Ancient Carthage, Tyre, Phoenician, Hannibal, Bernal
Zhahktar
African Origin of Civilization, Myth or Reality. As to not take Diop out of
context, I shall here quote the whole sentence from that text.
"We need not insist on the fact that the Carthaginian general, Hannibal, who
barely missed destroying Rome and who is considered one of the greatest
military leaders of all time, was Negroid. It can be said that, with his
defeat, the supremacy of the Negro or Negroid world ended."
The first time I quoted Diop, I left out the section right before the name
Hannibal ('We need not insist on the fact that the Carthaginian general,').
There is no need to insist. There is the probability that he was Negroid,
and there is a high probability that he was other than white. It would be
more difficult to prove he was white. If by "white" we are talking about the
blond haired, blue eyed, pale skinned people from the far northern parts of
Europe.
In the section below, regarding Bernal's review of Lefkowitz's book, the
statement that the population of Carthage may have been 20% Negroid in no
way indicates the population was 80% white, if, as mentioned above, by
'white' we are talking about………
When talking about far ancient people, 'pure' white and 'pure' black may
very well be determined by the measure or description of ones skull. But
when different peoples intermingle, I don't believe skull measurements are
indicative. Take Sidney Poirtier for instance. Besides the color of his skin
and his hair, he does not have outstanding black features. Yet there is no
mistaking that he is black. Most black Americans have combined racial
mixture. However, most of them are not considered other than black. I would
go as far as to say that Sidney Poirtier and most black Americans are
representative of what the Moors or North Africans were during ancient times
when North Africa was mixing and changing.
I would also like to add that I post from the Usenet newsgroup and rarely
from Dejanews. And I only recently saw the responses to my original 'Ancient
Carthage' post. Otherwise I would have responded sooner.
js
---------
Martin Bernal's review of Mary Lefkowitz's book.
To return to some of Mary Lefkowitz's attempts to demolish Afrocentric
claims; arguments that Hannibal, the playwright Terence Afer and St
Augustine were "Blacks" are indeed implausible, if by "Black," one
means someone of West or Central African appearance. It should be
noted that up to 20% of the population of Carthaginian Africa may have
been "Negroid" and in Italy, Hannibal paid his mercenaries with coins
with "Negro" heads and elephants.[[22]] Nevertheless, as an upper
class Carthaginian, Hannibal probably traced his ancestry back to the
metropolis of Tyre on the Levant. Terence and St Augustine were born
and brought up in North Africa, and there is every reason to suppose
that they had North West African ancestry.
----------
"The Phoenicians founded Tyre." Diop pg 118, The African Origin of
Civilization.
"Since the Phoenicians went all over the Mediterranean, their remains have
been sought in different locations in that basin. Thus, skulls, presumably
Phoenician, have been found west of Syracuse: but these skulls are
dolichocephalic and prognathous, with distinctly Negroid affinities." (Cf.
Eugene Pittard, Les Races et l'histoire. Paris, 1924, p. 108.) Diop 121.
"The same author also shows that the whole Carthaginian aristocracy had
Negro affinities: 'Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in
the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and
probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are
dolichocephalic…with a rather short face…' Dolichocephaly and a short face
are Negro characteristics. Diop 122.
"Even more important is still another passage from Pittard, proving more
conclusively that the upper class of Carthaginian society was Negro or
Negroid:
Those who have recently visited the Lavigerie Museum in Carthage will recall
that magnificent sarcophagus, of the Priestess of Tanit, discovered by
Father Delattre. That sarcophagus, the most ornate, the most artistic yet
found, whose external image probably represents the goddess herself, must
have been the sepulcher of a very high religious personage. Well, the woman
buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race! (p. 410).
"The conclusion that the author draws from this passage is that several
races coexisted in Carthage. Obviously, we agree. Nevertheless, there is one
conclusion that the author did not draw, but which is even more compelling:
Among the various races in Carthage, the one most highly placed socially,
the most respected, the one that held the levers of political command , the
one to whom they owed that civilization, if we are to judge by the material
proofs presented instead of interpreting them in line with prejudices we
have been taught, was the Negro race." Diop 122.
--------------
Jeffrey Samuel
Ian
use them are purely modern notions of racial division. In terms of ancient
peoples and genetic groups these terms are loaded, meaningless and
confusing. Consider the statement about modern Afro-Americans being black.
A recent attempt at tracing human evolution through mitochondrial DNA had to
be thrown out when it was found out that the 'African' group used was wholly
Afro-American, and therefore, on average, of 30% European ancestry. To me
the whole thin smacks of old racist attitudes about 'one drop of black
blood'. This intersection of genetics, history and racial pride throws up
endless absurdities. They are NOT talking about the same thing.
Zhahktar wrote in message ...
Jeffrey Samuel
that Philosophy greats such as Hegel and Nietzsche would expound that blacks
have no history. I have already brought up this point on another post. If it
has been put out there, as is the case with Hegel and Nietzsche, (and they
are still being read about and taught at Universities) it has to be
countered with the truth or a more constructive view of the world. There is
no dwelling on the past or racial pride about it. It is History.
Reconstruction, deconstruction however you want to call it, a lot of it is
interpretation. But then again, that is what much of history is about
anyway. Structuralism would study how and why Hegel and Nietzsche would
preach such things and how this was related to their times. Now we are
getting into a different branch of philosophy. It's all relative.
It's also absurd how, according to Bernal, Lefkowitz makes the same mistakes
in her arguments she claims others in the Afrocentric 'genre' are making.
Jeffrey Samuel (I posted under my other name -Zhahktar)
Ian wrote in message <75ee86$b95$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Ralph Boerke
>
> Absurdities though they are, they need to be corrected. Yes, it is absurd
> that Philosophy greats such as Hegel and Nietzsche would expound that blacks
> have no history. I have already brought up this point on another post. If it
> has been put out there, as is the case with Hegel and Nietzsche, (and they
> are still being read about and taught at Universities) it has to be
> countered with the truth or a more constructive view of the world. There is
> no dwelling on the past or racial pride about it. It is History.
> Reconstruction, deconstruction however you want to call it, a lot of it is
> interpretation. But then again, that is what much of history is about
> anyway. Structuralism would study how and why Hegel and Nietzsche would
> preach such things and how this was related to their times. Now we are
> getting into a different branch of philosophy. It's all relative.
>
> It's also absurd how, according to Bernal, Lefkowitz makes the same mistakes
> in her arguments she claims others in the Afrocentric 'genre' are making.
>
> Jeffrey Samuel (I posted under my other name -Zhahktar)
>
> Ian wrote in message <75ee86$b95$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >use them are purely modern notions of racial division. In terms of ancient
> >peoples and genetic groups these terms are loaded, meaningless and
> >confusing. Consider the statement about modern Afro-Americans being black.
> >A recent attempt at tracing human evolution through mitochondrial DNA had to
> >be thrown out when it was found out that the 'African' group used was wholly
> >Afro-American, and therefore, on average, of 30% European ancestry. To me
> >the whole thin smacks of old racist attitudes about 'one drop of black
> >blood'. This intersection of genetics, history and racial pride throws up
> >endless absurdities. They are NOT talking about the same thing.
Why does anyone care if Hannibal was 40% white and 60% black (whatever
that means)?
The Mediterranean world and the Middle East are at the cross roads of
the three continents.
Peoples have been moving across there since there have been people.
(re: recent digs of Neanderthal caves near Cro Magnon ones in modern day
Isreal which show they were there around the same time (say 100,000
years ago)).
Unfortunately when I get into these types of discussions some linguistic
know-it-all comes in and starts talking linguistics instead of tribes.
So when I use terms like Semitic, Hellas/Hellenes, Bantu and Hammitic I
mean tribal groups not language ones.
From what little I know on this subject I can state briefly here. These
are my opinions and are probably wrong.
Carthage was founded by Phoenician colonizers around 1000 BCE (give or
take 300 years).
Ethiopia is Hammitic and upper Egypt was as well. Lower Egypt I think
was Semitic. The fusion of these two is the first dual 'race' nation.
Which accepted any other tribe that wanted to settle there so long as
they did not disrupt the Egyptian society and contributed to that
society.
I've read that the Libyans (who warred with Egypt) had red hair!
Modern day Libya has Muommar Khadafy who is not white but does not look
Negroid to me. (perhaps it is the Vandal influence after 500 CE, or the
Arab influence after that, but I think it is the way the Libyans have
been for the past three thousand years - already a mix of races.)
A historian, Mr. Romer, who does some show on the ancient middleeast and
ties religion and peoples together (I think is a great show), says
things like "Cleopatra would probably not be allowed in the front of a
bus in 1960's Mississippi". I think this is true even though Cleopatra
might have only had a small percentage of 'black' genes. My
understanding is that the Ptolomies were inbred and decended from
Ptolomy who was a Greek (obviously not a negro). But who did he marry?
Greek or Egyptian? And does the KKK think that Greeks or southern
Italians or other European Meditteranean types are white?
On racial issues we should ask what were the Numidians who were
neighbours of Carthage? One would think that the colony of Phoenicians
that were established there mixed with the neighbours somewhat. how big
were colonies and how populated were the Libyan, Tunisan, and Algerian
coasts?
So are there any coins from Numidia before 400 BCE showing a negro
skull?
What language did the Carthaginians speak? Was it a Bantu or Semitic
language (I think this would tell more for the societal heirarchy than
the shape of some skull). Too bad the Romans destroyed it completely
after the 3rd Punic war.
Anyways.
What I would like to know is how great was the Carthaginian Empire?
Aside from the military genius of Hannibal were there any philosophical,
literary, diplomatic or legal minds that were written about or wrote
something that survived?
They halted Greek expansion westward around 500 BCE, (to southern Italy
and Sicily) and controlled trade in the western Mediterranean for
hundreds of years. Until Roman expansion destroyed Carthage.
The Phoenicians were stated to have circumnavigated Africa (under the
patronage of Egypt? (1500 BCE?)). And this sea-faring heritage might
have allowed Carthage to send ships to Ireland? Brazil? Mexico? At say
500 or 300 BCE? (Just a far fetched theory linking Mayans to Egyptians
- that have been propounded before - but which I consider at <1%
probability)
--
Getting back to the racial issue for a second.
I think we need to look at the Sahara at 5000 BCE when it was still
green. There never are definitive borders between racial groups other
than oceans and mountains. Where does European (white) stop and
Oriental (asian) start? I think the line would be blurred between the
Mediterranean world and Middle Eastern world and the central African
one.
If you want to look at race then say Sweden is Blonde hair, Blue eyed,
White skin. The Congo is Black hair, Brown eyes, Brown skin. And
Peking is Black hair, Brown eyes, Beige-yellow skin. And all points
between are mixes of these. (Red hair, Green eyes omitted for
convenience)
My $0.02
--
Ralph Boerke
Generals of Waterloo
ta...@kw.igs.net
Axis&Allies Expansions http://www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/aanda/index.htm
coming soon - http://www.worldatwar.com
randal...@hotmail.com
"Pro and Anti" Blacksmith cultures in ancient Africa.
http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/map2.htm
Does anyone have any sources that might expand on the characteristics
of these two types of cultures?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Martin Roberts
back. I forget the title though.
randal...@hotmail.com wrote in message
<77jk4h$u03$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
sch...@my-dejanews.com
Same old debate too. This fellow, just got done arguing this over in
soc.history.ancient. Guess he hasn't tired of the debate, like I have...
---Oscar Schlaf---
Jeff
respond to the other newsgroup. But now that I am available to post, I
appear to have been kicked off or frozen out of that newsgroup
(soc.history.ancient). Now I just receive a message that there is an error
in opening up messages. I get this response for any and every message I try
to access.
I don't know if someone got offended and had me kicked off. If that did
happen, that isn't right. Now that is a case of censor.
No one said anything in that discussion that deserved any kind of censor.
There were disagreements, that's all.
If it is the case that I was frozen out, kicked off or censored, then that
forum is not worth anything. It is not free discussion or debate. It is just
brainwashed people getting together and agreeing with each other. That is
REAL humane. It sounds like something from the TV show WELCOME TO PARADOX.
If the soup is not stirred, it will burn.
Jeffrey Samuel
sch...@my-dejanews.com
"Jeff" <Under...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to let you know that I have been busy so I haven't been able to
> respond to the other newsgroup. But now that I am available to post, I
> appear to have been kicked off or frozen out of that newsgroup
> (soc.history.ancient). Now I just receive a message that there is an error
> in opening up messages. I get this response for any and every message I try
> to access.
I don't know, but I had trouble replying to some of your posts, least with
deja news. (My normal newserver doesn't even carry the group, which is one of
the many reasons I don't use it.)
> I don't know if someone got offended and had me kicked off. If that did
> happen, that isn't right. Now that is a case of censor.
>
> No one said anything in that discussion that deserved any kind of censor.
> There were disagreements, that's all.
There wasn't an censor that I know of. If there were the posts made by one
Aron, probably would have been gone before anything you posted would be.
> If it is the case that I was frozen out, kicked off or censored, then that
> forum is not worth anything. It is not free discussion or debate. It is just
> brainwashed people getting together and agreeing with each other.
Agreed, but it's a bit ironic considering that most Afro-Centric "scholars"
don't care to debate thier view points and label people who try as racist
or brainwashed. As Martin Bernal did to Mary Lefkowitz and Leonard Jefferies
did, mentioning "vast Jewish Conspiracies".
---Oscar Schlaf----
Jeffrey Samuel
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7804ba$8uv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <Vdlo2.577$Ue.20...@news.goodnet.com>,
>
> Agreed, but it's a bit ironic considering that most Afro-Centric
"scholars"
>don't care to debate thier view points and label people who try as racist
>or brainwashed. As Martin Bernal did to Mary Lefkowitz and Leonard
Jefferies
>did, mentioning "vast Jewish Conspiracies".
>
Unfortunately, Leonard Jefferies was on the extreme side. However, Bernal
wrote a reply or review of Lefkowitz' book because he was just defending
himself and the attacks made by Lefkowitz on his book.
Lefkowitz wrote a 500 page book, which consisted of a collection of writings
by like minded persons from the far right hoping to uphold
their -politically motivated- educational agenda, attacking Bernal's book
BLACK ATHENA. Bernal didn't find out about this until one of the
contributors to Lefkowitz' book felt rather guilty that Bernal wasn't given
the opportunity to respond in Lefkowitz' book - which is common courtesy
when the main subject of a book is still alive- and contacted Bernal and
informed him that this book was in progress.
I don't know about anyone refusing to debate. I do know that Tony Martin of
Wellesley College (same place where Lefkowitz hangs out) had a hard time
from the University Administration for using a book in one of his classes
about Jewish involvement in the slave trade. It wasn't that he agreed with
it, it was a scholarly discussion or debate he was permitting on the
subject.
For instance, Diop's book that I frequently refer to, I bought at the
University of Arizona (Tucson) bookstore. It is a book that the University
requires for one of their courses. That doesn't mean that the University
advocates Diop's position. The book is used to get students to come to their
own conclusions after reading other material to compare it to.
After all, a one sided discussion is exactly that, one sided.
Jeffrey Samuel
James Sibal
In the tradition of good scholarship, ALL sources should be used and
examined critically. However, specific mongraphics can't or don't do
this for reasons of space as well as ideological, or simple more
personal, i.e., in order to make a name or reputation by being
controversial.
Bernal's books, which are cited again and again, appears to be one such
ideological and personally motivated publication. While he did a
service by "shaking things up," it should be noted that scholars working
in the area has long enjoyed specialized publications cataloguing the
African--to use a Roman invention--contributions to our Classical
heritage, as well as the Asia. The "Orientalizing Period" is standard
fare in Art History surveys of Greek Art.
In fact, as far back as the American Pre-Raphelites, in the first
edition of their journal, The New Path in 1861, Egypt was cited as being
the "font" for Greece. None of this is new, a more public or
journalistic awareness of it, is.
Indeed,the very foundations of our modern research, libraries, the
author title index, etc. have long been recognized and known to have an
Egyptian and Mesopotamian origin which diffused into what would become
Europe--once again a much later invention.
I think its a dead horse in many respects, but the fact that it strikes
so many cultural cords, would indicate that the common level of
ignorance is still very great.