The guy who wrote this has a Youtube channel with over 500,000 subscribers.
Not to mention all of the historical places/statues that have been destroyed across time through either rampant warfare/terrorists/despots blowing them up, along with the lack of care or maintenance given to any that aren't huge enough to draw tourists in. Compare say, the castles and historical buildings in the UK or Europe which are often protected and maintained for everyone to visit, or at least look at and enjoy when out and about somewhere, compared to most older temples etc in third world places that are left to rot or have been looted to death by their own people.View attachment 5881436
Link, Archive
Empire bad. Hurr durr British Museum stole stuff from other countries.
What annoys me about this take is that it's reached a kind of meme status, meaning people repeat it without question.
As an example of how bad it's gotten, there was that one scene in Black Panther (201comes to mind where the "sympathetic" villain steals an artefact from a museum because British soldiers stole it.
But of course, when Museums do give art and artefacts back to the barely functional third-world holes that they came from, they promptly disappear into the hands of private collectors, no longer to be displayed museums where millions of people can see them for free. Such as what happened with the Benin Bronzes. If they do this to the British Museum, it would be a travesty.
View attachment 5881450
I should not expect so much from an account that mainly posts engagement-bait, but it's still disappointing to see Historic Vids repeat this lie.
It's not even called the "British Royal Museum" for fuck's sake. It's just the "British Museum". But I guess they subconsciously added "Royal" because it sounded more wealthy and aristocratic.
Imagine being so woke you try to argue that it was actually white people who were the slaves. Does this mean white Americans are owed reparations?For example I found this a while back by Dane Calloway:
I read some of the Amazon reviews last night and one, from someone who claims to have read the book; says that the cover image is very misleading and that the author doesn't claim that blacks had enslaved whites.
My basic biology tells me that darkies don't have more melanocytes; they have more pigment granules (melanosomes) per melanocytes. I don't know if there are any / many melanocytes in bones (given this cell type originate from the neural crest, it migrates all over the body, so I won't be surprised if some do find their way in bones), but if archaeologists do study melanocytes in skeletal remains, I'd love to see the citation.
Because capitalists are oppressors and communism means the end of capitalism, and therefore the end of oppression (on that axis, at least). This is one of the rules of progressivism: harm doesn't count if it happens to an oppressor, or is done by the oppressed. Victims cannot be victimizers, and vice versa.
Don't pay it any attention. They'll say this on one end and then on the other they'll say India was never a Hindu country to pander to muslims. It's just a divide and conquer tactic, move on.
"Nuns don't consent to being sexualized"? There's that collectivist thinking SJWs like again.
That’s because before, it would only be used in the context of things that aren’t already viewed as a sex object. Things like children, animals, the elderly, and Rosey the Robot.
I think at least some SJWs want to eliminate the "sexualizing" of women by men. That is, they don't want women to be sexual to men.
I prefer "being aroused by" or the like, as "sex object" can lead to the BS concept of "objectification" that's used to demonize straight male sexuality like some disease.
Muslim-pandering is pathetic, but the claim that only Hindus existed in India before the Islamic invasion is also bullshit said to stoke the fragile egos of Pajeets. There had been Israelites in the western territories since the diaspora, St. Thomas ministered to those populations in Kerala and beyond, and Buddhism traced its origins to India before the Brahmins wiped out its practice in the region. To deny any of those groups gives power to smug Brahmins trying to prop up their bullshit ponzi scheme of a caste cult by claiming it is the only thing that ever mattered in India.
Hinduism has existed in some form since the indus valley civilization, one of the reasons it's even called Hinduism. The south practiced a primitive proto shintoism which was integrated into what we can call modern Hinduism when the aryans arrived from western Europe. The aryans conquered the country, integrated the disparate tribal societies and drafted the framework for modern hinduism caste system and all. Mind you most of this happened before the Roman Empire was formally established as there are records of hindu kings fighting Alexander, namely Porus. What you're talking about are the Christians who came to Kerala sometime between 1st and 3rd century AD. Kerala was still largely an open tribal society since the Aryans established themselves in the more resource rich plains and not coastal backwaters, which allowed the christians to take over the place. I'm not saying the caste system is a good thing but to deny the origins of Hinduism and it's claims to the Indian subcontinent is pretty bullshit and largely constructed by people who are descendents of post Jesus immigrants. Also Buddhism is a derivative of Hinduism if you didn't know it already. Buddha is supposed to be the 9th avatar of Vishnu and there is a lot of conceptual overlap between the two. Same with Jainism as well.
