22 ms·
> it's just modifying the past I'm not sure what you mean by this; obviously the "history" of the book is known and not being suppressed. Nobody is denying the
by yowzadave 3y ago
> it's just modifying the past
I'm not sure what you mean by this; obviously the "history" of the book is known and not being suppressed. Nobody is denying the origin of the book; if it had been a significant historical artifact, I'm sure the judgment would have been different. "You're destroying history!" is a common refrain when Jim Crow-era statues commemorating confederate generals are removed, or when, e.g., the name of a military base is changed. This does not mean that history is being destroyed! Anyone is still welcome to learn anything they want about these historical figures & events.
- mablopoule 3y agoSo, with the same argument, nothing of value was lost when taliban destroyed the statues of Buddha, since we can read about those in books? There's value in physical artifact too, it's sad to destroy those out of righteousness. As for the statue, where those statue removed or destroyed/melted ? If it's the latter, then yes it's also historicidal, even if it's for the 'bad guys'.