5th February 2009, 04:36 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oddie
Hi folks - just a quickie.
Interesting bedates here. Don't get too hung up on the DNA stuff, It's all about respect really. For a start, I'm only a poor lilttle oddie who skipped genetics to focus upon post processual thinking and social anth.
Having quickly broused the comments, I must sya that it's great to read that genetists respect our long dead ancestors - yes folks, everyone's ancestors. If you wish to drill the teeth of your ancestors, that's fine, but as they are my ancestors as well - I must say that no one should assume control or ownership of 'the past'. I understand that reburial is contrary to archaeological thinking (I was a field arch for 2 years before study), I can't help thinking that it would be lovely for those who dug up my ancestor (our ancestor) to rebury them again to properly complete the job. May even aid the process of rebirth and reincarnation.
Funny how all Christian burials excavated are properly reburied (after research has been carried out), while non-Christian's babies are put in glass cases for the voyeurs to drool over. Please try to remember that the bodies of our ancestors should remain in the care and embrace of the Earth Goddess - their teeth included! Bit unfair that no one slags off the law for being so one sided. May cause a religious row eh?
Oddbones /|\:face-approve:
Oddie
Hi
Personally I find your description of people who find human remains interesting "voyeurs" who "drool over" "non-Christian babies" not just offensive but emotive and intellectually challenged. Who are you to simply disregard and denigrate the hundreds of thousands of people's views who visit museums because you advocate a modern religion? What gives you the right to look down on museum audiences as mere passive "drool"ing idiots whilst portraying yourself as somebody with a neutral stance? You may state that no body should have an exclusive claim on our ancestors but you demand reburial on your terms based on your religious beliefs. Isn't this stance merely placing your ideas above others? That isn't compatible with your statement " No one system of thinking should claim sole ownership or dominate another". What I think you actually mean is "no one system other than that sanctioned by ME should dominate another". Not only do you think your views on human remains take primacy but you extend that to artefacts despite the fact that it is impossible to know what meaning (if any) artefacts had in the burial practice.
Lets just take a look at some of your quotes:
"Because the ancestors can't give their consent in this way, the council speaks for the ancestors"
"It is morally abhorrent that the long dead child's remains should be used in this way,"
Emotive, one sided and self justified are all terms which can be applied to these statements. Your one sided view is quite evident in your choice of words, for example:
It is not "morally abhorrent" it is the case that YOU find it morally abhorrent. Personally I don't, you don't have the right to declare on the moral issue in such a pejorative way unless you can be confident that your supported by most people.
The council speak for our ancestors! Are you implying YOU speak for OUR ancestors! Because YOU and the rest of the council don't! YOU speak for yourselfs! What gives you the right to declare yourself prehistoric peoples spokesperson? This implies you believe you have a closer relationship to them than the rest of us and can divine their wishes better than I can. I'm concerned that you care more for your ego than the remains of prehistoric people and I believe that your statements betray your sense of superiority which drives you.
Steven