Archeology is an even better illustration of the superiority of Europeans over all other peoples. in studying and understanding the past.
The miniscule and pitiful contributions of non-Europeans to archeology almost without exemption involve parochial excavations of their own cultural sites in an attempt at agrandizing their own cultures
British historian Alistair Horne on the inequality of source material on the Algerian war:
“A senior Algerian diplomat, who had played an important part in the Revolution, while expressing personal enthusiasm for my project, warned that I might be discouraged by a shortage of written source material…”
Furthermore,
“There is not the smallest plaque or commemoration to indicate where such heroes of the Revolution as Ali la Pointe fought and died…”
He believes this is the case because the “Arab tradition holds a concept of History that is rather different from the European. It rates altogether lower priority, insofar as the essential fatalism of religious teaching suggests that man is strictly limited in the capacity to shape his destiny. Thus the tendency to write off the past, relegating its events- whether they occurred yesterday or in AD 600- to the same vast limbo.”
You are wrong about china , study more . Just two example , there is a serious debate around 1th AD that the confucian standard text is not correct and infused by Confucius's interpretation . The second one is the chinese are the father of archeology , they conducted research in order to find out about date and time of the object they had found. Moreover, they compared textual history that they have with what they can interpret from these objects
ibn khaldun was a european, he was of iberian ancestry and came from a family of andalusian emigrants - the same andalusians who raised that hellhole that is north africa to sapience
The Shiji comment was one of the stupidest things I've ever read. "Europeans were the only ones to develop the critical study of history as an independent field of knowledge? Well how come other places had records of history?" not to mention them calling you a "wignat" (Wiggers are famously known for their interest in the field of critical history.)
I will say this. The archaeological argument for the pyramids being used as a quarry is not really a good one. The same thing happened with all ancient cities, in Europe included. Rome was never smashed as much as it was reused. Spolia was done in Europe as much as anywhere else.
Archeology is an even better illustration of the superiority of Europeans over all other peoples. in studying and understanding the past.
The miniscule and pitiful contributions of non-Europeans to archeology almost without exemption involve parochial excavations of their own cultural sites in an attempt at agrandizing their own cultures
Now we have allowed nonwhites to run the archaeology in White societies, because Whites are apparently cuck morons.
British historian Alistair Horne on the inequality of source material on the Algerian war:
“A senior Algerian diplomat, who had played an important part in the Revolution, while expressing personal enthusiasm for my project, warned that I might be discouraged by a shortage of written source material…”
Furthermore,
“There is not the smallest plaque or commemoration to indicate where such heroes of the Revolution as Ali la Pointe fought and died…”
He believes this is the case because the “Arab tradition holds a concept of History that is rather different from the European. It rates altogether lower priority, insofar as the essential fatalism of religious teaching suggests that man is strictly limited in the capacity to shape his destiny. Thus the tendency to write off the past, relegating its events- whether they occurred yesterday or in AD 600- to the same vast limbo.”
The Jew is the white man's Achilles heel.
Finally someone with some sense!
You are wrong about china , study more . Just two example , there is a serious debate around 1th AD that the confucian standard text is not correct and infused by Confucius's interpretation . The second one is the chinese are the father of archeology , they conducted research in order to find out about date and time of the object they had found. Moreover, they compared textual history that they have with what they can interpret from these objects
For the first one, because the they had found an old text about rites that does not match with what Confucius said
ibn khaldun was a european, he was of iberian ancestry and came from a family of andalusian emigrants - the same andalusians who raised that hellhole that is north africa to sapience
The Shiji comment was one of the stupidest things I've ever read. "Europeans were the only ones to develop the critical study of history as an independent field of knowledge? Well how come other places had records of history?" not to mention them calling you a "wignat" (Wiggers are famously known for their interest in the field of critical history.)
I will say this. The archaeological argument for the pyramids being used as a quarry is not really a good one. The same thing happened with all ancient cities, in Europe included. Rome was never smashed as much as it was reused. Spolia was done in Europe as much as anywhere else.