yeah, we know he really was a slave and he really was on the ship
the thing we're responding to and wondering is if Richard was born in the 1800's or 1000's of years earlier
he could be egyptian from the time of the pyramids and have been given immortality from Jacob,
then MIB played a cruel joke and somehow orchestrated Richard's capture and selling into slavery
the joke being, "yeah, you're immortal, but you're going to spend it all as a slave"
Right, I understand what you're saying, and on a certain level, I would agree with that, if this weren't the last season. What I'm saying is that line of thinking is all wrong. Do you think that this late into the game they are going to try and put on this extra layer of detail about him being an ancient egyptian from thousands of years BEFORE The Black Rock?? We don't even have the complete story about what happened with The Black Rock yet, and it's the last season. I think it is far more sensible to assume that Richard was just a slave or prisoner on The Black Rock, and Jacob rescued him, then gave him this gift.
I know you are kind of hung up on Richard's appearance, and even I totally understand that, but I posted this in another thread in an attempt to understand how they could explain Richard's unique look...
I'm deffinitely thinking he was a slave. I originally thought he was like a crewman or something, but I knew he arrived on that boat.
Where do you think he was a slave from? I was talking about this the other day, and I couldn't come up with anything that made sense.
Okay, so, after doing some super quick research, this is what I came up with. Partial facts, partial wiki, partial opinion...And heeeeeeeere we go.
Well, Richard Alpert is played by Nestor Carbonell who is born of Cuban and Catalan (Spaniard) descent (courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Carbonell). And since the LOST writers are usually pretty good at keeping that kind of stuff in check, I'm assuming that they will use some kind of historical accuracy when explaining his origin. So how does that help us?? Well, according to the power of the wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_slave_trade
African Slave trade
"Slavery in North Africa...between the 16th and 19th centuries...The coastal villages and towns of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Mediterranean islands were frequently attacked by them [Barbary pirates]"
Since the Black Rock set sail on March 22nd, 1845, that falls into the time period of "between the 16th and 19th centuries" Now Barbary pirates obviously weren't on a ship coming out of Portsmouth, but maybe, juuuuuuuust maybe, this ship decided for some reason to take on some unpaid help in order to do the mining. I'm not sure how you would sail in order to get to Siam (Thailand) from England, but it seems reasonable to think that you would pass by Spain. Now, if you're wiliing to take that journey with me, then this shouldn't be too hard to also swallow, but what if the sailors on the black rock decided to take advantage of the Burbary pirates viciousness, and just swooped in and took a bunch of people with them.
Now, this might be a stretch, and I'm not even sure where a person with Catalan descent would come from in Spain (North, south, East, West???), but since slaves were taken from Spain, this would make the most sense to me. I'm not in love with this idea, but like I said, it does make sense...kinda.
Now, like I said, I am completely aware that I might be wrong, and despite the direct kind of phrasing I use here, I am not trying to implicate that you are wrong, I guess I am just throwing out the idea that we have been overlooking the really obvious explanations for the past 6 years, and now is when we NEED to accept what they are telling us.
