[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Don't forget that pyramid in Memphis TN. That's gotta come down, Egyptians owned slaves.

Jewish slaves for at least 400 years. Egypt owes some reparations. Perhaps a cut of all revenue from tourist visits to the pyramids.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Jewish slaves for at least 400 years. Egypt owes some reparations. Perhaps a cut of all revenue from tourist visits to the pyramids.

When you can cite any historical evidence for this then you might have some semblance of a point. Ancient Egypt kept more records than any another civilization in its time. Yet there's no mention of this whatsoever. Even though other peoples who were conquered and enslaved are. Not to mention the utter lack of archaeological evidence of a million plus Hebrews wandering around the Sinai for 40 years. This is an ancient Jewish claim that no other culture in the region supports. But if one is of the mindset that simply because it's in the bible then it must be true then I will certainly not the argue that point.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

When you can cite any historical evidence for this then you might have some semblance of a point. Ancient Egypt kept more records than any another civilization in its time. Yet there's no mention of this whatsoever. Even though other peoples who were conquered and enslaved are. Not to mention the utter lack of archaeological evidence of a million plus Hebrews wandering around the Sinai for 40 years. This is an ancient Jewish claim that no other culture in the region supports. But if one is of the mindset that simply because it's in the bible then it must be true then I will certainly not the point.

OAW

I think you're missing the larger point, or at least not addressing it.

[OAW]

Snow-i ....

Oh believe me I get the larger point. It's sarcasm rooted in the fact that some people have convinced themselves that only they get to determine what is acceptable or not in the public sphere. And when anyone else dares to push back against anything they have a particular affinity to then it's a problem. It's as clear as day quite frankly.

You see I don't personally have an issue with the statue of Thomas Jefferson at Mizzou. The man was a POTUS after all. Though I can respect the position of those that do. I don't even mind seeing the statues of Confederate figures in historic Savannah, GA (one of my favorite travel destinations BTW) because there are monuments dedicated to the African-American slaves who built the city too. Even a monument to Haitian soldiers in Franklin Square dedicated to those who fought alongside the Americans against the British during the Revolutionary War. And therein lies my point. There are so many who want to wrap themselves in "history" when people have a problem with this Confederate symbolism that all too often is showcased exclusively in the South and at the expense of other cultural perspectives. When in reality it's simply a testament to "HIStory".

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

When you can cite any historical evidence

Historical evidence? There's 3 mountains of hewn stone in Giza, along with a massive critter wearing a funny hat (and missing its nose), they're mighty impressive (I've been to see them, twice). Those were made using a substantial amount of slave labor, the most current estimate is ~5-6% of all the people in the world, at that time. In fact, the slave work gangs actually chiseled their names into many of the blocks, along with some rather clever off-color humor (at their masters' expense, no less).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think you're missing the larger point, or at least not addressing it.

A huge point (or 3 huge things with points*, to be more accurate).


*The Sphinx has no points, see above comment about its missing nose.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Snow-i ....

Oh believe me I get the larger point. It's sarcasm rooted in the fact that some people have convinced themselves that only they get to determine what is acceptable or not in the public sphere. And when anyone else dares to push back against anything they have a particular affinity to then it's a problem. It's as clear as day quite frankly.

You see I don't personally have an issue with the statue of Thomas Jefferson at Mizzou. The man was a POTUS after all. Though I can respect the position of those that do.

He wasn't just a POTUS, he was a founding father

Do you think those that are offended by TJ have a right not to be offended?

I don't even mind seeing the statues of Confederate figures in historic Savannah, GA (one of my favorite travel destinations BTW) because there are monuments dedicated to the African-American slaves who built the city too. Even a monument to Haitian soldiers in Franklin Square dedicated to those who fought alongside the Americans against the British during the Revolutionary War.

And therein lies my point. There are so many who want to wrap themselves in "history" when people have a problem with this Confederate symbolism that all too often is showcased exclusively in the South and at the expense of other cultural perspectives. When in reality it's simply a testament to "HIStory".

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "at the expense of" here. Are you saying that this cultural heritage is inherently offensive and therefore the public should be spared from it? I think the point of the USA, the great melting pot, is to take incongruous cultural artifacts and use the rule of law (1st, 2nd, 4th amendments) to ensure that the government does not censor speech or pressure activists. In this case the government has grown so unruly as to become the activist itself through layers of political expediency run amok pandering to the truly ignorant - the ones that don't understand the dangers of a government that begins policing culture as opposed to policing behavior. I think you and I can agree that the government policing culture is really, really bad.

[OAW]

:::::: sigh :::::

Originally Posted by Chongo

Jewish slaves for at least 400 years. Egypt owes some reparations. Perhaps a cut of all revenue from tourist visits to the pyramids.

Originally Posted by OAW

When you can cite any historical evidence for this then you might have some semblance of a point. Ancient Egypt kept more records than any another civilization in its time. Yet there's no mention of this whatsoever

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

Originally Posted by OAW

When you can cite any historical evidence

Historical evidence? There's 3 mountains of hewn stone in Giza, along with a massive critter wearing a funny hat (and missing its nose), they're mighty impressive (I've been to see them, twice). Those were made using a substantial amount of slave labor, the most current estimate is ~5-6% of all the people in the world, at that time. In fact, the slave work gangs actually chiseled their names into many of the blocks, along with some rather clever off-color humor (at their masters' expense, no less).

A huge point (or 3 huge things with points*, to be more accurate).


*The Sphinx has no points, see above comment about its missing nose.

Can we all simply acknowledge that both Chongo and CTP are contending that the Great Pyramids were built by ancient Jewish slaves? I challenged Chongo on his assertion and CTP chose to co-sign. Now following the flow of the conversation and its context it's clear that CTP is arguing the same point even though he didn't use the term "Jew". So I just want to establish that fact before he tries to weasel his way out of it on that basis.

Ok so regarding the Great Pyramids of Giza ...

Pharaoh Khufu reigned from c. 2589–2566 BC. Construction of his pyramid took place c. 2580-2560 BC. This is the Great Pyramid of Egypt. The oldest of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

Pharaoh Khafra reigned from c. 2558–2532 BC. Construction of his pyramid took place c. 2570 BC. The Great Sphinx is commonly believed to have been built during his reign. Although, some Egyptologists believe it to be much older with Pharaoh Khufu coming upon it already buried in the sand.

Pharaoh Menkaure reigned from c. 2532–2504 BC. Construction of his pyramid took place c. 2510 BC.

And regarding the ancient Jews mentioned in the bible ....

Originally Posted by Genesis 35:10

And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.

Well according to the biblical timeline Jacob ... who is said to be the progenitor of the Jews ... was born in 2006 BC. Over 500 YEARS AFTER the last Great Pyramid was built! Think about that good people. The last of the Great Pyramids had been standing for over half a millennium before the Jewish people as we conceive of them today even existed according to their own chronology!

The Complete Biblical Timeline | BibleHub.com

OAW

[OAW]

Now I could leave it at that with my post above but since these two wanted to go there there's a larger point I'd like to make. Even it is admittedly OT. Let's continue ...

Originally Posted by Genesis 37:23-25

And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him; And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood?Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

Originally Posted by Genesis 41:39-41

And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.

Well according to the biblical timeline Joseph ... who went on to become the Vizier to the Pharaoh (i.e. prime minister) ... was sold into slavery in Egypt in 1898 BC and put in charge of all of Egypt 12 years later. Over 600 YEARS AFTER the last Great Pyramid was built!

And here's something I'd also like to point out. According to the biblical account Joseph becomes the Vizier in Egypt in 1886 BC. The Pharaoh he served is not named in the bible but given the timeframe it was likely Senusret II who reigned from 1897 BC to 1878 BC as part of the Twelfth Dynasty in the Middle Kingdom. The most stable of any period before the New Kingdom Keep this in mind good people because it'll tie in to a later point.

Originally Posted by Genesis 46:3-7

And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation: I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes. And Jacob rose up from Beersheba: and the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him: His sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt.

Well according to the biblical timeline Jacob ... Joseph's father ... brings his entire extended family to Egypt in 1875 BC. At this point we are talking 635 YEARS AFTER the last Great Pyramid was built! But wait it gets worse!!!

Originally Posted by Exodus 1:5-14

And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already. And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Ramses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

Again according to the biblical timeline the enslavement of the Jews began in 1600 BC. At this point we are talking over 900 YEARS AFTER the last Great Pyramid was built! Need I mention that nowhere in the bible does it state that these so-called Jewish slaves ever built a pyramid?

And here's something else I'd also like to point out. First the new Pharaoh is concerned about the strength and numbers of the "children of Israel" and says that he wants to "deal wisely with them" and "get them up out of the land" ... but then in the next verse the Egyptians are said to have utterly contradicted their own Pharaoh by keeping the "children of Israel" in Egypt and enslaving them instead. Does that make any kind of sense? Keep this in mind good people because it'll tie in to a later point.

Originally Posted by Exodus 5:6-14

And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying, Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves. And the tale of the bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God. Let there more work be laid upon the men, that they may labour therein; and let them not regard vain words. And the taskmasters of the people went out, and their officers, and they spake to the people, saying, Thus saith Pharaoh, I will not give you straw. Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it: yet not ought of your work shall be diminished. So the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of straw. And the taskmasters hasted them, saying, Fulfill your works, your daily tasks, as when there was straw. And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, and demanded, Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday and to day, as heretofore?

Oh and need I mention that the Great Pyramids are built out of stone and NOT bricks made of mud and straw? Have I thoroughly debunked this notion that Jewish slaves built the Great Pyramids?

The Complete Biblical Timeline | BibleHub.com

To be continued ...

OAW

[OAW]

But hold up because this is where things really start to get interesting! ...

The Great Pyramids were built in the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom. This supposed enslavement of the Jews in Egypt began in the 16th Dynasty of the Second Intermediate period. Right around the time Lower Egypt were actually ruled by the Hyksos people:

The Hyksos (/ˈhɪksɒs/ or /ˈhɪksoʊz/;[3] Egyptian heqa khaseshet, "ruler(s) of the foreign countries"; Greek Ὑκσώς, Ὑξώς) were a mixed[4] group of Asiatic people from Western Asia who took over the eastern Nile Delta, ending the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt and initiating the Second Intermediate Period.[5]

Important Canaan populations FIRST APPEARED in Egypt towards the end of the 12th Dynasty c. 1800 BC, and either around that time or c. 1720 BC, formed an independent realm in the eastern Nile Delta.[6] The Canaanite rulers of the Delta, regrouped in the 14th Dynasty, coexisted with the Egyptian 13th Dynasty, based in Itjtawy. The power of the 13th and 14th Dynasties progressively waned, perhaps due to famine and plague,[6][7] and c. 1650 BC both were invaded by the Hyksos, who formed their own dynasty, the 15th Dynasty. The collapse of the 13th Dynasty created a power vacuum in the south, which may have led to the rise of the 16th Dynasty, based in Thebes, and possibly of a local dynasty in Abydos.[6] Both were eventually conquered by the Hyksos, albeit for a short time in the case of Thebes. From then on, the 17th Dynasty took control of Thebes and reigned for some time in peaceful coexistence with the Hyksos kings, perhaps as their vassals. Eventually, Seqenenre Tao, Kamose and AHMOSE waged war against the Hyksos and expelled Khamudi, their last king, from Egypt c. 1550 BC.[6]

So Jacob ... a Canaanite brings his entire extended family to Egypt in 1875 BC according to the biblical timeline. "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them." And the Nile Delta region in Egypt was being ruled by the Hyksos people out of Canaan who "first appeared" c. 1800 BC. Coincidence?

The Egyptians supposedly enslaved the "children of Israel" in 1600 BC according to the biblical timeline. But their numbers continued to grow. "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel." And yet in c. 1650 BC there is a second conquest of the Nile Delta region by the Hyksos. Coincidence?

The origin of the term "Hyksos" derives from the Egyptian expression hekau khaswet [HkAw xAswt] ("rulers [of] foreign lands"), used in Egyptian texts such as the Turin King List to describe the rulers of neighbouring lands. This expression begins to appear as early as the late Old Kingdom in Egypt, referring to various Nubian chieftains, and in the Middle Kingdom, referring to the Semitic chieftains of Syria and Canaan.

And the term "Hyksos" derives from an Egyptian word mean "rulers of foreign/neighboring lands" and was used to refer to a Semitic people out of Canaan. Coincidence?

As to a Hyksos “conquest”, some archaeologists depict the Hyksos as “northern hordes . . . sweeping through Canaan and Egypt in swift chariots”. Yet, others refer to a ‘creeping conquest’, that is, a gradual infiltration of migrating nomads or seminomads who either slowly took over control of the country piecemeal or by a swift coup d’etat put themselves at the head of the existing government. In The World of the Past (1963, p. 444), archeologist Jacquetta Hawkes stated: “It is no longer thought that the Hyksos rulers... represent the invasion of a conquering horde of Asiatics... they were wandering groups of Semites who had long come to Egypt for trade and other peaceful purposes.” However, since then, it has been acknowledged by Egyptologists that the 14th Dynasty came for trade purposes while the 15th (the Hyksos) came in war.

So the first wave of Hyksos in Egypt migrated to and eventually took control of the Nile Delta region in northern Egypt because the kingdoms based in the south were too weak to effectively rule the entirety of Egypt. It's described as a "creeping conquest". And eventually Pharaoh grows concerned in the biblical account. "And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we". Coincidence?

In his Against Apion, the 1st-century AD historian Josephus Flavius debates the synchronism between the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and two Exodus-like events that the Egyptian historian Manetho apparently mentions. It is difficult to distinguish between what Manetho himself recounted, and how Josephus or Apion interpret him. Josephus identifies the Israelite Exodus with the first exodus mentioned by Manetho, when some 480,000 Hyksos "shepherd kings" (also referred to as just 'shepherds', as 'kings' and as 'captive shepherds' in his discussion of Manetho) left Egypt for Jerusalem.[26] The mention of "Hyksos" identifies this first exodus with the Hyksos period (16th century BC).

Josephus provides the earliest recorded instance of the much-repeated false etymology of the term Hyksos, as a Hellenised form of the Egyptian phrase Hekw Shasu meaning Shepherd Kings. Scholars have only recently shown that the term derives from heqa-khase, a phrase meaning "rulers of foreign lands".[27

The Egyptian historian Manetho recorded a mass exodus of approximately 480,000 Hyksos from Egypt to Jerusalem in the 16th century BC. Joseph Flavius the Roman Jewish historian identifies this as the historical event mentioned in the biblical account "Exodus". Which just so happens to be the same time frame as this supposed enslavement of the "children of Israel" in Egypt. Coincidence?

Ahmose I, who is regarded as the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty may have been on the Theban throne for some time before he resumed the war against the Hyksos.

The details of his military campaigns are taken from the account on the walls of the tomb of another Ahmose, a soldier from El-Kab, a town in southern Upper Egypt, whose father had served under Seqenenra Tao II, and whose family had long been nomarchs of the districts. It seems that several campaigns against the stronghold at Avaris were needed before the Hyksos were finally dislodged and driven from Lower Egypt. When this occurred is not known with certainty. Some authorities place the expulsion as early as Ahmose's fourth year, while Donald Redford, whose chronological structure has been adopted here, places it as late as the king's fifteenth year. The Ahmose who left the inscription states that he followed on foot as his King Ahmose rode to war in his chariot (the first mention of the use of the horse and chariot by the Egyptians); in the fighting around Avaris he captured prisoners and carried off several hands (as proof of slain enemies), which when reported to the royal herald resulted in his being awarded the "Gold of Valor" on three separate occasions. The actual fall of Avaris is only briefly mentioned:

"Then Avaris was despoiled. Then I carried off spoil from there: one man, three women, a total of four persons. Then his majesty gave them to me to be slaves."[50]

After the fall of Avaris, the fleeing Hyksos were pursued by the Egyptian army across northern Sinai and into southern Canaan. Here, in the Negev desert between Rafah and Gaza, the fortified town of Sharuhen was reduced after, according to the soldier from El-Kab, a long three-year siege operation. How soon after the sack of Avaris this Asiatic campaign took place is uncertain. One can reasonably conclude that the thrust into southern Canaan probably followed the Hyksos’ eviction from Avaris fairly closely, but, given a period of protracted struggle before Avaris fell and possibly more than one season of campaigning before the Hyksos were shut up in Sharuhen, the chronological sequence must remain uncertain.

The Hyksos continued to play a role in Egyptian literature as a synonym for "Asiatic" down to Hellenistic times. The term was frequently evoked against such groups as the Semites settled in Aswan or the delta, and this may have led the Egyptian priest and historian Manetho to identify the coming of the Hyksos with the sojourn in Egypt of Joseph and his brothers, and led to some authors identifying the expulsion of the Hyksos with the Exodus.

The Hyksos

So the Hyksos are defeated by a native Egyptian Pharaoh named Ahmose who ruled out of Thebes in the south from 1549–1524 BC. He rode into battle on a chariot. The first time that's ever mentioned in Egyptian history. He runs the Hyksos out of the Nile Delta region of Egypt in the north and into southern Canaan. Where they soon came into conflict with local Canaanite kings and eventually conquered that land. Pharaoh Ahmose I established the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom. And what else is said of Pharaoh Ahmose?

Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt

• Ahmose I (1550-1525 BC): Most ancient writers considered Ahmose I to be the pharaoh of the Exodus.[9]
• Thutmose II (1493 or 1492 to 1479 BC). Alfred Edersheim proposes in his "Old Testament Bible History"[10] that Thutmose II is best qualified to be the pharaoh of Exodus based on the fact that he had a brief, prosperous reign and then a sudden collapse with no son to succeed him. His widow Hatshepsut then became first Regent (for Thutmose III) then Pharaoh in her own right. Edersheim states that Thutmose II is the only Pharaoh's mummy to display cysts, possible evidence of plagues which spread through the Egyptian and Hittite Empires at that time.
• Amenhotep II (1425-1400 BC). Shea suggested that there were 2 Amenhotep II's. The first one died in the Sea of reeds, after which his brother took the same title.[11][better source needed]
• Akhenaten (1353–1349 BC). Sigmund Freud in his book Moses and Monotheism argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death.[12]

Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt

• Ramesses II (c.1279-1213 BC) Also known as Ramesses the Great, he is the most commonly imagined figure in popular culture (most widely via the 1956 film The Ten Commandments), being one of the most long standing rulers at the height of Egyptian power, but there is no documentary or archaeological evidence that he chased any slaves fleeing Egypt. Ramesses II's late 13th century BCE stela in Beth Shan mentions two conquered peoples who came to "make obeisance to him" in his city of Raameses or Pi-Ramesses but mentions neither the building of the city nor, as some have written, the Israelites or Hapiru.[13] Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BCE, during the Saite period.[14][15

Pharoahs in the Bible

The historical evidence makes a very compelling case that the "children of Israel" who were supposedly "enslaved" in Egypt were actually Hyksos foreign occupiers of the Nile Delta region of ancient Egypt. And most of them were Hyksos subjects to a Hyksos ruling class. Because while all Israelites were Hyksos not all Hyksos were Israelites.

1898 BC - Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt.

1886 BC - Joseph is said to become Vizier of Egypt.

1875 BC - Jacob is said to bring his extended family to sojourn in Egypt. The wealth and stability the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom led to great prosperity. Perhaps that's why the biblical account says .... "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them"?

1600 BC - The supposed enslavement of the "children of Israel" begins in Egypt. This is during the 16th and 17th Dynasties of the Second Intermediate Period characterized ongoing instability and Hyksos rule. The Nile Delta region of Lower Egypt ... which is where the "children of Israel" or any other migrants out of Canaan would have settled ... was under foreign occupation at this time.

1550 BC - Pharaoh Ahmose I comes to power in Thebes in Upper Egypt. He wages war against the Hyksos rulers of Lower Egypt in the Nile Delta region.

Originally Posted by Exodus 1:7-10

Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

The "children of Israel" ... a Semitic people out of Canaan ... are residing in Lower Egypt in the Nile Delta region. Which is ruled and populated by the Hyksos ... who are also a Semitic people out of Canaan. Would the Hyksos kings in Lower Egypt be concerned about the numbers of the "children of Israel" and want to get them out of the land? Or would that be Ahmose I ... a native Egyptian Pharaoh in Upper Egypt?

1535 BC - 15 years into his reign Pharaoh Ahmose I defeats the Hyksos and expels them from Lower Egypt. Restoring native Egyptian rule over both Lower and Upper Egypt.

But why would a story of Hyksos rulers being defeated and expelled from Egypt be transformed into the "delivery from bondage in Egypt" narrative as outlined in Exodus?

Originally Posted by Donald B. Redford. "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times", Princeton University Press.

Despite the lateness and unreliability of the story in Exodus, no one can deny that the tradition of Israel's coming out of Egypt was one of long standing. It is found in early poetry (e.g., Exodus 15) and is constantly alluded to by the prophets...There is only one chain of historical events that can accomodate this late tradition, that is the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt...And in fact it is in the Exodus account that we are confronted with the Canaanite version of this event...we may say that the memory of the Hyksos expulsion did indeed live on in the folklore of the Canaanite population of the southern Levant. The exact details were understandably blurred and subconsciously modified over time, for the purpose of "face-saving." It became not a conquest but a peaceful descent of a group with pastoral associations who rapidly arrived at a position of political control. Their departure came not as a result of ignominious defeat, but either voluntarily or as a flight from a feud, or yet again as salvation from bondage.

Now this viewpoint certainly has its detractors but the Hyksos Expulsion from Egypt is the closest historical event to the biblical account of the Exodus. The parallels are just striking! Now some may argue that the "children of Israel" being "enslaved in Egypt" occurred AFTER the Hyksos Expulsion during a period of rampant xenophobia in Egypt after centuries of foreign occupation. But again, there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support such a massive migration of people out of Egypt as described in the biblical account that occurred AFTER the Hyksos Expulsion. So people can either do the math or just roll with what the bible claims simply because it's in the bible.

OAW

[OAW]

Finally, regarding the notion that the Great Pyramids were built by slaves of any ethnicityeven that view is strongly contested. For your consideration ....

Egypt displayed on Monday newly discovered tombs more than 4,000 years old and said they belonged to people who worked on the Great Pyramids of Giza, putting the discovery forth as more evidence that slaves did not build the ancient monuments.

The series of modest nine-foot-deep shafts held a dozen skeletons of pyramid builders, perfectly preserved by dry desert sand along with jars that once contained beer and bread meant for the workers' afterlife.

The mud-brick tombs were uncovered last week in the backyard of the Giza pyramids, stretching beyond a burial site first discovered in the 1990s and dating to the 4th Dynasty (2575 B.C. to 2467 B.C.), when the great pyramids were built on the fringes of present-day Cairo.

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus once described the pyramid builders as slaves, creating what Egyptologists say is a myth later propagated by Hollywood films.

Graves of the pyramid builders were first discovered in the area in 1990 when a tourist on horseback stumbled over a wall that later proved to be a tomb. Egypt's archaeology chief Zahi Hawass said that discovery and the latest finds last week show that the workers were paid laborers, rather than the slaves of popular imagination.

Hawass told reporters at the site that the find, first announced on Sunday, sheds more light on the lifestyle and origins of the pyramid builders. Most importantly, he said the workers were not recruited from slaves commonly found across Egypt during pharaonic times.

Hawass said the builders came from poor Egyptian families from the north and the south, and were respected for their work -- so much so that those who died during construction were bestowed the honor of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs.

Their proximity to the pyramids and the manner of burial in preparation for the afterlife backs this theory, Hawass said.

"No way would they have been buried so honorably if they were slaves," he said.

The tombs contained no gold or valuables, which safeguarded them from tomb-raiders throughout antiquity. The skeletons were found buried in a fetal position -- the head pointing to the West and the feet to the East according to ancient Egyptian beliefs, surrounded by the jars once filled with supplies for afterlife.

The men who built the last remaining wonder of the ancient world ate meat regularly and worked in three months shifts, said Hawass. It took 10,000 workers more than 30 years to build a single pyramid, Hawass said -- a tenth of the work force of 100,000 that Herodotus wrote of after visiting Egypt around 450 B.C.

Hawass said evidence from the site indicates that the approximately 10,000 laborers working on the pyramids ate 21 cattle and 23 sheep sent to them daily from farms.

Though they were not slaves, the pyramid builders led a life of hard labor, said Adel Okasha, supervisor of the excavation. Their skeletons have signs of arthritis, and their lower vertebrae point to a life passed in difficulty, he said.

"Their bones tell us the story of how hard they worked," Okasha said.

Slaves Didn't Build Pyramids: Egypt : Discovery News

OAW

[BadKosh]

Were these worker called "Mason's" at that time? Overal interesting if long winded read! Good job OAW!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

He wasn't just a POTUS, he was a founding father

Indeed. Hence why I don't think the statue should be removed. What I do favor is that Jefferson's entire history be told and not sugarcoat over the fact that he was, in fact, a

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "at the expense of" here. Are you saying that this cultural heritage is inherently offensive and therefore the public should be spared from it? I think the point of the USA, the great melting pot, is to take incongruous cultural artifacts and use the rule of law (1st, 2nd, 4th amendments) to ensure that the government does not censor speech or pressure activists. In this case the government has grown so unruly as to become the activist itself through layers of political expediency run amok pandering to the truly ignorant - the ones that don't understand the dangers of a government that begins policing culture as opposed to policing behavior. I think you and I can agree that the government policing culture is really, really bad.

What I mean is that in Savannah the stories being told by the monuments in the public squares are not just those of the Confederates. The stories of those who suffered slavery and actively resisted it are honored with monuments in the public squares as well. Are these other stories showcased to the same degree as the Confederates? Nope. Not even close. But at least it's something. And that demonstrates a modicum of respect for the African-American community in Savannah. Which is a lot more than most other places in the South that publicly display Confederate monuments do.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Can we all simply acknowledge that both Chongo and CTP are contending that the Great Pyramids were built by ancient Jewish slaves?

That's a leap, and (at least on my part) wrong. Egyptians made slaves of anyone they conquered. All the rest of that is predicated on the wrong, so whatever. The egyptians were the OG slavers, having pyramids in the USA is "offensive".

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Finally, regarding the notion that the Great Pyramids were built by slaves of any ethnicityeven that view is strongly contested. For your consideration ....

Slaves Didn't Build Pyramids: Egypt : Discovery News

OAW

Worst investigation ever, period. Slaves in Egypt were often treated quite respectfully, even admired and rewarded (same with the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman empires), it was a tradition of respecting ideas, regardless of their source, it was a way that even slaves could achieve positions of power and trust. Slavery in the West, such as in Europe and the Americas, was a far different practice altogether. I guess that's what you get when your source is Discovery "News".

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Worst investigation ever, period. Slaves in Egypt were often treated quite respectfully, even admired and rewarded (same with the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman empires), it was a tradition of respecting ideas, regardless of their source, it was a way that even slaves could achieve positions of power and trust. Slavery in the West, such as in Europe and the Americas, was a far different practice altogether. I guess that's what you get when your source is Discovery "News".

I think that's partially where the theory comes from.

When it came to hard labor, the Pharoh had an entire kingdom of agricultural serfs to draw upon who already owed him taxes. In addition, these serfs were not occupied outside the growing season. Win-win.

On the other hand, slaves were too valuable for this, and filled the positions the Pharoh couldn't fill with just any old shit-kicker. From what I understand, hard labor was punishment for an ancient Egyptian slave.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's a leap, and (at least on my part) wrong.

And I'll accept your concession in the spirit that it was offered.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And I'll accept your concession in the spirit that it was offered.

I don't expect any more from you.

(As if you can't tell that was a typo, but suit yourself.)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

From what I understand, hard labor was punishment for an ancient Egyptian slave.

In part, but there was a complex caste system as well, with some slaves even owning slaves themselves. What we do know of Jewish slaves in Egypt is that they were typically high up the totem poll, even holding positions within gov't (according to Flavius Josephus), while it's possible some of them worked as stone masons and builders, many were likely in governance and commerce. Larger Germanic and African slaves were probably the bulk of the pyramid workforce.

[subego]

My understanding is personal ownership of slaves post-dates the pyramids.

In pyramid times, the king owned all slaves.

[andi*pandi]

If this jewish year is 5775, then that would put the beginning of jewish datekeeping at 3760 BC or so? Or did somewhere the calendar lose some years?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If this jewish year is 5775, then that would put the beginning of jewish datekeeping at 3760 BC or so?

My understanding is the calendar was developed later, but if you counted back from when the calendar was created, using the list of people's ages from the Torah, you get the creation of the universe at about 3760ish.

[subego]

Yo dawg, I hear you like understanding with your understanding...

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is personal ownership of slaves post-dates the pyramids.

In pyramid times, the king owned all slaves.

Good point. Ultimately, yes, because the King owned practically everything in the empire, but he couldn't control every slave individually and they were often exchanged and traded within the kingdom. For example, Herodotus claimed that during that era two strong, able slaves could get you a really nice hunting cat.

[subego]

Where is that? In chapter two?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

**** if I know, I read that back in college during an ancient histories course. It's something that just stood out to me.

[subego]

Whoops! I meant book two.

That's the one on Egypt, and it's not in there, so it must be from a different account.

I'd be surprised if we had a detail like that surviving from the third millennium BC. That feels more 1st millennium.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I've had one for quite a while and it's pretty neat, but the largest thing he's ever caught was a squirrel that was too fat to climb a tree. Who knew that those little suckers (squirrels) could scream so loud? Surprised me.

[subego]

My cats max out on cockroaches, so about half a squirrel.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

That's a big cockroach.

Servals are interesting, much more like owning a dog than a cat (essentially a dog that keeps itself clean and will use a litterbox).

[BadKosh]

I'd rather have a Weasel or a stoat.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

They're adorable, until they eat your cables.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. Hence why I don't think the statue should be removed. What I do favor is that Jefferson's entire history be told and not sugarcoat over the fact that he was, in fact, a

Agreed. So why isn't the effort being put into that?

What I mean is that in Savannah the stories being told by the monuments in the public squares are not just those of the Confederates. The stories of those who suffered slavery and actively resisted it are honored with monuments in the public squares as well. Are these other stories showcased to the same degree as the Confederates? Nope. Not even close. But at least it's something. And that demonstrates a modicum of respect for the African-American community in Savannah. Which is a lot more than most other places in the South that publicly display Confederate monuments do.

So instead of putting effort into raising more information about those whom you speak of, it's easier just to censor out the other guy, right? What kind of message does that send to those you're trying to educate?

There is absolutely nothing preventing you, or anyone, from dedicating more statues and memorials to "those who suffered slavery and actively resisted it". It's just much easier, more politically expedient, to tear down the statues and memorials you find distasteful? Sort of like what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Agreed. So why isn't the effort being put into that?

I can't really speak to that. It could very well be and simply falling on deaf ears.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So instead of putting effort into raising more information about those whom you speak of, it's easier just to censor out the other guy, right? What kind of message does that send to those you're trying to educate?

There is absolutely nothing preventing you, or anyone, from dedicating more statues and memorials to "those who suffered slavery and actively resisted it". It's just much easier, more politically expedient, to tear down the statues and memorials you find distasteful? Sort of like what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq?

I don't think it's quite so simple when dealing with public grounds. And therein lies the rub when dealing with such issues in the south. When a majority white state or local government insists upon displaying Confederate flags and/or statues honoring men who fought to preserve slavery andin some cases even founded the KKK (ie. Nathan Bedford Forrest) on public grounds and gives a bare minimum effort at respecting the sensitivities of the minority black population if at all ... you end up with a situation where Savannah is the exception and not the rule. So imagine how this comes across when it's way beyond an individual asshole but is instead your local/state government that you have to pay taxes to?

A Florida woman faces up to five years in a federal prison after pleading guilty to making false statements about a Confederate flag-related confrontation with a co-worker.

In the week following the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting, which left nine African-Americans dead on June 17, Susan R. Thompson, 58, printed an image of a Confederate flag at home and brought it to work. An employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville, Thompson placed the image on the desk of a black co-worker. According to the Department of Justice, she and the unidentified co-worker had a “contentious working relationship and a history of loud workplace confrontations.”

After finding the Confederate flag, the black female co-worker notified inspectors from the Federal Protective Service. Investigators worked to determine if the image was intended as a threat, if any laws had been violated and if there was a security breach at the corps that led to the incident.

During two interviews with the service, Thompson lied to officers about placing the flag on her co-worker’s desk. “Thompson eventually admitted that she had been angry with her co-worker and that she had placed the image of the Confederate flag on the desk, but denied that her actions were racially motivated,” the Justice Department said in a statement.

After making the admission, Thompson resigned. The court has yet to set a date for her sentencing.

Florida Woman Faces Up To Five Years In Jail After Placing Confederate Flag On Black Co-Worker’s Desk | Newsweek

It's amazing how someone who gets busted doing a blatantly racist act like this can still be in such abject denial about it being "racially motivated".

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I can't really speak to that. It could very well be and simply falling on deaf ears.

Well No, it's not falling on deaf ears because they're in full-swing censorship mode, and getting it done at great expense to the taxpayer.

I don't think it's quite so simple when dealing with public grounds. And therein lies the rub when dealing with such issues in the south. When a majority white state or local government insists upon displaying Confederate flags and/or statues honoring men who fought to preserve slavery andin some cases even founded the KKK (ie. Nathan Bedford Forrest) on public grounds and gives a bare minimum effort at respecting the sensitivities of the minority black population if at all ... you end up with a situation where Savannah is the exception and not the rule. So imagine how this comes across when it's way beyond an individual asshole but is instead your local/state government that you have to pay taxes to?

So the solution is simply to censor out potentially offensive history? And we've come full circle. Ban it! Censor them! Burn the books! Social Justice!

What's funny is the amount of money it's costing to remove the history - money that could have been used promoting other history or providing resources at those very sites as to the history they are memorializing and why it's important today. Instead, we get a government that's erasing the history of the place they're in control of because they don't like that history - Just like ISIS is doing in the middle east.

Censorship is never the answer.

Florida Woman Faces Up To Five Years In Jail After Placing Confederate Flag On Black Co-Worker’s Desk | Newsweek

It's amazing how someone who gets busted doing a blatantly racist act like this can still be in such abject denial about it being "racially motivated".

OAW

Some people are racist isn't a reason to censor history, nor is it particularly relevant to our discussion. It sounds to me like that person had a beef with the victim in the story, and went below the belt. It's not like that person woke up that morning and said "I'm going to hate on random black people today because they're black".

[OAW]

^^^

Really? Clearly they had a personal beef. The point is when she chose to go "below the belt" what MECHANISM did she choose? The CONFEDERATE FLAG! Do you really think she would have done that if the person she had beef with was white? I think not.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^

Really? Clearly they had a personal beef. The point is when she chose to go "below the belt" what MECHANISM did she choose? The CONFEDERATE FLAG! Do you really think she would have done that if the person she had beef with was white? I think not.

OAW

Yeah, I don't disagree with you on that person being racist, but I'm still struggling to see your point. How does that reconcile with my point about censoring history because you don't like it or am I just supposed to have an emotional response to the article you posted and forget about the government censorship of American history?

[OAW]

^^^^

My point is that the areas in the South that continue to display Confederate imagery do so to A) flip the bird to the federal government that defeated their ancestors in battle, B) remind its black citizens that white supremacy is still the order of the day, and ) honor the soldiers who fought and died to preserve the economic system of slavery because even though most didn't own slaves themselves their livelihoods depended upon it. This being "history" doesn't change these facts.

Ask yourself this question. Why is it that Nathan Bedford Forrest ... the Condederate general who founded the KKK ... has monuments honoring him throughout the South. State parks named after him. Counties and high schools named after him. Etc. But to this day Nat Turner ... who led the largest slave rebellion in the US ... has no monument erected in his honor anywhere in the United States? Why is it that Denmark Vesey ... who plotted a slave rebellion that never came to fruition because someone snitched to the slavemasters .... got a monument in his honor just last year in Charleston, SC? Think about that and then ask yourself ... Is it really about "history" or "HIS-story"?

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i

So the solution is simply to censor out potentially offensive history? And we've come full circle. Ban it! Censor them! Burn the books!

Processing and re-evaluating your past as a nation, your history, is not the same as censoring it. Unfortunately there are very, very few nations that have managed to do so. Have a listen to the Hardcore History podcast episodes dedicated to Alexander the Great or Ginghes Khan, and the host Dan Carlin proposes to view the creation of their vast empires by subjugating other peoples not necessarily as achievements period, but as achievements that cost a lot of blood (and loads of it on the side of innocent people). His point is not to paint a dark picture of these men, but to not forget that all the different shades that complete the picture. What we remember now are all these great battles and celebrating Alexander's brilliant strategies to subdue people with whom he had no prior conflict. He just claimed their territory even though neither him nor his ancestors had any ties to it.

Few peoples reflect their own history because they are afraid of besmirching their heritage, and the closer you are connected to it, the harder it is because you are less removed. Coming to grips with your countries past is a great chance in my view: by painting the complete picture of people who some consider heroes and others villains, you make your ancestors human again since most them are a bit of both.

The insistence of some in the South that to them the Confederate (Battle) flag stands for heroism, chivalry and liberty may be completely true, but it means that these people are unable (or unwilling) to consider the other point of view. This is doubly true for a civil war. The insistence that “the others don't know the flag's history” further cements this. It also assumes that an event or a symbol has the same meaning for all involved: someone whose family has helped slaves escape to the North probably has a different opinion of the flag than a far-flung relative of some famous general who defied the odds in some battle.

It takes greatness to admit that you or your relatives fought (and in many cases died) for the wrong thing, and to accept that this is part of your (personal and country's) history. But it also gives you a chance to put what they did in perspective: you get a better picture of what times were like, and I think it is a valuable lesson that you augment the words heroism with slavery, the word liberty with secession and treason. Perhaps your great-great-great-grandfathers stance that slavery should be abolished but that surely you should have segregation was actually progressive for the time, a step forward. Or perhaps it was his son who broke with his father over this issue. Conversely, it helps someone with a Northerner's perspective to understand the other issues better.

Personally, I think one of the greatest post-WW2 achievements to heal the relationship between Germany and France was to start a project whose goal was to come up with a common history. That took decades for obvious reasons. (After 1990, a similar project was started with Poland.) They put this shared history on a common foundation of facts that reflect the scientific state of the art. While in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whether Germany massacred 550 inhabitants of a village or 800, but in attempting to be precise avoids either side to play it safe (either by using the lower or the upper estimates). That's very different from, say, the Massacre of Nanking: the difference in the estimates of the number of casualties are orders of magnitude, and I put as little stock in the Chinese figures than in those of the Japanese. Own your country's history — including its dark side. Invariably, that makes your nation stronger, wiser and more ethical. It helps you identify recurring themes and the mistakes that occur.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Yeah, I don't disagree with you on that person being racist, but I'm still struggling to see your point. How does that reconcile with my point about censoring history because you don't like it or am I just supposed to have an emotional response to the article you posted and forget about the government censorship of American history?

It isn't censorship if the majority of the society sees certain words or symbols as inappropriate. “Negro” was widely used even by politicians who wanted to end segregation, because it was thought of as a normal work such as toe nail or window sill. And it seems to me that with regards to several topics the US population is at a tipping point: homosexuality is seen as normal by more and more people, and the way the Confederate flag is seen has also changed. People start to listen up when they hear someone talking disparagingly about gays. But that's not censorship. When the first association of more and more people of someone driving a truck with a Confederate flag is “racist a$$hole” rather than “stand-up guy proud of his heritage”, this is not censorship. Clearly in this example, both the “gift giver” and the recipient agreed on the implied racism. We don't have to discuss that perhaps the Florida woman meant to laude her colleague's chivalry. That should be a clear sign.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

someone whose family has helped slaves escape to the North probably has a different opinion of the flag

Not bloody likely, very few slaves would have ever seen that flag. Slavery was dead long before the rebel flag became popular, and it became popular as a protest against federal tyranny.

I know it's the trendy thing to scream "racism!", it makes people jump and causes all kinds of hand-wringing, but it's past time for sane people to stop giving a damn and capitulating to idiots who choose to take offense at everything.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^

My point is that the areas in the South that continue to display Confederate imagery do so to A) flip the bird to the federal government that defeated their ancestors in battle, B) remind its black citizens that white supremacy is still the order of the day, and ) honor the soldiers who fought and died to preserve the economic system of slavery because even though most didn't own slaves themselves their livelihoods depended upon it. This being "history" doesn't change these facts.

This is an awful lot of supposition on your part, OAW. I don't buy that your A or B reasons have any traction, and that your C makes up an ever decreasing portion of those who display or celebrate Confederate heritage.

Of course you're not changing the facts here, that's what NO is trying to do. Why would you want to do it when you can get the government to do it for you?

Ask yourself this question. Why is it that Nathan Bedford Forrest ... the Condederate general who founded the KKK ... has monuments honoring him throughout the South. State parks named after him. Counties and high schools named after him. Etc.

Because of his significant impact on the history of the country?

But to this day Nat Turner ... who led the largest slave rebellion in the US ... has no monument erected in his honor anywhere in the United States? Why is it that Denmark Vesey ... who plotted a slave rebellion that never came to fruition because someone snitched to the slavemasters .... got a monument in his honor just last year in Charleston, SC? Think about that and then ask yourself ... Is it really about "history" or "HIS-story"?

Sounds like all that money they spent to remove the statues could have been put to better use - i.e. erecting monuments and donating to museums that would honor and educate on this very important part of American history. If your point is "there are no memorials or historical sites honoring these people" why is your argument to tear down other pieces of history while doing nothing to promote the history you're claiming is so vital to our heritage? Seems to me that you'd rather be outraged and exact your social justice vs making a real difference by promoting the pieces of history you're saying are getting left out.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Processing and re-evaluating your past as a nation, your history, is not the same as censoring it.

Please explain the effective difference in this context.

Unfortunately there are very, very few nations that have managed to do so. Have a listen to the Hardcore History podcast episodes dedicated to Alexander the Great or Ginghes Khan, and the host Dan Carlin proposes to view the creation of their vast empires by subjugating other peoples not necessarily as achievements period, but as achievements that cost a lot of blood (and loads of it on the side of innocent people). His point is not to paint a dark picture of these men, but to not forget that all the different shades that complete the picture. What we remember now are all these great battles and celebrating Alexander's brilliant strategies to subdue people with whom he had no prior conflict. He just claimed their territory even though neither him nor his ancestors had any ties to it.

So by removing references to Confederate historical figures, we're honoring our ability to overcome such subjugation how exactly? Because it satisfies our social outrage?

Few peoples reflect their own history because they are afraid of besmirching their heritage, and the closer you are connected to it, the harder it is because you are less removed. Coming to grips with your countries past is a great chance in my view: by painting the complete picture of people who some consider heroes and others villains, you make your ancestors human again since most them are a bit of both.

Exactly, I agree. How could we possibly honor how far we've come as a society if we stop teaching new generations about our past, both the good and the bad? I'm not sure how (or even if this statement is supposed to) reconciles as anything but support of my position.

The insistence of some in the South that to them the Confederate (Battle) flag stands for heroism, chivalry and liberty may be completely true, but it means that these people are unable (or unwilling) to consider the other point of view.

Or perhaps the other points of view are unwilling to consider theirs? I don't see the battle flag supporters trying to tear down monuments and memorials, so I'm having a hard time seeing how these guys are the ones not considering others' points of view.

This is doubly true for a civil war. The insistence that “the others don't know the flag's history” further cements this. It also assumes that an event or a symbol has the same meaning for all involved: someone whose family has helped slaves escape to the North probably has a different opinion of the flag than a far-flung relative of some famous general who defied the odds in some battle.

Exactly why they should stand - as awareness. Our young should be taught the history in schools, be able to visit the sites, learn about the history from all points of view, then do their own critical thinking. Removing the history from public access only hurts this paradigm. If you feel, as OAW does, that one side is overrepresented you have my full support in memorializing those southern heroes that were anti-confederate.

It takes greatness to admit that you or your relatives fought (and in many cases died) for the wrong thing, and to accept that this is part of your (personal and country's) history. But it also gives you a chance to put what they did in perspective: you get a better picture of what times were like, and I think it is a valuable lesson that you augment the words heroism with slavery, the word liberty with secession and treason.

I think the point here is that NO, and other places, and trying to remove this as part of our (personal and national) history. That's where my problem is. That being said, I can't agree more with this statement.

Perhaps your great-great-great-grandfathers stance that slavery should be abolished but that surely you should have segregation was actually progressive for the time, a step forward. Or perhaps it was his son who broke with his father over this issue. Conversely, it helps someone with a Northerner's perspective to understand the other issues better.

Yeah, and there were plenty (i mean ALOT) of Northerner's who were racist and did what ever they could to undermine anti-slavery efforts.

Personally, I think one of the greatest post-WW2 achievements to heal the relationship between Germany and France was to start a project whose goal was to come up with a common history. That took decades for obvious reasons. (After 1990, a similar project was started with Poland.) They put this shared history on a common foundation of facts that reflect the scientific state of the art. While in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whether Germany massacred 550 inhabitants of a village or 800, but in attempting to be precise avoids either side to play it safe (either by using the lower or the upper estimates). That's very different from, say, the Massacre of Nanking: the difference in the estimates of the number of casualties are orders of magnitude, and I put as little stock in the Chinese figures than in those of the Japanese. Own your country's history — including its dark side. Invariably, that makes your nation stronger, wiser and more ethical. It helps you identify recurring themes and the mistakes that occur.

Agreed.

It isn't censorship if the majority of the society sees certain words or symbols as inappropriate.

Uh what? It's still censorship, endorsed by a majority or not has no impact on this. Removing things because they're "inappropriate" is the exact definition of censorship. Whether or not you're comfortable with it once you've come to terms with what it is, well that's a different question altogether.

“Negro” was widely used even by politicians who wanted to end segregation, because it was thought of as a normal work such as toe nail or window sill. And it seems to me that with regards to several topics the US population is at a tipping point: homosexuality is seen as normal by more and more people, and the way the Confederate flag is seen has also changed. People start to listen up when they hear someone talking disparagingly about gays.

But that's not censorship.

You'll have to explain to me how, because the literal definition of censorship is (from wikipedia):

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]"

When the first association of more and more people of someone driving a truck with a Confederate flag is “racist a$$hole” rather than “stand-up guy proud of his heritage”, this is not censorship.

Societal and Social norms regarding an individual's choice to display certain heritage or not hardly equates to a government tearing down historical memorials and statues. The former is rooted in society's interactions among itself allowing each individual the choice of what imagery or heritage to display, the latter is rooted in deliberate choice to educate and/or honor what was once an extremely important part of our society.

Clearly in this example, both the “gift giver” and the recipient agreed on the implied racism. We don't have to discuss that perhaps the Florida woman meant to laude her colleague's chivalry. That should be a clear sign.

I think this example is a terrible one to illustrate the point. A personal beef between two people who work with each other (and have a history of heated conflict) is a far cry from two otherwise unacquainted people passing on the street, and has naught to do with our discussion about southern heritage and it's cultural impacts today.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Sounds like all that money they spent to remove the statues could have been put to better use - i.e. erecting monuments and donating to museums that would honor and educate on this very important part of American history. If your point is "there are no memorials or historical sites honoring these people" why is your argument to tear down other pieces of history while doing nothing to promote the history you're claiming is so vital to our heritage? Seems to me that you'd rather be outraged and exact your social justice vs making a real difference by promoting the pieces of history you're saying are getting left out.

I think you are still missing the point. You keep talking about "museums" but what's at issue here are public grounds. And that isn't a matter of mere funding. It's a matter of legislation at the state/local level. So my point was that the same local/state governments that are erecting monuments to Nathan Bedford Forrest on public grounds have never and likely will never do so for Nat Turner. Forrest fought to preserve slavery and founded a terrorist organization that intimated and murdered black people indiscriminately for decades. Turner led the largest slave rebellion in the US that resulted in the deaths of 60 whites and over 200 black people and was hanged and skinned afterwards. BOTH are notable historical figures. The only difference is that those who wish to honor Forrest and who have a visceral aversion to Turner have a voting majority in these areas. Whereas those who wish to honor Turner and who have a visceral aversion to Forrest do not.

You see if black people established a voting majority in some of these locales in the south and decided to erect a monument to Nat Turner on public grounds ... I can understand the white citizens there taking offense at their tax money being used in such a manner considering the historical record that he and others killed several white families (men, women, and children) in their sleep during the slave rebellion. The question is can you understand why black citizens take offense at their tax money being used in such a manner considering Forrest's historical record as well?

And what I'm trying to express to you here is that if public grounds aren't going to be used to honor and showcase both sides on such a volatile issue like this ... as is "somewhat" the case in Savannah but not so much in other locations ... then it's best not to use public grounds for either side. Sort of like religious symbols on government property. If one thinks it's cool to have the 10 Commandments on a monument in a courthouse but would have a problem with the Islamic Declaration of Faith in the same location ... then it's best not to have any religious texts reflected there. Otherwise, the state can be legitimately be seen to be endorsing one religion over another.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Please explain the effective difference in this context.

Censorship means not allowing individuals to vocalize certain opinions. This is not what happens here. Part and parcel of free speech is that you are not just free to espouse your opinions, but that you have to live the reaction of others to yours.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So by removing references to Confederate historical figures, we're honoring our ability to overcome such subjugation how exactly? Because it satisfies our social outrage?

In the present context to me that means removing memorials honoring historical figures on public grounds. You can and should still teach all of the history in class and in, say, museums you explain both sides. (E. g. at my alma mater they honored alumni Wilhelm Messerschmitt, but they also included his involvement with the Third Reich and that he used forced labor in his factories later on.) Germany has quite a few museums on what has happened during the Third Reich (e. g. a very good one in Nuremberg). These things were thought to come of the same place as what some people disparagingly refer to SJW these days, but some of these attitudes have since become common sense.

When I visited South Korea 12 years ago, I went to a museum of prison used by the Japanese during the occupation. I still remember one inscription that went something like “… the walls of these cells are still permeated with the screams of Koreans.” I can just imagine what it says in Korean. Instead of being factual, you appeal to emotion — exactly the wrong instinct to have.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Or perhaps the other points of view are unwilling to consider theirs? I don't see the battle flag supporters trying to tear down monuments and memorials, so I'm having a hard time seeing how these guys are the ones not considering others' points of view.

I think that's the exact wrong argument to make as it assumes the other side doesn't know or doesn't understand. Many do and are just of a different opinion, and it has become so engrained in society that they are no longer willing to accept it in public spaces.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Exactly why they should stand - as awareness. Our young should be taught the history in schools, be able to visit the sites, learn about the history from all points of view, then do their own critical thinking. Removing the history from public access only hurts this paradigm.

You are mingling several aspects: one is public access (e. g. in museums), the other is displaying them as heroes in public (e. g. in the form of statues or having parks named after them). Objecting to the latter has no bearing on the former (provided that the museum does a good job which reflects the whole story). Critically revisiting history exactly means you re-evaluate the life of people who your ancestors thought were heroes. It also means that the wound of the Civil War still hasn't healed properly. To give you another reference to European history: German troops parade alongside French troops in the Bastille Day Parade since 1994, and among other things the French celebrate their victory over Nazi Germany. I see the strange reverence of the Confederate Flag and the things associated with it as part of the reason the self-inflicted wound of the Civil War hasn't quite healed after all this time.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think the point here is that NO, ...

I don't quite understand what the “No” refers to.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

... and other places, and trying to remove this as part of our (personal and national) history. That's where my problem is. That being said, I can't agree more with this statement.

That's a byproduct of the shift of the consensus: what you perceive as a removal other see as part of the change of opinion that came from a re-evaluation. Certain things that used to be normal or universally accepted now no longer are.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Societal and Social norms regarding an individual's choice to display certain heritage or not hardly equates to a government tearing down historical memorials and statues.

Again, the difference is that between individuals espousing certain opinions and opinions or actions endorsed by the state. The former is protected and people are not (and should not be) legally penalized for having these opinions. The latter is where democratically elected governments come to the conclusion to change policy.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think this example is a terrible one to illustrate the point. A personal beef between two people who work with each other (and have a history of heated conflict) is a far cry from two otherwise unacquainted people passing on the street, and has naught to do with our discussion about southern heritage and it's cultural impacts today.

But I think it is important: The point of the example is that both parties agreed on a certain part of the implied meaning of the Confederate Flag, and it stands to reason that the “gift giver” is proud of this heritage. Like it or not, but if you revere the Confederate Flag you are in the company with the likes as her. And as time progresses, proportionally speaking, there will be more and more of her, and less and less average people.

[OAW]

@OreoCookie ...

When Snow-I said "NO" above he was referring to New Orleans which is where the city council voted to remove the Confederate monuments from public grounds into museums.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@OreoCookie ...

When Snow-I said "NO" above he was referring to New Orleans which is where the city council voted to remove the Confederate monuments from public grounds into museums.

OAW

That reference flew right past me. Sorry, Snow-i.

[The Final Dakar]

Any statues of Bill Cosby we can take down while we're at it?