4 ms·
Absolutely indefensible position. Destroying artifacts and evidence of the past simply because we don't agree with what happened in the past is a vile sin that
by torstenvl 3y ago
Absolutely indefensible position. Destroying artifacts and evidence of the past simply because we don't agree with what happened in the past is a vile sin that our descendants will never forgive us for.
- kome 3y agoI agree, destruction of important heritage with absolutely ridiculous claims. Taliban level shit.
- stetrain 3y agoIf one were to slice the ear off of a dead body, mount it, and frame it on their wall, at what point does it stop being gross evidence of a crime and start becoming an important historical artifact and part of our heritage? How many months, how many years? Does it matter if the person who did it is a respected scholar or a convicted serial killer?
- hwc 3y agothe book itself was re-bound.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- devnullbrain 3y agoAs a Marine, you are probably aware Marines assisted the toppling of the famous Saddam Hussein statue?
- torstenvl 3y agoAnd you are probably aware that Saddam was alive and had just been deposed at that time. It wasn't the past, nor was it an artifact. It wasn't in a museum or a library's special collection. And the Marines didn't destroy it (though the Iraqis appear to have).
- rasz 3y agoAfaik Marines did burn his LM002, which is a piece of art and important historical artifact :-) https://www.carscoops.com/2007/10/war-crimes-soldiers-destroy-rare/ https://www.carscoops.com/2007/10/war-crimes-soldiers-destro...
- mc32 3y agoWould it be okay if the skin, instead of being from an anonymous hospital patient it were from Abe Lincoln, or Sitting Bull, Mahatma Gandhi or Susan B Anthony?
- uaserussia 3y ago[dead]
- Systemling0815 3y ago[dead]
- dahdum 3y agoI believe Harvard destroyed all the nude student photos, would you have insisted they kept those too? I don’t see much value in either.