the north and south kissed and made up

Oct 2012
2,047
417
NC
#21
Columbus isn't just offensive, it's bad history. Everyone knew the world was round, he never set foot in the Americas and the Norse had colonized Greenland and Newfoundland 500 years before.

Here I really just find it funny that David is offended my an individual's existence. Its as though he wishes the person did not exist, that the person's history did not exist. that , in my opinion, is the root problem with the anti-monument crowd. inappropriate wishful thinking.
 
Likes: 1 person
Oct 2012
2,047
417
NC
#22
From what I understand, this chap, Ramses II kept slaves, had many concubines, claimed victory in battles that did not occur as claimed, had captives tortured...and... and even claimed deity.

In other words, by today's cultural norms this guy would be considered a barbarian, liar and fiend!!!

tear it down!! his existence offends me!!


 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#23
From what I understand, this chap, Ramses II kept slaves, had many concubines, claimed victory in battles that did not occur as claimed, had captives tortured...and... and even claimed deity.

In other words, by today's cultural norms this guy would be considered a barbarian, liar and fiend!!!

tear it down!! his existence offends me!!


Ayup....I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could even find some more ridiculous and ignorant stupidity to make inherent racism seem OK. I hear tell that Jesus wore the same color robes as Hitlers shirts.....That's why they Burn crosses.
 
Oct 2012
2,047
417
NC
#24
Ayup....I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could even find some more ridiculous and ignorant stupidity to make inherent racism seem OK. I hear tell that Jesus wore the same color robes as Hitlers shirts.....That's why they Burn crosses.
no assertion in this thread that "inherent racism" is ok (see definition of straw man argument below).

What has been said is: it is not Ok to remove or destroy artifacts of history just because it offends.


A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
 
Likes: 1 person
Oct 2012
2,047
417
NC
#25
it seems the leftists and Islamic fanatics are the most prone to an anti-historical approach. it figures.




What happened to the Sphinx’s nose?



Legends have passed over hundreds of years regarding the simple omission in this photograph of the Sphinx and the Pyramid of Khafre, part of the Giza Pyramid (or Great Pyramid) complex in Egypt. Where is the Sphinx’s nose? Many of us have heard the tale that a cannonball fired by Napoleon’s soldiers hit the nose and caused it to break off. Sketches of the Sphinx by the Dane Frederic Louis Norden were created in 1737 and published in 1755, well before the era of Napoleon. However, these drawings illustrate the Sphinx without a nose and clearly contradicts the legend. So what really happened?
The Egyptian Arab historian al-Maqrīzī wrote in the 15th century that the nose was actually destroyed by a Sufi Muslim named Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr. In 1378 CE, Egyptian peasants made offerings to the Great Sphinx in the hope of controlling the flood cycle, which would result in a successful harvest. Outraged by this blatant show of devotion, Sa'im al-Dahr destroyed the nose and was later executed for vandalism. Whether this is absolute fact is still debatable.
 
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions