3 ms·

I agree. This really felt patronising to me. Like they were trying too hard to be impressed. At the very least such claims require some contextualisation, which

I agree. This really felt patronising to me. Like they were trying too hard to be impressed. At the very least such claims require some contextualisation, which the article does not really supply. And I think it’s obvious why that context is never provided.

shmageggy 5y ago
These comments are unreal to me. The context is right in the beginning of the article. The site was originally deemed too impressive to be built by locals, and later it was too impressive to be built without outside influence, and now that research is showing it was indeed built by locals, it’s no longer impressive. Incredible.
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  Yes, these comments are unreal to me too, and I think we are witnessing a great deal of white guilt manifesting itself as cowardly dismissal. It is incredible to be witnessing here on HN, but it speaks to how much work is still left to be done in the world, to deal with the hubris and arrogance of western moral authority -- which is as much a fallacy as anything. Peoples investment in the authority and altitude of their own cultures is like a giant boat that won't be turned by anything but a major current. We are but waves on these arrogant bows, friend.
prmph 5y ago
> And I think it’s obvious why that context is never provided It is not obvious to me. Can you to tell us more about why the context is not provided, if you are better informed?
- nyolfen 5y ago
  it would be difficult to be impressed by this structure if you have passing familiarity with what contemporary civilizations were building. it’s obviously of historical and archaeological significance but my assumption based on the superlatives in the article was that it had been built 1-2k years before its actual construction, roughly contemporaneous with eg notre dame and roughly aligning with the social & technological sophistication of contemporary stone age peoples in the americas. it’s interesting but the text of the article does seem patronizing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hitekker 5y ago
  I think Wikipedia summarizes the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe#Political_implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe#Political_impli... > To black nationalist groups, Great Zimbabwe became an important symbol of achievement by Africans: reclaiming its history was a major aim for those seeking majority rule. In 1980 the new internationally recognised independent country was renamed for the site, and its famous soapstone bird carvings were retained from the Rhodesian flag and Coat of Arms as a national symbol and depicted in the new Zimbabwean flag. After the creation of the modern state of Zimbabwe in 1980, Great Zimbabwe has been employed to mirror and legitimise shifting policies of the ruling regime. At first it was argued that it represented a form of pre-colonial "African socialism" and later the focus shifted to stressing the natural evolution of an accumulation of wealth and power within a ruling elite. These are important details that the article does not mention. I presume that's to heighten the appeal of "Great Zimbwawe" to other nationalists who share similar insecurities about their state's eminence in the world but don't actually benefit from Zimbabwe's internal politics. Don't get me wrong, the actual ruins look like a noteworthy accomplishment. But exaggerating it into a wonder of antiquity seems like a ploy by a small group of people to gain clout at the expense of African history. As other commenters and wikipedia points out, Rhodesia also played the same game with the ruins, just in reverse.

shmageggy 5y ago

These comments are unreal to me. The context is right in the beginning of the article. The site was originally deemed too impressive to be built by locals, and later it was too impressive to be built without outside influence, and now that research is showing it was indeed built by locals, it’s no longer impressive. Incredible.

boffinAudio 5y ago
Yes, these comments are unreal to me too, and I think we are witnessing a great deal of white guilt manifesting itself as cowardly dismissal. It is incredible to be witnessing here on HN, but it speaks to how much work is still left to be done in the world, to deal with the hubris and arrogance of western moral authority -- which is as much a fallacy as anything. Peoples investment in the authority and altitude of their own cultures is like a giant boat that won't be turned by anything but a major current. We are but waves on these arrogant bows, friend.

prmph 5y ago

> And I think it’s obvious why that context is never provided It is not obvious to me. Can you to tell us more about why the context is not provided, if you are better informed?

nyolfen 5y ago
it would be difficult to be impressed by this structure if you have passing familiarity with what contemporary civilizations were building. it’s obviously of historical and archaeological significance but my assumption based on the superlatives in the article was that it had been built 1-2k years before its actual construction, roughly contemporaneous with eg notre dame and roughly aligning with the social & technological sophistication of contemporary stone age peoples in the americas. it’s interesting but the text of the article does seem patronizing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hitekker 5y ago
I think Wikipedia summarizes the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe#Political_implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe#Political_impli... > To black nationalist groups, Great Zimbabwe became an important symbol of achievement by Africans: reclaiming its history was a major aim for those seeking majority rule. In 1980 the new internationally recognised independent country was renamed for the site, and its famous soapstone bird carvings were retained from the Rhodesian flag and Coat of Arms as a national symbol and depicted in the new Zimbabwean flag. After the creation of the modern state of Zimbabwe in 1980, Great Zimbabwe has been employed to mirror and legitimise shifting policies of the ruling regime. At first it was argued that it represented a form of pre-colonial "African socialism" and later the focus shifted to stressing the natural evolution of an accumulation of wealth and power within a ruling elite. These are important details that the article does not mention. I presume that's to heighten the appeal of "Great Zimbwawe" to other nationalists who share similar insecurities about their state's eminence in the world but don't actually benefit from Zimbabwe's internal politics. Don't get me wrong, the actual ruins look like a noteworthy accomplishment. But exaggerating it into a wonder of antiquity seems like a ploy by a small group of people to gain clout at the expense of African history. As other commenters and wikipedia points out, Rhodesia also played the same game with the ruins, just in reverse.