4 ms·

No it isn't, you're just deciding to get offended by a reasonable question. It's actually very relevant and common practice around the world for people whose a

No it isn't, you're just deciding to get offended by a reasonable question. It's actually very relevant and common practice around the world for people whose ancestors were displaced or wronged to feel the need to seek reparations or have some kind of restoration or acknowledgement. In Australia since you bring it up, there actually has been extremely significant flows of people. Notably, Europeans displaced a lot of Aboriginal people from their land, and similarly took various historical artifacts. In recent times there has been a trend to return those and return some claim to the land, to the people whose descendants were replaced. The idea that someone can just sit on the land and say nope that's old history I own the land now your ancestral home and your great great grandfather's spear was never yours anyway so I'm keeping it, is just weird. It's completely normal to feel, and many people do have a deep connection to their ancestors, even if you don't. Or apply similar to Palestine and Israel. Or any number of similar cases around the world.

01100011 5y ago
Parent poster is possibly from a generation which has been taught that asking questions is an offense, so I will forgive them for responding with hostility. I am curious what other people feel about the issue of "nativeness". As a European American I obviously am interested in understanding how the world views the rights my children might have to the land in which they will be born. Is there a time limit for when an occupier or invader becomes a native? The question of whether or not Ancient Egypt belongs in some way to modern Egypt(the government or its people) is perhaps less politically sensitive than asking whether myself, my people or my government bear some connection to the culture of ancient North Americans. It is a relevant question I believe. One could ask how such issues relate to other cultures around the world. As the descendants of conquerors, I am compelled by circumstances to believe "might makes right" or else I would have to consider returning to the land to which I have ancient connections. I understand this is a sensitive question and likely to trigger folks who believe I am trying to lay a rhetorical trap or secretly push some right or left wing agenda but I am simply trying to think through what I believe to be right.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The idea that because somebody is or claims to be offended by another person's curiosity about the world, that we must stop asking questions ("or else") is, to me, offensive. Keep questioning everything. Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Stand up to those stuck in their ways or feel their position in the status quo is threatened by people's curiosity. In my experience, people who claim a line of questioning is offensive are usually not offended but scared and probably unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason. Your question isn't a rhetorical trap at all, it was actually very interesting and thoughtful, and possibly exposes some inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases, which I had not previously thought about.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    > There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The question was offensive, yet I didn't try to cancel the author in any way. I didn't flag the comment, I didn't email dang to have the author's account blocked etc. I instead offered an explanation of my position in polite but firm terms, with some argumentation. The question had nothing scientific in it, so there's no need to worry about opposition to science btw. > Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and I should have the right to tell you that you're wrong and that your position is deeply offensive. That's how free speech works. > unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason. I did provide arguments for my position. > inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts? I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too?
leto_ii 5y ago
It's absolutely comical to compare various European empires who despoiled Egypt (and many other places, including Greece btw) of their history with the plight of the Aboriginal Australians. > even if you don't. You have no idea who I am, where I'm from or what my connection to my ancestors is, so please refrain from ad hominem stuff.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > It's absolutely comical to compare various European empires who despoiled Egypt (and many other places, including Greece btw) of their history with the plight of the Aboriginal Australians. You seem unable to respond to what I wrote rationally. Perhaps this is has something to do with your fear of questions. And I did not compare their plight, I specifically used the example to refute your incorrect assertion that genetic lineages do not matter in such cases. > You have no idea who I am, where I'm from or what my connection to my ancestors is, so please refrain from ad hominem stuff. I did not justify my argument with an insult so it's not really ad hominem. And I didn't intend to insult at all, I was just musing as to why you believed such a ludicruous and clearly wrong idea that ancestry would be irrelevant and nonsensical in a case like this. I'm surprised you took it as an insult. Or are you again just using that as a tool to try to shut down questions you are scared of?
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    Nobody is scared of you and nobody is shutting you down. Do you understand what shutting down would entail? Did I flag you? Did I call for your account to be banned? Did I dox you? What on Earth are you talking about? > I did not justify my argument with an insult so it's not really ad hominem 'ad hominem' just means 'to the person' in Latin, it's not necessary for the thing to be an insult (which it was btw since I feel a deep connection to my ancestors and home land). Regarding the substance of my comment, it's plainly illogical to equate the plight of the Aborigines with imperial despoilment. Yes, the Aborigines have a right to get their land and artifacts back. At the same time no, the fact that Britain, France etc. stole things from Egypt is not justifiable on the basis that the then inhabitants of Egypt didn't have a genetic connection to ancient Egyptians. In an analogy between Egypt and Australia the local Egyptian population is like the Aborigines and the imperial despoilers are like, well, the imperial despoilers (Britain present in both cases, in Egypt as part of a longer line of criminals).

01100011 5y ago

Parent poster is possibly from a generation which has been taught that asking questions is an offense, so I will forgive them for responding with hostility. I am curious what other people feel about the issue of "nativeness". As a European American I obviously am interested in understanding how the world views the rights my children might have to the land in which they will be born. Is there a time limit for when an occupier or invader becomes a native? The question of whether or not Ancient Egypt belongs in some way to modern Egypt(the government or its people) is perhaps less politically sensitive than asking whether myself, my people or my government bear some connection to the culture of ancient North Americans. It is a relevant question I believe. One could ask how such issues relate to other cultures around the world. As the descendants of conquerors, I am compelled by circumstances to believe "might makes right" or else I would have to consider returning to the land to which I have ancient connections. I understand this is a sensitive question and likely to trigger folks who believe I am trying to lay a rhetorical trap or secretly push some right or left wing agenda but I am simply trying to think through what I believe to be right.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The idea that because somebody is or claims to be offended by another person's curiosity about the world, that we must stop asking questions ("or else") is, to me, offensive. Keep questioning everything. Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Stand up to those stuck in their ways or feel their position in the status quo is threatened by people's curiosity. In my experience, people who claim a line of questioning is offensive are usually not offended but scared and probably unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason. Your question isn't a rhetorical trap at all, it was actually very interesting and thoughtful, and possibly exposes some inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases, which I had not previously thought about.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  > There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The question was offensive, yet I didn't try to cancel the author in any way. I didn't flag the comment, I didn't email dang to have the author's account blocked etc. I instead offered an explanation of my position in polite but firm terms, with some argumentation. The question had nothing scientific in it, so there's no need to worry about opposition to science btw. > Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and I should have the right to tell you that you're wrong and that your position is deeply offensive. That's how free speech works. > unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason. I did provide arguments for my position. > inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts? I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too?

leto_ii 5y ago

It's absolutely comical to compare various European empires who despoiled Egypt (and many other places, including Greece btw) of their history with the plight of the Aboriginal Australians. > even if you don't. You have no idea who I am, where I'm from or what my connection to my ancestors is, so please refrain from ad hominem stuff.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> It's absolutely comical to compare various European empires who despoiled Egypt (and many other places, including Greece btw) of their history with the plight of the Aboriginal Australians. You seem unable to respond to what I wrote rationally. Perhaps this is has something to do with your fear of questions. And I did not compare their plight, I specifically used the example to refute your incorrect assertion that genetic lineages do not matter in such cases. > You have no idea who I am, where I'm from or what my connection to my ancestors is, so please refrain from ad hominem stuff. I did not justify my argument with an insult so it's not really ad hominem. And I didn't intend to insult at all, I was just musing as to why you believed such a ludicruous and clearly wrong idea that ancestry would be irrelevant and nonsensical in a case like this. I'm surprised you took it as an insult. Or are you again just using that as a tool to try to shut down questions you are scared of?
- leto_ii 5y ago
  Nobody is scared of you and nobody is shutting you down. Do you understand what shutting down would entail? Did I flag you? Did I call for your account to be banned? Did I dox you? What on Earth are you talking about? > I did not justify my argument with an insult so it's not really ad hominem 'ad hominem' just means 'to the person' in Latin, it's not necessary for the thing to be an insult (which it was btw since I feel a deep connection to my ancestors and home land). Regarding the substance of my comment, it's plainly illogical to equate the plight of the Aborigines with imperial despoilment. Yes, the Aborigines have a right to get their land and artifacts back. At the same time no, the fact that Britain, France etc. stole things from Egypt is not justifiable on the basis that the then inhabitants of Egypt didn't have a genetic connection to ancient Egyptians. In an analogy between Egypt and Australia the local Egyptian population is like the Aborigines and the imperial despoilers are like, well, the imperial despoilers (Britain present in both cases, in Egypt as part of a longer line of criminals).