Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 8th, 2017, 05:13 AM   #41

Hannibal89's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Carthage
Posts: 241

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
One of the worst examples of bad historical revisionism I've seen is the claim that Hannibal of Carthage was black. This was done for entirely ideological reasons and flies in the face of actual history. People from North Africa are not black, nor was Hannibal. The Carthaginians' ancestors came from Lebanon, where people are Middle Eastern. Meanwhile, North Africans from Tunisia are Mediterranean type people.

I think historical revisionism can be interesting if it is done based on an objective look at the sources, rather than an attempt at proving some ideology. Correcting previous biases is certainly a very worthwhile and necessary endeavour. Sometimes the 'accepted' view of history contains misconceptions and biases, and it's good to highlight that when appropriate.
"In the Punic burial grounds, negroid remains were not rare and there were black auxiliaries in the Carthaginian army who were certainly not Nilotics. Furthermore, if we are to believe Diodorus(XX, 57.5), a lieutenant of Agathocles in northern Tuninisa at the close of the fourth century before our era overcame a people who skin was similar to the Ethiopian'. There is much evidence of the presence of 'Ethiopians' on the southern borders of Africa Minor. Throughout the classical period, mention is also made of peoples belonging to intermediate races, the Melano-Getules, or Leuco-Ethiopians in particular in Ptolemy. "


General History of Africa II: Ancient civilizations of Africa By G. Mokhtar, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa
p.427

Show me some of your sources please. Oh and Blacks lived and still do live in North Africa. My West African ancestors in antiquity came from the Central and Southern Sahara. They migrated into the Central/Western Sudan, and Guinea later on in history.

I won't speak on this after this point as this has been argued Ad Nauseam on Historum and if you were genuine in your search of more information you could of simply typed this topic into a search engine. And any argument like this is unfair to argue in the forums because in order to do so you can only reply on DNA, anthropology, and ancient sources. You know full well we can't discuss DNA though DNA won't tell us anything since today's population in Carthage and North Africa has gone over many population shifts.

The only way to look into the what Carthaginians looked like would be to again look at anthropology and historic sources ancient and modern. You know we aren't even really allowed to discuss anthropology. You can do that but that has not worked on Historum. For starters the threads are banned as people begin to spout off what they don't know, and in the process we lose the chance to really see the evidence for both sides.

I have argued this before and what happens is I rely on anthropology and instead of countering that anthropology, or any other source the debate switches. Anthropology is not a modern way of interpreting history is what I'm told. Then I use ancient sources. Instead of providing ancient sources themselves they say ancient sources aren't reliable. Then I provided a modern source. For an example. I provided two works old and modern. The old was too old...(20th century), and the modern was not new enough (published 2005). Then All of this has happened while they have not provided one source. For the one person I read on Historum who disagreed with Carthage having a Black population, they were the only ones who provided a source, and it was an ancient source and they were taking it out of context as one member proved. Yet if I used an ancient source it's not reliable. So if nothing is reliable then we can never back up our positions on either side. It becomes a never ending back and forth. Which is what some people want for entertainment. Your're trolling. In 2017 this couldn't have seriously of came from your finger tips.

Cowardly comment to make. Knowing we can't really discuss this without DNA, anthropology and ancient sources. And offensive because you meant to be provocative, and not only that you knew ahead of time you and anyone else who agrees with you are planning to disregard any evidence to the contrary. Based off the sources being ancient, not modern enough, outdated anthropology, or the favorite....is that all the evidence you have? Meanwhile you will provide nothing. Proven by the fact you provided nothing yet this bothered you so much....

New rule on historum: If you want sources, post sources first. Especially if you making this type of claim that Blacks did not live in North Africa nor Carthage. Racially charged and you posted nothing to defend it. You are just complaining and not really interested in engaging. You could of contributed to the 55 million other "Was Hannibal Black?" threads here on Historum...or started one on your own if this "revisionism" bothered you so much.

Last edited by Hannibal89; January 8th, 2017 at 05:57 AM.
Hannibal89 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 8th, 2017, 05:24 AM   #42

Ighayere's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 661

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
European nationalists? Does that exist? I wish! The EU would have much more solid bases.
Look up pan-European nationalism. It is a thing, and yes it exists.

Quote:
As a side note the influences of the Phoenicians and ancient Egyptian in the Ancient Greek seem generally accepted. They were (are) neighbors. They interacted. Interaction is influence.
It's about what the extent of the influence was. Whether it was as great as Bernal seemed to believe was the issue, not whether it happened.


Quote:
When the Portuguese begun to explore the West Coast of Africa, in the 15th century, the Senegal river was pointed as the skin color frontier, if is that frontier that you are trying to establish. Not that the skin color should be much relevant, but it is a issue that is usually brought in here in the Forum.
Well, I wasn't trying to establish a "skin color frontier". Just pointing out the historical fact of indigenous blacks in North Africa, and the current presence of blacks in North Africa, which SufiMystic didn't seem to know about. I don't think the Portuguese in the 15th century had too many details on the situation in the interior, so if they wrote about a "skin color frontier" like the one you've described that was probably the reason why. The Maghrib and Ifriqiya were mostly non-black and the lands below were mostly black, but it couldn't be said even back then that "North Africans are not black" as if there were no black North Africans.

The common people of the region of Tuat (in central Algeria) when Antonio Malfante visited in 1447 were "mostly negroes" (E.W. Bovill, "Saharan Explorers of the Fifteenth Century" (1928)), but of course Tuat is in the interior, and the coastal explorers from Portugal wouldn't have seen it.

Quote:
Anyway, there were Africans both North and South of the Senegal River. Africa is just a geographical concept, as any other continent. Its frontiers are arbitrary. Were defined that way, so we can have geographical references.
I agree.

Last edited by Ighayere; January 8th, 2017 at 05:51 AM.
Ighayere is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 05:46 AM   #43

leakbrewergator's Avatar
Tiger of Kai
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Milford, OH
Posts: 6,218
Blog Entries: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroda Kanbei View Post
I think Tokugawa Ieyasu would be a good example of this. After the Meji revolution he's often cast in a more negative line. More often then not fiction settles on Ieyasu being the villain that Yukimura or Mitsunari oppose.
I think there has been a "bounce back" for Ieyasu over the last several decades. True, during the Early-Mid Showa period, he was not seen in a favorable light, but I think now he's more often than not portrayed in a positive light.

I think one of Ieyasu's contemporaries, Imagawa Yoshimoto, is unfairly portrayed as a bumbling, effeminate loser.
leakbrewergator is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 05:50 AM   #44

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 1,097

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
Look up pan-European nationalism. It is a thing, and yes it exists.
Well today they are very hard to find! More easy to find are the “Eurexits”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
I don't think the Portuguese in the 15th century had too many details on the situation in the interior
Yes, the The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea, by Zurara, the main source for the initial period of the Discoveries is mainly about navigation and the African coast and its inhabitants.
Tulius is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 08:07 PM   #45

VHS's Avatar
VHS
Viable Human Solutions
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Human habitat of Canada
Posts: 2,299

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kookaburra Jack View Post
This key question has remained unanswered.




The earlier "Colonial Histories" of the native people in North America and Australia (and elsewhere) essentially represented some form of "pioneering myth". They do not mention (or briefly mention) the impact on the indigenous culture by the victorious colonists. They place emphasis on the colonists' achievements in conquering the land. They omit or minimise military conflicts. These earlier colonial histories (pre 1970's for USA & OZ) forged and promulgated a paradigm of a good and peaceful "Colony" in order to shore up a new nationalism. In doing so they swept a whole lot of stuff "under the carpet of history".

In one sense there was a conspiracy of silence (in at least the generation which authored the "Earlier Colonial Histories") that had the effect of suppressing most, if not all recognition, of the native peoples. The narrative was myopically "Colonial Centric".





How can it possibly be dangerous to history or the "historical truth" to review the primary and secondary sources of historical evidence?

Of course historical records should be subject to scrutiny.


I have a thread about historical revisionism here:

Comparing early Church History with early Colonial History

Feel free to contribute.
Right in Canada, we are trying to reconcile and recognize historical mistakes, such as previous discrimination against Chinese immigrants and residential school for First Nations children.
VHS is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 11:07 PM   #46

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 3,867

Quote:
Originally Posted by PragmaticStatistic View Post
Who is to determine an agenda? All issues in history have multiple viewpoints. The slave has his experiences, while the slave owner has his. The slave owner is educated, can write and writes his version of historical events, yet because the slave is less educated, cannot write and is owned, his version of events is not a credible as his owners because no credible record can be found to prove it?

For example, one of my former employers, the owner and CEO of the company, requested that I take illegal photos of an installation we made in a corporation that has a security policy against it. He wanted me to sneak a camera in to take photos of the work we performed. I refused to do it out of fear of being arrested. Yet he denied ever having made the request when I brought the subject up with the company president. I have no proof of the discussion having taken place, but my career suffered because I could not prove it.
Well what slaves wrote, whether under ownership or freed, is the same as slaveowners' narratives.

However, finding new evidence is one thing. Saying that the Holocaust never existed without much credible evidence, or that the Augustus was black to support a political agenda is something else.

An example of "good" revisionism is about the underwater cities discovered in India, or if Neanderthals had intellectual capabilities equivalent to our own.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 02:21 AM   #47
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 710

Marco Polo writes of the people of Tebeth: 'These people are treacherous and cruel, and holding it no crime or turpitude to rob, are the greatest thieves in the world.'

Is this merely casual prejudice, or can this really have been the case, and more specifically in contrast to other neighbouring provinces, such as Chengdu or Caindu, where nothing similar is even mentioned?

Or would any attempt at historical revision find only a shortage of meaningful documentary evidence, in contrast to certain contemporary or later 'narratives'. And either way would that merely allow only a re-interpretation of the 'historical record'.
dreuxeng is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 02:28 AM   #48

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 3,867

i see it like how scientific fact is developed. if there is enough evidence, then it will become fact, or at least mainstream science. That fats cause cardiovascular disease is mainstream science. That Bigfoot exists, or that aliens made the Pyramids, is fringe, due to zero evidence of either.

I don't think Marco Polo was being racist, since even in his time white Europeans wrote negatively of other white Europeans all the time.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 02:46 AM   #49

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,141

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreuxeng View Post
Marco Polo writes of the people of Tebeth: 'These people are treacherous and cruel, and holding it no crime or turpitude to rob, are the greatest thieves in the world.'

Is this merely casual prejudice, or can this really have been the case, and more specifically in contrast to other neighbouring provinces, such as Chengdu or Caindu, where nothing similar is even mentioned?

Or would any attempt at historical revision find only a shortage of meaningful documentary evidence, in contrast to certain contemporary or later 'narratives'. And either way would that merely allow only a re-interpretation of the 'historical record'.
I don't think that is prejudice in any way. He's just writing what he finds, or maybe what someone else has told him. Should he lie to protect their sensibilities?
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 06:35 AM   #50

SufiMystic's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: On a magic carpet
Posts: 87

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal89 View Post
Your're trolling. In 2017 this couldn't have seriously of came from your finger tips.

Cowardly comment to make. Knowing we can't really discuss this without DNA, anthropology and ancient sources. And offensive because you meant to be provocative, and not only that you knew ahead of time you and anyone else who agrees with you are planning to disregard any evidence to the contrary. Based off the sources being ancient, not modern enough, outdated anthropology, or the favorite....is that all the evidence you have? Meanwhile you will provide nothing. Proven by the fact you provided nothing yet this bothered you so much....

New rule on historum: If you want sources, post sources first. Especially if you making this type of claim that Blacks did not live in North Africa nor Carthage. Racially charged and you posted nothing to defend it. You are just complaining and not really interested in engaging. You could of contributed to the 55 million other "Was Hannibal Black?" threads here on Historum...or started one on your own if this "revisionism" bothered you so much.
We all have certain topics that are close to our hearts. I actually admire your response, because it reminds me of the similar sentiments I’ve felt when defending Muslims against prejudice and stereotypes on this forum. If there’s anyone on this forum who knows how you feel, it’s probably me.

I’m still not convinced that Hannibal of Carthage was ‘black’ in the sense of being a sub-Saharan African similar to someone from Uganda or Nigeria. But I can at least respect your post. And I didn’t come here to troll. It was simply the first example that came to mind – probably because there have been so many posts about it already, as you mentioned.

I could just as easily have made a post about irritating historical misconceptions about Muslims. But experience tells me that the response is so nasty, so hostile, so bitter and so ugly that it is hardly worth the time. Perhaps you can relate to that too – it sounds from your post like you understand what I mean.
SufiMystic is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
revisionisms



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Merlin -Historical man or Historical myth ? Kronos Speculative History 12 September 5th, 2015 06:46 PM
Historical interests - Historical gaps pikeshot1600 General History 24 January 23rd, 2014 08:32 AM
Historical Sociology and Historical Psychology? Pacific_Victory Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 May 3rd, 2013 05:13 PM
Anything historical fan here Isabella New Users 19 May 1st, 2012 12:41 PM
Historical Name Changes Salah General History 22 August 1st, 2010 08:03 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.