Since I don’t see much football stuff on Lemmy, this is Mohammed Salah, an Egyptian footballer and premier league royalty. YNWA
What does YNWA stand for/mean?
You’ll Never Walk Alone. It’s liverfool football club’s motto. They sing it at every game. People get it tattooed.
Thanks!
You’ll Never Work Again
Close, but it’s a threat: You’ll Never Walk Again. They are kneecapping people up in here.
It’s something the Dunmer often say.
It’s a typo for YMCA.
“You Newly Woke Ally”?
YNWA made me think of what Muslims say about Mohammed.
This is a famous footballer Salah (YNWA)
It stands for You’ll Never Walk Alone, it’s a motto and anthem of Liverpool FC.
Will he burn if there’s crosses in the Museum?
Can someone explain the reactionary joke I’m missing here, what does this mean.
You see, when football is mentioned online, the collective intelligence of any comment section is cut by at least 90%. This stacks with another 90% if it’s women’s football or any token LGBT acknowledgement in football. The joke is Muslim Bad.
Which is a shame. I used to make fun of le sportsball amirite until it clicked that there was immense entertainment value in these matches, which could be super tense and exciting even when an individual match doesn’t have super high stakes. There’s storylines with each of the players and managers, there’s a lot of diverging personalities among them and they all handle the same game in their own way. And unlike scripted shows, when something unexpected happens it is so much more interesting. Like the story is real in a way that scripted entertainment isn’t.
deleted by creator
umm, piracy bro. Pirating sports streams or torrents is an ancient practice, check out !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com their megathread, ask their or check out the freemediaheckyeah site (you find it on their subreddit).
for news I use an arabic site called Kooora I don’t know what English site is popular, using a British free VPN you can view youtube videos of highlights from their local channels, they make these highlights cuz they hold copyrights.
I’m not urging you to watch football, just that not having money isn’t a reason not to do so.
Football is one of the most scripted sports ever. I mean just look at Polish league for example, le huge sponsor arrives, puts locally large sum of money into some really shit team in 3rd league which barely existed for last 80 years due to persistence of local schoolteachers and suddenly boom, in 2 seasons that club is winning country championship.
The only real sports remaining are those that do not have money in it.
storylines with each of the players and managers
Maybe that’s what some people are missing! Those who think the pitch is too big, it’s too slow, goals too infrequent, whatever the common gripes are.
Huh?
Nah, he doesn’t really care. He even celebrates Christmas with his family
Why would he not celebrate Santas birthday?
And the girl in the back on the original post photo, looking like this below meme photo. LoL
Time to plug one of my favorite podcasts: Stuff the British Stole
Needs a French version as well, they still allow active trade of stolen native objects.
deleted by creator
This. Is. Perfect.
Oy oy savoy
*saveloy
Everything belongs to everyone because our ancestors were here first.
Isn’t the idea of museums that you can learn about other cultures without going there?
Except the British museum where you do have to go there to experience their culture of theivery
Yup. It’s not like they asked to have other people’s stuff in their museums. They killed and conquered, then took anything that wasn’t nailed down.
No, the majority are about specific history or culture, usually local. Natural History Museum covers nature, Science Museum covers science, Leeds museum covers the history of the city of Leeds, Crab museum covers worker’s movements. The British museum is really the Stuff The British Stole museum.
If it’s on-loan, sure.
But this was straight up thievery.
holy shit I should totally call my apartment a museum so I can steal anything I want
Highlander detected
deleted by creator
As an Egyptian the sheer ignorance of this comment is absolutely stunning.
It’s impressive
deleted by creator
I’m not appalled.
I’m simply amused by the stupidity
The Muslims conquered land and replaced its government, they did not murder and replace their entire population. This is why countries like Somalia are filled with black people who are Muslims and not Arabs.
Mohamed Salah has Egyptian ancestry. He is not a random Arab Muslim claiming that Egypt was Arab.
Settler colonization and replacing everything with ‘superior white people’ is a rather modern European tradion
deleted by creator
There’s a difference between colonialism and conquest. Conquest was much much more common in the past than colonialism. Before modern European colonialism, the only people who had made colonial efforts had been the Greeks (with small city colonies in places like Libya, for example), and the Norse, with their colonization of Greenland and their attempt to colonize what is today Newfoundland. Otherwise, the rest was conquest. There’s a significant difference between the two.
There are multiple forms of colonialism. The term settler colonialism’ is relatively new.
Settler colonialism is a logic and structure of displacement by settlers, using colonial rule, over an environment for replacing it and its indigenous peoples with settlements and the society of the settlers.
Practically every example you will find is Europeans getting on a boat and killing natives. The most famous example is Manifest Destiny also known as America.
You’re making the above poster’s point for them. Well done. It’s pretty fair to assume that Mo Salah’s ancestors were of that same land regardless of what religious or cultural identity they came from.
deleted by creator
Is there a time period I could research for when Arab Muslims conquered Egypt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_conquest_of_Egypt
It was pretty quick, just 639 to 642. The western half of the Roman Empire had already collapsed and the eastern half wasn’t doing much better.
Thank you for the reference!
Iirc it was the
AbbasidRashidun Caliphate that was the first Muslims to take over Egypt. The1000years prior or so, it’d been Roman territory (Byzantine after the fall of Western Rome, but same difference).Edit: My memory was shakey and I appreciate the correction.
It was conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate some 1400 years ago, It had been a Roman Province for I believe just under 700 years.
Egypt’s first major power since the Hellenic Lagid (Ptolemaic) Dynasty was the Later Fatimid Caliphate (The Earlier one was in Tunisia). The Fatimids were a highly underrated (both by westerners, because they aren’t ancient, and by us Egyptians, because they followed a different sect of Islam which most consider heretical) golden age for Egypt, they established Cairo, and along with it one of the oldest operating universities on Earth, and were probably the most tolerant state of their time, they were Shia Muslims ruling over a majority Sunni and Christian Population, but Unlike the Safavids in Persia (who forcefully converted a major portion of their population to Shiism and were much more radical than the Fatimids), they were very tolerant and most positions of power were gained out of merit, in fact, the guy who founded Cairo (and prior to that invaded the entirety of north Africa and Egypt for the Fatimid caliphate) was a random slave’s son from Sicily. The cultural renaissance that occured during their period caused accelerated arabization in Egypt as more and more people started to speak Arabic since that was the language of the new cultural powerhouse of the region.
We do not talk about al Hakim.
Thank you for the correction! I always seem to misremember which Caliphate was when.
Thank you for the reference!
Does Europe have any culture that isn’t stolen or brutality forced on others?
Greece is in Europe.
So is Rome, but that’s a terrible example after mentioning Greece.
Europe, yes. Britain, doubtful.
Pre-christian pagan cultures (Celts, Goths etc), but neo-nazis are also fans of those so you get to share with them.
On one hand, sure, the British took a lot of things from other places when their empire spanned the globe. And, it sucks for places that had their stuff taken that it is no longer where it was.
On the other hand the British Museum is probably one of the safest places in the world for these things. The museum cares about preservation, knows how to do it, and has the funds to do it. And, while there’s undoubtedly corruption in the UK, there’s a very low chance that any of these things is going to disappear out of the museum and into some powerful person’s private collection.
Mohamed Salah is standing in front of a statue from Egypt, which was taken from Egypt to London. But, the British didn’t manage to take the Buddhas of Bamiyan from Afghanistan to London, and what happened? The Taliban blew them up. The British also didn’t fully loot Iraq when they controlled that territory, which meant that in the 2003 war the museum was looted but not by people who wanted treasures for a public museum. The poorer and less politically stable a country is, the greater the chances that their cultural treasures will be stolen or destroyed.
Despite the repression and corruption, Egypt is now probably stable enough that if any of these items were returned to Egypt, they would probably be well treated and put on display for Egyptians to see. The power of the military in Egypt and the level of corruption probably means a few small items would disappear from the museum, but the most important items would make it. But, is Egypt stable enough that the museum would be safe for another 20, 40, 80 years? I have my doubts. I do think London is probably safe for that long.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think the number one priority should be preserving these things for the future. Displaying them for the public should be a lower priority. If there are items like scrolls or clothing that are too delicate to even display behind a glass case, they should be stored away. I know that’s how they handle things at the Smithsonian, and I assume the British Museum is the same. Because of that, my bias is that the most important cultural items should be in the care of the richest museums in the world, even if it means that they’re not in the places they came from.
Yes. Preservation that’s why it was taken. You see that statue was in imminent danger of being left there for the local people to preserve. The horror!
My favorite story about the British stealing shit is that time they stole a cultures entire written history. They had it all written on tablets and arranged in a specific order. It never occurred to them though that they should put page numbers because who would jumble them up? Who would destroy their history like that? Ah yes, the British, that’s who.
But that’s all in the past, and now it’s the only place on earth that can preserve these things. The only place. There is no other place. No possible other home for these artifacts.
Well, as I can see the comment remind you of what happen in when “Muslim Arab” did in Iraq where, “checking notes”, the US and the UK destroyed the country and move it to a civil war while stealing oil and gold, then blame them for what happen to the museum.
Then he also remind you of what “Muslim” did in Afghanistan where, “checks notes”, the US and UK made sure to fund an Islamic extremist ideology to fight the Russian, then complain when they destroyed a Buddhist statue.
The same comment doesn’t seems to see the irony of colonizer stealing shit, making money of it, and then finding lame excuse and ignoring that Arab and Muslim lived in these lands for over 1400 years where all these artifact survived to modern day.
You mean the ISIS which appeared after America invaded Iraq, destroyed it, and backed violent rebel groups with weapons?
Must be that “Islamic extremism” again.
I mean ISIS that Israel and US funded to move Syria to a disaster, allowing them to put bases all over the country and sign deals for oil extraction on recognized Syrian border…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Islamic_State
However, Moshe Ya’alon, former defense minister of Israel, has stated that IS “apologized” for a clash in November 2016. Communication with IS is illegal under Israeli law, and is considered to be contact with an enemy agent.[5] IDF refused to comment further on the issue
Point of order, the Iraqis used a worker action to prevent the US from taking the oil.
Or more specifically, from importing American oil workers and executives to rebuild the oil fields and run them in the near term. The Iraqis had a reasonable fear that they would be squeezed out of the industry and it would return to a Western corporation just taking all the oil, as it was before 1972.
Bush actually backed off and now Iraq administers it’s own oil and sells leases like most other countries. Just recently they finalized a deal with Total(France), ACWA(Saudi Arabia), QatarEnergies, and Basra Oil Company (Iraq).
So hopefully it’s working out for them long term.
The British Museum can’t even keep its collection from being stolen (ironic), there are 2000 missing artifacts if I remember correctly. Any excuse that “the British Museum can protect the artefacts” doesn’t hold true anymore. They should return the stolen artefacts to be displayed in the county of origin. Egypt has very strong laws to preserve and protect ancient artefacts.
It’s almost like a bunch of colonizing powers came in and stole all their money and material wealth and usurped their country’s political system and beggared all the people and then they didn’t have the money time or motivation to protect the artifacts while they were all starving or being bombed
Didn’t know he owned them. Since he says my stolen stuff. Now Eygpts sure.
Honestly the concept of property here is just silly. Who specifically do they belong to, why, what claim, and how could such a claim exist?
I just don’t agree with the concept, this individual doesn’t have any right to ownership regardless of whether his specific family owned it at some point prior, but most likely a direct relative doesn’t even own it, just someone with his self same ‘race’ ( which race doesn’t really exist either tbh, not genetically anyway, but exists as a social construct ).
I just despise this mentality. I don’t own anything collectively with anyone of my ‘race’, neither their achievements nor shames, and same for even direct relatives.
There is not enough generic diversity in humans to even prop up the idea of race beyond being a cultural construct, it’s time to stop seeing our fellow humans as something other.
Property rights only exist when non-western countries want their stuff / land back. When the west stole them, then its finders keepers.
/s
The phrasing was weird, but this guy was born in Egypt and the statue was taken from Egypt. This isn’t a matter of private property, he’s commenting on how the UK exploited Egypt.
Sure, race and nationality are social constructs and genetics don’t support the divisions we make along phenotypic lines, however, you can’t just hope to solve racism and colonialism by saying they are gone and meaningless. If you say they no longer exist, that doesn’t erase the impacts racism and colonialism have had on a people.
In essence, it’s like punching someone repeatedly until they are bloody, stealing the money from their wallet to buy yourself a house, and then saying, “why can’t we forget our differences and just be friends?” Is everything alright? Is it ok that you now have a home and the other person is destitute because you stole their money? Does it make it any better if it was your parents or grandparents who did this and now you’ve inherited the house?
Just claiming it’s a social construct and wiping your hands of the issue does not fix the problem. And that metaphor I made does not even encompass the entire issue! Reality is more along the lines of: now that you own this house, you enforce policies that continually raise the price of housing and put a tax on people who don’t own a house. The exploitation many people have suffered at the hands of racism and colonialism never stopped, it just changed it’s form.
they belong in Egypt not in en***nd
funny for an Egyptian man to say this, considering that it was made by black people not Arabs. If such things went by blood then and culture then South Sudan would have the strongest claim to it, its like saying that art by ancient indigenous americans belongs to an amerikkkan only difference is time.
Is this an ancient Kush statue or am I missing something? I don’t believe upper ancient Egypt would be considered modern Sudan. Also DNA evidence from Egyptian mummies show little to no sub saharan DNA in them. How did you learn this information?
Probably read The Sirius Mystery and took it as fact
Oh cool. Hotep? So, what percentage of Nubian blood must Mo Salah have before he is allowed to claim a connection to Ancient Egypt? Upper or Lower? Pseudohistory aside, one’s own cultural history is not subject to some racial blood purity tests. That’s some borderline Nazi shit. Anyway, fuck the Brits.
Just because Egypt is in Africa doesn’t automatically make Egyptians black. Look at a map. Northern Africa and Egypt were just as much part of southern Europe and the Middle East.
Hell look at the written records of the pharaohs. Ramseses II (Ozymendias, of King of kings, look upon his works all ye mighty and despair fame) reasserted control of Canaan and Phoenicia, led military campaigns into Syria and the Levant, and also led expeditions into Nubia. That indicates a clearly more established connection to the Middle East than to elsewhere in Africa at the height of ancient Egypt (height of the new kingdom).
except that Egyptians were black some 4000 years ago, 2000 years for upper Egypt, it is quite literally named the “land of the blacks” after all that is what Egypt means, latter ancient civilizations in lower Egypt were not black and eventually upper Egypt too because of migration from Asia and Europe which in turn created migrations of the then Egyptians into at first upper Egypt and then Ethiopia and Sudan. Almost the entirety of what people think of when they think of “ancient Egypt” was made by black people not all but most.
It’s named “Black Land”. Their southern neigbors were black. why would they call themselves something that wouldn’t distinguish themselves from everyone else? It’s called black land because of the distinction between “Kemet” - Black Land, the Nile valley, and “Deshret” - Red Land, the surrounding desert.
But hey, afrocentrists gonna afrocenter
it is quite literally named the “land of the blacks” after all that is what Egypt means
Egypt is from Greek and definitely doesn’t mean that. The Egyptian endonym was kmt (traditionally pronounced as kemet), which is interpreted as “black land” (km means “black”, -t is a nominal suffix, so it might be translated as black-ness, not at all “quite literally land of the blacks”), most likely referring to the fertile black soil around the Nile river. Trying to interpret that as “land of the blacks” should be suspicious already due to the fact people would hardly name themselves after their most ordinary physical characteristic; the Egyptians might call themselves black only if they were surrounded by non-black people and could view that as their own special characteristic, but they certainly neighboured and had contact with black peoples. And either way one has to wonder if the ancient views of white and black skin were meaningfully comparable to modern western ones. On the other hand, the fertile black soil most certainly is a differentia specifica of the settled Egyptian land that is surrounded by a desert.
someone got their Egyptology degree from Queen Cleopatra.
Egypt was actually pretty well mixed between lower Saharan Africans, Greeks, Turks, etc. that’s because Egypt was a trusted trade route between many successful economies around the Mediterranean sea.
If you look at any of the ancient statues they don’t look black, whatever the recent propaganda tries to push. It doesn’t make any sense to put everyone in those four racial boxes - an Ethiopian looks as distinct from a South African as a Spaniard and a Swede
Right, the later pharaos were often greek.
This is awfully inaccurate. One singular dynasty, after alexander, was fully greek. Greek pharaohs weren’t just a thing. There was one greek family that declared themselves Pharaohs after Alexander died.
Now that you mention it, wasn’t it about Kleopatra?
Edit: well that dynasty lasted for 275 years, before they were incorporated into Rome: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty
Yeah, 275 years of 3120. Still one dynasty, the way the comment was phrased made it seem like there would randomly be Greek Pharaohs in the middle of the Egyptian ones. I wanted to make it clear that they were a distinct thing of their own.
a clear lack of historical knowledge. plenty of the statue do have black features, they stop having black features first in lower Egypt and then much latter in upper Egypt, because there was a migration from asia/arabia and europe into Africa the vast majority of what we think of as ancient Egypt was created by black skinned people from Africa whos culture was preserved when they migrated south into Ethiopia and Sudan and later south Sudan the group of people we understand as Arabs today didnt even exists at the time. And the fact that Africa is diverse has nothing to do with this.
Is there some sort of debate about the origin of museum pieces thats been going on?
I think its country of origin has the best claim.
i agree i just think its interesting considering the history of ancient Egypt. which is why i said IF such things went by culture and blood.
Time to expand the Empire again.
Edit: “it’s not an empire, it’s one big country!”
It’s not an empire if you call it a federation /s
“I have brought peace, freedom, justice and security to my new fediverse!”
In fairness it likely wouldn’t be preserved otherwise. So you’re welcome.
Sure, I’m gonna steal your TV because I’ll take better care of it than you would.
You’re welcome
Depends if you were watching the TV and taking care of or not.
E.g.
This is a conundrum I can’t wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).
If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don’t need to study history, it’s not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don’t think that also helps.
And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don’t quite see what moral ground is there for it.
There is no moral grounds for stealing cultural artifacts. Even if it means the culture that rightfully possesses it wants to destroy it. That choice is entirely that cultures decision to make. Even if we disagree. It’s one thing to clutch your own pearls but so much worse to do that to someone else’s.
This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.
It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.
Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me
While there can definitely be some legitimate discussion and ambiguity over which culture/country gets to inherit Mayan artifacts, for example, saying that the British, for example, should inherit it is a very weak argument. It’s not like the entirety of an extinct societies people just dropped dead. Some survived and after some time rebuilt new societies. Using Mayan artifacts as an example, Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras have a better claim to them then the British. It’s not propaganda or useless to say that items of cultural heritage should be returned.
So how about this what about-ism, if you live in the United States, the British took cultural artifacts from your lands too and aren’t giving them back right this moment. Where did you think all those native American artifacts in British museums came from? They didn’t make them and it’s not like North America was spared from British plundering. Might be nice to get that stuff back.
saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument
Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.
Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame
Temporary custody for future generations seems like a good moral standpoint.
I can’t see the moral arguments for keeping the items.
Original items should be returned, but maybe exact copies should be made first (at the whose expense I don’t know).
As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.
But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes
If by steal, you mean purchase from me for cheap because I don’t give a shit about it and don’t appreciate its value, only for my great grandson to show up years later and call you a thief, then sure!
White man’s burden
It was already thousands of years old. The British destroyed more artifacts than they “saved”.
except that not actually an other hand sorta thing at all, almost exclusively it was colonizers and their wars that destroyed so many of the artifacts that werent stolen, if they weren’t delivery destroyed by colonizers to erase history and beyond even that the colonizers carelessness, greed, and racism which they brought to archeology led to much more than just artifacts being destroyed. There are so many historical sites whose histories we will never know at all because these clown excavated them to take “relics” and took little if any records where their precious artifacts were found and how, and that is if sites were not destroyed in their entirety out of sheer idiocy in the search of something else like how troy was. 18th, 19th, and even some 20th century so called archeology is a history of the destruction of history.
Holy run-on sentences. I agree with you, but it was done, it’s already in the museums. Signing petitions and raising awareness of agencies/museums that are trying to get the stuff back is probably a better way to funnel your frustrations.
It was doing fine where it was.
Exactly. Look at the state of it. We definitely should have taken that.
Lol, who do you think shot cannon balls at it for target practice? Fuckin’ wanker.
Got to practise firing cannons mate
That’s an interesting point. While I agree it’s kinda shitty the UK nicked everyone’s cool stuff and shoved it in 1 building. I’m willing to bet if we hadn’t the number of pieces that would be lost to time would not be zero
This is just weird revisionist history. They moved in stole shit, colonized and murdered. The after the fact excuse of “we took it to preserve it” doesn’t play mostly because their colonizer bullshit is largely the reason areas they stole shit from are destabilized.
I’m not revising anything its a shitty thing to do and it should all be returned. It was just a thought with a beer given how volatile some of the areas where the stuff comes and yes I know most of them ended up volatile because of colonialism.
Yeah I’m totally sure the Brits didn’t break a single thing shipping artifacts to their big fancy museum. Let’s ignore all the mummies Europeans ground up into powder and ingested as “medicine”. Savagely eating dead humans with the same mouths that say brown people are too savage to take care of their own artifacts.
To be fair, they probably weren’t able to take care of their own artifacts very well … after having been invaded by the British.
Damn, beat me to it. Colonialism is a hell of a drug.
They also turned them into oil paint. Mummy/egyptian brown was a thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown
I dont know why people do shit like this. Find some rare, finite resource of information and do just about everything with them except study them respectfully. Eat them, grind them into paint, rich people having “unwrapping parties.”
Humans are so deeply disappointing.
Oddly enough they didn’t teach that part of history when I was at school. Got anything I could learn up on it
Also used to make Mummy Brown Paint (wikipedia link)
Fucking hell
Jumping Jimminy! One of my college English lit courses spent 4 full weeks on Donne. It was all his religious poems, certainly not this.
