3 ms·

> 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 ar

by 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.

by 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.