who the Canaanites, the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians were - they were a movement of urban peoples who colonized westward from the Tigris and Euphrates, bringing with them the culture of the Fertile Crescent (including its gods and religious practices and LANGUAGES and scripts and art styles).

When I go to Algeria I don't see white people.

No, most Algerians are Semitic - Arab, Berber, or mixed stock. They aren't blacks or whites.

Besides which, I don't see any native Americans where I live either, but they sure were here. Mostly I see Europeans, Africans, and Asians. It would be really dumb to think people didn't move around and things don't change over the course of 2000 years.

If you've studied your history so well then surely you know that the Carthaginians were utterly wiped out by the Romans. So why would they still be there if they were all dead?

 

[Invisible Rhino]

Would it be a compromise to say that Hannibal is perfectly acceptable as an Algerian national hero, AND an example of the greatness of Meditteranean civilizations, and that it really doesn't matter what color his skin was?

 

[doronron]

Would it be a compromise to say that Hannibal is perfectly acceptable as an Algerian national hero, AND an example of the greatness of Meditteranean civilizations, and that it really doesn't matter what color his skin was?

I would agree with that, but Ghafhi would most certainly take exception to the fact that Hannibal was not declared black. He would also most likely argue that Hannibal's superpowered skintone allowed him to hand carry all of the elephants into Italy and toss them like catapult stones into the white, obviuosly inferior Romans.