3 ms·

I really don't think they should have that level of control over something 65,000 which they may have no connection too. More worrying is that I read previousl

by flukus 9y ago

I really don't think they should have that level of control over something 65,000 which they may have no connection too. More worrying is that I read previously that they had veto rights over any published findings as well, which creates all sorts of integrity problems.

ekianjo 9y ago
> More worrying is that I read previously that they had veto rights over any published findings as well, which creates all sorts of integrity problems. Then it should definitely be captured in the story. As a potential conflict of interest.
- flukus 9y ago
  It was in this one (http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314 http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-she...) from the (Australian) ABC, which I assume is the nytimes source: > Under the agreement, the Mirarr people have had a right to veto the excavation at any time, control over the artefacts and final say about findings announced about the site. This leaves it open to abuse like we see in other fields where they can conduct an experiment 10 times and only publish the result that comes out how they want. For the record, I have no reason to believe the scientists involved are being dishonest, but imposing these conditions should not be acceptable.
  - sundvor 9y ago
    Careful here. I would by no means pretend to understand them, but I'm at least aware that there are a number of special sensitivities that must be considered when it comes to Aboriginal culture. So it's certainly not about abusing the research, but about respecting their culture (if I have it right).
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Especially given that the British/Australians hunted them like animals, exterminated them by the thousands, displayed them in circus like fashion back in Europe, and forcibly sent their kids in concentration/"re-education" (whitening) camps up until the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truganini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truganini https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bones-being-returned-australia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bon...
      - sundvor 9y ago
        Yes, indeed - thanks. The history is horrible; a little respect is the least we can offer.
  - h0l0cube 9y ago
    It seems a strange contradiction that someone would get flustered about the accurate preservation of a cultural history, and in the same breath demonstrate little interest in the conservation of that culture. What's your motivation for wanting this information? Is someone's appetite for inconsequential information more important than a people's dignity? These aren't rhetorical questions, it seems there's an incompatible split in moral leanings on this thread and I want to get to the bottom of that.
beefsack 9y ago
Culture is one of the vitally important things which make us unique as humans. Both as an Australian and as a linguist it's painful to understand how quickly indigenous culture here is being lost; my narrow and focused view is on language but the rate at which Aboriginal languages are dying at is absolutely alarming. Protecting culturally significant sites here is of vital importance both for historical reasons as well as to the lives of modern indigenous Australians.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Everything changes. All those indigenous languages are going to be lost in the sense they won't be actively used anymore - and that's not a bad thing. Even English will ultimately be lost, although it will likely be through the mechanisms of language evolution rather than first becoming moribund. Trying to preserving language and culture for its own sake is somewhat selfish, because it restricts individuals' experience. Better to take the good parts and incorporate them into daily life. The rest can remain in the tomes of history.
  - shakna 9y ago
    > Better to take the good parts and incorporate them into daily life. The rest can remain in the tomes of history. You can't do that when the culture is lost because of the social upheavals that colonisation and the subsequent history. Preserving these things allow us to remember them, and improve today with them.
    - flukus 9y ago
      You think there's been none of that in 65000 years?
      - shakna 9y ago
        You're in a thread where we just discovered ancient tools that throws doubt on how long humans have been in an area. Those records are still being found.
h0l0cube 9y ago
I see a pretty obvious contradiction here. You would think that the respect of ancient cultures that motivates such excavations would motivate the protection of those related and endangered cultures of today. And if the only reasonable claim on a piece of dirt is sovereignty, not to mention that that sovereignty been placed back in the hands of aboriginal elders, the sovereignty alone isn't enough justification to go digging for the past - it would seem that curiosity is part and parcel of a respect for culture.

by flukus 9y ago

ekianjo 9y ago

> More worrying is that I read previously that they had veto rights over any published findings as well, which creates all sorts of integrity problems. Then it should definitely be captured in the story. As a potential conflict of interest.

flukus 9y ago
It was in this one (http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-shelter-pushes-human-history-back-to-65,000-years/8719314 http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-20/aboriginal-she...) from the (Australian) ABC, which I assume is the nytimes source: > Under the agreement, the Mirarr people have had a right to veto the excavation at any time, control over the artefacts and final say about findings announced about the site. This leaves it open to abuse like we see in other fields where they can conduct an experiment 10 times and only publish the result that comes out how they want. For the record, I have no reason to believe the scientists involved are being dishonest, but imposing these conditions should not be acceptable.
- sundvor 9y ago
  Careful here. I would by no means pretend to understand them, but I'm at least aware that there are a number of special sensitivities that must be considered when it comes to Aboriginal culture. So it's certainly not about abusing the research, but about respecting their culture (if I have it right).
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Especially given that the British/Australians hunted them like animals, exterminated them by the thousands, displayed them in circus like fashion back in Europe, and forcibly sent their kids in concentration/"re-education" (whitening) camps up until the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truganini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truganini https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bones-being-returned-australia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bon...
    - sundvor 9y ago
      Yes, indeed - thanks. The history is horrible; a little respect is the least we can offer.
- h0l0cube 9y ago
  It seems a strange contradiction that someone would get flustered about the accurate preservation of a cultural history, and in the same breath demonstrate little interest in the conservation of that culture. What's your motivation for wanting this information? Is someone's appetite for inconsequential information more important than a people's dignity? These aren't rhetorical questions, it seems there's an incompatible split in moral leanings on this thread and I want to get to the bottom of that.

beefsack 9y ago

Culture is one of the vitally important things which make us unique as humans. Both as an Australian and as a linguist it's painful to understand how quickly indigenous culture here is being lost; my narrow and focused view is on language but the rate at which Aboriginal languages are dying at is absolutely alarming. Protecting culturally significant sites here is of vital importance both for historical reasons as well as to the lives of modern indigenous Australians.

hyperdunc 9y ago
Everything changes. All those indigenous languages are going to be lost in the sense they won't be actively used anymore - and that's not a bad thing. Even English will ultimately be lost, although it will likely be through the mechanisms of language evolution rather than first becoming moribund. Trying to preserving language and culture for its own sake is somewhat selfish, because it restricts individuals' experience. Better to take the good parts and incorporate them into daily life. The rest can remain in the tomes of history.
- shakna 9y ago
  > Better to take the good parts and incorporate them into daily life. The rest can remain in the tomes of history. You can't do that when the culture is lost because of the social upheavals that colonisation and the subsequent history. Preserving these things allow us to remember them, and improve today with them.
  - flukus 9y ago
    You think there's been none of that in 65000 years?
    - shakna 9y ago
      You're in a thread where we just discovered ancient tools that throws doubt on how long humans have been in an area. Those records are still being found.

h0l0cube 9y ago

I see a pretty obvious contradiction here. You would think that the respect of ancient cultures that motivates such excavations would motivate the protection of those related and endangered cultures of today. And if the only reasonable claim on a piece of dirt is sovereignty, not to mention that that sovereignty been placed back in the hands of aboriginal elders, the sovereignty alone isn't enough justification to go digging for the past - it would seem that curiosity is part and parcel of a respect for culture.