Denzel Washington’s Hannibal Barca Controversy

War is a big part of human history. Results of wars have defined our modern landscape. This process continues today and may be with us in the future. Some military leaders have been celebrated in Western culture as legends, Hannibal Barca being among them. Hannibal shook the Roman Empire and is often hailed as the greatest general to have ever lived. The interesting thing is that with most great military leaders, we have a general idea what they looked like. But when it comes to Hannibal, arguably the greatest of them all, there exists some bemusement. Today, let's explore why this controversy persists. What up African world, it's Home Team here and welcome back to another video of African history, culture, and worldview. By supporting this channel on Patreon, you're helping in the creation of these videos and contributing to this content. The link to Patreon is in description box below. To begin, this video is theory-based, so be sure to be a cautious observer. This video is not designed to affirm or reject any particular ethnic or phenotypical origin of Hannibal. The purpose is to address why some historians have formed the question to begin with. In the latter half of the video, I'll be shifting gears by introducing a theory as to why the image of Hannibal in popular culture changed over time. Denzel Washington, according to several sources, is said to be cast as Hannibal in an upcoming Netflix film. Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general who came to prominence around 219 BC. Ancient Carthage was located in North Africa, centered in what is today the modern country of Tunisia. Some Tunisians have been vocal about the casting of Denzel Washington, claiming it to be an historical era. Others attribute it to woke culture or pseudo-history. According to reports, some of them feel they're being robbed of their history as Hannibal is a very celebrated figure in Tunisian culture, a hero to many. Given the modern population of Tunisia, the casting of Denzel Washington would undoubtedly elicit many grievances. So, it begs the question, why would Netflix do such a thing? And why is there even a question of Hannibal's phenotype to begin with? Is it not clear that Hannibal was an ancient Tunisian man exhibiting the same or similar ethnic characteristics? Apparently, the answer to that question is not as clear. For starters, according to the scholarship, no unassailable portrait of Hannibal exists. At least, we have yet to discover one. Just as no letters from Hannibal, whether to his wife or to anyone else, have been preserved, so no bust or statue exists that can safely be identified with him. The coins and or busts that are usually associated with Hannibal are said to either depict the Phoenician Hercules or generic image of a hero. Take, for example, this highly disseminated bust of Hannibal. There is no agreement as to whether this is an authentic image of him, and many aren't aware of that fact. One source shares the image along with the presumed marble portrait bust of Hannibal found near Naples. Strong suspicions exist that this is actually a Renaissance work and not a Roman portrait, and in fact, we have no authentic likeness of the great Carthaginian commander. This nuance is still not enough to be so tentative regarding the phenotype of Hannibal. Why can't we just presume he looked like the modern population? Well, the problem arises with one countervailing discovery. A Western Asian phenotypical origin of Hannibal would have ridden off into the sunset unquestioned if it wasn't for one nagging thing. The coin of Transamine has fashioned the question of Hannibal's phenotype greatly difficult. The reason being is twofold. It seems legitimate, and it's far too closely aligned with one of Hannibal's most popular victorious campaigns. While other coins may have been designed to symbolize Hannibal or represent him, this coin of Transamine may have been commissioned by Hannibal to represent himself. The coin seems to have not been minted in Carthage, but in Italy. To some, this may strengthen or weaken its legitimacy. Most people and scholars alike will say that the head of the black man represents the elephant driver. However, the dilemma is that by that time, only one elephant of the Carthaginians survived according to the scholarship, and it was Hannibal's elephant. Because General Hannibal now organized his armies and gave orders from Cyrus, the last elephant, presumably elephants had no part in the next few battles. Hannibal crushed Roman legions at Lake Trasamine in history's greatest ambush. Due to this information, the idea that the Transamine coin being a phenotypical representation of Hannibal himself is just as legitimate as any other explanation. So as we can see, determining the ethnic phenotype of Hannibal is a cycled imbroglio that we all have yet to liberate ourselves from. The discovery of this coin is what seemingly anchors the controversy and the reason why many depictions of Hannibal have been so diverse or inconsistent over the years. The Netflix series was certainly not the first time Hannibal was portrayed as a black man. The History Channel did so as well. If I recall correctly, Hannibal throughout film culture was usually depicted with Mediterranean features. So why the shift? Why would the film industry, with an extensive history of harmful imagery in relation to Afro-descended people, now suddenly portray a black man in a prominent role? Well, admittedly, I have a controversial theory to explain that. I believe film culture is knocking two birds with one stone. They've hardly changed the harmful imagery of black people at all. They simply transformed it. Also known as preservation through transformation. And I think American film culture does this brilliantly. As of late, there's been obvious pressure to diversify film. Casting directors accomplish preservation through transformation by answering the call to diversity but by also maintaining harmful undercurrents that are only identifiable over time. It's a creeping normalcy that by the end establishes a clear message. And you seldom recognize it because it becomes so normal. Hence the term creeping normalcy. My theory comes in to identify the phenomenon and put a name to it. I call it Ender's Theory. Ender's Theory embarks to explain the intentional typecasting of racial groups in distinctive roles featuring tragic or inimical ends. This selective casting is typically reserved for highly esteemed historical, mythologized, or fictional figures. According to Ender's Theory, one segment of film culture is trying to send a message, most often to people of African descent. The message is, even your greatest day ends in tragedy. The function of these films, according to the theory, is to remind us of some ethnic failure in our past but more importantly in our future. Casting does this even if it means sacrificing sacred historical cows in return for targeting a specific racial group to morally inflict. In the case of Afro-descended people, the goal is to keep your vision uncompetitive. This idea is not new. Some of our greatest thinkers, like Dr. Claude Anderson, speaks about this extensively. Entire laws were established to keep Afro-descended people uncompetitive. Michelle Alexander, the author of The New Jim Crow, theorizes herself that Jim Crow and mass incarceration were designed to control and warehouse a disposable population, keeping them uncompetitive through legal discrimination and barring them from the mainstream economy. Films are not only reflections of the culture but messages to the culture. These messages have been sent through film for quite some time and in diverse ways. Though Ender's Theory can get a bit dark, we have to remember that American film culture is not immune to dark messages. So while some may consider this a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, I implore you to simply consider the historical patterns. For example, Cleopatra for quite some time was depicted with Euro features. She was a sacred cow of sorts and then this began to change. Ender's Theory would explain this transition by proclaiming that film culture thought it critical to fulfill the diversity quota but maintain an Afro-adjacent character that meets a tragic end. Interestingly enough, I have yet to come across a live-action film about Ancient Egypt that centralizes an Afro-descended lead, yet an exception seems to be made for Cleopatra. I find that oddly specific. The same goes for Hannibal, another sacred cow. His portrayal changed over time because he also had a tragic end. These two historical sacred cows can be sacrificed into blackness because of the unfavorable storyline. Ender's Theory would point out two other examples to ground its theory. To my knowledge, there has been no corpulence allotted in the budgeting of films depicting, say, Queen Amon Arenas of Kush or The Haitian Revolution. Queen Amon Arenas lived contemporaneous to Cleopatra and fought the same Roman foe but with completely opposite results. The Haitian Revolution, with its many historical figures, literally achieved the only successful slave revolution in human history that established a lasting state. What a glorious human story. Yet, according to Ender's Theory, the reason why film culture has not introduced these stories to the world in typical large-budget fashion is because of what they represent. If you're in tune with what I'll call modern black folklore, you'll discover how some members of the community make jokes about the roles of black presidents in film. The narrative is that whenever you see a black president being portrayed, you know the world is about to end. In general, a common theme seems to be black leadership in the midst of great tragedy or human loss. Circling back to tangible examples of Ender's Theory would be the films Othello and Macbeth. Two tragedies. While a case can be made about Othello being an African originating further south as there were many conscripted soldiers constituting Moorishness if you will, the average layman wouldn't necessarily view the Moors as such. Yet, over time, Othello seems to be the exception. In addition, there is really no reason why Macbeth should be portrayed as an Afro-descended man as he's based on a Scottish general. Yet, in the most recent iteration, there he is. We have to ask ourselves, what's the common theme here? It's tragedy. Let's sum up the examples used in this video. Cleopatra, who traditionally not viewed as an Afro-descended individual, has a tragic end by self-infliction. Hannibal, also traditionally not viewed as an Afro-descended individual, has a tragic end by self-infliction. Othello, a fictional character, at times viewed as an Afro-descended individual, has a tragic end by self-infliction. Macbeth, a fictional character, not traditionally viewed as an Afro-descended individual, has a tragic end by decapitation. Ender's theory explains these patterns as sacred cows who were sacrificed into blackness to meet the demand of diversity while advancing negative or tragic ends. Now, obviously, Ender's theory does not apply to all films that feature non-Euro-descended people. In general, they have to be highly esteemed characters, like the ones mentioned in this video. Regardless, there are some weaknesses to this theory, the principal, I believe, being the intentionality issue. The irony is that pernicious messages concerning Afro-descended people have been going on for centuries. It is possible that some writers or casting directors truly believe they're doing good for the sake of progress. Because the framework of black agency has been typecasted for centuries in the negative, that is all film producers, writers, or casting directors really know, and so we're left with tragic ends such as Cleopatra and Hannibal. Plausibly, Ender's theory may not be intentional at all. Well, I'm out, guys. Let me know your perspective in the comments below. And if you like these videos and want to help in this continued production, consider supporting the home team on Patreon.com. The link is in the description box below. Know thyself. Remember your ancestors. Peace.