(Couldn't find the Press D. article online). In it Greg says they know all about their history.
Okay, dokey Greg. If you know all about the history, then I suppose you did warn them about what they would find BEFORE anyone found it. And I'm sure you know all about the finds, and could tell the archeologists EVERYTHING.
Geez. This guy is such a greedy a------. Thinks it's ok to build a big disgusting Casino uglosity, bringing in Las Vegas Mafia money into the local community, but loves givng the big middle finger to people who want to actually learn things.
Rasist jerk - and laughing all the way to the bank.
Screw wetlands, and learning.
geomancer
04-26-2014, 11:08 PM
In a similar vein, some time ago I was one of the geologists assigned to a group of URS company archaeologists doing salvage archaeology on the remnants of the Emeryville Shellmound before it was lost to development. The mound was once the largest in the East Bay, but most of it was removed in the 1920s and used for fill. The oldest part, several meters thick, was preserved having sunk into the Bay mud under the weight of the huge overlying mound. It was full of artifacts and burials. All the burials and associated artifacts were to be reburied, as was proper.
Alas, the hasty deal that the city had made with the tribal representatives stated that all artifacts within one meter of any human remains were deemed to be burial related. This was interpreted to include bone scraps, which were everywhere, such that perhaps 90% of the artifacts were disposed of at an undisclosed location. No scholars outside the team doing the excavations were allowed to examine the huge trove of artifacts. The three tribal representatives we dealt with were fundamentalist know-nothings from the Sacramento area who had absolutely no interest in history. It as payback time and they relished their ignorant power.
(Couldn't find the Press D. article online). In it Greg says they know all about their history.
Okay, dokey Greg. If you know all about the history, then I suppose you did warn them about what they would find BEFORE anyone found it. And I'm sure you know all about the finds, and could tell the archeologists EVERYTHING.
Geez. This guy is such a greedy a------. Thinks it's ok to build a big disgusting Casino uglosity, bringing in Las Vegas Mafia money into the local community, but loves givng the big middle finger to people who want to actually learn things.
Rasist jerk - and laughing all the way to the bank.
Screw wetlands, and learning.
podfish
04-28-2014, 08:46 AM
This is a case where there is such a dominant social paradigm (cool phrase, I should look up who invented it) that it's widely confused with ethics and morals.
The idea of 'eminant domain' that let to opening/exploitation of the west was apparently largely unquestioned a couple of hundred years ago, since clearly god put the world here for man's benefit. Fail to use what was put here for us was sinfully wasteful. Similarly, the idea that old things are just detritus and obstacles to progress was the norm. I'm a product of my culture too - I don't share either of those perspectives.
But I'm a product of my culture. Really, I can't think of a convincing argument (convincing to someone who doesn't already accept the premise) that artifacts have high value. Sure, you can learn things about the past. Sure, many things are beautiful or inspiring. So you have a pragmatic argument - why destroy things when we might gain knowledge that would help us now? Or aesthetic ones - why lose things of beauty? Or even ethical ones - doesn't it show disrespect for those who put their effort into creating something?
Why any of those points of view must necessarily trump that of someone who apparently feels: these 'artifacts' are spiritually tied to my people, and the justifications of those who want to claim them have no weight with us. Their goals are not mine; they are showing their disrespect for us by insisting we should share them.
I don't know if Sarris feels exactly that way, but attitudes like that do seem to be a common thread in several similar incidents. This topic has always appealed to me as a compelling intellectual question, (in a very casual way, since I prefer casual to rigorous study..) because it' not so morally fraught as some other social issues. People clearly have a huge base of feelings that they feel are or should be universal. It's hard to say that things like respect for others is an arbitrary ethical position.
Respect for all life, including animals, is pretty widespread and has a wide range of ways to argue its validity. But I don't think respect for the past has the same obvious basis - and, since both sides of this argument have totally different ideas about what 'respect for the past' even means, it's hard for me to resist seeing it as a primarily arbitrary virtue.