Timbuktu Manuscripts Not As Burned As Reported

Ironically,<p><i>during the period of French colonial domination of Timbuktu (1894–1959), many manuscripts were seized and burned by the colonialists, and as a result, many families there still refuse access to researchers for fear of a new era of pillaging.</i><p><a href="http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php?option=com_content&#38;view=article&#38;id=378&#38;Itemid=233" rel="nofollow">http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php?option=com_con...</a>

I wonder if they would be opposed to allowing Google or some other big book digitizing company to scan the manuscripts to preserve electronic copies in case of disaster?<p>It would do wonders as far as allowing the world to take a peek at the ancient texts, keep at least some trace of them safe in case the originals were lost, and it would be good PR if Google or somebody like that "saved" them digitally.

Its amazing there's entire groups of people who are so anti-knowledge. I don't see how you can do some introspection and not realize its a backwards stance.

A little bit of history on book burning/banning <a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/182074/Some_History_on_Book_Burning" rel="nofollow">http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/182074/Some_History_on...</a>

It took me a good two paragraphs to realize I was not reading about any sort of software library by the name of "Timbuktu".

So it was western propaganda?

Isn't "burned" a superlative?