History channel shows Hannibal as a Black man. Whites go crazy cry revisionism.

[MrBee]

Racism is an instinct...

 

[CharlieBrown]

even budweiser had it right back in the day

​

Well this image of Hannibal is about as accurate as THIS image of Jesus

They are both more than likely wrong. And both for the same reason. Wishful thinking of groups who want THEIR hero to look like them.

Sadly Jesus and Hannibal were pretty much of the same stock - related to people of the Levant BOTH probably looked like this:

I amazed most of you can look at white stupidity in pretending Jesus was a blonde European but you can't see you are doing the same thing with Hannibal.

And believe me the beer company was just trying to sell you some beer they would have told you Caesar was black to make a sale.



THESE however are more than likely quite correct:

 

[CharlieBrown]

So Wikipedia is your source? Negro please. The carbon dating on the coins has verified to be accurate. I suppose you believe that you believe the white washed busts are Hannibal too?

No. Wiki as a very good source for ancient history.

Just because subjects like Scientology or Chiropractic or other nonsense has corrupted entries does NOT invalidate the useful information contained in wiki. The math entries and ancient history entries are excellent.

I defy you to find any errors in the entries.

Here's four on subjects I know quite a bit about. Please find the errors and point them out to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire


Good luck - I can't find any...

 

[ViCiouS]

Like something about trade routes and expansion of taxation blah blah blah. But without evidence (other than a desire for self esteem boosting) the null hypotheses is that the Carthaginian generals were well... Carthaginian.

Carthage and her military were diverse and included Libyans Berbers etc... from foot soldiers to generals - why do you insist on insinuating all were of Phoenician lineage?

Sadly Jesus and Hannibal were pretty much of the same stock - related to people of the Levant BOTH probably looked like this:

you have yet to prove Hannibal's lineage was Phoenician - I agree he wouldn't have looked like the Budweiser image - but IMO was more likely darker than the above - Also IF Jesus truly existed - and the biblical writers were accurate- I doubt the man in the image above has wool like hair

 

[ron_mexico]

Anytime you hear a cac say " The race of so and so is not really known"....you automatically know that person is black. If they are unsure about anything, its how thoroughly thier ancestors whitewashed the history of the person in question.

 

[CharlieBrown]

you have yet to prove Hannibal's lineage was Phoenician - I agree he wouldn't have looked like the Budweiser image - but IMO was more likely darker than the above - Also IF Jesus truly existed - and the biblical writers were accurate- I doubt the man in the image above has wool like hair

I am sure the white people who want to believe in European Jesus feel the same way! "Well ok Jesus wasn't as light as the first picture BUT IMO(!) he was lighter than the other one!!!)

Yet you guys don't see that you are just like them...

The Carthaginians were settlers from Tyre why would you suddenly believe one of their leaders became mixed with something else with no evidence? I guess the whites are right. Why not believe Jesus was somehow mixed with a white European?? This you can see as crap. But YOUR crap is true. Unmmmm ok...

 

[Problematic]

Well this image of Hannibal is about as accurate as THIS image of Jesus

They are both more than likely wrong. And both for the same reason. Wishful thinking of groups who want THEIR hero to look like them.

Sadly Jesus and Hannibal were pretty much of the same stock - related to people of the Levant BOTH probably looked like this:

I amazed most of you can look at white stupidity in pretending Jesus was a blonde European but you can't see you are doing the same thing with Hannibal.

And believe me the beer company was just trying to sell you some beer they would have told you Caesar was black to make a sale.



THESE however are more than likely quite correct:

This is what I was trying to say in my previous post

 

[ViCiouS]

I am sure the white people who want to believe in European Jesus feel the same way! "Well ok Jesus wasn't as light as the first picture BUT IMO(!) he was lighter than the other one!!!)

Yet you guys don't see that you are just like them...

The Carthaginians were settlers from Tyre why would you suddenly believe one of their leaders became mixed with something else with no evidence? I guess the whites are right. Why not believe Jesus was somehow mixed with a white European?? This you can see as crap. But YOUR crap is true. Unmmmm ok...

nice deflection but
you are still inaccurate - Hannibal's family was not of the leadership class and had great difficulties with the leadership of Carthage because he was not of their class... in the end it was one of the reasons they left him hung out to dry in Italy

So why in this thread do you keep insisting he was of ruling class? Is it because its the only way you can keep insisting he must have been Phoenician?
Why do you keep insisting that Carthaginians were all or mostly Phoenician when they clearly were not. The ruling class and most of the merchant class were - but thats not the entire society

 

[CharlieBrown]

nice deflection but
you are still inaccurate - Hannibal's family was not of the leadership class and had great difficulties with the leadership of Carthage because he was not of their class... in the end it was one of the reasons they left him hung out to dry in Italy

So why in this thread do you keep insisting he was of ruling class? Is it because its the only way you can keep insisting he must have been Phoenician?
Why do you keep insisting that Carthaginians were all or mostly Phoenician when they clearly were not. The ruling class and most of the merchant class were - but thats not the entire society

Well Hannibal was of the Barcid family one of the oligarchic families of the Carthaginians. So yourtheory is incorrect. Where are you getting this information??? I hate to say it. But it sounds like you are just making things up to bolster your argument. And hoping your opponent just knows nothing and will believe you. Ancient Roman history is my hobby. (Really). Anyone who actually loves this history knows that Hannibal was one of the ruling families. So why just make stuff up??

Again and again I encounter people here who have no interest in history- other than to prove some self esteem issues. Are you actually interested in the Punic wars? Do you know who said carthago delenda est?? Have you read Livy?? Suetonius?? Dio?? Gibbons??

By you're own admission the rulers we're PROBABLY Phoenicians!! So the null hypothesis is Hannibal (of the ruling class )was a Phoenician!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcids

But any way, please continue your belief in the blackness of Hannibal. He was black and a great leader. You too are great because of his greatness. You are a king. Walk prouder feel taller!! That is the goal of history!

 

[gene cisco]

Carthage and her military were diverse and included Libyans Berbers etc... from foot soldiers to generals - why do you insist on insinuating all were of Phoenician lineage?

you have yet to prove Hannibal's lineage was Phoenician - I agree he wouldn't have looked like the Budweiser image - but IMO was more likely darker than the above - Also IF Jesus truly existed - and the biblical writers were accurate- I doubt the man in the image above has wool like hair

You're too smart to use that Revelations verse. The one where it describes hair that is WHITE like WOOl. 1:14.

The pic from Charlie Brown probably represents what a good number of North Africans look like going back 5,000 years or more. DNA confirms the mixing going back more than 10,000 years.

 

[gene cisco]

This is what I was trying to say in my previous post

I been trying to tell cats that shit for years. It's just funny to see people trying to claim shit they shouldn't claim.

 

[Camille]

It seems many here (far too many) are only interested in ancient history as a Self Esteem boosting mechanism. They seek out and accept uncritically any and all reports of information that re enforce these beliefs. They have no actual interest in those time period other than that end. This is quite frankly annoying to those who actually study the period with real interest and desire for accuracy. I can assure you if information came forward which would prove Hannibal was a black african historians would not seek to suppress it. It would be trumpeted as a great find and a marvelous addition to our knowledge. But historians are not in the job of black self esteem boosting. And scholars play hardball with fact and evidence. They don't not suffer fools gladly in their circles.

It is interesting that people who otherwise haven't the slightest interest in ancient Mediterranean history suddenly have (a misinformed) opinion on such matters. Their reason - self esteem. Which is rather sad in its own way. I mean do you think white people ( who you all refer to here rather childishly as "CAC's") should feel a great swell of pride because some person like Gauss or Newton who they never met were geniuses? You would all laugh at them.

I have noticed this desire (need?) for self esteem boosting seems to me a uniquely American phenomenon. You don't seem Blacks in African or South America or the Caribbean for that matter twisting themselves in to intellectual knots and going through torturous contortions to pretend to be Egyptians or what ever else. I don't think you would find anyone in Ghana thinking he was "really an Egyptian" Quite frankly they seem to have pride in their REAL history and don't feel the need to make one up. Only American Blacks have had their minds fucked over by whites so much they do this. It explains all the weaves and the equally sad belief that "I have Indian in MY family - you know my great great grandmother (always a great or great great grandmother by the way - name always unknown and no pictures) was a Choctaw! "

Yeah I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that black Americans were stolen from their homeland and over generations lost all memory and knowledge of their origins, language and ancestors. Africans in other countries did not lose their history. We did.

 

[CharlieBrown]

Yeah I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that black Americans were stolen from their homeland and over generations lost all memory and knowledge of their origins, language and ancestors. Africans in other countries did not lose their history. We did.

I agree with you 100%

 

[ViCiouS]

You're too smart to use that Revelations verse. The one where it describes hair that is WHITE like WOOl. 1:14.

The pic from Charlie Brown probably represents what a good number of North Africans look like going back 5,000 years or more. DNA confirms the mixing going back more than 10,000 years.

nah thats post apocalyptic Jesus -
I was pulling on the prophesy from Song of Solomon 5:11
"His head is like gold, pure gold; His locks are like clusters of dates And black as a raven."

The mixture was never in dispute and yes Charlie's picture is a representation of a good number of North Africans butit excludes A LOT of the tribes that lived in what is now Algeria Libya Morocco Tunisia and Egypt.

 

[ViCiouS]

Well Hannibal was of the Barcid family one of the oligarchic families of the Carthaginians. So yourtheory is incorrect. Where are you getting this information??? I hate to say it. But it sounds like you are just making things up to bolster your argument. And hoping your opponent just knows nothing and will believe you. Ancient Roman history is my hobby. (Really). Anyone who actually loves this history knows that Hannibal was one of the ruling families. So why just make stuff up??

Again and again I encounter people here who have no interest in history- other than to prove some self esteem issues. Are you actually interested in the Punic wars? Do you know who said carthago delenda est?? Have you read Livy?? Suetonius?? Dio?? Gibbons??

By you're own admission the rulers we're PROBABLY Phoenicians!! So the null hypothesis is Hannibal (of the ruling class )was a Phoenician!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcids

But any way, please continue your belief in the blackness of Hannibal. He was black and a great leader. You too are great because of his greatness. You are a king. Walk prouder feel taller!! That is the goal of history!

very selective history on your part
- why are you pulling such a poorly sourced Wiki to back up your claim?
One scholar and One book? But you want to dismiss my arguments as fringe?
I've already posted sources on where the Barca family come from and their social class
NO Where else have I read that the Barcids were a ruling family of Carthage -
there is no mention of the Barcids before the first Punic war and Iberian invasion... but you and one french scholar now claim there were a ruling family of Carthage.
Carthage existed for centuries before Hamilcar - but he is listed as the patriarch of a oligarchy in the ruling class?

Please post sources (that don't defy logic) that Barca or Barcid were part of the ruling families of Carthage anytime prior to 250 bc forward to 2nd Punic War

The ruling class was Phoenician I never disputed that - and you now acknowledge the diversity of Carthage- so only thing still in dispute between us now is:
Were the Barca family in the ruling class of Carthage- can you prove they were - evidence from the 1st & 2nd Punic War suggests they were not

 

[wadusay]

This is how you know we live under a global System of White Supremacy.
Even when the world is presented with documented evidence showing the Africoid features of Hannibal you got the white folks who practice racism getting pissed off at the truth.

If we were a "all one people"...."all one race"......"all lives matter" type of world history would be presented with all the facts with no white washing and agendas behind it. Hell....we wouldn't be having this conversation.

At the end of the day we learn history to learn what works and what doesn't throughout time. Use history to learn from it...not just give yourself a self esteem boost. And if both white/non white folks are getting you to doubt the true facts and evidence of history.....fuck em....just stick with the facts.

 

[CharlieBrown]

very selective history on your part
- why are you pulling such a poorly sourced Wiki to back up your claim?
One scholar and One book? But you want to dismiss my arguments as fringe?
I've already posted sources on where the Barca family come from and their social class
NO Where else have I read that the Barcids were a ruling family of Carthage -
there is no mention of the Barcids before the first Punic war and Iberian invasion... but you and one french scholar now claim there were a ruling family of Carthage.
Carthage existed for centuries before Hamilcar - but he is listed as the patriarch of a oligarchy in the ruling class?

Please post sources (that don't defy logic) that Barca or Barcid were part of the ruling families of Carthage anytime prior to 250 bc forward to 2nd Punic War

The ruling class was Phoenician I never disputed that - and you now acknowledge the diversity of Carthage- so only thing still in dispute between us now is:
Were the Barca family in the ruling class of Carthage- can you prove they were - evidence from the 1st & 2nd Punic War suggests they were not

First. YOU quoted wiki yourself to prove your point a few posts ago(!). (Clearly you didn't read it because it didn't by the way) so now wiki is no good??

Second. EVERY ancient source describes the Barcids as part of the royalty. I doubt you have read any of them. Sorry but it seems you haven't. I have.
And not for this conversation. I have no actual interest in Hannibals race. Really I don't. If he was black cool. But there is little evidence to support this
But I know my Roman history. I don't think you do. I can tell by these arguments of yours.
I think you are very interested in race identity pride but not so much in history

Yes these are pictures from my actual library. Yes I have read all these books on Roman History. I think you are just frantically looking things up for this conversation in order to bolster your arguments and have very little actual knowledge about Roman history.

This time you picked the wrong opponent.

I know my Roman history. As you can see it's my hobby.
I am sure there are many things about which you know more than I do; this is NOT one of them

And yes I included a picture with my (very) Black hand so you can't scream that I'm a CAC with an agenda.
You can try to argue with me in this field if you want but you cannot BS me. Not on THIS topic!



Persephone









And yes I love this field of study enough to have learned and continue to learn Latin so that I can read the ORIGINAL works in Latin. I know my sources

 

[Problematic]

First. YOU quoted wiki yourself to prove your point a few posts ago(!). (Clearly you didn't read it because it didn't by the way) so now wiki is no good??

Second. EVERY ancient source describes the Barcids as part of the royalty. I doubt you have read any of them. Sorry but it seems you haven't. I have.
And not for this conversation. I have no actual interest in Hannibals race. Really I don't. If he was black cool. But there is little evidence to support this
But I know my Roman history. I don't think you do. I can tell by these arguments of yours.
I think you are very interested in race identity pride but not so much in history

Yes these are pictures from my actual library. Yes I have read all these books on Roman History. I think you are just frantically looking things up for this conversation in order to bolster your arguments and have very little actual knowledge about Roman history.

This time you picked the wrong opponent.

I know my Roman history. As you can see it's my hobby.
I am sure there are many things about which you know more than I do; this is NOT one of them

And yes I included a picture with my (very) Black hand so you can't scream that I'm a CAC with an agenda.
You can try to argue with me in this field if you want but you can BS me. Not on THIS topic!

Nice collection.

What's your background (native born or from abroad)?

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

First. YOU quoted wiki yourself to prove your point a few posts ago(!). (Clearly you didn't read it because it didn't by the way) so now wiki is no good??

Second. EVERY ancient source describes the Barcids as part of the royalty. I doubt you have read any of them. Sorry but it seems you haven't. I have.
And not for this conversation. I have no actual interest in Hannibals race. Really I don't. If he was black cool. But there is little evidence to support this
But I know my Roman history. I don't think you do. I can tell by these arguments of yours.
I think you are very interested in race identity pride but not so much in history

Yes these are pictures from my actual library. Yes I have read all these books on Roman History. I think you are just frantically looking things up for this conversation in order to bolster your arguments and have very little actual knowledge about Roman history.

This time you picked the wrong opponent.

I know my Roman history. As you can see it's my hobby.
I am sure there are many things about which you know more than I do; this is NOT one of them

And yes I included a picture with my (very) Black hand so you can't scream that I'm a CAC with an agenda.
You can try to argue with me in this field if you want but you cannot BS me. Not on THIS topic!

And yes I love this field of study enough to have learned and continue to learn Latin so that I can read the ORIGINAL works in Latin. I know my sources

I think you are missing this book tho..

 

[CharlieBrown]

Nice collection.

What's your background (native born or from abroad)?

New Yorker replaced to Texas. Fortunately retired with time to study! For past year have been learning Latin and Greek in order to read original text. The rest of my time is spent studying math and history. I usually pick an area and spend a few months studying. Finished western Europe 300 AD to 1000 AD last month. Most interesting thing I learned in that period was that no one know why slavery in western europe stopped. They have a strong slave system under Rome yet somehow for some reason that no one knows it shifted under the Carolingians to a serf system and spread through out western Europe. But why?? want a PhD find out!

On to the Bulgar Empire now! Then Slavic history. How many here know these people were so enslaved their very name had become adopted to mean Slave. Mostly they were enslaved by Vikings and sent to the Abbasid Caliphate biggest slave trade in europe

 

[CharlieBrown]

I think you are missing this book tho..

Well that sort of book wouldn't generally make it in my library in the history section.

First I as you see I general choose original sources so reading a modern writer just means reading what they have been able to extract from those sources anyway. I don't require a filter. In fact that is why I am learning Latin

Second Gert Muller is not a historian with university credentials. He's a freelance writer. And quite frankly one with a very obvious agenda. That this or that ancient people were really black. Look at his titles:

Nubian Origins of Egyptian Predynastic Civilization

Eden: The Biblical Garden Discovered In East Africa

The African Rulers of Medieval Yemen

Science Meets The Bible: The Biblical Garden of Eden Discovered In East Africa

Fine.

But quite frankly REAL modern historians are writing book with such dull topics as :

Roman Coins and Their Values, Vol. 1: The Republic and the Twelve Caesars 280 BC-AD 96

(I read it don't recommend - boring)

Perhaps Mr Mullers work is ground breaking and insightful. I don't know. Because actually I am not concerned in discovering racial history of people (unless it coincides with my other general interest in the region - i.e. what happened here and why) If Mr Mullers work is correct let him present it to other scholars for peer review. But this sort of book is general written for people who argue on these types of boards (and generally they dont even really read them) - they just frantically google them and use their mere appearance to "win" arguments among the uninformed and unsophisticated. But perhaps he has something. But his lack of a PhD in the field and the clearly message oriented themes of his work don't inspire me to bother with him. Again if I was interested in race identity history with a end to claim black origin of this that and the other I guess I would read him. I'm simply not. I rather re read Gibbon.

By the way I know about the black Roman emperors and I assume Muller got it from the same source as me by the way - ancient text. Black origin of Rome is a REAL stretch and quite silly. Muller is probably talking through his hat.

Just because someone put a title on something doesn't mean it has any credibility. I mean think of Trump's "Art of the Deal" He holds it up like "Hey see...I wrote a book called Art of the Deal - it mean I'm an expert on deals! See - It's in the title!"

He didn't even write that crap by the way - it was a ghost writer. I doubt he even read it quite frankly. I saw someone ask him about a chapter in it an he clearly had no idea. I think he just picked the cover photo...

 

[gene cisco]

nah thats post apocalyptic Jesus -
I was pulling on the prophesy from Song of Solomon 5:11
"His head is like gold, pure gold; His locks are like clusters of dates And black as a raven."

The mixture was never in dispute and yes Charlie's picture is a representation of a good number of North Africans butit excludes A LOT of the tribes that lived in what is now Algeria Libya Morocco Tunisia and Egypt.

That description doesn't make him black either.

I agree about the tribes. But there are some who don't even realize that there are native(speaking before any recorded history) cacs in north Africa. People who predate the pyramids. Mutts if you will.

 

[gene cisco]

Well that sort of book wouldn't general make it in my library in the history section.

First I as you see I general choose original sources so reading a modern writer just means reading what they have been able to extract from those sources anyway. I don't require a filter. In fact that is why I am learning Latin

Second Gert Muller is not a historian with university credentials. He's a freelance writer. And quite frankly one with a very obvious agenda. That this or that ancient people were really black. Look at his titles:

Nubian Origins of Egyptian Predynastic Civilization

Eden: The Biblical Garden Discovered In East Africa

The African Rulers of Medieval Yemen

Science Meets The Bible: The Biblical Garden of Eden Discovered In East Africa

Fine.

But quite frankly REAL modern historians are writing book with such dull topics as :

Roman Coins and Their Values, Vol. 1: The Republic and the Twelve Caesars 280 BC-AD 96

(I read it don't recommend - boring)

Perhaps Mr Mullers work is ground breaking and insightful. I don't know. Because actually I am not concerned in discovering racial history of people (unless it coincides with my other general interest in the region - i.e. what happened here and why) If Mr Mullers work is correct let him present it to other scholars for peer review. But this sort of book is general written for people who argue on these types of boards (and generally they dont even really read them) - they just frantically google them and use their mere appearance to "win" arguments among the uninformed and unsophisticated. But perhaps he has something. But his lack of a PhD in the field and the clearly message oriented themes of his work don't inspire me to bother with him. Again if I was interest in race identity history with a end to claim black origin of this that and the other I guess I would read him. I'm simply not. I rather re read Gibbon.

By the way I know about the black Roman emperors and I assume Muller got it from the same source as me by the way - ancient text. Black origin of Rome is a REAL stretch and quite silly. Muller is probably taking through his hat.

Just because someone put a title on something doesn't mean it has any credibility. I mean think of Trump's "Art of the Deal" He holds it up like "Hey see...I wrote a book called Art of the Deal - it mean I'm an expert on deals! See - It's in the title!"

He didn't even write that crap by the way - it was a ghost writer. I doubt he even read it quite frankly. I saw someone ask him about a chapter in it an he clearly had no idea. I think he just picked the cover photo...

Damn. You're killing it. That's the problem these days those. Cats keep passing the same books around in their circles. It's like that ancient aliens shit. Some of the Moors books are the worst. They will use 19th century paintings to talk about history in the 700s.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

Well that sort of book wouldn't general make it in my library in the history section.

First I as you see I general choose original sources so reading a modern writer just means reading what they have been able to extract from those sources anyway. I don't require a filter. In fact that is why I am learning Latin

Second Gert Muller is not a historian with university credentials. He's a freelance writer. And quite frankly one with a very obvious agenda. That this or that ancient people were really black. Look at his titles:

Nubian Origins of Egyptian Predynastic Civilization

Eden: The Biblical Garden Discovered In East Africa

The African Rulers of Medieval Yemen

Science Meets The Bible: The Biblical Garden of Eden Discovered In East Africa

Fine.

But quite frankly REAL modern historians are writing book with such dull topics as :

Roman Coins and Their Values, Vol. 1: The Republic and the Twelve Caesars 280 BC-AD 96

(I read it don't recommend - boring)

Perhaps Mr Mullers work is ground breaking and insightful. I don't know. Because actually I am not concerned in discovering racial history of people (unless it coincides with my other general interest in the region - i.e. what happened here and why) If Mr Mullers work is correct let him present it to other scholars for peer review. But this sort of book is general written for people who argue on these types of boards (and generally they dont even really read them) - they just frantically google them and use their mere appearance to "win" arguments among the uninformed and unsophisticated. But perhaps he has something. But his lack of a PhD in the field and the clearly message oriented themes of his work don't inspire me to bother with him. Again if I was interest in race identity history with a end to claim black origin of this that and the other I guess I would read him. I'm simply not. I rather re read Gibbon.

By the way I know about the black Roman emperors and I assume Muller got it from the same source as me by the way - ancient text. Black origin of Rome is a REAL stretch and quite silly. Muller is probably taking through his hat.

Just because someone put a title on something doesn't mean it has any credibility. I mean think of Trump's "Art of the Deal" He holds it up like "Hey see...I wrote a book called Art of the Deal - it mean I'm an expert on deals! See - It's in the title!"

He didn't even write that crap by the way - it was a ghost writer. I doubt he even read it quite frankly. I saw someone ask him about a chapter in it an he clearly had no idea. I think he just picked the cover photo...

Thats a long ass no....LOL...

Thanks for your OPINION on Gert Muller but can you in all of your roman historical knowledge dispute any claims he makes...?

fact is and remains..

europe owes everthing to the "black" people that civilized it....

funny how white mans history happens to lose everything associated with "black" people.

Like the history and orgins of the Etruscans the ORIGINAL greeks before those sexually confused fucks came in on the scene then stole and perverted everything they got from the mystery schools of egypt...

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

That description doesn't make him black either.

I agree about the tribes. But there are some who don't even realize that there are native(speaking before any recorded history) cacs in north Africa. People who predate the pyramids. Mutts if you will.

why do you run from the fact, crackers cover up true black history..??

are you denying this fact??

 

[gene cisco]

why do you run from the fact, crackers cover up true black history..??

are you denying this fact??

I guess you're right. They hide history in books. It's true. It's true.

Listen. History is nice to look at, but white, black or whatever, it's not as impressive as flying in an airplane or any of the shit going on now. Cacs don't have to hide shit with what's going on now. Everything these cacs come up with they HIDE in books. REAL historians don't give a fuck about race because they don't rely on dead people for self-confidence. Especially when there hasn't been anything in the past that can rival the last 150 years or so.

 

[CharlieBrown]

Damn. You're killing it. That's the problem these days those. Cats keep passing the same books around in their circles. It's like that ancient aliens shit. Some of the Moors books are the worst. They will use 19th century paintings to talk about history in the 700s.

It's very sad.

And your Alien reference is a perfect analogy. I have to remind myself these people are NOT actually interested in history. They are only interested in self serving references to fantasies they have heard and believe because it bolsters their self esteem. The worst is just what you described these phony un peer reviewed books that are passed around on the internet. And again most of the people who cites these book haven't even read them! Because they are not ACTUALLY interested in history. They are interested in appearing learned and thus "winning" these online arguments.

So google , google google. Then " Here is so and so black themed book on how the Europeans were civilized by black men - how can you refute that!! its in a book and I posted the link!"

From now on when they do that I think I'm going to ask them to post a picture of the book in their hands. Because I don't believe they even read this crap. (Why would they because they know it's bull shit too.)

Sorry misinformation is worse than no information. I think it is better to say "I have know idea about the formation of the Roman City state" than to say " Gert Muller say Rome has black origins - can you refute that? It's in a BOOK - see the link!"

Ummmmm yeah I can...Actually I know more about it than Gert Muller (apparently) unfortunately...


Those university professors are CAC and are in a conspiracy too cover up the greatness of The BLACK MAN!!

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

I guess you're right. They hide history in books. It's true. It's true.

Listen. History is nice to look at, but white, black or whatever, it's not as impressive as flying in an airplane or any of the shit going on now. Cacs don't have to hide shit with what's going on now. Everything these cacs come up with they HIDE in books. REAL historians don't give a fuck about race because they don't rely on dead people for self-confidence. Especially when there hasn't been anything in the past that can rival the last 150 years or so.

whaaa da fuck are you talking about...?

you claim they dont hide shit..

Then who are the Etruscans and what is their orgin?

Show me ONE just ONE thing a european built that stood

the test of time like the Sphinx..... just ONE...

and you said they dont give a fuck about race..

are you serious or just type to hear the keystrokes???

are you saying european historical revisionism is a myth?

un fuckin believable....!!!!

 

[CharlieBrown]

whaaa da fuck are you talking about...?

you claim they dont hide shit..

Then who are the Etruscans and what is their orgin?

Show me ONE just ONE thing a european built that stood

the test of time like the Sphinx..... just ONE...

and you said they dont give a fuck about race..

are you serious or just type to hear the keystrokes???

are you saying european historical revisionism is a myth?

un fuckin believable....!!!!

I think you think that bringing up the Etruscan is bringing up something that no one here really knows about. But I do. The theory that they are black is a far fetched one that simply is not convincing. What ever issue we have concerning their origin (and there are some questions) that does not believe we must no accept every fringe idea! I fact I wonder why you show interest in them? I know about them through my interest in Roman history. But I think you probably know about them because of some fringe book that tries to that a slight question we have in history and overlays some Afrocentric theme to trace civilization back to blacks etc...

People are always "name dropping" stuff like this and assuming the other guy has no idea and will assume you must know because hey, who talks about the Etruscans??! Well I happen to so...

I mean we don't know the exact origins of the Rus people either. Perhaps they were black too...? I mean you posted :
orgins of the Etruscans the ORIGINAL greeks before those sexually confused fucks came in on the scene then stole and perverted everything they got from the mystery schools of egypt...

Really? I can imagine take a class on ancient Mediterranean civilization and approaching the professor with that. It would be like going to medical school and demanding to know how to balance the patient's humours and asking where the leeches were...

This stuff is about as convincing as the "history" that the holy grail was brought to England by Joesph of Arimathea.

 

[Amajorfucup]

On to the Bulgar Empire now! Then Slavic history. How many here know these people were so enslaved their very name had become adopted to mean Slave. Mostly they were enslaved by Vikings and sent to the Abbasid Caliphate biggest slave trade in europe

Yea.. i think quite a few of us knew that.

fact is and remains..

europe owes everthing to the "black" people that civilized it....

funny how white mans history happens to lose everything associated with "black" people.

Like the history and orgins of the Etruscans the ORIGINAL greeks before those sexually confused fucks came in on the scene then stole and perverted everything they got from the mystery schools of egypt...

 

[gene cisco]

whaaa da fuck are you talking about...?

you claim they dont hide shit..

Then who are the Etruscans and what is their orgin?

Show me ONE just ONE thing a european built that stood

the test of time like the Sphinx..... just ONE...

and you said they dont give a fuck about race..

are you serious or just type to hear the keystrokes???

are you saying european historical revisionism is a myth?

un fuckin believable....!!!!

No. Afrocentric bullshit artists got their shit from Eurocentric bullshit artists. It's the same dumb shit just repackaged. What has stood? Didn't cacs build stonehenge, or are you going to claim black people built it on some 'it's true, it's true (insert bullshit source)" shit.

You the cat running around talking about Africans were natives in North America and I shut that shit down with DNA evidence and showed the 'black' people were related to Aboriginal Australians. Stop reading that 'it's true, it's true' circle jerk history shit and look at shit for what it is. The books you quote are just as bad as the Eurocentric trash that says Nordics founded ancient Egypt.

Shit is sad. Seriously. Africa is huge, but the areas cats keep putting so much effort into have a history of migration that goes against the narrative folks trying to create.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

I think you think that bringing up the Etruscan is bringing up something that no one here really knows about. But I do. The theory that they are black is a far fetched one that simply is not convincing. What ever issue we have concerning their origin (and there are some questions) that does not believe we must no accept every fringe idea! I fact I wonder why you show interest in them? I know about them through my interest in Roman history. But I think you probably know about them because of some fringe book that tries to that a slight question we have in history and overlays some Afrocentric theme to trace civilization back to blacks etc...

People are always "name dropping" stuff like this and assuming the other guy has no idea and will assume you must know because hey, who talks about the Etruscans??! Well I happen to so...

I mean we don't know the exact origins of the Rus people either. Perhaps they were black too...? I mean you posted :
orgins of the Etruscans the ORIGINAL greeks before those sexually confused fucks came in on the scene then stole and perverted everything they got from the mystery schools of egypt...

Really? I can imagine take a class on ancient Mediterranean civilization and approaching the professor with that. It would be like going to medical school and demanding to know how to balance the patient's humours and asking where the leeches were...

This stuff is about as convincing as the "history" that the holy grail was brought to England by Joesph of Arimathea.

You sure use a lot of words to state NO!!

lol...

You go on to say you know about the Etruscans but then dont state shit...

where would roman civiliazation be without the Etruscans??

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

No. Afrocentric bullshit artists got their shit from Eurocentric bullshit artists. It's the same dumb shit just repackaged. What has stood? Didn't cacs build stonehenge, or are you going to claim black people built it on some 'it's true, it's true (insert bullshit source)" shit.

You the cat running around talking about Africans were natives in North America and I shut that shit down with DNA evidence and showed the 'black' people were related to Aboriginal Australians. Stop reading that 'it's true, it's true' circle jerk history shit and look at shit for what it is. The books you quote are just as bad as the Eurocentric trash that says Nordics founded ancient Egypt.

Shit is sad. Seriously. Africa is huge, but the areas cats keep putting so much effort into have a history of migration that goes against the narrative folks trying to create.

You aint shut shit down..

Africans were NATIVE to the AMERICAs... why you tryin to limit it to just North...

Its all in the Jesuit missinary letters...

one of the few things they forgot to cover up......


you sure give yourself a lot of unjustified pats on the back....

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

No. Afrocentric bullshit artists got their shit from Eurocentric bullshit artists. It's the same dumb shit just repackaged. What has stood? Didn't cacs build stonehenge, or are you going to claim black people built it on some 'it's true, it's true (insert bullshit source)" shit.

You the cat running around talking about Africans were natives in North America and I shut that shit down with DNA evidence and showed the 'black' people were related to Aboriginal Australians. Stop reading that 'it's true, it's true' circle jerk history shit and look at shit for what it is. The books you quote are just as bad as the Eurocentric trash that says Nordics founded ancient Egypt.

Shit is sad. Seriously. Africa is huge, but the areas cats keep putting so much effort into have a history of migration that goes against the narrative folks trying to create.

cracker euro history STILL states columbus discovered america..

TILL this very fuckin day son....

they shoving that shit in our childrens faces...

 

[gene cisco]

It's very sad.

And your Alien reference is a perfect analogy. I have to remind myself these people are NOT actually interested in history. They are only interested in self serving references to fantasies they have heard and believe because it bolsters their self esteem. The worst is just what you described these phony un peer reviewed books that are passed around on the internet. And again most of the people who cites these book haven't even read them! Because they are not ACTUALLY interested in history. They are interested in appearing learned and thus "winning" these online arguments.

So google , google google. Then " Here is so and so black themed book on how the Europeans were civilized by black men - how can you refute that!! its in a book and I posted the link!"

From now on when they do that I think I'm going to ask them to post a picture of the book in their hands. Because I don't believe they even read this crap. (Why would they because they know it's bull shit too.)

Sorry misinformation is worse than no information. I think it is better to say "I have know idea about the formation of the Roman City state" than to say " Gert Muller say Rome has black origins - can you refute that? It's in a BOOK - see the link!"

Ummmmm yeah I can...Actually I know more about it than Gert Muller (apparently) unfortunately...


Those university professors are CAC and are in a conspiracy too cover up the greatness of The BLACK MAN!!

I agree. But the bullshit is just a response to Eurocentric bullshit. It's sad shit. All the threads dealing with history around here, and you will see the same fucking book links posted. It's like bizarro world 19th century Europe.