this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
992 points (96.0% liked)
Memes
45373 readers
2213 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 43 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
And the girl in the back on the original post photo, looking like this below meme photo. LoL
Since I don't see much football stuff on Lemmy, this is Mohammed Salah, an Egyptian footballer and premier league royalty. YNWA
What does YNWA stand for/mean?
You'll Never Walk Alone. It's liverfool football club's motto. They sing it at every game. People get it tattooed.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Will he burn if there’s crosses in the Museum?
Can someone explain the reactionary joke I'm missing here, what does this mean.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Nah, he doesn't really care. He even celebrates Christmas with his family
load more comments
(1 replies)
Time to plug one of my favorite podcasts: Stuff the British Stole
Needs a French version as well, they still allow active trade of stolen native objects.
funny for an Egyptian man to say this, considering that it was made by black people not Arabs. If such things went by blood then and culture then South Sudan would have the strongest claim to it, its like saying that art by ancient indigenous americans belongs to an amerikkkan only difference is time.
Just because Egypt is in Africa doesn't automatically make Egyptians black. Look at a map. Northern Africa and Egypt were just as much part of southern Europe and the Middle East.
Hell look at the written records of the pharaohs. Ramseses II (Ozymendias, of King of kings, look upon his works all ye mighty and despair fame) reasserted control of Canaan and Phoenicia, led military campaigns into Syria and the Levant, and also led expeditions into Nubia. That indicates a clearly more established connection to the Middle East than to elsewhere in Africa at the height of ancient Egypt (height of the new kingdom).
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is this an ancient Kush statue or am I missing something? I don't believe upper ancient Egypt would be considered modern Sudan. Also DNA evidence from Egyptian mummies show little to no sub saharan DNA in them. How did you learn this information?
load more comments
(11 replies)
In fairness it likely wouldn't be preserved otherwise. So you're welcome.
It was already thousands of years old. The British destroyed more artifacts than they "saved".
Sure, I'm gonna steal your TV because I'll take better care of it than you would.
You're welcome
Depends if you were watching the TV and taking care of or not.
E.g.
This is a conundrum I can't wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).
If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don't need to study history, it's not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don't think that also helps.
And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don't quite see what moral ground is there for it.
Temporary custody for future generations seems like a good moral standpoint.
I can't see the moral arguments for keeping the items.
Original items should be returned, but maybe exact copies should be made first (at the whose expense I don't know).
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
except that not actually an other hand sorta thing at all, almost exclusively it was colonizers and their wars that destroyed so many of the artifacts that werent stolen, if they weren't delivery destroyed by colonizers to erase history and beyond even that the colonizers carelessness, greed, and racism which they brought to archeology led to much more than just artifacts being destroyed. There are so many historical sites whose histories we will never know at all because these clown excavated them to take "relics" and took little if any records where their precious artifacts were found and how, and that is if sites were not destroyed in their entirety out of sheer idiocy in the search of something else like how troy was. 18th, 19th, and even some 20th century so called archeology is a history of the destruction of history.
Holy run-on sentences. I agree with you, but it was done, it's already in the museums. Signing petitions and raising awareness of agencies/museums that are trying to get the stuff back is probably a better way to funnel your frustrations.
That's an interesting point. While I agree it's kinda shitty the UK nicked everyone's cool stuff and shoved it in 1 building. I'm willing to bet if we hadn't the number of pieces that would be lost to time would not be zero
This is just weird revisionist history. They moved in stole shit, colonized and murdered. The after the fact excuse of "we took it to preserve it" doesn't play mostly because their colonizer bullshit is largely the reason areas they stole shit from are destabilized.
I'm not revising anything its a shitty thing to do and it should all be returned. It was just a thought with a beer given how volatile some of the areas where the stuff comes and yes I know most of them ended up volatile because of colonialism.
Yeah I'm totally sure the Brits didn't break a single thing shipping artifacts to their big fancy museum. Let's ignore all the mummies Europeans ground up into powder and ingested as "medicine". Savagely eating dead humans with the same mouths that say brown people are too savage to take care of their own artifacts.
To be fair, they probably weren't able to take care of their own artifacts very well ... after having been invaded by the British.
Oddly enough they didn't teach that part of history when I was at school. Got anything I could learn up on it
load more comments
(1 replies)
Honestly the concept of property here is just silly. Who specifically do they belong to, why, what claim, and how could such a claim exist?
I just don't agree with the concept, this individual doesn't have any right to ownership regardless of whether his specific family owned it at some point prior, but most likely a direct relative doesn't even own it, just someone with his self same 'race' ( which race doesn't really exist either tbh, not genetically anyway, but exists as a social construct ).
I just despise this mentality. I don't own anything collectively with anyone of my 'race', neither their achievements nor shames, and same for even direct relatives.
There is not enough generic diversity in humans to even prop up the idea of race beyond being a cultural construct, it's time to stop seeing our fellow humans as something other.
what a bunch of nerds... this is mohamed salah, pro football player with liverpool fc and he is joking.
Property rights only exist when non-western countries want their stuff / land back. When the west stole them, then its finders keepers.
/s