>Hannibal

>Artwork of North Africans from pre-history to Egypt to the Moors shows them as light skinned or haired
>Also for Levant artwork
>genetics show little Basketball American admixture in North Africa that isn't from slavery
>History Channel does this
>We Wuzzing about North Africa

How?

Other urls found in this thread:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138453
tunisiancommunity.org/wordpress/?page_id=3425
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>shows them as light skinned or haired

This. THEY WUZ WHITE N SHIT

It's an American show, when epople think of Africa they think of dark skinned sub Sarahan Africans. Hannibal looked no different than the Lebanese and tunisian men of today

>Basketball American admixture
Okay, that was funny.

Lebanese and Tunisians don't look same

He was a mix

Modern Tunisians are 20% negroid

A Y O O
Y
O
O

SHHHIETTTTTT

Where's the Dindu Admixture?

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138453

IIRC the carthagenians only allowed members from old pheonician family's to become generals. That would mean he's pure Levantine

Don't forget the Chi Rho

wait, he really had that helmet?

Looks like a budget $3 Halloween costume.

It is, same company makes these

topkek

It's political conditioning, nothing to do with history.

They've done many genetic tests on this: despite what we wuzzers on both sides would have you believe, the genetics of people in North Africa are pretty much the same as they were in antiquity. It's very rare that any invasion or population transfer actually causes a noticeable demographic shift. For example:

>Until recently, some papers suggested that the distribution of the main L haplogroups in North Africa was mainly due to trans-Saharan slave trade.[23] However, in September 2010, a thorough study of Berber mtDNA by Frigi et al. concluded that most of L haplogroups were much older and introduced by an ancient African gene flow around 20,000 years ago.[24]

Whether that would make Hannibal "white" is an open question. Most modern white supremacists definitely would not consider him such. But he was not Sub-Saharan African.

Hannibal almost certainly looked a lot like the average person from Tunis today. That is, he probably looked a lot like the average southern Italian or Greek, except slightly swarthier. Look at a map: Carthage/Tunis is actually further north than parts of Greece. Supporting this is the fact that contemporary writings specifically point out that Hannibal's Numudian mercs were noticeably darker than the Roman troops, and later writings note that the Germanic peoples were very fair, yet say nothing about the Punics being of a noticeably different look than the Roman troops- who would be primarily drawn from central and southern Italy and Greek mercenaries/colonies in the Second Punic War. You can also look at frescoes of the half-Punic Roman Emperor Severus. Or busts. Or Carthaginian shekels depicting their heroes. All show fairly typical Mediterranean faces.

Pic related: modern Reconstruction of a Carthaginian noble based on DNA samples and a skeleton. Looks Moroccan.

I thought this was meant to be Saint Maurice, rather than Hannibal?

No it's We Wuz.

How come Amerifats and other New Worlders are so obssessed with West Niggers? They were far behind until foreigners came around.

No they don't I'm tunisian and it's really rare to see black peoples here

Calm down, /pol/.

It's just a public campaign to normalize black people everywhere in history so that white populations stop freaking out about African migration to Europe since that's going to vastly increase in the coming decades. Since white people are so fucking racist and can't come to terms with it not mattering since there's only one human race, this is a good idea. They'll stop panicking about it after a generation and it won't matter any more.

Now get back to /pol/, please.

I'm pretty sure they didn't like him in the movie either because he was american.

its perfectly ok if an international aristocracy destroys all semblance of democracy and floods Europe with an endless stream of foreigners against their will because whitey be raciss or because its just gonna happen, resistance is futile and eventually after a really long time no one will care.

also
>all ethnic groups are the same
>population growth is always a good thing even as automation takes hold
>people shouldn't be able to control their borders or be tribal in anyway... obey the new global government GOY

Nice logic.

>jesus was a jew
>is portrayed as a european by europeans
WE WUZ THE MESSIAH AND SHIT

>only members of the Osmanlik family could become Sultan/Caliphs, that would mean they were pure Turkish
Do you understand your mistake now?

>light-skined and light-haired

Ancient North Africans would still be darker than even Sardinians (the darkest hair and eyed Europeans), even if they had less than their current Sub-Saharan admixture (~20%) in ancient times.

That guy looks levantine, not north african

>Basketball American
>implying all blacks are American

Dumbass. Either way, Hannibal wasn't black.

People with the L haplogroup are usually black right? How did the ancient Berbers look going further back, before civilization? Were they just a "white" black race, like how there are very light skinned and dark skinned Asians? Because I remember seeing a study that said they have a common ancestor with Scandinavians.

> slavery and 12% of population
Hmmmmmm

>West Niggers

t. Ethiopian or Somali """Caucasoid"""

Unlike Black Americans, West Africans actually do have a pretty decent history. They weren't as advanced as their neighbor's up north, but they weren't caveman tier.

He said generically. Black Americans are 25% white on average but they don't all look like they have obviously white heritage, it's more subtle than that. Go get a DNA test, you may or may not have SSA ancestry.

great thread OP never seen this before surely we'll get a fresh and enlightening debate.

fuck me, I've seen hundreds of threads on carthage and egypt and I can count the number of them that weren't wewuz shitposting on one hand.

Everyone being human doesn't magically mean rapidly mixing radically different ethnic groups doesn't cause a social shitstorm. Everyone's human, and the human default setting is xenophobe.

Tbh, while they were better than your average san bushmen hunter and gatherer, you're basically saying they were a shiny turd. Pic related is probably the closest you will get to Eurasian tier civilization.

>descendants of West Africans aren't connected to west Africans and don't have a shared history.
What is up these threads lately

Exactly why it's important to correct historical xenophobia so that unrest is reduced.

What the fuck

Were they seriously this lazy? That thing looks like it's made of plastic anyway.

>pretending Euros and Hebrew aren't both West Eurasian

Go We Wuz elsewhere.

And here's some North African paintings. Notice the hair.

There's nothing we-wuzing about it, idiot. The Levantine Neolithic populations that expanded throughout North Africa were overall dark-haired and dark-eyed and not that light-skinned either.

> The Levantine Neolithic populations that expanded throughout North Africa were overall dark-haired and dark-eyed

Nobody said they didn't . They did have blondes and redheads among them before records.

>not that light-skinned either.

Maghreb Africans who aren't obviously overly admixtured with West Africans are much lighter than both them and Egyptians.

>africa...
>black people...
>black people are from africa...
>hannibal was from africa...
>hannibal was black...
>the white man is just lying...

Or maybe we should stabilize africa instead of having capitalist shills exploit it? I mean its either that or all the niggers need to die, they can keep their ethnic wars in africa

what did they mean by this?

let them come into your home then you fucking jew parasite. fuck off were full.

That's what I pay taxes for. Stop being hyperbolic, /pol/. You act like people don't adapt if you treat them well

come to my city then faggot i will show you these african niggers in all their glory. you will shit your pants before you walk into new brazzaville.

>You act like people don't adapt if you treat them well

Thats not how anti-social personality traits and overall criminality works, desu. People just grow older, the overall demographics stays the same when such people have children because those traits are heritable.

Americans tend to get the better Western ones apparently

Whenever people post this they never want to acknowledge the likely Barbary Trade in blondism.
No it's not Scandinavians, H in Sahara populations like the R-V88 are both ancient bloodlines that coalesced in-situ. Imagine 10-7kya a small clan of Asians migrating to the Americas and the phenotype altering or quickly mixing into the majority populations. It's like that, the diversity of the H branch in Tuareg is a bottleneck but within that bottleneck are 4 mutations specific to 4 different villages.

I am of the augment that these genes are not found amongst the noble classes of whom move and marry freely but to the inedan and "Haratin" the former is a specific caste found in Tuareg society who are very insular and are the healers, blacksmiths, leather crafts women, advisers of Noble castes. The Tuareg claim to 1. Either migrated with them as a distinct subpopulation or 2. Found them in oases when they adopted camel 2ya.

Haratin are called slaves or Bella, the assumption is all are Songhai or Tebu and sure some are that but some are recognized as the indigenous people. An exslaves of foriegn ancestry from the south has more standing than them and intact the Haratin are recognized as being indigenous to the Draa and were recorded as such by the Romans.

Both groups have limited migration compared to "Noble" castes. It's explain the diversity of their mutations.

>muh white slaves

Wall paintings, Mr. Kang.

say that in louisiana or almost any ghetto in the south

shit dude haven't you watched an episode of cops? there cities full of hood thugs compared to the maybe 20-30% of normal black people

I was referring to Nigerian immigrants. Dabiri is the son of two.

Paintings are not the end all be all. They just as often contain ideas of social and cultural ideals or are infused with concepts of spiritual forms.

For example light skin among Peul of whom show religious continuity to those paintings consider it their defining marker along with noses and hair. Even though most do not personify this ideal or rather idea of Peulness when you speak to a Peul about what one looks like you'll hear "We are lighter, our noses thin, our hair softer and longer with thin lips...." Even if no one around them embodies all or even some of those things. When you look at the ceremonial and ritualized adornment of women and men in the now sedentary but formerly nomadic peoples you see a strong tendency to wear heavy mineral compacts on faces to dramatize a yellowness or redness in their language called literally "whiteness".

Whiteness is not just phenotype, it's associations falls beyond the physical plane it includes notions of "weakness" and suseptability.

Basically you don't have the context to evaluate the work, it's not simply surface.

>stop panicking about it after a generation and it won't matter any more.

Niggers have been in america for how long. Still panicking
Muslims have been in europe for 2-3 generations. Panicking rising as the different culture refuses to integrate

I agree it won't matter anymore in the future. Mainly because the battlelines would have been drawn and like other animals, a victor will have arisen

>hood thugs compared to the maybe 20-30% of normal black people
What counts as hood thugs statistically?

...

>caring about anything the "history" channel does

Nubians and Egyptians looked exactly the same. The nilotic populations posited as Nubians by Egyptians were periphetic peoples who were absorbed into the realm of Kush.

Sahara and East Africa is complicated.

Found the Afrocentric. How triggered were you when it turned out Egypt is more Nigger now then it was back in the day?

>Whether that would make Hannibal "white" is an open question. Most modern white supremacists definitely would not consider him such. But he was not Sub-Saharan African.

Hannibal almost certainly looked a lot like the average person from Tunis today. That is, he probably looked a lot like the average southern Italian or Greek, except slightly swarthier.

By that logic only Scandinavia is white. White "supremacists" mostly consider those of European heritage as white.

Forgot to quote

Why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that North Africans looked no different than the ones of old. The ancient North Africans weren't any any "whiter" than they are

>by that logic only Scandinavia is white
Most white supremacists(the stormfront and /pol/ ones atleast) mostly consider that. They think they're "pure" and that the ancient Romans/Greeks were Nordics. They always change the definition of who's "white" when it fits their agenda

Do white supremacists think Tunisians or Lebanese are white? No? Then Hannibal wouldn't be "white" to them.

Most people you meet online are Americans and their closest frame of reference for an invasive cultural replacement also involved a demographic replacement.

The joke is you're going full We Wuz.

Yeah, the problem is they don't consider Tunisia as having any relation to Carthage.

Where did this whole conquest=racemixing meme come from
>moors control a region of Spain
>dude they turned the original blonde haired/blue eyed Iberians brown lmao
>ottomans control the Balkans for years
>dude they turned the Greeks brown lmao

There's plenty of more like Persia and whatnot

How's Hannibal portrayed in today's Tunisia?

He couold pass as a Tunisian without problem. The tipical immi Moroccan (than are very varied btw,but the browniers are the ones immigrating) is way swarthier and with negroid traits, while Tunisians and a good deal of Algerian (than for some reason go full ape mode in Europe) could pass as med europeans (specially in South Italy or Andalucia).

Well yeah like that user said it's because Americans are most aware of Native Americans being invaded and replaced by Europeans so they equate all invasions to that.

Arab influenced countries have a very weird sense of history compared to the west, mostly if it isn't Islamic ain't worth shit (with exceptions of course). Egyptians every few decades had to restraing overly zealous fucks to destroy them.

No you stupid Ferenj, you simply lack context as a fucking African with no connect to Egypt. Things are complicated, something you Westerners never fucking get.

>We Wuz Da Painters N Shieet

Such denial.

I am a fucking Habesha and know all to well stupid white American and European boys who don't know shit talking about complex concepts from Africa.

Stay in your lane and go on WW1 thread ferenj

tunisiancommunity.org/wordpress/?page_id=3425

>It was the avidity of the Politicians that led to the defeat of Carthage, not the failure of Hannibal.

Is this true?

>Being this triggered

You wuz da reel north affwecans n shieeetttttt.

Some Modern Berber groups have as much light hair and eyes as some SOuthern European ones

We want the kangz audience because no self respecting person watches their shit anymore.

Kabyle ones would have no problem fitting in Southern Europe, look at zidane for example. Majority of Berbers however don't differ in genotype/phenotype from the Arabs. It's cultural shit that's sets them apart, same thing with the Kurds and Turks. Turks always portray Kurds as being overly swarthy and hairy yet that's exactly how they look

Hello, Anonymous. While I support your search for truth, I couldn't help but notice you, like many of your peers, ignore an objective historical fact.
The objective historical fact that Hannibal minted coins to pay his African mercenaries, and on that coin was an elephant on one side, and a negroid looking fella on the other.
This objective historical fact, combined with the other objective historical fact that leaders tended to put their face on coins, leads to the easy speculation that at least some elements of his army thought he was negroid looking - either the people doing the minting, or the soldiers expecting to see someone looking like them on the money.

Or that he was black. Its not impossible. There is some (little, but existing) evidence to suggest it (though of course not prove it).
We don't know.

Consider...
1. He was looking black on some of his coins.
2. All of the Carthaginian generals we know of were foreigners, could be the Barca family was also.
3. He made very extensive use of Saharan and sub-Saharan troops in his armies, more than any other general of the era.
4. He and his family were exclusively land commanders and quite sea-shy, uncommon for the Carthaginians.

Now, I am not saying WE WUZ. I am not saying its likely either.
I am saying we don't know, and it looks bad when you pretend to be certain about something we can't be certain about.

> Majority of Berbers however don't differ in genotype/phenotype from the Arabs

That's not surprising since the Arabs you speak of actually aren't Arabians as opposed to either descendants of assimilated North Africans or foreigners who married natives.

Why do you say Habesha, if you are well aware the rest of the world knows these people as Abyssinian, and this is the correct English word for it?
It is confusing to 99% of people and makes readers think you are a larper.

Arabs were, until very, very recently, a small people. They just weren't very numerous.
The "Arab empire", all of them, were predominantly not Arab. There weren't enough Arabs to go around.

Compare to the Mongolian Empire, where Mongols probably comprised less than 1% of the total population.

>1. He was looking black on some of his coins.
If you're talking about the Clanis hoard then those aren't of Hannibal.

This is how actual black people depicting themselves on coinage.

>tumblr

This is Hannibal's father. What coin are you referring to?

And this is Hannibal's brother.

These ones. The problem is the images of them are hosted on retard websites like AfricaUnchained or TrueAboutEgypt and such.
They are coins from Italy dated to 203 b.c. and considering the bad craftmanship, were probably minted on the go by Hannibal's Army, and probably not to pay his Gaelic mercenaries either.
At any rate we can safely dismiss the idea that they are local Italian coins for obvious reasons.

This is presumed to be Hannibal

Considering the origin of those coins is completely unknown, yet there are well preserved coins confirmed to be of Hannibal's relatives that look nothing like that, I think we can safely dismiss the idea that the image is supposed to be of Hannibal.

Carthage was a Phoenician colony. Modern Tunisians aren't Phoenician

>confirmed to be
Assumed to be. As are all coins.
We know how old they are, where they were buried, and we assume who's on them based on that, unless they literally have it written there.

And crudely done coins found in Italy, dating to Hannibal's invasion, with an elephant and an African on them... well, its not written, but it might as well have been.

Why don't they have the same image of Asia? Why don't they imagine the persians as chinese or samurai or some shit?

Because Persians aren't "Asian" in the USA.
Asian means East Asian to the average American.
Indians, Persians, Turks, these aren't "Asian".

In fact, in the USA there is belief in a "Muslim" ethnicity. So Persians are Muslim, while Chinese are Asian.
Once you visualize this "Muslim" continent, you can easily see where Americans are coming from (other than bad education).

yes, the phoenicians picked up their suit cases and all went back to the levant so autists like you can have a simpler understanding of history

Yes, in part. While the Carthaginians were certainly not opposed to go to a war with Rome, they weren't exactly against it either. They wanted to avenge their defeat in the FPW, but they were still not ready enough considering that most of their wealth now came from Spain and those Spanish territories were newly conquered and didn't have much loyalty to Carthage. That's the main reason why Scipio was able to turn them against Carthage while Hannibal wasn't able to do the same with the allies of Rome even with his more impressive victories. The story goes that Quntius Fabius went to Carthage to demand the surrender of Hannibal after Hannibal captured Saguntum, an ally of Rome, and this is how it goes:
“Here we bring you peace and war; which do you choose?” “Give us either,” was the reply. “Then I offer you war,” said Fabius. “And this we accept,”

The problem was that even though the Carthaginian senate hated Rome, they didn't exactly trust the Barca's, in fact, they were fearful of them. The Barca's were getting too powerful and their new lands in Spain were like their own private. So you had people like Hanno the Great who constantly undermined them. "Oh, the Barca's hate Rome and want to go to war with them? Well, I don't, In fact I want to be friends with Rome". So he did his utmost to constantly undermine them, both Hannibal and his father before him (the Barca's were mostly situated in Spain while Hanno was in the capital). So the Carthaginians were divided into two factions - the ones who wanted war with Rome and the ones who didn't. This led to disunity in Carthage's society. So, in whole, Carthage decided to sit on the sidelines and watch the Barca's wage their private war with Rome and decide what to do depending on where the wind blows.

The problem is that Rome knew that the Punic wars were fights to the death, Carthage didn't. The Romans were united, the Carthaginians were not. That's what cost them and that's why they lost.