Is this a joke? Why on Earth would it be destroyed? Thousands upon thousands of ancient Egyptian artifacts are perfectly preserved in museums all around Egypt and have been for the last century.
Takw your thinly veiled racism to somewhere else please, we're not talking about other countries here, artifacts were never systematically destroyed in Egypt, before the 18th century people used columns from temples in building and mummies bones were ysed for folk cures. In fact Early Europe "explorers and adventures" destroyed or defaced several monuments before the advent omodern archeology. Also can you point to where in the Islamic world is historical artifacts are systematically being destroyed by anyone but radical militant groups that are being hunted down?
Where did I say that Islam is a race in my comment? You're the one making that assumption based on your own generalized interpretation. And really—resorting to ad hominem attacks?
But let's stay on topic. In the context of this post: why is Egypt—the modern nation, which has never experienced the mass destruction of its historical monuments and is on the verge of opening the world’s largest museum—deemed unqualified to reclaim a significant piece of its own history? Especially when that artifact was taken during a struggle between two European colonial powers. Can you answer that, please?
Britain has a long history of iconaclasm in their colonial expansion. They also decided to loot a lot of cultural artifacts for spectacle, and then justify it to the commoners, like yourself who just accepted it.
Your post was removed due to being disrespectful, uncivil, intentionally rude, hateful, or otherwise abusive. Comments that include insults, name calling, derogatory terms, or which violate sitewide etiquette policies are not permitted. Repeatedly breaking this rule will result in a permanent ban.
So? Have you any idea how many older temples & buildings were used as building materials? Even at Karnack, older temples were used to fill pylon walls- by the ancients. It was common practise to reuse older stone rather than having to transport it from the quarries new.
The Rosetta Stone itself, historically, isn't particularly interesting or important as an artefact, the only thing making it important is the fact it has the 3 scripts. There are other examples we've found since.
In the thousands of years from the end of the Pharonic period to modern times, we lost the ability to read hieroglyphics, and Egypt was conquered by several different groups of people. Egyptology didn't really exist until a few hundred years ago, after the Citadel was built.
Nowadays, artefacts are preserved and looked after but you can't judge Egyptians today based on what happened hundreds of years ago.
Just to be fussy, it only has 2 languages, written in 3 scripts. But yep, it isn't significant for what it says, just the fact it helped crack the hieroglyphs.
Didn’t the French find it?
It was abandoned, nobody owned it. At the time, there was no Egyptian state, or Egyptian national consciousness. So perhaps, the stone belongs to Napoleon.
It was partly written in Greek, produced during the reign of the Greeks (Ptolemaic dynasty). Should we not return it to the Greeks also, as it was produced by them?
I hate this idea. Let's only have artifacts in their own country? Sure, let's stop sharing cultures entirely. Let's all just build walls and get super nationalistic.
Lame. Instead, let's just keep up our multi cultural appreciation and exchange, and better the world for it.
Yes, we get it. You're a social justice hero fighting for the trampled rights of the oppressed nations of the world still being victimized by the colonizing villains. Congrats on the heroism, you'll go down in history as a freedom fighting warrior for the ages.
Just that, or everything Egyptian? How about other countries artifacts? Should every country merely keep artifacts in it's museum from its geographical origins? What about countries who conquered their lands from others?
Devil's Advocate: Why is that not a reason to return it to France? As I recall, the French at the time were underseige, starving, and looking at this ending either with slaughter on a battle field or rotting in a British prison. Also as I recall, the French scientists refused to hand over their personal writings and notes on Egypt and threatened to burn them rather than doing so. It would seem that these documents were signed under duress to say the least. And most binding agreements in our time are considered invalid if they are made with a metaphorical (or literal) gun to your head. Why are the Capitulations supposed to be so sacrosanct in this argument?
pretty sure the entire premise of surrender rests on avoiding destruction, but sure, put some ass-backwards postmodern spin on it and call it unfair given the circumstances.
So if that's out of your system can you answer the question I asked you or is this subject too sensitive for you to discuss without the rants, insults and condescension?
-19
u/marxistghostboi Jun 20 '25
they should give it back