Why is Hannibal depicted as a shirtless superwarrior barbarian? - Battles BC (2009) Discussion

YOU BITCH!! YOU B ITCH!!!1111

reply

[–] theiceman081984 15 years ago

Yeah I'm definitely with you on the guy they chose to play Hannibal, couldn't understand the casting choice. I thought they did a good job illustrating his campaigns during that period, I wish they had finished it and talked about his return to Carthage, kind of disappointing.

I like the show however, looking forward to see who else they profile, the King David one was interesting. Its alot better then all the UFO/Monster shows on there, I swear History channel looks more like the new SciFi channel some days.

reply

[–] glocktwentyseven 15 years ago

I actually liked the casting & the depiction of Hannibal.

It lived up to the whole "300" style that they were trying to emulate.

I also think that they should have talked about his return to Carthage.

I had to explain to my brother about the political circumstances that precipitated Hannibal's recall to Carthage.

To hear the History Channel's take on it, he just gave up after winning the greatest victory ever fought (up to that point).

BTW, the idea that the Sahara desert kept all dark skinned people out of North Africa is erroneous. Back then, a lot of the Sahara was arid pastoral grassland, and travel as well as trade across the Sahara was quite common.

Also, North Africa was one of the great melting pots of the Classical World. Because of the great trade opportunities created by commerce throughout the Mediterranean, kingdoms and empires from all over Europe, Asia and Africa traded with one another.

People were pretty well traveled back then considering their technological advancement.

The idea that these peoples remained where they were until the so-called Age of Exploration in the 14th and 15th centuries is false.

reply

[–] theiceman081984 15 years ago

Yeah I get what they were going for, they used the '300' imagery to possibly entice younger viewers or people that aren't as inclined to watch a show like that, at least I think that's part of it. My brother is 16 and in no way is interested in history but we watched the Hannibal episode and it kept him very interested and led me to help explain a few things they left out, like what happened when he returned to Carthage. So I suppose if it helps to get a younger audience interested in history then I'm behind it.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Naughty-God 15 years ago

1) Yes, he was a great tactician and strategic General
2) Why do you care so much what Hannibal looks like when there are countless Historical dramas where White British actors are playing ancient Pheonicians, Greeks, Egyptians and even Mongolians??? You link to the Roman bust was probably created by a artisan whose job was to emulate the greatness of Rome's most feared enemy ("the greater the enemy you've defeated the greater your nation is") and he used the template for most Roman busts and it's probably 100% accurate to say that the sculptorer never met or saw Hannibal in person.

You seem overly offended by any casting of "mulatto" looking actors playing North Africans, yet you don't seem bothered by Hollywood depictions of ancient Hebrews when casting a freckley and pale blue-eyed Charlton Heston as a Jew, or a shoe-polish bronzed Gerard Butler as a Spartan King.

Hi, I'm God. Can I touch You?

reply

[–] Spongeyone 15 years ago

Well, Heston was playing an ancient Jew in an era where white women played Chinese characters in major films (Dr No, I'm looking at you). And as for Butler, well, you need people with English accents to play ancient Greeks/Romans, it's common knowledge! [sarcasm, if anyone can't tell]

On the other hand, tonight the Hannibal episode directly followed the King David episode, where an ancient Jew was played by a northwestern European. They clearly don't give a damn what anything in the battle dramatizations look like aside from certain weapons.

reply

[–] FortiesFilmFanatic 15 years ago

I thought the show was pretty well made, and it didn't bother me the color of the guy's skin who played Hannibal. I did think it odd that when they showed him fighting with his dad, he was a very dark skinned black dude. They didnt look related at all and the dad looked almost as young as the son.

One side note, when he and his dad are fighting back to back, all of us watching busted out laughing when my friend said "OMG it looks like they're rapping". We rewound it like 5 times and just roared because it does. They're swinging the swords and yelling and bobbing up and down... it was hilarious! Watch for it if you get a chance to watch this.

I tried to find that clip on youtube but couldnt find it. Here's the closest link I found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDHegZVbyEA

At the 5 second point it shows them right after they stopped being back to back, but it cut out the actual scene.

reply

[–] Carrot_Ironfoundersson 15 years ago

"Battles BS" is more like it. They used to have a series called "History vs. Hollywood", maybe the need to make a new one called "History vs. The History Channel".

reply

[–] Wolverine37 15 years ago

I love that nobody disputes the actual historical content of the show, but everyone is all offended because of the inaccurate depictions of the battles.

Apparently my signature defines who I am... so I made it just this

reply

[–] Thomas-FordJr-1 15 years ago

OP, you really can't go off of a bust created by the Romans to know what Hannibal actually looked like. Romans, and other peoples throughout history have been known to make people out to look like them(in their own image). A great example of this is Christopher Columbus, depending on the region the painting or sculpture is coming from, he looks totally different. Sometimes he has blonde hair, sometimes black hair, sometimes, red hair, large nose, small nose, etc, etc...

And there are many indigenous tribes that have been in Northern Africa for thousands of years(before the Berbers, Roman expansion, and the Arab colonization of 700 A.D.) that are Dark Skinned Africans. Many of these tribes still exist to this day. So Hannibal being Black or of mixed blood is not too far of a stretch....

reply

[–] carnifex2005 15 years ago

You can go off busts of his father (also a famous general of the time) and other family members. Yeah, he was definitely Greek/Mediterranean looking and NOT black. Almost all Carthagians were. This show is *beep*

reply

[–] adriaticHR 14 years ago

Hannibal was from one (of the two) dominant families in Carthage. there is simply no way he was to be a mulatto. cartage was a Phoenician colony and they sure as hell weren't black.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

You people still do not get it. Phoenicians WERE black! Phoenicians were actually Canaanites, but were called Phoenicians by the Greeks.

Canaanites were by Bible writers held as descendants of Ham, son of Noah because they were what we today consider "BLACK"

This is the same reason the during pre-colonial times that whites used the Bible as an excuse to enslave blacks, because of the curse Noah put on his grandson CANAAN, the farther of the CANAANITE race, the race that the Greeks called PHOENICIANS!!!!!

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

I can't decide if this is your attempt at sarcasm, of if you're a Poe.

Anyway, Hannibal was not black, if we understand "black" as belonging to or related to any of the various peoples of sub-Saharan Africa.

And yes, Phoenicians were from the Canaan region and were a Semitic people just like the ancient Hebrews. They were similar in language and appearance.

But the by the time of Hannibal, the Phoenicians that settled Carthage had been in North Africa for about 600 years. Most likely they would have mixed with other North African people. Maybe even Sub-Saharan people. That happens when you're one of the most important centers of trade. So it's quite possible that he was dark in appearance.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

Did you not read the information I provided, and it's not just coming form me saying so, like your information is.

Research the information, look into at and top letting preconceived notions cloud your judgment. You're assumptions are incorrect, now look it up and find out why.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

Did you not read the information I provided, and it's not just coming form me saying so

What information did you provide? Did I miss a post, or are you talking about the Noah-Ham-curse thing that you wrote? You were serious about that?

like your information is.

What, that the Phoenicians were not black, but were Semitic like the Hebrews? That's not "my say so", historical and archeological evidence support it, not to mention linguistics.

You're assumptions are incorrect, now look it up and find out why.

The only assumption I made was that in the 600 years or so from the founding of Carthage to the birth of Hannibal, there could have been some mixing between the Carthaginians/Phoenicians and North-Africans. Possibly even with Sub-Saharan peoples to a much lesser extend, probably not enough to make a mark on the general population. I do admit that I could be wrong...

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

What information did you provide? Did I miss a post, or are you talking about the Noah-Ham-curse thing that you wrote? You were serious about that?

The curse was only part of it, but seems you do not know your history. This so called curse is the excuse whites used support slavery, by claiming the Bible supported it.

But the Biblical evidence goes even further, it let's you realize what the Bible writers thought the Canaanites looked like. So if they figure they came from Ham whom bible writers figured was the farther of the "black" race what should that tell you?

Thus the History's Chanel "black" portrayal of Hannibal.

What, that the Phoenicians were not black, but were Semitic like the Hebrews? That's not "my say so", historical and archeological evidence support it, not to mention linguistics.

Like what, where is your source, you never provided a thing to back your claims, because all I've been reading from you is what you THINK to be so.

The only assumption I made was that in the 600 years or so from the founding of Carthage to the birth of Hannibal, there could have been some mixing between the Carthaginians/Phoenicians and North-Africans. Possibly even with Sub-Saharan peoples to a much lesser extend, probably not enough to make a mark on the general population. I do admit that I could be wrong...

EVERYTHING you said on this thread has been an assumption. Lets see some evidence. Stop talking so much and start sourcing.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

The curse was only part of it, but seems you do not know your history. This so called curse is the excuse whites used support slavery, by claiming the Bible supported it.

You assume incorrectly. I'm well aware of this sad passage in history.

But how is that relevant? The Bible has been interpreted, misinterpreted, twisted and used to support all kinds of things. From other atrocities like witch-burning and the Crusades, as well as such nonsense as a flat earth and a geocentric universe. So, what's your point?

But the Biblical evidence goes even further, it let's you realize what the Bible writers thought the Canaanites looked like. So if they figure they came from Ham whom bible writers figured was the farther of the "black" race what should that tell you?

You can't possibly be serious about using the Noah-Ham-curse thing or other passages as "evidence" that Phoenicians were black. The Bible is not a history book, especially Genesis which is full of metaphor and has different interpretations.

EVERYTHING you said on this thread has been an assumption. Lets see some evidence.

Bullshît. I've only stated what are historically accepted facts. I haven't provided sources, which is not the same thing. But then, you haven't either. And since you're the one making the outlandish claim --one that goes against everything that we know about the Phoenicians-- the burden of showing evidence falls on you. But so far all you've done is make assumptions based on interpretations of some biblical passages.

Stop talking so much and start sourcing.

Right back at you, bud. How about YOU show me some sources... where is YOUR evidence? And I mean real evidence. Don't give me this crap that "The Phoenicians were black because the bible says so". Extrapolating from a religious text doesn't cut it, not by a long shot. Show me real evidence -- historical, archeological, anthropological. Show me some DNA evidence. Show me something, anything.

You made a bold claim, now support it.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

You assume incorrectly. I'm well aware of this sad passage in history.

But how is that relevant? The Bible has been interpreted, misinterpreted, twisted and used to support all kinds of things. From other atrocities like witch-burning and the Crusades, as well as such nonsense as a flat earth and a geocentric universe. So, what's your point?

I told you why it's relevant, obviously you are not reading my post in it's entirety and are just skimming through them.

So know again. Source your information of the misinterpretations of the Bible. What is your source to back your claims on this. besides you saying so of course.

You can't possibly be serious about using the Noah-Ham-curse thing or other passages as "evidence" that Phoenicians were black. The Bible is not a history book, especially Genesis which is full of metaphor and has different interpretations.

What are you talking about? What different interpretations? Of what, the races of men? Give me an example of this? Do you even know what you are talking about, or are you just typing words?

I've only stated what are historically accepted facts. I haven't provided sources, which is not the same thing. But then, you haven't either. And since you're the one making the outlandish claim --one that goes against everything that we know about the Phoenicians-- the burden of showing evidence falls on you. But so far all you've done is make assumptions based on interpretations of some biblical passages.

How can you say what is a historically excepted fact but yet provide no source or evidence to back this claim? Are you serious?

The burden of showing proof is you! You challenged my claims, as well as the HISTORY CHANNELS claims, but have NO legs to stand on.

So again, PROVE us wrong, the burden of proof falls on you, and if you can't do this then keep your mouth closed and your fingers of the keyboard.

Right back at you, bud. How about YOU show me some sources... where is YOUR evidence? And I mean real evidence. Don't give me this crap that "The Phoenicians were black because the bible says so". Extrapolating from a religious text doesn't cut it, not by a long shot. Show me real evidence -- historical, archeological, anthropological. Show me some DNA evidence. Show me something, anything.

You made a bold claim, now support it.

Biblical evidence IS historical evidence, "genius"

Like I mentioned earlier, the History Channel backs my claims, that's why we are in this thread having this debate.

NOW, source something that proves us wrong, other than you that is.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

I told you why it's relevant

No not really, except to say that pre-colonial and colonial whites used an interpretation of the so-called "curse" as an excuse for slavery. But that's no proof at all that the Phoenicians were black.

So know again. Source your information of the misinterpretations of the Bible. What is your source to back your claims on this. besides you saying so of course.

Come on, don't play stupid. You know perfectly well that different translations and version of the Bible don't always translate accurately (mistranslates) from the original. An example of this is Red Sea vs Sea of Reeds. Two completely different bodies of water, two completely different meanings.

What are you talking about? What different interpretations? Of what, the races of men? Give me an example of this? Do you even know what you are talking about, or are you just typing words?

For one thing, the Torah doesn't mention anything about Ham's or Canaan's race being different from anyone else around them. You'd think that if that was an important part of the "curse", they'd have mentioned it, no?

As for the "curse" itself, the passages in Genesis doesn't say that Ham or Canaan were "turned black". All it says is that their bloodline is cursed to servitude.

And how about the nature of Ham's transgression? Another debated subject.
Did he just see Noah naked? Did he make fun of him for being a naked drunk? Did he do something naughty to Noah? Yes, Jewish and Christian scholars have debated this for centuries, and each theory has their supporters.

Anyway, the concept of the 3 sons of Noah giving birth to the "three races" is a ridiculous concept. Is nothing but mythology that has nothing to do with the real world.

How can you say what is a historically excepted fact but yet provide no source or evidence to back this claim? Are you serious?

I said "accepted" not "excepted". But here is the thing: If I were to state that Hitler committed suicide in his Berlin bunker in 1945, I don't think is necessary for me to provide a source to back it up. It simply is an accepted historical fact. But if someone were to say that Hitler survived the Bunker and had managed to escape to Paraguay and died there of old age while planning his comeback, then that someone is making a claim that goes against everything that is currently known about his death, therefor the burden of proof falls on that person... What we have here is a similar situation.

Biblical evidence IS historical evidence, "genius"

Like I mentioned earlier, the History Channel backs my claims, that's why we are in this thread having this debate.

NOW, source something that proves us wrong, other than you that is.

- No it isn't. The Bible is not a history book and is not a science book. It fails miserably at both. But then, it was never meant to be either of those two things.

- Unfortunately, some programs in the History Channel don't seem to give a crap about accuracy, especially this one. I don't even think they gave any thought to the casting. The thought process of whoever was in charge of casting probably went: This is about some African dude? go get me a black guy.

- Who is this "us"? You're the only dumbass here that keeps saying the Phoenicians were black.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

No not really, except to say that pre-colonial and colonial whites used an interpretation of the so-called "curse" as an excuse for slavery. But that's no proof at all that the Phoenicians were black.

Not really? It's either I did or I didn't. There is no not really, furthermore like I have been explaining to you ALL along, whites got the idea based on historical Biblical evidence that Ham, son of Noah and his descendants were Black.

Come on, don't play stupid. You know perfectly well that different translations and version of the Bible don't always translate accurately (mistranslates) from the original. An example of this is Red Sea vs Sea of Reeds. Two completely different bodies of water, two completely different meanings.

You're not making sense, as usual, and of course do not know what you are talking about.

What different translations or different races were the sons of Ham called? Lets here your story, and then see your evidence. I'll wait...

For one thing, the Torah doesn't mention anything about Ham's or Canaan's race being different from anyone else around them. You'd think that if that was an important part of the "curse", they'd have mentioned it, no?

Again, you still do not get it.

Any Jewish literature explaining Cush or any sons of Ham, will explain to you that they were Negro, Moses is said to have a Cus-h-i-te wife who the Jews say was Black.

Cush, is the brother of Canaan, both are sons of Ham.

The Torah assigns no racial characteristics or rankings to Ham. Moses married a Cushite, one of the reputed descendants of Ham, according to the Book of Numbers, Chapter 12. Despite this, a number of early Jewish writers have interpreted the Biblical narrative of Ham in a racial way. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b states "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth], and Ham was smitten in his skin." {Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b} The nature of Ham's "smitten" skin is unexplained, but later commentaries described this as a darkening of skin. A later note to the text states that the "smitten" skin referred to the blackness of descendants, and a later comment by rabbis in the Bereshit Rabbah asserts that Ham himself emerged from the ark black-skinned.[4][5] The Zohar states that Ham's son Canaan "darkened the faces of mankind".[6]

Rashi, the main medieval Jewish commentator on Torah, explains the harshness of the curse: "Some say Cham saw his father naked and either sodomized or castrated him. His thought was "Perhaps my father's drunkenness will lead to intercourse with our mother and I will have to share the inheritance of the world with another brother! I will prevent this by taking his manhood from him! When Noah awoke, and he realized what Cham had done, he said, "Because you prevented me from having a fourth son, your fourth son, Canaan, shall forever be a slave to his brothers, who showed respect to me!"

Another notable medieval Jewish commentator on Torah, Abraham ibn Ezra, disagrees with Rashi: "And the meaning of '[Cursed be Canaan, he will be a slave] unto his brothers' is to Cush, Egypt, and Put [only], for they are his father's [other] sons. And there are those who say that the Cushim [black skinned people] are slaves because Noah cursed Ham [the father of Cush], but they forget that the first king after the flood was a descendant of Cush, and so it is written, 'And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

As for the "curse" itself, the passages in Genesis doesn't say that Ham or Canaan were "turned black". All it says is that their bloodline is cursed to servitude.

Exactly, and I am telling you why this passage was used to purport slavery, because of Noah's sons, pertaining to the races of men, and pretty much everyone that study the Bible in passing knows that... HAM, SON O NAOH IS SUPPOSE TO BE THE FOREFATHER OF THE BLACK RACE.

And how about the nature of Ham's transgression? Another debated subject.
Did he just see Noah naked? Did he make fun of him for being a naked drunk? Did he do something naughty to Noah? Yes, Jewish and Christian scholars have debated this for centuries, and each theory has their supporters.

What does this have to do with, Ham being the forefather of the black race?

Anyway, the concept of the 3 sons of Noah giving birth to the "three races" is a ridiculous concept. Is nothing but mythology that has nothing to do with the real world.

HOW?WHY?

So where did ALL the races of men come from?

Does not science teach that WE ALL HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR!! But now that science says it, it makes sense now?

PLEASE!

You do not have to believe in the religious aspect of the Bible to realize that ancient writers or bible writers, those that wrote the Bible saw the Canaanites as descendants of Ham because apparently to Bible writers THEY LOOKED BLACK.

GET IT?

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

Look, I'm not interested in discussing the historical or scientific merits or lack thereof of the Bible. It's a pointless endeavor to have a discussion with someone who believes in the literal interpretation of it. That also goes for those who take certain verses from it, and build cockamamie theories based on their interpretation of those verses.

I'll answer this post for now. But if you have anything else besides "theories" derived from the Bible to back up your claims, then please post them because I'm getting tired of the Biblical discussion. Anyway, this thread wasn't about the Bible.

Not really? It's either I did or I didn't. There is no not really, furthermore like I have been explaining to you ALL along, whites got the idea based on historical Biblical evidence that Ham, son of Noah and his descendants were Black.

Look, I get what your saying, but you are not getting what I'm saying.

Let me try again.

Yes, I agree with you that centuries ago, whites got the idea (most likely from their prejudiced and ignorant pastors/ministers/priests) that blacks were the descendants of Ham and that they were cursed. And whether or not they believed it, it was a convenient excuse for slavery. NO ONE HERE IS DISPUTING THAT. What I'm disputing is that they had NO REAL BASIS for that belief, it's built on a faulty premise.

People also got these ideas from the Bible:

- The Earth was flat
- The Earth was the center of the Solar system and the Universe
- Witches were real
- Bats are birds
- Insects are 4 legged creatures
- At least one snake could talk
- Giants (not just real tall people) were real

etc. etc. etc.... the list goes on.

So just because people believed, or thought or inferred (as is the case with Ham) that the Earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe or that the black race came from a curse placed by Noah, or that bats were birds, etc.... it doesn't make it true. It's all fruit from a poisoned tree, if you will.... therefor, it's irrelevant because we all know that all those things are Bullshît!... And the fact that you keep using these nonsense to support your "theory" just makes you look stupid.

pretty much everyone that study the Bible in passing knows that... HAM, SON O NAOH IS SUPPOSE TO BE THE FOREFATHER OF THE BLACK RACE.

- Pretty much everyone? as in literately know? Prove it. Show me statistics that it up.

- "Suppose to be" doesn't make it true. It's a myth, it's just a story. It's not real.

What does this have to do with, Ham being the forefather of the black race?

Just demonstrating how that story is so full of holes that no one really agrees on it.

So where did ALL the races of men come from?

Not from Noah's 3 sons.

You do not have to believe in the religious aspect of the Bible to realize that ancient writers or bible writers, those that wrote the Bible saw the Canaanites as descendants of Ham because apparently to Bible writers THEY LOOKED BLACK.

"Apparently"? ...Again, just because the "bible writers" believed something, it doesn't make it so.

Besides, you still haven't shown where the Bible actually says that the Canaanites were black. And I mean "black" as in sub-Saharan-West African-Wesley Snipes-Martin Lawrence Black.

And bringing up Cush doesn't cut it. Biblical Cush =/= Historical Kush.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

Look, I'm not interested in discussing the historical or scientific merits or lack thereof of the Bible. It's a pointless endeavor to have a discussion with someone who believes in the literal interpretation of it. That also goes for those who take certain verses from it, and build cockamamie theories based on their interpretation of those verses.

I'll answer this post for now. But if you have anything else besides "theories" derived from the Bible to back up your claims, then please post them because I'm getting tired of the Biblical discussion. Anyway, this thread wasn't about the Bible.

Are you serious? I mean really, you have got to be kidding me.

I just explained to you this has NOTHING to do with GOD or miracles or the Bibles scientific merits.

WE ARE TALKING OF WHY THE BIBLE WRITERS THOUGHT THE CANAANITES WERE SONS OF HAM, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE DARK/BLACK PEOPLE!

This is a tradition in the Bible, that the races were they resided, and who they're forefathers were.

- The Earth was flat
- The Earth was the center of the Solar system and the Universe
- Witches were real
- Bats are birds
- Insects are 4 legged creatures
- At least one snake could talk
- Giants (not just real tall people) were real

etc. etc. etc.... the list goes on.

You're clueless, and it's quite clear that you NEVER read the Bible and only know of it from you BFF or some other schmuck, who told you what it say and you believed him.

ONLY two of the things you mentioned above are actually in the Bible.

The Earth was NEVER said to be flat, in the Bible - Please source in the Bible were this is stated.

Insects are NOT called 4 legged creatures. What the Bible does is make a distinction between the LOCUST/GRASSHOPPERS WALKING legs, and their LEAPING legs, since the LEAPING legs are primarily used to LEAP and not to walk. - Now please source where the bible states INSECTS are 4 legged.

Witches, ARE REAL, I quest you never heard that people do actually call themselves witches

So just because people believed, or thought or inferred (as is the case with Ham) that the Earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe or that the black race came from a curse placed by Noah, or that bats were birds, etc.... it doesn't make it true. It's all fruit from a poisoned tree, if you will.... therefor, it's irrelevant because we all know that all those things are Bullshît!... And the fact that you keep using these nonsense to support your "theory" just makes you look stupid.

So please source you're theories so I can once again show you have no idea of that which you speak.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

*sigh* OK emilforeal, let's recap.

I said:

-Phoenicians are not black.
-Phoenicians were a Semitic people same as others from the Canaanite region, including the Hebrews, and physically they were similar in appearance.
-The Phoenician language is similar to Hebrew.

There are still a lot of questions regarding the Phoenicians. But all of the above are accepted facts. However, you refuse to accept it and accused me making assumptions. You, on the other hand, keep claiming the Phoenicians were black because "the Bible says so".

OK then. Here is some evidence:

Archeology/Art

Phoenician statues, sarcophagi and reliefs:

http://usuarios.multimania.es/jerezrvh/0000SarcofagoFenicio.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/DSC00090_-_Sa rcofago_fenicio_del_sec._V_a.C._-_da_Palermo_-_Foto_G._Dall%27Orto.jpg /450px-DSC00090_-_Sarcofago_fenicio_del_sec._V_a.C._-_da_Palermo_-_Fot o_G._Dall%27Orto.jpg

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Images_Etruscan/Phoenic ian.jpeg

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/AGE/AGE018/phoenician-statue-museum_~ B21-284174.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/-/z/2/PhoenicianFemaleBust.jpg

Those are Phoenician faces. Are you still going to tell me that the people depicted here are black?

Language- Phoenician is a Northwest Semitic language belonging to the Canaanite Language Sub-Family. These are related languages which were spoken by the related cultures in the Levant/Canaan region and which includes Hebrew.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Canaanite_languages
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Phoenician_languages

Genetics- DNA evidence supports what historians already believed. According to genetic research done by Dr. Spencer Wells (of Genographic Project fame) and Dr. Pierre Zalloua, the people of Lebanon are the direct descendants of the Phoenicians. They’re the same people. They’re also closely related to people living in Syria and other native people to the nearby area. NONE OF WHOM ARE BLACK!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZjF5IfuML0&feature=related
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenici ans-text/5
http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html

"This study, performed by Spencer Wells and Pierre Zalloua in 2004, identified the relevant Phoenician Y-chromosome groups as M89 and M172.[xlviii] These specific groups were shown as being native to the Levant, going back at least 12,000 years. In other words, the people who became the Phoenicians had lived in the area for 12,000 years or more."
http://www.phoenician.org/origin_of_phoenicians.htm

Simply put, to get an idea of what Phoenicians look like, all one has to do is look at today’s Lebanese…. And guess what, they're not black.

And what evidence have you shown? So far all you have is some ridiculous theory based on some silly Biblical myth. Basically, YOU HAVE NOTHING!

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

http://www.theancientworld.net/civ/phoenicians.html

http://www.reportret.info/gallery/hannibal1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrEEwKMLdVs

javascript:PopVideoPlayer('http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/yrEEwKMLdVs-canaanites-of-today-with-ancients.aspx')

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

I gave you the courtesy of hyperliking my sources. You could at least do the same. I don't generally bother copying and pasting addresses. So if you want me to see your sources, make them clickable.

BTW, I see that you didn't write a response to my sources... I didn't expect that you would. One cannot look at those faces or the linguistic and DNA evidence and still hold on to the belief that they were black. One would have to be extremely deluded or cynical to insist that they were with a straight face.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

I gave you the courtesy of hyperliking my sources. You could at least do the same. I don't generally bother copying and pasting addresses. So if you want me to see your sources, make them clickable.

So it is too much for you to copy and paste the link in your address bar? Too much work for you, I guess?

BTW, I see that you didn't write a response to my sources... I didn't expect that you would. One cannot look at those faces or the linguistic and DNA evidence and still hold on to the belief that they were black. One would have to be extremely deluded or cynical to insist that they were with a straight face.

I replies to your link with links of my own, go read and watch them. Like you should have done from the start.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

WE ARE TALKING OF WHY THE BIBLE WRITERS THOUGHT THE CANAANITES WERE SONS OF HAM, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE DARK/BLACK PEOPLE!

Debatable, depends on how one interprets the original language.

Dark or Black? Those are two different things... so are you conceding that you were wrong?

You're clueless, and it's quite clear that you NEVER read the Bible and only know of it from you BFF or some other schmuck, who told you what it say and you believed him.

I went to a Catholic school... I have read the Bible.

ONLY two of the things you mentioned above are actually in the Bible.

Let me repeat what I said: people believed, or thought or inferred

And people through the centuries have done exactly that regarding those examples. Just like some have done with the Ham thing.

The Earth was NEVER said to be flat, in the Bible - Please source in the Bible were this is stated.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

Passages from 6 different books that if taken literally, the only conclusion that one can reach is that the authors of the Bible thought the Earth was flat.

And you should know this. This isn't news to anyone who has a passing knowledge of the book.

Insects are NOT called 4 legged creatures. What the Bible does is make a distinction between the LOCUST/GRASSHOPPERS WALKING legs, and their LEAPING legs, since the LEAPING legs are primarily used to LEAP and not to walk. - Now please source where the bible states INSECTS are 4 legged.

I don't know why you insist in playing this silly game, since is obvious that you know which passage of the Bible I was referring to.

“All 1)fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. 2)But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.”

If you read that^ literally, then it's all kinds of wrong:

1. - Fowls means birds, but there are no birds that "creep on all four".
- Some say that "fowl" is a mistranslation... could be, the Bible is full of them.
- Others say that "fowl" also refers to insects... If so, then why call them "fowl"?
- And if they do mean insects.. it is still wrong, they don't creep all 4 either.

2. Again, there is no such animal that has 4 feet and can fly... not birds, nor insects nor bats.

Witches, ARE REAL, I quest you never heard that people do actually call themselves witches

Don't be an idiot, you know what I mean.

So please source you're theories so I can once again show you have no idea of that which you speak.

Which theories are you referring to? I haven't given any. All I did was mentioned established facts. And I already gave you sources for those.

So far you are the only one coming up with silly theories based on some ridiculous Biblical story.... But you've yet to come up with any real evidence to support that "theory".

Speaking of, you didn't answer this:

Besides, you still haven't shown where the Bible actually says that the Canaanites were black. And I mean "black" as in sub-Saharan-West African-Wesley Snipes-Martin Lawrence Black.

Where are those passages? I'm still interested in reading them.

One more thing regarding this Ham thing.

According to some Biblical "scholars" like the good folks at answersingenesis, the flood happened about 4,300 years ago.

Presumably, some time after that, his grown son Ham did something naughty to Noah -- no one seems to know exactly what, except that it involved nakedness and drunkenness -- so Noah cursed him, or rather his son Canaan. This "curse" was interpreted by some to mean that he turned black -- although I've yet to see an actual passage that says exactly that -- and that the Black race sprung from that curse.

So according to this "theory" that you subscribe to, the Black race is:
1. ~4,000 years old
2. Came from the Levant
3. Came from just one man
4. And they all migrated to Africa.

But Anthropology, Paleontology, Archeology, History, Genetics and all sorts of other fields says is all bollocks.

1. Modern humans are about 250,000 years old
2. Humans evolved in Africa, not the middle east.
3. Populations evolve, not individuals...A whole new race cannot spring from one single man.
4. People migrated out of Africa.

DNA alone tells us that the people of the Levant have been there for at least 12,000 years, so that blows that whole Noah time line out of the water.

So come on dude, bring something else to the table, something credible and valid, something extra-biblical. The Bible is for matters of spirituality and faith. But you can't use the Bible to prove matters of science, and this is exactly what it is, because is a big fail. So if you're thinking about responding with the same all Bible stuff (except for the question I asked again), then you shouldn't bother. I'm done.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

Debatable, depends on how one interprets the original language.

Dark or Black? Those are two different things... so are you conceding that you were wrong?

What are you some kind of buffoon? Dark or Black ARE NOT TO Different things, furthermore very few people were consider black are actually BLACK, their skin for the most part is just DARK, it's not actually BLACK.

I went to a Catholic school... I have read the Bible.

What difference does that make it's quite clear you never actually read the Bible.

{quote]Let me repeat what I said: people believed, or thought or inferred

And people through the centuries have done exactly that regarding those examples. Just like some have done with the Ham thing. [/quote]

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You do not understand the Bible, you keep trying to lump, the Bible literal meanings into that of the way people interpret it's miracles and ti's religious context.

If the "races" of men was something that has soooo many different interpretations, PLEASE SUPPLY THEM!

Don't be an idiot, you know what I mean.

You need to express yourself more clearly or simply stop typing.

[/quote]Besides, you still haven't shown where the Bible actually says that the Canaanites were black. And I mean "black" as in sub-Saharan-West African-Wesley Snipes-Martin Lawrence Black[/quote]

Hey, did you ever realize that Blacks vary in shades of color more than any other "race" on the planet, that is why most people we call black are not even truly "black"

The telling scripture you are looking for is the one that ask "can the Cus-h-i-te change his skin'"

Jeremiah 13:23

Canaan is the Brother of Cush, Cush is the father of Nimrod, so obviously
Nimrod too is black.

One more thing regarding this Ham thing.

According to some Biblical "scholars" like the good folks at answersingenesis, the flood happened about 4,300 years ago.

Give or take...

Presumably, some time after that, his grown son Ham did something naughty to Noah -- no one seems to know exactly what, except that it involved nakedness and drunkenness -- so Noah cursed him, or rather his son Canaan. This "curse" was interpreted by some to mean that he turned black -- although I've yet to see an actual passage that says exactly that -- and that the Black race sprung from that curse.

People interpret it this way because it's pretty easy to realize through where the "races" of men settled what "races" these men spawned.
This is also due to the fact the those who wrote the Bible who actually saw these ancient civilizations considered them descendants of HAM strictly by the complexion of the skin.

This is called historical evidence.

So according to this "theory" that you subscribe to, the Black race is:
1. ~4,000 years old
2. Came from the Levant
3. Came from just one man
4. And they all migrated to Africa.

But Anthropology, Paleontology, Archeology, History, Genetics and all sorts of other fields says is all bollocks.

1. Modern humans are about 250,000 years old
2. Humans evolved in Africa, not the middle east.
3. Populations evolve, not individuals...A whole new race cannot spring from one single man.
4. People migrated out of Africa.

DNA alone tells us that the people of the Levant have been there for at least 12,000 years, so that blows that whole Noah time line out of the water.

So come on dude, bring something else to the table, something credible and valid, something extra-biblical. The Bible is for matters of spirituality and faith. But you can't use the Bible to prove matters of science, and this is exactly what it is, because is a big fail. So if you're thinking about responding with the same all Bible stuff (except for the question I asked again), then you shouldn't bother. I'm done.

You need to get your facts straight. DNA tells us NOTHING about age timetables, of a peoples or area populated by peoples.

You should also research the accuracy of scientific dating, and also ask yourself as well as research, why the fact that recorded history only starts around 3,000/4,000 years ago.

Here is a start:

"Because of the sterility of its concepts, historical geology, which includes paleontology [the study of fossils] and stratigraphy [the study of rock strata], has become static and unreproductive. Current methods of delimiting intervals of time, which are the fundamental units of historical geology, and of establishing chronology are of dubious validity. Worse than that, the criteria of correlation—the attempt to equate in time, or synchronize, the geological history of one area with that of another—are logically vulnerable.
The findings of historical geology are suspect because the principles upon which they are based are either inadequate, in which case they should be reformulated, or false, in which case they should be discarded. Most of us [geologists] refuse to discard or reformulate, and the result is the present deplorable state of our discipline."
—Robin S. Allen, "Geological Correlation and Paleoecology," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, January 1984, p. 2.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

I replies to your link with links of my own, go read and watch them. Like you should have done from the start.

If you're really interested in having me look at your links (you're the one trying to convince me that your right, correct?), then hyperlink them. Otherwise, I don't really care...

In the mean time, I'll re-post this:

I see that you didn't write a response to my sources... I didn't expect that you would. One cannot look at those faces or the linguistic and DNA evidence and still hold on to the belief that they were black. One would have to be extremely deluded or cynical to insist that they were with a straight face.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

I am quite SURE you observed my links...

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

What are you some kind of buffoon? Dark or Black ARE NOT TO Different things, furthermore very few people were consider black are actually BLACK, their skin for the most part is just DARK, it's not actually BLACK.

*sigh*
Are you playing stupid again, or are you just plain stupid. You know perfectly well that the word "Black" is a name for a specific race. But no one thinks that there are people who have literally "black" skin just as there are no people who have literally "white" skin.

And yes, there is a difference between Black (race) and Dark. There are people in India who have very dark skin, as dark or even darker than a native of West Africa. But they're not of the Black race like the West African is...

You seem to be stepping back from your original assertion that their race was black, and now you seem to be saying that they were just "dark".

Jeremiah 13:23

Nope, that doesn't answer this question:

"Besides, you still haven't shown where the Bible actually says that the Canaanites were black. And I mean "black" as in sub-Saharan-West African-Wesley Snipes-Martin Lawrence Black"

Obviously you can't come up with one. You know why? Because there isn't one... They Were Not Black.

You need to get your facts straight. DNA tells us NOTHING about age timetables, of a peoples or area populated by peoples.

Look up the Genograhic Project for starters.

Here, I'll help you out- http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Genographic+Project

why the fact that recorded history only starts around 3,000/4,000 years ago.

I am dying to hear your "theories" on the matter... 3,000/4,000?

I'd just like point out that "Recorded history" is much older than that. In Mesopotamia it goes back about 6,000 years, though some trace it further back to the Ubaid period, 5300 BC- that's 7,300 years ago. Egyptian and Chinese recorded history goes back around 5,000 years.

Here is a start:.... —Robin S. Allen, "Geological Correlation and Paleoecology," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, January 1984, p. 2.

LOL, couldn't find anything more current, eh? BTW, 1984 is just the date of the Bulletin. The text that they're quoting is from 1948

You really should look up something more current, like from this decade or at least the 90's... In the 62 years since that was published there have been great advances in every field...... oh, you slay me.

I just looked up the author. Turns out he was a "creationist", or at least he seems to be a favorite quote-source for "young earthers" and "creationist" nutjobs. So once again you fail.... No one takes that nonsense seriously, well no one except other nutjobs that is.

So tell me... Are you a YEC (young earther -creationists) nutjob? I've suspected it almost from the beginning, but you've been skirting around it without actually coming out and saying it. It would explain a lot, though.

I am quite SURE you observed my links...

Nope, sorry. I didn't. But if is more of the same nonsense that you've been posting here (and I'm sure that it is, hence your refusal to hyperlink them) then I'm not missing anything.

In the mean time:

I see that you didn't write a response to my sources... I didn't expect that you would. One cannot look at those faces or the linguistic and DNA evidence and still hold on to the belief that they were black. One would have to be extremely deluded or cynical to insist that they were with a straight face.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

*sigh*
Are you playing stupid again, or are you just plain stupid. You know perfectly well that the word "Black" is a name for a specific race. But no one thinks that there are people who have literally "black" skin just as there are no people who have literally "white" skin.

And yes, there is a difference between Black (race) and Dark. There are people in India who have very dark skin, as dark or even darker than a native of West Africa. But they're not of the Black race like the West African is...

You seem to be stepping back from your original assertion that their race was black, and now you seem to be saying that they were just "dark".

NO, there is no difference Black people are literally DARK, they are not literally Black, and if you didn't know before Indians and African's in ancient times were often compared to one another simply because they both have DARK skin.

Don't be a moron.

Nope, that doesn't answer this question:

"Besides, you still haven't shown where the Bible actually says that the Canaanites were black. And I mean "black" as in sub-Saharan-West African-Wesley Snipes-Martin Lawrence Black"

Obviously you can't come up with one. You know why? Because there isn't one... They Were Not Black.

So are you trying to imply that C-ush-ites were NOT black, and were white?

Answer me that.

[] Look up the Genograhic Project for starters.

Here, I'll help you out

I wonder why you couldn't source the evidence yourself

I am dying to hear your "theories" on the matter... 3,000/4,000?

I'd just like point out that "Recorded history" is much older than that. In Mesopotamia it goes back about 6,000 years, though some trace it further back to the Ubaid period, 5300 BC- that's 7,300 years ago. Egyptian and Chinese recorded history goes back around 5,000 years.

Really, please source this, let's see some evidence on this please.... I'll wait.

LOL, couldn't find anything more current, eh? BTW, 1984 is just the date of the Bulletin. The text that they're quoting is from 1948 [] []

Wrong, try again or actually read the bulletin. You're a liar, anything to try and further your agenda.

All you do is talk, but never do provide anything to back up your claims... I wonder why

You really should look up something more current, like from this decade or at least the 90's... In the 62 years since that was published there have been great advances in every field... [] ... oh, you slay me.

I just looked up the author. Turns out he was a "creationist", or at least he seems to be a favorite quote-source for "young earthers" and "creationist" nutjobs. So once again you fail.... No one takes that nonsense seriously, well no one except other nutjobs that is.

So tell me... Are you a YEC (young earther -creationists) nutjob? I've suspected it almost from the beginning, but you've been skirting around it without actually coming out and saying it. It would explain a lot, though.

How about you supply something current to state contrary, but of course you wont, you'll just keep trying to find fault with my sources but never will you provide anything close to a source stating contrary to mine.

You're a fraud.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

Wrong, try again or actually read the bulletin. You're a liar, anything to try and further your agenda.

How am I lying? It says so right there, in the QUOTE THAT YOU POSTED!

Interesting that you didn't post link to the original site. So I looked it up myself. Turns out that to view the original article, one has to subscribe. Otherwise, all you get from them is a small excerpt (different quote), and without any context.

But guess what else turns up. Yep, that's right. A bunch of creationist pseudo-scientific and anti-evolution websites that use this one quote, from 1948 LOL.

http://tinyurl.com/2939rth

And if you do a more specific search including the '84 date for the bulletin, those are pretty much the only sites that pop up.

http://tinyurl.com/34s725f

Turns out, you're the one who is lying.

How about you supply something current to state contrary, but of course you wont, you'll just keep trying to find fault with my sources but never will you provide anything close to a source stating contrary to mine.

I already have. It's not my fault if you're too obtuse or dishonest to acknowledge it.

Anyway, obviously you have nothing to contribute. Your whole argument hinges on your interpretation of some biblical story, a myth. Non of it happened. There was no worldwide flood, there was no Noah and no ark. All humanity didn't descent from his 3 sons, and the black race is not the result of some curse!...Oh yeah, and your 1948 quote is a big fat fail!

It's pointless to have a discussion with a YEC, probably a home-schooled one at that. You see, in my experience, YECs don't reason, they refuse to accept facts-- doesn't matter how evident they are, they'll refuse to see it. The only thing that interests them is proving that the stories in the Bible are literally true. And to do this, they'll ignore logic, science, history... Instead, they'll make up "theories", make up "evidence", misrepresent and right out lie. And their capacity for self-deception is enormous. Basically, I might as well bang my head on a wall... it just isn't worth it.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

How am I lying? It says so right there, in the QUOTE THAT YOU POSTED!

Interesting that you didn't post link to the original site. So I looked it up myself. Turns out that to view the original article, one has to subscribe. Otherwise, all you get from them is a small excerpt (different quote), and without any context.

But guess what else turns up. Yep, that's right. A bunch of creationist pseudo-scientific and anti-evolution websites that use this one quote, from 1948 LOL.

http://tinyurl.com/2939rth

And if you do a more specific search including the '84 date for the bulletin, those are pretty much the only sites that pop up.

http://tinyurl.com/34s725f

Turns out, you're the one who is lying.

So post the link where you found and read the source I posted, or will you keep lying saying you read it?

Enough talk from you let's see some sources backing your stance. All you do is talk, now start sourcing.

I already have. It's not my fault if you're too obtuse or dishonest to acknowledge it.

Anyway, obviously you have nothing to contribute. Your whole argument hinges on your interpretation of some biblical story, a myth. Non of it happened. There was no worldwide flood, there was no Noah and no ark. All humanity didn't descent from his 3 sons, and the black race is not the result of some curse!...Oh yeah, and your 1948 quote is a big fat fail!

It's pointless to have a discussion with a YEC, probably a home-schooled one at that. You see, in my experience, YECs don't reason, they refuse to accept facts-- doesn't matter how evident they are, they'll refuse to see it. The only thing that interests them is proving that the stories in the Bible are literally true. And to do this, they'll ignore logic, science, history... Instead, they'll make up "theories", make up "evidence", misrepresent and right out lie. And their capacity for self-deception is enormous. Basically, I might as well bang my head on a wall... it just isn't worth it.

What does your argument hinge on? You saying so? are you kidding?

Let's see some sources?

Where are these sources you have or that back your argument? What race were the Canaanites? Please provide some evidence if not....

YOU LOSE.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

No, actually, YOU LOSE... See, you were shown sources that prove that the Canaanites were Semitic just like all the other people native to the Levant. They were no different. But true to form, you chose to ignore the evidence and lie, and by doing so you just proved my point above... so thank you for that:)

And until you get your head out of your ass and stop treating the Bible like a history and science book, you'll remain an ignorant loser. And, at least for now, I'm done discussing this matter with ignorant losers. So, see ya. And welcome to my ignore list.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

SEMITIC DOES NOT MEAN "MIDDLE EASTERN" OR "WHITE" PICTURES are not SOURCES! Please, are you kidding me?

You have not provided one source to back up your argument. I call fraud, and until you provide ANYTHING to back your stance, that is what you will continue to be... A fraud!

YOU LOSE.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

Too bad NOBODY show proof as to Hannibal being so called "White"

I wonder why

reply

[–] HannibaltheGreat 14 years ago

Of course he was a white man, just like his Phoenician descendents in southern Spain, Malta, Sicily, Lebanon, and all over the Mediterranean world. Ignorant negroes are the ones who need to produce evidence to back up their fantasies.

ps
Come back when you've mastered some basic English, ebonic fool.

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

Of course he was a white man, just like his Phoenician descendents in southern Spain, Malta, Sicily, Lebanon, and all over the Mediterranean world. Ignorant negroes are the ones who need to produce evidence to back up their fantasies.

ps
Come back when you've mastered some basic English, ebonic fool.

An insult from a moron. Too funny.

What would be even funnier is if you actually knew history. Idiot.

reply

[–] HannibaltheGreat 14 years ago

Haven't you got a burger to flip or a car to jack? Run along now...

reply

[–] emilforeal 14 years ago

Pure stupidity, assuming I am Black based on my stance. You are truly a moron.

reply

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

I don't know which is worst... the guy who keeps insisting that the Phoenicians were black because of some biblical nonsense... or the stormfront rejects who say they were white solely on their racists views.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

More accurately, they were Semitic... like Hebrews, Arabs and Assyrians.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

Not many Canaanites or anyone else from the Levant either.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] archer1812 14 years ago

-Not many Arabs with red hair
-I know a Christian Arab from Jerusalem who is a red head.

Like I said: "Not many Canaanites or anyone else from the Levant either".
Didn't said that there weren't any, just that it's about the same as other Semites from the Levant.

I doubt you have been to the Lebanon or Syria. I suggest you check one of the many you tube clips dedicated to Lebanese, Armenian and Syrian girls - plenty blondes and redheads amongst them. A million miles away from what this “History” Channel production attempted to display as fact.

Armenians are not Semitic, so there's no point in bringing them up. Except to say that I love Armenian girls :) and luckily, there are plenty of them around here.

You're right, I haven't been to Lebanon or Syria, but that doesn't mean that I don't know them. I know plenty of Lebanese. I live in SoCal, and we have one of the largest Lebanese communities in the US. Also, where I'm originally from there is a fairly significant Syrio-Lebanese community. They've been migrating there in waves since the 1880's to 1970's. From that community we've had a President, a Miss Universe runner-up, several actors and artists and one of the biggest pop stars in the world. In my own family we have Lebanese relatives by marriage and we're very close to them. My cousins are half Lebanese. So yes, I'm more than familiar with who they are.

I would say that 95%+ have black hair or brown hair (light and dark). Some have light skin others dark olive skin and every range in between. I have seen some blonds, though by the look of them, the overwhelming majority were bottle blonds, natural blond is not as common and is usually dark-blond. But redheads? Yes, there are redheads. I don't know of any personally, but I know that there are. I don't disagree with you. But to say that there are "plenty" is a huge exaggeration. Starting with the fact that red hair is the rarest color for hair in humans, something like 2% or 3% overall and with Western and Northern Europe having the most at about 6%. So when it comes to redheads, there is no such thing as "plenty" not even in Scotland which has the largest percentage of any other nation.

And if you had read my other posts you'd notice that I don't agree at all with the portrayal of Phoenicians in this program. I even had a long debate with that guy that kept insisting that they were black because of some biblical BS. But I also disagree with the race-obsessed stormfront clowns who want to claim them for their own and even claim them as "aryan" (the ignorant asses that they are) for some silly racial-pride idiocy that has no basis in reality. Now, I hope that you don't happen to be one of them, are you?

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]