The true face of Hannibal. This well-preserved coin, circa 208-207 BC, and dated by some at 217 BC., was found in the Chiana (Clanis) valley. This coin was in circulation in the vicinity of Lake Trasimeno and in the Chiana Valley.
Some individuals have thrown aside all available evidence and have incoherently shouted themselves hoarse by claiming that Hannibal who nearly destroyed Rome belonged to the ‘great White race.’
Whites have been in North Africa for centuries but they are not indigenous to that area. They were merely migrants and invaders, not to mention the White slave trade that brought many Whites to that area. The presence of different races in North Africa has been mentioned by ancient writers like Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus. They included Ethiopians or Blacks.
Hannibal has been variously called a Canaanite or Phoenician. The Canaanites were descendants of Ham or Hamites. ‘Hamite’ was a term once used widely by Europeans to denote members of the Black race. ‘Phoenician’ was another term used to describe these Blacks.
The original dwelling place of the Phoenicians was not in the Middle East but more likely in East Africa. According to Herodotus (see The Histories) they lived on the shores of the Eritrean Sea. This area is widely disputed today, but apparently it was located on the shores of East Africa.
The ancient Near East was a melting pot just like modern America. Different races could be found there, but the original race was a Black one. The Elamites, for instance, were Blacks. Later on it was possible to find not only Black Phoenicians, but White and mixed Phoenicians as well.
Carthage on the North African coast was a Phoenician colony. A reading of history makes it clear that many migrants including White Greeks settled in that area and beyond. Thus just like South Africa, it was possible to find different races there, known as Carthaginians.
The clearest evidence of Hannibal being Black is the coin found in the Valley of the Clanis in Italy, not far from where he defeated the Romans at the Battle of Lake Trasimeno. It is believed to have been minted by Hannibal after the battle. The date of the coin corresponds to the era of Hannibal’s early battles with the Romans.
According to White historians/scholars the coin, representing an elephant on one side and a Black man on the other, is not Hannibal but a mere elephant driver, never mind that the various portraits depicting a White Hannibal are those of other individuals.
The idea that the Black man was a mere elephant driver is pure rubbish since Carthaginians often minted coins to portray important personalities or deities. Moreover the words of Polybius are very telling. According to him before the Battle of Trasimeno, Hannibal had lost all his elephants with the exception of one, which he rode.
Thus it is Hannibal and no one else, portrayed in the ancient coin found in the valley of the Clanis in Italy. Indeed, a number of such coins exist.
More detailed information can be found in the ebook: What Color Was Hannibal?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most likely not in any appreciable sense. The coins with a black man on one side and an elephant on the other are not of Carthaginian mint and were very small change. This is one time I disagree with J. A. Rogers' research sources.
By Hannibaal's time Phoenician blood must have been very thin and the folk of Khart Haddas' land at it's founding, the Aurigha (sp) were a black people but art pieces of the Barca family do not bear features of the blacks in contemporaneous or later mosaics, http://thenile.phpbb-host.com/ftopic2316.php not even the features of the terra-cotta statuette of the god Baal currently in the Bardo Museum in Tunis which has wide nose, tightly curled hair and thick lips in contrast to the thin-featured sphinx attached to the arm of his throne.
Hannibaal could have been anything in between black and blond as were the north coastal Africans of his era but there's no solid evidence of exactly where in that spectrum he precisely fits.
Carthaginian coins representing Hannibal really just show the archetype of a hero. The portrait is nearly indistinguishable from Herakles or Alexander similarly found on Phoenician shekel coinage from Tyre.
Other coins with an elephant on one side and a face on the other are thought by some to show Hannibaal by others to only be mahouts. Some of the faces on these coins probably do in fact depict Punic blacks unless the mahouts were recruited from elsewhere in Africa where elephants served as war engines.
Anyway, as can be seen in the quotes ranging in time from -1000 to the 3rd century, the Greeks didn't class the Imazighen among peoples like themselves. They were viewed as the lightest in complexion of the dark peoples of the world. Even as late as the 8th century, an Arabic taxonomist still classes Imazighen alongside the darks and not among the whites. So, it is very unlikely Hannibal was white by either ancient or modern criteria.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, just like Cleopetra wasn't Black. However, there were Black warriors he used.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since Hannibal spent his formative life out of Carthage (in Spain and Italy) the coins are unlikely to have been minted in Carthge. They were minted in Italy,near Lake Trasimeno,where Hannibal campaigned aginst the Romans. The dating of the coin also corresponds to that era.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, just like Cleopetra wasn't Black. However, there were Black warriors he used.
You gave a definitive answer without an explanation in regard to Hannibal's ethnicity. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Most likely not in any appreciable sense. The coins with a black man on one side and an elephant on the other are not of Carthaginian mint and were very small change. This is one time I disagree with J. A. Rogers' research sources.
By Hannibaal's time Phoenician blood must have been very thin and the folk of Khart Haddas' land at it's founding, the Aurigha (sp) were a black people but art pieces of the Barca family do not bear features of the blacks in contemporaneous or later mosaics, http://thenile.phpbb-host.com/ftopic2316.php not even the features of the terra-cotta statuette of the god Baal currently in the Bardo Museum in Tunis which has wide nose, tightly curled hair and thick lips in contrast to the thin-featured sphinx attached to the arm of his throne.
Hannibaal could have been anything in between black and blond as were the north coastal Africans of his era but there's no solid evidence of exactly where in that spectrum he precisely fits.
Carthaginian coins representing Hannibal really just show the archetype of a hero. The portrait is nearly indistinguishable from Herakles or Alexander similarly found on Phoenician shekel coinage from Tyre.
Other coins with an elephant on one side and a face on the other are thought by some to show Hannibaal by others to only be mahouts. Some of the faces on these coins probably do in fact depict Punic blacks unless the mahouts were recruited from elsewhere in Africa where elephants served as war engines.
Anyway, as can be seen in the quotes ranging in time from -1000 to the 3rd century, the Greeks didn't class the Imazighen among peoples like themselves. They were viewed as the lightest in complexion of the dark peoples of the world. Even as late as the 8th century, an Arabic taxonomist still classes Imazighen alongside the darks and not among the whites. So, it is very unlikely Hannibal was white by either ancient or modern criteria.
I agree with Takruri. In that point in time, there is no way of knowing without any actual first-hand descriptions. The Tunisian coast has recieved an influx of populations since the Phoenician colonization including peoples from Europe.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, just like Cleopetra wasn't Black. However, there were Black warriors he used.
You gave a definitive answer without an explanation in regard to Hannibal's ethnicity. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
I'm patiently waiting for an answer, Osirion. What evidence do you have which suggest Hannibal was not Black? Don't punk out now. Was it not you who once said, "You Afro-nuts need to cut down on the bashing and just give clear, concise and unbias information. If you want to educate people you need to be willing to provide information in a non-confrontational manner." http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000372;p=2Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
A discussion of the ethnicity of Hannibal will be helped by seeing images of Semitic and Phoenician populations extant during the centuries before, during, and after him. The concentration of people seen on the page below having unaltered African features speaks to a time before the influx of whites; a time characterized, I'd say, by the historic African population existing in those lands.
The page below doesn't deal exclusively with the ethnicity of Hannibal (bottom left) but, I'd say, is related noting the plethora of names referring to a single people - to which the Phoenicians were a part:
posted
I don't have a scanner and so can't post page 81 from J. A. Rogers' Sex and Race Vol. 1 but here's a sampling of like coinage.
Use these complete coin photos as a supplement to images 1 6 7 & 8 of Marc's first post above.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Undescored text above by me for your analytic attention. Are these is the Hannibal/Elephant Sicily SNG Cop. 382 type coins mentioned in the above text?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're welcome Marc. By the way, the day we cease to uncover that which we did not know existed is the day we die. I'll put it this way, all that I don't know would fill up the Library of Congress 99 times over and then some. Keep up the research. Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Need to stick with family lineage rather than using art work. The depictions cannot be authenticated via art. If we could use art for identifying clinal adaptive features then what about the Saharan Rock art that shows White people in the Sahara? We would be jumping to conclusions in too many different directions by using art. It is better put this in the area of educated speculation based on probability. It is not likely that on Carthage aristocracy contained many Saharan type Africans. This is coastal North Africa which was primarily inhabited by non-Africans.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Need to stick with family lineage rather than using art work. The depictions cannot be authenticated via art. If we could use art for identifying clinal adaptive features then what about the Saharan Rock art that shows White people in the Sahara? We would be jumping to conclusions in too many different directions by using art. It is better put this in the area of educated speculation based on probability. It is not likely that on Carthage aristocracy contained many Saharan type Africans. This is coastal North Africa which was primarily inhabited by non-Africans.
SPAM! ^^^
This still does not answer my question. The title of the thread ask "Was Hannibal Black"? Simple question, right? You said, "No". I asked you how did you arrive at the conclusion that Hannibal was not Black. And you gave a lame response which was not an answer to my question but a dodge. I don't want your lousy opinion. I WANT TO SEE YOUR EVIDENCE, FACTS, WHICH SUGGEST HANNIBAL WAS NOT BLACK.
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Hi JMT. I got my first introduction to the Hannibal coins from a post made by Robin Walker. In order to "research" your question, I returned to that post he made and found the following museums mentioned as housing coins on Hannibal: Museo Kircheriano, Lavigerie Museum at Carthage, the British Museum. I hope that helps.
Dear Osirion. You speak about ... the Saharan Rock art that shows White people in the Sahara ...
Here is evidence of African rock art and the African region is witnessed by #'s 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10.
posted
^No one cares. (about your lame ass trolling - those with a mind are free to check the archives for themselves). no offense though.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Alive Box says: "^No one cares. (about your lame ass trolling - those with a mind are free to check the archives for themselves). no offense though."
Marc writes: Ahh! Ahh! Now isn't this interesting. You appear out of the blue responding with the same intense anger at the same stimulus.
Now, here is what, er um, Djehuti wrote to me, "Who cares what you profess … You're a nutcase!"
I think we picked-up on another of your schizoid alias' Djehuti with you responding so instantaneously and vehemently to this comment on your many persona.
We see some projectionism going on here, too, as you accuse me of trolling whereas, isn't it "you" (whichever one it is, that is) who is "hiding" and "stalking"?
You need medical attention, friend.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
These coins are out on the market. The "cleanest" one runs for $1600 the dirtiest one for ~$300.
quote:Originally posted by JMT: Marc and Al Takruri thanks for the input. Very informative. BTW, anyone know what museum those coins are hidden away in?
Peace.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Need to stick with family lineage rather than using art work. The depictions cannot be authenticated via art. If we could use art for identifying clinal adaptive features then what about the Saharan Rock art that shows White people in the Sahara? We would be jumping to conclusions in too many different directions by using art. It is better put this in the area of educated speculation based on probability. It is not likely that on Carthage aristocracy contained many Saharan type Africans. This is coastal North Africa which was primarily inhabited by non-Africans.
osirion: As usual you are dis-ingenious - or just plain ignorant, I am not sure which. For your edification; The Phoenicians were ethnically and culturally Canaanites. Sometime around 1200 B.C. the turmoil caused by the influx of Hapiru caused them to withdraw northward and consolidate in what is now Lebanon. The Phoenicians were active merchants who traded throughout the Mediterranean and established colonies as far away as Spain. The best known of these Phoenician colonies was Carthage. It was founded on the north coast of Africa by the Phoenicians of Tyre, in 814 B.C.
On the issue of the coin; though Hannibal was young (age 26) when he came to power in 221 B.C. The image on the coin appears to me, to be that of a boy. Also, it seems to me, that a person so great as Hannibal would have a much more heroic type image on his coin.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Could be you're right, Mike. In truth, though, Socrates was phenotypically African as he describes himself but was called ugly; beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there was no greater philosopher than he.
There's no physicist more respected today than Stephen Hawking at Oxford - though he is all but shriveled and hasn't been able to walk for decades. Desmond Tutu is diminutive in stature but it is he that won the Nobel Prize and not more handsome others.
David, though, was a humble sheppard boy when Goliath met his match. In all fairness, kings almost commonly at least wore diadems. It was the Syrians, Selucid kings, white kings for 300 years following Alexander who seldom wore diadems and Alexander himself did not.
Maybe Hannibal would have appeared more heroic. You could be right.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The gifts they bear may very well be Phoenician, but the porters themselves are not (as I judge by their boots, cloaks and garments, coiffure, and head gear). My surmise, though I could well be wrong, the caption doesn't seem to fit the picture.
quote:
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the below is directed at Djehuti and his "aliases", but it is still as I said about the archives.
I didn't respond because it was Djehuti I responded because everyone who actually focuses alot of what they contribute on ancient Egypt gets pegged as having multiple accounts by disruptive trolls plus Marc (I don't think [?] alot of what he does is 'trolling'). It's just ironic.
quote:you responding so instantaneously and vehemently to this comment on [Djehuti's] many persona.
Alive box writes: "^No one cares. (about your lame ass trolling - those with a mind are free to check the archives for themselves). no offense though."
Marc writes: Ahh hah! Well. Now isn't this interesting. You appear out of the blue responding with the same intense anger at the same stimulus.
Now, here is what, er um, Djehuti wrote to me, "Who cares what you profess … You're a nutcase!"
I think we picked-up on another of your schizoid alias' Djehuti with you responding so instantaneously and vehemently to this comment on your many persona.
We see some projectionism going on here, too, as you accuse me of trolling whereas, isn't it "you" (whichever one it is, that is) who is "hiding" and "stalking"?
You need medical attention, friend.
HANNIBAL THE AFRICAN WARRIOR
(From Runoko Rashidi’s site)
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri - The relief above is generally accepted as depicting Phoenicians. In my own experience; when White people lie, it is generally to replace a Black person with a White person - Such as with the supposed coin of Hannibal below - (they have no shame).
So the fact that the people depicted are Black, leads me to believe that the identification is as accurate as knowledge permits. However, the fact is, that no one is certain of the identifications. Simply because the reliefs at Apadana are not identified in any way. Researchers identify the members of the procession by comparing their garments to the people depicted on the facade of Darius' tomb.
The facade of Darius' tomb is divided into three registers: the bottom register is blank, the middle is sculptured to imitate the front of a palace, and the top shows the monarch at worship on the top of a piece of furniture that is supported by representatives of the nations in his realm.
This top register is adorned with a framed relief panel showing a dais supported by thirty representatives of the nations of the empire. These representatives are identified by cuneiform captions. They are arranged in two tiers of fourteen people with raised arms between the legs, and two people on the outside supporting the feet of the dais.
The inscription reads: Darius the King says: These are the countries which came to me by the favor of Ahuramazda. I was king of them: Persia, Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, (those) who are beside the sea, Sardis, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Maka.
Naturally; White people DO play games with the identifications - what would you expect. And then there are those who no one can identify; Such as below.
And if your point is that the Phoenicians look very much the same as what are identified as Lydians from Anatolia in some sources - I have no answer, its all a guess.
posted
For anyone wanting a firmer identification of Phoenicians; perhaps this relief from the palace of Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.) will suffice.
posted
Hanni - Though White people have undoubtedly destroyed all images of Hannibal, and replaced them with fakes - All is not lost. As you have seen, it is possible to cross-reference artifacts and history, in order to get at the truth.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mike. Who can know which if any picture of Hannibal is or isn't authentic. I sure don't. However, the picture I showed on my multi-image page above was presented by Robin Walker and he developed a scholarly argument (I could post the whole letter) making a good case for it being authentic.
I'd add another possible (possible) point for it being authentic. The subject may (may) be wearing a diadem in that portrayal (my observation - and maybe there's none: it's hard to make out clearly). If so, a diadem is undoubtedly king's wear; that and the Indian elephant.
Phoenicians and Snail's shell: It was Bro al Takruri who familiarized me with use of the term (something like) snail's shell for the way the woolly hair of Buddha was portrayed. Interesting is that the above Phoenicians also have the "snail's shell" for portraying woolly hair.
Interesting that Buddha iconography and lineage could harken back to Phoenicians (they who were the traders among the Canaanites where Canaanites are also Semites and Hibaru - ultimately descendents of Ham - and if Hannibal has Phoenician ancestry, he would trace roots to Ham, be African, black) Buddha might through the Phoenicians (e.g. same "snail shell" iconography) be related to Hannibal and them both to Ham.
Mike writes: alTakruri - The relief above is generally accepted as depicting Phoenicians. In my own experience; when White people lie, it is generally to replace a Black person with a White person - Such as with the supposed coin of Hannibal below - (they have no shame).
Marc writes: They've apparently turned black to white dozens of times. The link below has just a few. In my files are twice more I've never gotten around to making a web page on:
posted
^^Marc – I make no claims as to knowing if the coin is authentic. However, you do make an interesting point on the hair thing; but you attribute it to the wrong people. Phoenicians did not depict themselves like that (Snail's shell hair) Persians did! And yes: that artistic style does have meaning.
Clyde and I have been in disagreement as to where the Persians came from. His belief (as I recall) is that they came from Anatolia or points northward. My belief is that they might have been Mohenjo-daroians/Harappans of the Indus valley civilization who moved northward to avoid the invading Arians. To me, this would explain an artistic style, which was prevalent in India and all of Southeast Asia. My theory is further supported by the fact that when the last Persian Empire was destroyed by the Turks, under Muhammad’s flag. A great many Persians fled south into Black controlled India, (the parts not controlled by Arians). But on the other hand, I have to admit that Persian burial practices are similar to ancient Anatolian burial practices, which tends to support Clyde’s position.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mike. You and Clyde each have interesting theories but I'm acquainted with neither side of it.
I do, though, like to plug the fact that the IndoEuropean language is an agri-pastoral one. And that though we say it is spread by the white I-E, the theory does not take into account that James Mellaart's archeological work there (and it was he who introduced the world to Anatolia) found two types of Africans as the originating population and original settlers.
Whites, on the other hand, came from the Caucasus Mountains - with no agro-pastoral history. So, what that means in regard to how whites obtained the so-called I-E language is what it is.
Hannibal was son of a Punic Father from Carthage - Hamilcar, and was Son of a European(Iberian)- his Mother was Iberian. Hannibal's Ethnicity was African.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Oops. The point left out above was that the two African groups settled Anatolia near 10,000 BC (says Mellaart) and it was they who had the world's earliest settlements. They who were some of the earliest pioneers of farming and pastoralism before 7000 BC.
My point being logic suggests that it was they who spoke what we call Indo-European languages before whites arose who later spread the language (while the initial Africans vanish from the face of the earth with no theory attributing any particular cause to their sudden disappearance).
Back to Hannibal
There are two decidedly staunch camps that I've become very familiar with as I worked on and then publicized Pride of Carthage. One camp says that Hannibal was black, an African, and should therefore be considered an African hero. He was based in Africa; therefore he is of Africa. These folks would say that it's our continuing racist society that either wants to 1) deny that Hannibal was African or 2) choose to accept it, but then go on to demonize him because of it.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): I know the below is directed at Djehuti and his "aliases", but it is still as I said about the archives.I didn't respond because it was Djehuti I responded because everyone who actually focuses alot of what they contribute on ancient Egypt gets pegged as having multiple accounts by disruptive trolls plus Marc (I don't think [?] alot of what he does is 'trolling'). It's just ironic.
The subtotal of your "contribution" to Egyptsearch is to coat-tail posters you have an attraction for and parrot their nonsense. When asked to explain the research you claim to know, predictably, since you're a mere parrot, you simply run. You're in no position to critique anybody, you and the rest of your know-nothing tag-alongs.
posted
Marc – I am not familiar with James Mellaart's or his work, but on its face, what you relate from him sounds a bit dramatic. To begin with, I don’t much care for the term “two types of Africans” because this suggests that they both just came from Africa – that could not be so. Undoubtedly one of the groups in Anatolia were from the line of Grimaldi (we know this because of the Venus figures) – they left Africa 35,000 years previous.
Indications do suggest that the Anatolians were advanced beyond Egypt or Sumer in certain areas (perhaps all). They appear to be the first ones to build monumental structures – note the artifacts from Gobekli Tepe (circa 11,500 B.C.).
And their artistic skills do appear beyond anything in Egypt or Sumer at the time.
Whether they invented agriculture, I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone else.
The term “Indo-European” is a trick, designed to confuse racial history. The prefix “Indo” obviously relates to India, and the melding of Black Dravidian and White Arian language and culture. How that got transposed to the other Whites who migrated to Europe is beyond me. Stranger still, is how it came to include Black people from Persia to Anatolia. Perhaps Clyde with his knowledge of languages can shed light on this. But one thing is sure, the term is definitely and purposefully used to obscure the fact that these people were Black.
As to your last point; the Blacks of Anatolia did NOT suddenly disappear.
They continue to live in every dark-skinned Turk that you see.
Note the Armenian of 500 B.C. – they seem to have gotten a head start on it.
posted
Mike, Shame on those evil historians who sit around and think of ways to trick poor black people.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
TheAmericanPatriot - That should read "Shame on those evil "White" historians who sit around and think of ways to trick poor black people." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to edit my post to make the point that even the fascists Whites on the board, could not argue that the Arians who invaded India were from Asia. Therefore the term should logically be "Indo-Asian" yet it is Indo-European. The only reason for that, is to promote the lie that Whites originated in Europe.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor poor black man, a victim of white lies. You cannot have it both ways Mike. If the white man is an evil liar then your folks must be ignorant and weak.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike111 wrote: ----------------------------------- Also, it seems to me, that a person so great as Hannibal would have a much more heroic type image on his coin. -----------------------------------
Mike, why is the image on the coin not heroic?
I told you all Mike111 and his ilk are black american negroes who have had their minds sodomized by whites.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Poor poor black man, a victim of white lies. You cannot have it both ways Mike. If the white man is an evil liar then your folks must be ignorant and weak.
Alas - note argyle104s post. But we're working on it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic