How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!
- Thread starter pimpmastabola
- Start date
- Status
doronron
King
varwnos said:
Ah! You mean Asterix!
History lies! Everyone knows those famous works were redone to change the man's color from black to white!
FieldMarshall
Also known as "Nuke"
OK, the only "black" people in North Aftica were the Numidians. Carthage was a former Phoenician colony that broke away and formed it's own empire. Phoenicians were white-ish, and so are Carthaginians.
doronron
King
Belcarius said:
There's nothing online, at least. I went looking. None of the histories I've read would touch that stance with a ten foot pole.
FieldMarshall
Also known as "Nuke"
Remember, Kodak wasn't around back then.
doronron
King
FieldMarshall said:
I'm well aware of that, but Kodak exists now, and we do have written first hand accounts (mostly Roman) and photographed archeaological evidence of the major civilizations from that time period, including Carthage. None of the artifacts from the Carthaginian empire shows a black civilization. None of the documented accounts state Carthage was black, nor does it state Hannibal was black.
FieldMarshall
Also known as "Nuke"
I'm not saying Hannibal is black. I know for a fact that he's white (ish). But the only true proof that we have is some ancient paintings and mosaics and a few statues. But remember, back then it was seen that all great rulers were somehow decended from the gods, and thus in their "portriats" should look godly, and not normal. So, some of the images we see may or may not be accutate as to who the actual man is.
Despite that, Hannibal is still white.
K.F. Huszár
Warlord
Ghafhi
I am a historian. at the university i dealt a lot with the ancient mediterranian world. THERE WERE NO BLACK PEOPLE in North Africa.
Egytians, Lybians, Numidians, Tuaregs, Moors/Maurus Tribes, Berbers were not black. Even Carthagians and Greek colonists in Cyrenaica were not black.
So, Hannibals was not a "blck" as well. Have you ever seen any portraits of Hannibal?
Africa=black peoples. It is a primitive thing.
And before you say i am biased or prejudiced toward the "white race", i can tell you that i am Hungarian (do you know where Hungary is???). Hungarians are not of indo-european ("aryan") origin, although they look like whitey folks.
Have you heard about physical anthropology? it is a science based on hard facts. Skull form, corpus fabric, blood group etc. So, please before posting to this thread read some books of physical anthropology about North Africa.
some more remarks.
1. Hannibal's elephants were not imported. They were african elephants, breed in huge stables inside CArthage.
2. Albert Camus was an Algerian French. They were expelled by the extremist FLN.
3. I think one or two more "black" civs should be included.
4. Eastern Europe (EU members: Czechia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Baltic States; non-EU: Rumania, Croatia, etc.) all together is a huge market, counting 100 million souls.
I am a historian. at the university i dealt a lot with the ancient mediterranian world. THERE WERE NO BLACK PEOPLE in North Africa.
Egytians, Lybians, Numidians, Tuaregs, Moors/Maurus Tribes, Berbers were not black. Even Carthagians and Greek colonists in Cyrenaica were not black.
So, Hannibals was not a "blck" as well. Have you ever seen any portraits of Hannibal?
Africa=black peoples. It is a primitive thing.
And before you say i am biased or prejudiced toward the "white race", i can tell you that i am Hungarian (do you know where Hungary is???). Hungarians are not of indo-european ("aryan") origin, although they look like whitey folks.
Have you heard about physical anthropology? it is a science based on hard facts. Skull form, corpus fabric, blood group etc. So, please before posting to this thread read some books of physical anthropology about North Africa.
some more remarks.
1. Hannibal's elephants were not imported. They were african elephants, breed in huge stables inside CArthage.
2. Albert Camus was an Algerian French. They were expelled by the extremist FLN.
3. I think one or two more "black" civs should be included.
4. Eastern Europe (EU members: Czechia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Baltic States; non-EU: Rumania, Croatia, etc.) all together is a huge market, counting 100 million souls.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
I consider myself to be pretty interested and informed in history.
Mali is a fantastic choice, Ethopia would have been an equally nice alternative. IMHO Civ #20 and 21 should be a SE Asian Civ (really really advanced) and Polynesia (they do have a huge impact on today world culture - Tatoos!
).
But please, allow me one question:
Who on Earth are the Zulus?
I mean, I've heart of that tribe just like I've heart about hundreds more. But their impact on history solely is mentioned in what I call 'The Tales of the Glorious British Empire' (and only in GB), Hollywood and RSA folklore. Everywhere else, they are considered as one of the more insignificant African people.
I've never heart the name 'Shaka' before Civ.
Mali is a fantastic choice, Ethopia would have been an equally nice alternative. IMHO Civ #20 and 21 should be a SE Asian Civ (really really advanced) and Polynesia (they do have a huge impact on today world culture - Tatoos!
).But please, allow me one question:
Who on Earth are the Zulus?
I mean, I've heart of that tribe just like I've heart about hundreds more. But their impact on history solely is mentioned in what I call 'The Tales of the Glorious British Empire' (and only in GB), Hollywood and RSA folklore. Everywhere else, they are considered as one of the more insignificant African people.
I've never heart the name 'Shaka' before Civ.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
AFAIK, Hannibal's Elephants were neither African (can't be tamed) nor Indian (too expensive, too far away) ones. They belonged to the now extinct Meditarranean or Syrian Elephants. Most likely similar or even identical to the Forrest Elefants still around.K.F. Huszár said:
colontos
King
Ghafhi said:
Ok, Ghafhi, you're finished. You really shouldn't post anymore after this lovely little gem.
You are professing to be an expert on various races, but you just referred to the Asian race as "chinese." The ignorance of this is astonishing, and no better (and maybe worse) than the ignorance of calling all Africans "Zulus." I'm not even sure what you mean by "indian." As in from India, or as in Native American?
So, here we go: our resident race expert, Ghafhi, pronounces that there are, in the world, only FOUR races, and those are, quote: black, white, chinese, and indian (unspecified).
Hmm, how about Arabs? Are they white, I guess? Polynesians would be indian? People from India are indian (making them the same group as Native Americans) or are they chinese? Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese are all chinese. Hispanic folks are all white, correct? You should write a book.
doronron
King
FieldMarshall said:
I know many portraits were stylized, but I doubt ancient subsaharan blacks would consider European, Mediterranean/Middle Eastern features to be more "godlike" than their own.
Images made on walls and stamped on coins were also a major method during the ancient empires to show the subjects just what their rulers looked like, in case they were ever fortunate (unfortunate?) enough to meet that individual. Another reason why such depictions would be somewhat accurate.
Ancient Roman statues of the emporers before Christ were very accurate to what the ruler looked like because they claimed to be descended from the gods (they had nothing to prove), it wasn't until after the Empire converted to Christianity that the statues of the later emporers become more and more exagerated (sp?), mainly due to the fact that they were now considered "mere" humans.
Invisible Rhino
Prince
Okay...
1) BLACK AND WHITE DON'T EXIST. The genetic variation between humans is not enough to assign people to subspecies or "races" as they are popularly known. The vast majority of people do not fit neatly into one racial category.
2) There is no way to say for sure whether a guy who lived so long ago was what skin color. Hell he could have been a Hawai'ian who got really lost. Does it matter? At all? No! Waste your energy on something you can prove one way or the other.
1) BLACK AND WHITE DON'T EXIST. The genetic variation between humans is not enough to assign people to subspecies or "races" as they are popularly known. The vast majority of people do not fit neatly into one racial category.
2) There is no way to say for sure whether a guy who lived so long ago was what skin color. Hell he could have been a Hawai'ian who got really lost. Does it matter? At all? No! Waste your energy on something you can prove one way or the other.
K.F. Huszár
Warlord
I think it does matter sometimes what "race" you are belonging to. Not to mention ethnic or racial fights, remember Los Angeles in the 90s!!!. There has been a drug developed in the USA which is recommended for black people. There are statistics that people belonging to different ethnic or anthropologic groups are differently react to different sicknesses or toxins or simply any food. E.g. Some East-Asian people could hardly proceed dairy food because they lack a gen responsible for this.
Otherwise, nations and civs are useually dominated by ONE "marker" ethnic or racial group.
BUT, please, moderators should think about Ghafhni if he/she is worth enough to spread racial intolarance and STUPIDITY.
Beware, falsifying history is the first step to dehonest an other group of people.
bye
Otherwise, nations and civs are useually dominated by ONE "marker" ethnic or racial group.
BUT, please, moderators should think about Ghafhni if he/she is worth enough to spread racial intolarance and STUPIDITY.
Beware, falsifying history is the first step to dehonest an other group of people.
bye
One can also think about the fact that claiming that one race is superior to another is in a way (although ofcourse that is just one of the parameters, and there are many of those) linked to the adelescent anxiety to categorise people of the same race to beautiful and less beautiful, or ugly. One shouldnt forget the psychological factors of one's attitude.
i can easily think of people who would argue endlessly that "black is superior to white" or the opposite, when in reality they would be subconsciously trying to say that they arent inferior to their peers. Any person can be seen symbolically as well, given that the beholder is inclined to do just that, and the same applies to any country/race etc.
Personally i am finding it very interesting that Thessalonike is beginning to have a significant black population; places that have 99% of the population being of one group tend to become decadent it seems. Although i am finding it less appealing that the north part of the city is starting to be russian
i can easily think of people who would argue endlessly that "black is superior to white" or the opposite, when in reality they would be subconsciously trying to say that they arent inferior to their peers. Any person can be seen symbolically as well, given that the beholder is inclined to do just that, and the same applies to any country/race etc.
Personally i am finding it very interesting that Thessalonike is beginning to have a significant black population; places that have 99% of the population being of one group tend to become decadent it seems. Although i am finding it less appealing that the north part of the city is starting to be russian
Invisible Rhino
Prince
It matters today what you identify yourself as, absolutely this is true. The legitimacy of developing drugs targeted at specific races is very questionable and if we start talking about that we're REALLY off topic 
Suffice to say that different maladies are found in different peoples throughout the world and that they are not distributed in any sort of a pattern that would support race theory. Prevalence of one disorder is balanced out by low rates of another, etc., there isn't enough of a genetic profile so to speak to put people in groups because it can vary from one village to the next.
What DOESN'T matter is trying to force our divisions on people who lived thousands of years ago and who looked at things very differently than we do now. If you tried to tell Hannibal to his face that he was "black" or "white" or "semtic" he'd probably send you to a doctor, assuming he was in a good mood.
Suffice to say that different maladies are found in different peoples throughout the world and that they are not distributed in any sort of a pattern that would support race theory. Prevalence of one disorder is balanced out by low rates of another, etc., there isn't enough of a genetic profile so to speak to put people in groups because it can vary from one village to the next.What DOESN'T matter is trying to force our divisions on people who lived thousands of years ago and who looked at things very differently than we do now. If you tried to tell Hannibal to his face that he was "black" or "white" or "semtic" he'd probably send you to a doctor, assuming he was in a good mood.
"-What isnt very clear is why an algerian would be so interested in the tautology: berber=carthaginian=algerian=black."
How would you defend your self if I was calling you a race you aren't
"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."
10% of people in Algeria were white before we became a country around the 60's. You can tell that the name Albert or Camus are not arabic or amazigh names. These are clearly white european names. Camus is what is know as a pied noir. This are foriegners born in Algeria or other parts of North Africa.
"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."
I think Egyptians are mixed for most of there empire but started out black. There are many famous mixed North Africans today in the North but most North Africans have very dark skin color and look like black people.
"You had said, i think, that you arent black yourself, so it doesnt make sense as things stand at the moment."
I never said I wasn't black or I would have nothing to argue about. I have mostly black ancestry and I am sure some Ottoman or Roman in their some where but mostly black.
"-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)."
This is the problem exactly. You think that any African who doesn't look like Shaka Zulu is not black. For you I have to have a flat nose and small tight curls or else I must be white or not black. I think this is the problem and I could easily see how this myth is reality. If I only saw German white people and then I saw a Southern Italian or Spainard then I might say he is not white becasue he doesn't look like the other whites I have seen.
"But arabs have clearly middle-eastern characteristics."
If you are implying that Arab is a race then you are misinformed. It is like saying spainish is a race. Look at Saudi Arabia which claims to have an all Arab population yet 1 in 5 saudis are black people who look like Shaka Zulu. Arab is a culture and a language. I have seen Arabs with brown hair and blue eyes and Arabs who look like any other black guy. You tell which Arab is the real Arab. Jordianians are arabs and so are people from Somalia, and Yemen yet we see that they are clearly two different races here.
"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;"
True that is why I say Egypt is not a part of North Africa. Most Egyptians are mixed with black and other races so I don't think that Black race is superior so thats why I don't call them black.
"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."
I say Egypt is mixed and Carthage was mostly 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."
Some of them were debately but I have problems with his source. Only one of them are verfiable in my opinion. I couldn't find one website that had such a variety of coins using yahoo,google,ask and msn. This makes me highly suspicious as to whether or not these are Roman coins and NOT Carthgian. I also noticed that it becomes very hard to different race by looking at a coin from the side. There are plenty of old black people who look white, eg Nelson Mandela looks white from the side in black and white print as hard as it is to believe. Also a leader with a characteristic like a flat nose might asked for his nose to be protrayed different than how it really looks because he is a shamed of it but that is just speculation. (see http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-lie.htm) and (http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-sie.htm)(http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-mus.htm) and (http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-sol.htm) This one is togo (http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-tog.htm) and Ivory Coast besides the hair looks very white http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-ivc.htm. None of these Doesn't look black to me yet most of them are which proves you can't tell race from a coin. The point is I question his rare sources and it is very difficult to tell by loooking at a coin race. It is also very plausable that the upper class of Carhage had many whites in places like Spain and Sicily.
"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."
It is very poor today but it was considered by most nations to be a great empire. The persians made a list of greatest empire and it was persia,Rome China and Ethiopia. It was actually a very big trade route, Ethiopia traded with china, india and arabians so I disagree with you on that. Ethiopia was also the greatest seafaring nation before the Europeans started colonzing places
"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."
I don't know what this has to do with anything I said. There are way to many African cultures and ethnic groups in Africa for it to be one country or culture, I am against pan-africanism and Arabism like many Algerians.
"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."
I think that Europe crowdedness help make it more powerful but you are underestimating the importance of many african civlizations that you simply don't know about. Many parts of central africa didn't create literacy so whatever strong empires might have existed there we don't know so I won't make up stuff. Asia is larger than Africa and the people there were organized. Many of West Africas powers began rising the right before the arrival of Europeans which brought the slave trade which destroyed those empires amound other reasons. However there are many North and East African cultures as I said before that are good as European ones.
Moderator Action: You have been told many times to keep your ideas in a single post. The following 12 posts were deleted, and you get a 7-day ban for continuing this.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
How would you defend your self if I was calling you a race you aren't
"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."
10% of people in Algeria were white before we became a country around the 60's. You can tell that the name Albert or Camus are not arabic or amazigh names. These are clearly white european names. Camus is what is know as a pied noir. This are foriegners born in Algeria or other parts of North Africa.
"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."
I think Egyptians are mixed for most of there empire but started out black. There are many famous mixed North Africans today in the North but most North Africans have very dark skin color and look like black people.
"You had said, i think, that you arent black yourself, so it doesnt make sense as things stand at the moment."
I never said I wasn't black or I would have nothing to argue about. I have mostly black ancestry and I am sure some Ottoman or Roman in their some where but mostly black.
"-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)."
This is the problem exactly. You think that any African who doesn't look like Shaka Zulu is not black. For you I have to have a flat nose and small tight curls or else I must be white or not black. I think this is the problem and I could easily see how this myth is reality. If I only saw German white people and then I saw a Southern Italian or Spainard then I might say he is not white becasue he doesn't look like the other whites I have seen.
"But arabs have clearly middle-eastern characteristics."
If you are implying that Arab is a race then you are misinformed. It is like saying spainish is a race. Look at Saudi Arabia which claims to have an all Arab population yet 1 in 5 saudis are black people who look like Shaka Zulu. Arab is a culture and a language. I have seen Arabs with brown hair and blue eyes and Arabs who look like any other black guy. You tell which Arab is the real Arab. Jordianians are arabs and so are people from Somalia, and Yemen yet we see that they are clearly two different races here.
"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;"
True that is why I say Egypt is not a part of North Africa. Most Egyptians are mixed with black and other races so I don't think that Black race is superior so thats why I don't call them black.
"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."
I say Egypt is mixed and Carthage was mostly 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."
Some of them were debately but I have problems with his source. Only one of them are verfiable in my opinion. I couldn't find one website that had such a variety of coins using yahoo,google,ask and msn. This makes me highly suspicious as to whether or not these are Roman coins and NOT Carthgian. I also noticed that it becomes very hard to different race by looking at a coin from the side. There are plenty of old black people who look white, eg Nelson Mandela looks white from the side in black and white print as hard as it is to believe. Also a leader with a characteristic like a flat nose might asked for his nose to be protrayed different than how it really looks because he is a shamed of it but that is just speculation. (see http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-lie.htm) and (http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-sie.htm)(http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-mus.htm) and (http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-sol.htm) This one is togo (http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-tog.htm) and Ivory Coast besides the hair looks very white http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-ivc.htm. None of these Doesn't look black to me yet most of them are which proves you can't tell race from a coin. The point is I question his rare sources and it is very difficult to tell by loooking at a coin race. It is also very plausable that the upper class of Carhage had many whites in places like Spain and Sicily.
"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."
It is very poor today but it was considered by most nations to be a great empire. The persians made a list of greatest empire and it was persia,Rome China and Ethiopia. It was actually a very big trade route, Ethiopia traded with china, india and arabians so I disagree with you on that. Ethiopia was also the greatest seafaring nation before the Europeans started colonzing places
"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."
I don't know what this has to do with anything I said. There are way to many African cultures and ethnic groups in Africa for it to be one country or culture, I am against pan-africanism and Arabism like many Algerians.
"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."
I think that Europe crowdedness help make it more powerful but you are underestimating the importance of many african civlizations that you simply don't know about. Many parts of central africa didn't create literacy so whatever strong empires might have existed there we don't know so I won't make up stuff. Asia is larger than Africa and the people there were organized. Many of West Africas powers began rising the right before the arrival of Europeans which brought the slave trade which destroyed those empires amound other reasons. However there are many North and East African cultures as I said before that are good as European ones.
Moderator Action: You have been told many times to keep your ideas in a single post. The following 12 posts were deleted, and you get a 7-day ban for continuing this.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
In my view the difference between subsaharan black and middle eastern is a lot more pronounced than that between northern european and med european, (the later being still existant, and so we make the distinction) which is why i think that middle eastern should be distinct from subsaharan (ie from "black").
some pics to compare:
Yaser Arafat (middle eastern)
m. Luther King (black)
Mike Dukakis (white, med)
G.W.Bush (white, aglosaxon)
some pics to compare:
Yaser Arafat (middle eastern)
m. Luther King (black)
Mike Dukakis (white, med)
G.W.Bush (white, aglosaxon)
doronron
King
Ghafhi said:
The problem here is not whether or not Hannibal was black. The problem here is you. I honestly don't care what color your skin is, but the bulk of the posts you've made have been hurtful and disrespectful to every other culture that doesn't fit in your subsaharan african supergroup, that is when you're not trying to usurp their history.
When we've provided clear evidence that refute your claims, showing that Hannibal was instead Middle Eastern and not subsaharan (or super african) Black, you resort to calling us ignorant, prejudiced, and racist instead of actually trying to provide hard evidence to back your stance.
You will note here that none of us have claimed Hannibal is white, nor that Hannibal is too good to be black, we've simply been providing historical and archeaological support to refute you. You're the one taking it personally.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
