[maldeh]

> I wish the order of presentation were different, because it starts with incorrect and misleading claims and then only later fixes its trajectory.

I wouldn't hold my breath, every inch of this article is evidently AI-generated - you can tell not only from the meandering narrative but also from the "Not because X, but Y", the short punchy sentences to reiterate the same point, the really strange cherry-picked examples for head-to-head comparisons, and the sincere concern over simplified generalisms.

> Yeah, ok. This is what they should lead with. It's an important message.

Is it? Your optimism in hoping to find some point to all this restores some of my faith in humanity, but I think it's misplaced here. The entire premise of the article is bizarre - why should it be surprising or bad that historical figures from 1000s of years ago, regardless of their historical importance, don't have proportionate representation in contemporary discourse?