History Channel To Portray Hannibal Accurately

[Asclepias]

He is not aware, but Romans would be calling his kind the utter barbarians... Smelly dirty barbarians coming from the north...

He is clueless.... Absolutely clueless...

Yes the would. The Gauls were illiterate and they didn't bath. That's why Romans called them barbarians. People who don't believe in objective truth and logic have the same epistemology as primitive living in the jungle. The claim that only blacks can be authorities on certain subjects is the sign of someone who thinks like a savage with a bone through his nose. Truth isn't dependent on your race.

Whites reasons for labeling different groups wasnt based on truth. It was based on white supremacy. I dont give them any credibility to define what Black people are. Sorry. Your wishes are irrelevant to me.

You are the one labeling a given group of people "black." What we are discussing here is whether your label is accurate.

Of course its accurate. There never was any discussion. i am trying to help you.

I thought you just said the "black" was purely an arbitrary white invented to term to impose white supremacy.

No. i never said that. i said the term "negroid" was a white boy term.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! The scientists who make the determination are most probably white. Your belief that skin color disqualifies them is hilarious.

White people dont have the authority to make that determination no matter how hilarious you find it. They arent Black people.

You just proved that you are a barbarian not fit to live in a civilized society. No wonder Africa is so backwards.

Africa is backwards, and you think you are progressive ?

You are even more backwards than africans, living in such a progressive country and still find a way to **** it up for yourself and become a fat ass bigot...

By every objective standard, Africa is backwards. I know leftwing douche bags think truth is racist, but nevertheless, those are the facts.

Calling something "backwards" is the opposite of objective. "different" would be objective.

ROFL! So which one is more advanced, an abacus or a smart phone?

 

[Asclepias]

White people dont have the authority to make that determination no matter how hilarious you find it. They arent Black people.

You just proved that you are a barbarian not fit to live in a civilized society. No wonder Africa is so backwards.

Africa is backwards, and you think you are progressive ?

You are even more backwards than africans, living in such a progressive country and still find a way to **** it up for yourself and become a fat ass bigot...

By every objective standard, Africa is backwards. I know leftwing douche bags think truth is racist, but nevertheless, those are the facts.

Calling something "backwards" is the opposite of objective. "different" would be objective.

ROFL! So which one is more advanced, an abacus or a smart phone?

Depends but what does that have to do with objective?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes the would. The Gauls were illiterate and they didn't bath. That's why Romans called them barbarians. People who don't believe in objective truth and logic have the same epistemology as primitive living in the jungle. The claim that only blacks can be authorities on certain subjects is the sign of someone who thinks like a savage with a bone through his nose. Truth isn't dependent on your race.

Whites reasons for labeling different groups wasnt based on truth. It was based on white supremacy. I dont give them any credibility to define what Black people are. Sorry. Your wishes are irrelevant to me.

You are the one labeling a given group of people "black." What we are discussing here is whether your label is accurate.

Of course its accurate. There never was any discussion. i am trying to help you.

I thought you just said the "black" was purely an arbitrary white invented to term to impose white supremacy.

No. i never said that. i said the term "negroid" was a white boy term.

Allow me to quote:

"Whites reasons for labeling different groups wasnt based on truth. It was based on white supremacy. I dont give them any credibility to define what Black people are. Sorry. Your wishes are irrelevant to me."

 

[bripat9643]

You just proved that you are a barbarian not fit to live in a civilized society. No wonder Africa is so backwards.

Africa is backwards, and you think you are progressive ?

You are even more backwards than africans, living in such a progressive country and still find a way to **** it up for yourself and become a fat ass bigot...

By every objective standard, Africa is backwards. I know leftwing douche bags think truth is racist, but nevertheless, those are the facts.

Calling something "backwards" is the opposite of objective. "different" would be objective.

ROFL! So which one is more advanced, an abacus or a smart phone?

Depends but what does that have to do with objective?

On what?

 

[Asclepias]

Whites reasons for labeling different groups wasnt based on truth. It was based on white supremacy. I dont give them any credibility to define what Black people are. Sorry. Your wishes are irrelevant to me.

You are the one labeling a given group of people "black." What we are discussing here is whether your label is accurate.

Of course its accurate. There never was any discussion. i am trying to help you.

I thought you just said the "black" was purely an arbitrary white invented to term to impose white supremacy.

No. i never said that. i said the term "negroid" was a white boy term.

Allow me to quote:

"Whites reasons for labeling different groups wasnt based on truth. It was based on white supremacy. I dont give them any credibility to define what Black people are. Sorry. Your wishes are irrelevant to me."

Youre allowed to quote. Now show me where I said Black was a white boy term?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Don't try to justify your racism, child.

Not trying to justify your racism dummy.

Your racism, child.

Your racism dummy.

You're babbling, child.

He's getting desperate because he's getting pounded into the ground.

He loves to get a good pounding.

 

[Asclepias]

Africa is backwards, and you think you are progressive ?

You are even more backwards than africans, living in such a progressive country and still find a way to **** it up for yourself and become a fat ass bigot...

By every objective standard, Africa is backwards. I know leftwing douche bags think truth is racist, but nevertheless, those are the facts.

Calling something "backwards" is the opposite of objective. "different" would be objective.

ROFL! So which one is more advanced, an abacus or a smart phone?

Depends but what does that have to do with objective?

On what?

Circumstances. Now tell me what that has to do with being objective?

 

[bripat9643]

You are the one labeling a given group of people "black." What we are discussing here is whether your label is accurate.

Of course its accurate. There never was any discussion. i am trying to help you.

I thought you just said the "black" was purely an arbitrary white invented to term to impose white supremacy.

No. i never said that. i said the term "negroid" was a white boy term.

Allow me to quote:

"Whites reasons for labeling different groups wasnt based on truth. It was based on white supremacy. I dont give them any credibility to define what Black people are. Sorry. Your wishes are irrelevant to me."

Youre allowed to quote. Now show me where I said Black was a white boy term?

I just did.

 

[bripat9643]

By every objective standard, Africa is backwards. I know leftwing douche bags think truth is racist, but nevertheless, those are the facts.

Calling something "backwards" is the opposite of objective. "different" would be objective.

ROFL! So which one is more advanced, an abacus or a smart phone?

Depends but what does that have to do with objective?

On what?

Circumstances. Now tell me what that has to do with being objective?

ROFL! I think we're done here. You're down to denying that the son comes up in the East.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course its accurate. There never was any discussion. i am trying to help you.

I thought you just said the "black" was purely an arbitrary white invented to term to impose white supremacy.

No. i never said that. i said the term "negroid" was a white boy term.

Allow me to quote:

"Whites reasons for labeling different groups wasnt based on truth. It was based on white supremacy. I dont give them any credibility to define what Black people are. Sorry. Your wishes are irrelevant to me."

Youre allowed to quote. Now show me where I said Black was a white boy term?

I just did.

No you didnt. What part of my sentence says "Black" is a white boy term?

 

[Asclepias]

Calling something "backwards" is the opposite of objective. "different" would be objective.

ROFL! So which one is more advanced, an abacus or a smart phone?

Depends but what does that have to do with objective?

On what?

Circumstances. Now tell me what that has to do with being objective?

ROFL! I think we're done here. You're down to denying that the son comes up in the East.

I know youre done here. I think you meant the "sun" not "son". Stop stalling and tell me what that had to do with being objective.

 

[alpine]

Utter bullshit. Scientists in the most advanced nation on this planet dont have the equipment, but you have ha...

What are you smoking???

I didn't say that, moron. I said the Criminal justice system doesn't have the necessary equipment or knowledge to make such a determination.

And claiming criminal justice system dont need the capability to do so?

What a bullshit is this. They need as many information as possible to create a criminal profile to go after them, when there is a crime.

And you are claiming the knowledge if the criminal they are going after is black or white dont make difference?
They dont need such capability to determine that?

You either acting stupid, or you are stupid. Pick one...

When have the police ever put out an APB based entirely on DNA evidence?

Judges dont go around analyzing dna MORON. They work with scientists.

And if a judge in this country cant get a dna analyzed and determine if the owner of that dna is black or white accurately, that means NOBODY can.

You are farting off your mouth, claiming there is evidence to mummies being white or black.
We cant even tell the difference in a 1 hour old dna sample, you claim to have the capability to do so on a 3000 year old mummy.

You are such a tool.....

A judge can do that, but why would he? When they have a defendant, they already know what his race is.

Your belief that they can't tell with a one hour old DNA sample is pure ignorance.

Are you retarded?

You think they find a photo of all the criminals on the crime scene, while they are acting on the crime?

You are clueless...

Do they ever put out an APB based entirely on DNA?

They have not, because it can NOT be done.

You claim you have "capability" to determine if a 3000 mummy was white or black, by looking at the dna, or whatever left of it.

Geneticists would like to know how you did that, because they certainly don't know how...

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't say that, moron. I said the Criminal justice system doesn't have the necessary equipment or knowledge to make such a determination.


When have the police ever put out an APB based entirely on DNA evidence?

Judges dont go around analyzing dna MORON. They work with scientists.

And if a judge in this country cant get a dna analyzed and determine if the owner of that dna is black or white accurately, that means NOBODY can.

You are farting off your mouth, claiming there is evidence to mummies being white or black.
We cant even tell the difference in a 1 hour old dna sample, you claim to have the capability to do so on a 3000 year old mummy.

You are such a tool.....

A judge can do that, but why would he? When they have a defendant, they already know what his race is.

Your belief that they can't tell with a one hour old DNA sample is pure ignorance.

Are you retarded?

You think they find a photo of all the criminals on the crime scene, while they are acting on the crime?

You are clueless...

Do they ever put out an APB based entirely on DNA?

They have not, because it can NOT be done.

You claim you have "capability" to determine if a 3000 mummy was white or black, by looking at the dna, or whatever left of it.

Geneticists would like to know how you did that, because they certainly don't know how...

You're talking out your ass. You don't have a clue what geneticists are capable of.

 

[Asclepias]

I didn't say that, moron. I said the Criminal justice system doesn't have the necessary equipment or knowledge to make such a determination.


When have the police ever put out an APB based entirely on DNA evidence?

Judges dont go around analyzing dna MORON. They work with scientists.

And if a judge in this country cant get a dna analyzed and determine if the owner of that dna is black or white accurately, that means NOBODY can.

You are farting off your mouth, claiming there is evidence to mummies being white or black.
We cant even tell the difference in a 1 hour old dna sample, you claim to have the capability to do so on a 3000 year old mummy.

You are such a tool.....

A judge can do that, but why would he? When they have a defendant, they already know what his race is.

Your belief that they can't tell with a one hour old DNA sample is pure ignorance.

Are you retarded?

You think they find a photo of all the criminals on the crime scene, while they are acting on the crime?

You are clueless...

Do they ever put out an APB based entirely on DNA?

They have not, because it can NOT be done.

You claim you have "capability" to determine if a 3000 mummy was white or black, by looking at the dna, or whatever left of it.

Geneticists would like to know how you did that, because they certainly don't know how...

The best they can do is see if the DNA looks like the DNA of the people in a certain region.

 

[bullwinkle]

Kudos to the History Channel for accurately portraying Hannibal as who he really was. A Black African.

Who says he was a black African? The Carthaginians were originally from Phoenicia. They were Semitic.

I did. The History Channel did. Archealogical evidence does. The bible does and so does science. The Phoenicians are descended from Canaan who's father is Ham. Sorry but they Hamitic not Semitic.

The Canaanites were Semitic according to historians. Who cares what the History Channel says? They have shows about crab boats and naked survival trips. That's real serious history, isn't it?

Nothing in the Bible indicates the Canaanites were black. According to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (verses 15-19), Canaan was the ancestor of the tribes who originally occupied the ancient Land of Canaan: all the territory from Sidon or Hamath in the north to Gaza in the southwest and Lasha in the southeast. This territory is roughly the areas of modern day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, westernJordan, and western Syria. Historians say the people living in this area were Semites, just like the Israelites.

Science doesn't say a thing about Hannibal's ethnicity. The term "Hamitic" is meaningless in historical or anthropological terms.

The Canaanites are not Semitic according to anyone. I think you are getting confused because they spoke a Semitic langauge.

The bible shows the Canaanites were Black on many occasions The first being that Ham is the father of Canaan. If you know your bible Ham is father of all Blacks that populated what we now call the African continent and parts of whats now called the ME.

"The Nations Descending from Ham:
First on the list, as being the darkest, is Cush or Ethiopia (Genesis 10:6), after which comes Mitsrayim, or Egypt, then PuT or Libyia, and Canaan last. The sons or descendants of each of these are then taken in turn, and it is noteworthy that some of them, like the Ethiopians and the Canaanites, spoke Semitic, and not Hamitic, languages"

Asclepias, wasn't the curse against Canaan and his lineage the justification for slavery in the minds of southern Americans, and the subject of many a sermon to soothe any remnants of conscience that may linger over man's inhumanity to man in that day of our history?

 

[Asclepias]

Kudos to the History Channel for accurately portraying Hannibal as who he really was. A Black African.

Who says he was a black African? The Carthaginians were originally from Phoenicia. They were Semitic.

I did. The History Channel did. Archealogical evidence does. The bible does and so does science. The Phoenicians are descended from Canaan who's father is Ham. Sorry but they Hamitic not Semitic.

The Canaanites were Semitic according to historians. Who cares what the History Channel says? They have shows about crab boats and naked survival trips. That's real serious history, isn't it?

Nothing in the Bible indicates the Canaanites were black. According to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (verses 15-19), Canaan was the ancestor of the tribes who originally occupied the ancient Land of Canaan: all the territory from Sidon or Hamath in the north to Gaza in the southwest and Lasha in the southeast. This territory is roughly the areas of modern day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, westernJordan, and western Syria. Historians say the people living in this area were Semites, just like the Israelites.

Science doesn't say a thing about Hannibal's ethnicity. The term "Hamitic" is meaningless in historical or anthropological terms.

The Canaanites are not Semitic according to anyone. I think you are getting confused because they spoke a Semitic langauge.

The bible shows the Canaanites were Black on many occasions The first being that Ham is the father of Canaan. If you know your bible Ham is father of all Blacks that populated what we now call the African continent and parts of whats now called the ME.

"The Nations Descending from Ham:
First on the list, as being the darkest, is Cush or Ethiopia (Genesis 10:6), after which comes Mitsrayim, or Egypt, then PuT or Libyia, and Canaan last. The sons or descendants of each of these are then taken in turn, and it is noteworthy that some of them, like the Ethiopians and the Canaanites, spoke Semitic, and not Hamitic, languages"

Asclepias, wasn't the curse against Canaan and his lineage the justification for slavery in the minds of southern Americans, and the subject of many a sermon to soothe any remnants of conscience that may linger over man's inhumanity to man in that day of our history?

Sure was. Kinda weird how thats all thrown out the window when it comes to history.

 

[boedicca]

Politically correct nonsense. Carthage was populated by Semitic people.

 

[Divine Wind]

They were not black. There wasn't a black person within a thousand miles of pheonicia.

While I agree Hannibal was most likely Semitic, I disagree at there were no "Nubians" around. Hannibal could have easily passed for Black in modern America. We don't know. My disagreement with the OP racist is his assertion he knows for a "fact" Hannibal was "black". Of course, that fit's neatly with his racist idea that "one drop of black blood" makes a person "African" or black. If that was the case, isn't most of America "black"? So what's the ******* problem with all these racists?

 

[Asclepias]

Politically correct nonsense. Carthage was populated by Semitic people.

Semetic people were Black too. However Canaanites are from Canaan not Shem.