Re: [OT] Did you know that blacks built Stonehenge?

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 26, 2025 at 8:40:58 AM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

5/25/2025 9:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 3:29:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

5/25/2025 5:44 PM, Rhino wrote:

2025-05-25 5:32 PM, moviePig wrote:

5/25/2025 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:56:44 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>:

As usual, the flaw in the ointment is that there's no absolute
arbiter of Truth.

There is with regard to the claim 'black people built Stonehenge',
FFS.

If 'history books' were acknowledged to comprise merely a
*predominant* view of past events, then they could rationally reject
any absurdities. But real-world claims of 'unassailable truth' are
never sustainable. E.g,, I'm guessing the blackHenge crowd have
documents, too...

Do you know when Stonehenge was built? Do you have any idea how many
people in that time and place were literate enough to create documents?
Did they even have a written language that long ago? And that's assuming
they had paper and ink to make records in the first place. Or are you of
the mind that they chiseled these records into clay tablets? If so, do
you have any reason to believe they knew how to do that?

Are you COMPLETELY clueless? Don't you understand that this claim of
black builders of Stonehenge is just a game of cultural appropriation by
"activists"? They want to feel like blacks were significant going back
to the earliest days of the country so they're simply claiming to have
been a major part of things all the way along.

I'm not disputing longstanding accounts of Stonehenge ...especially
since the recent challenges do have a rather blatant p.c. aspect.  I'm
suggesting we should question our blithe acceptance of "history".  Did
you know that Texas classrooms are to display the Ten Commandments,
justified because they're an historical part of our democracy?

On the other hand, if you're one of the 'progressive' Marxists who run
California schools, you're allowed to force the kids to participate in any
religious ceremony or prayer you like, just so long as it's not Christian.

Several years ago, the San Francisco schools were caught bringing imams into
the classroom and having the kids recite the Muslim prayer of conversion to
Islam. Yet the two words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance are
supposedly unconstitutional because "we all know they refer to the Christian
god".

Of course, if they'd brought in a Catholic priest to say the Liturgy,
forcing the children to participate no less, the ACLU would have shit
itself and wouldn't have been able to file lawsuits fast enough.

This is "whataboutism" being preached to the choir...

"Whataboutism" is a concept invented to prevent people from holding the
inventors accountable for their hypocrisy.

I looked it up at Wikipedia. Lexicograph Ben Zimmer finds this to be the
original use:

I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the
Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation
of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater
immorality of the "enemy", and therefore the justice of the
Provisionals' cause: "What about Bloody Sunday, internment,
torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?". Every call to stop
is answered in the same way: "What about the Treaty of Limerick;
the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?". Neither is the Church
immune: "The Catholic Church has never supported the national
cause.  What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion;
condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?"

        -- Sean O'Conaill, "Letter to Editor", The Irish Times, 30 Jan 1974

But I'm sure he was Black Irish.