We can work on digitally archiving everything, and distributing it to save the knowledge at least I hope.
Maybe something like google books but for history.
It's interesting to think about why it is that we are so much more incensed (as we are) by this wanton destruction of historical artefacts than by the destruction of human lives - beheadings, mass murders, etc.
I think both actions, the murders and the destruction, are designed to sully us all, to drag us down to their level of blind hatred. The reason why the destruction of historical artefacts is more effective at achieving this is, perhaps, because while we feel some distant sympathy towards "some foreigners that I don't know" being murdered, we feel personally insulted by what we regard (rightly) as our collective, human historical heritage being destroyed. We feel this affects us personally - I know I feel I do, anyway. It feels like a much more personal and intimate insult.
Ironically, the fact that this is such an effective way to get people upset (and thereby polarise them) guarantees that IS, the Taliban, and other extremist groups that depend on global polarisation will continue to destroy priceless historical artefacts everywhere they find them. They depend on the cycle of getting remote people to get emotionally enraged, getting those same people to mistreat muslims local to them, thereby causing more muslims around the world to feel disenfranchised by western society, thereby making ISIS's recruitment work easier.
As one article pointed out after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the major issue that ISIS has with the west is that the vast majority of the muslims here have zero interest in what ISIS is doing. By letting ourselves be provoked into making generalist statements about whole population (e.g. someone who reads this, gets pissed off, and then goes and votes on tougher laws against Islam in their country), we do ISIS's work.
I suggest responding to this with sadness rather than anger.
The most puzzling aspect for me is the reason being given : to fight "Idolatry". Seriously how many people are still adoring Sumerian gods? It would makes some sense if it was still an active religion, but there it sounds absolutely irrational. I know that I am trying to find logic where this is none. This is both infuriating and disconcerting.
It's not about what people believed in the past or what they believe now, it's about what they might believe in the future.
By erasing all traces of other religions (and even all traces of other philosophical trends), they essentially make their god "The One And Only God". How could future generations believe in anything else than Allah's almighty existence when apparently everything men did or do is about Him?
They are reshaping History in order to shape the future.
To the fundamentalist, sure-there-is-a-God mind, "idolatry" is not only the practice, it's a "thing" that exists all by itself, by virtue of its own presence as a concept. As long as there are still idols -- images of false gods -- idolatry is still alive and well, even if no one prays to them.
It's the same rationale as behind not allowing the representation of human shapes (or, for most Islam, the figure of the Prophet): to "us", it seems to be a simple case of "then don't fucking draw it", but in fact any representation is, to "them", insulting.
I always though the reason I found this more enraging than the beheadings was because human life, at risk of sounding callous, is 'expendable' in that there are billions of us, with new humans being born every second, but these artifacts are literally irreplacable.
I had a conversation with my SO with regards to the destruction without mentioning my view on why it affects us so much more and she pretty much came to the same conclusion.
And from a utilitarian point of view it teaches us that there are more points of view than just Islam. It might save a few lives in the future knowing that one group doesn't hold the monopoly on the truth.
Think this through a bit more because your explanation is lacking. Humans make objects every day to replace things. There are more expandable objects than there are expandable human beings.
Nimrod was suffering to exposure to the deserts prior to this. Now it's gone. Much like how plenty of things throughout human history that holds great value goes away.
Things we don't even know of or comprehend of value also goes away.
You thinking the destruction affects you so much is purely because of selfish ego.
I wager this is more about hubris than motivating hatred, which is kind of small minded comparatively.
If I were to hold strongly the belief that I am the next prophet of Mohammed, that I am the literal vessel and messenger of god, and that I have conspired with others that also hold similar beliefs that I am the chosen one, then together we eradicate borders between Syria and Iraq maybe how I see the world is a bit off kilter too.
I mean, I did happen to change international borders drawn in for decades by those western infidels, and that I am now in control of a literal Islamic caliphate meant to last for another three thousand years.
I would bulldoze anything and everything that stands contrary to my belief.
For I am already god. It would stand to reason that 3,000 year old statues would mean nothing.
Much like how Ai Wei Wei smashes 2,000 year old Ming vases.
I respond to this with neither anger nor sadness because it's egotistical for one to hold ownership to 3,000 year old objects and it's emotionally fragile to declare attachment to objects they have never seen before nor care much about until now.
Respond to the bullying and toxicity with apathy. Respond to the world around you with care and compassion. That's the only lesson here.
Though, tbh, US Marines need to be sent out to wrap up this mess of a job.
> The reason why the destruction of historical artefacts is more effective at achieving this is, perhaps, because while we feel some distant sympathy towards "some foreigners that I don't know" being murdered, we feel personally insulted by what we regard (rightly) as our collective, human historical heritage being destroyed
I think of it like this: even if I suffer and die, me, my family, or at least my culture is indelibly part of history. People will remember something of me forever. My story will be told. In some small way that ameliorates my pain and suffering, gives me a limited form of immortality, makes life that much more worth it.
So when someone destroys some of the remnants of a civilization we know so little about, it is as if they cut an unknown number of people permanently out of the tapestry of human history. As if they killed them in some more final way than just ending their lives.
I fail to understand their conclusion. IS is not an atavistic return to a primitive past because it's based on Wahhabism, an atavistic return to a primitive past?
I also think she is severely underestimating their support in the ummah. It's easy to superficially condemn the destruction of museum pieces, because hey, museums are pretty neat and educational. But it's very hard to condemn on a deeper level IS' fight against idolatry when the prohibition on idolatry is such a central tenet of your faith, the Shahada.
What's modern about ISIS, she argues, is mass killing. And then there's the GTA vibe, and the glamorization of mass killing. But destruction of idols is hardly unique.
I do fear that the Wahhabis have gamed the Infidels well. They used their petrodollars to proselytize the ummah. Then they incited fear and loathing through terrorist attacks. They sucked the Neocons into invading Iraq, and creating the chaos needed for expansion. Time will tell.
18 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 50.2 ms ] threadSad to see this isn't something common nowadays given the proliferation of the 3D ecosystem in general.
I think both actions, the murders and the destruction, are designed to sully us all, to drag us down to their level of blind hatred. The reason why the destruction of historical artefacts is more effective at achieving this is, perhaps, because while we feel some distant sympathy towards "some foreigners that I don't know" being murdered, we feel personally insulted by what we regard (rightly) as our collective, human historical heritage being destroyed. We feel this affects us personally - I know I feel I do, anyway. It feels like a much more personal and intimate insult.
Ironically, the fact that this is such an effective way to get people upset (and thereby polarise them) guarantees that IS, the Taliban, and other extremist groups that depend on global polarisation will continue to destroy priceless historical artefacts everywhere they find them. They depend on the cycle of getting remote people to get emotionally enraged, getting those same people to mistreat muslims local to them, thereby causing more muslims around the world to feel disenfranchised by western society, thereby making ISIS's recruitment work easier.
As one article pointed out after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the major issue that ISIS has with the west is that the vast majority of the muslims here have zero interest in what ISIS is doing. By letting ourselves be provoked into making generalist statements about whole population (e.g. someone who reads this, gets pissed off, and then goes and votes on tougher laws against Islam in their country), we do ISIS's work.
I suggest responding to this with sadness rather than anger.
By erasing all traces of other religions (and even all traces of other philosophical trends), they essentially make their god "The One And Only God". How could future generations believe in anything else than Allah's almighty existence when apparently everything men did or do is about Him?
They are reshaping History in order to shape the future.
It's the same rationale as behind not allowing the representation of human shapes (or, for most Islam, the figure of the Prophet): to "us", it seems to be a simple case of "then don't fucking draw it", but in fact any representation is, to "them", insulting.
I had a conversation with my SO with regards to the destruction without mentioning my view on why it affects us so much more and she pretty much came to the same conclusion.
Nimrod was suffering to exposure to the deserts prior to this. Now it's gone. Much like how plenty of things throughout human history that holds great value goes away.
Things we don't even know of or comprehend of value also goes away.
You thinking the destruction affects you so much is purely because of selfish ego.
If I were to hold strongly the belief that I am the next prophet of Mohammed, that I am the literal vessel and messenger of god, and that I have conspired with others that also hold similar beliefs that I am the chosen one, then together we eradicate borders between Syria and Iraq maybe how I see the world is a bit off kilter too.
I mean, I did happen to change international borders drawn in for decades by those western infidels, and that I am now in control of a literal Islamic caliphate meant to last for another three thousand years.
I would bulldoze anything and everything that stands contrary to my belief.
For I am already god. It would stand to reason that 3,000 year old statues would mean nothing.
Much like how Ai Wei Wei smashes 2,000 year old Ming vases.
I respond to this with neither anger nor sadness because it's egotistical for one to hold ownership to 3,000 year old objects and it's emotionally fragile to declare attachment to objects they have never seen before nor care much about until now.
Respond to the bullying and toxicity with apathy. Respond to the world around you with care and compassion. That's the only lesson here.
Though, tbh, US Marines need to be sent out to wrap up this mess of a job.
I like this. Good attitude. Anger < Sadness < Care/Compassion.
I think of it like this: even if I suffer and die, me, my family, or at least my culture is indelibly part of history. People will remember something of me forever. My story will be told. In some small way that ameliorates my pain and suffering, gives me a limited form of immortality, makes life that much more worth it.
So when someone destroys some of the remnants of a civilization we know so little about, it is as if they cut an unknown number of people permanently out of the tapestry of human history. As if they killed them in some more final way than just ending their lives.
I also think she is severely underestimating their support in the ummah. It's easy to superficially condemn the destruction of museum pieces, because hey, museums are pretty neat and educational. But it's very hard to condemn on a deeper level IS' fight against idolatry when the prohibition on idolatry is such a central tenet of your faith, the Shahada.
What's modern about ISIS, she argues, is mass killing. And then there's the GTA vibe, and the glamorization of mass killing. But destruction of idols is hardly unique.
I do fear that the Wahhabis have gamed the Infidels well. They used their petrodollars to proselytize the ummah. Then they incited fear and loathing through terrorist attacks. They sucked the Neocons into invading Iraq, and creating the chaos needed for expansion. Time will tell.
When I think about it a bit more the question is: who's yanking my chain so perfectly?