10th February 2009, 03:52 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oddie
Hi all.
I speak for my ancestors. If you want to speak for your ancestors, that's fine by me. It's obvious to me that different views need to be expressed here in relation to OUR collective ancestors. You've had control over everyone's ancestors for a long time now. Time for Druids to have their say. Your respeonses are emotive (but this is forgivable, as death and remory are emotive subjects), and ill considered (unprofessional). If you read Council's request for reburial at avebury, you will notice that we suggest a balanced view to be considered between science and spiritual / ethical beliefs. I see no such grace in arguemnts on this blog site. Shame on you.
References to voyeurs in museums are taken from Shanks and Tilly who designed post processualism at Cambridge and suggest the past is viewed by the present, judged and condemed without a fair hearing. Time for this to stop. Time for you to consider other world views. Time to stop fearing co-operation and compassion. Time for a bit of humility folks.
If you want to attack anyone for daring to suggest reburial, I suggest you approach the Christian Church who successfully pressed for the manditory reburial of all remains excavated from Christian burial grounds. I guess you won't do this, and it is not unreasonable to expect equal treatment for our requests for reburial of our ancient dead
Paul Davies
Reburial Officer
Council of British Druid Orders
Oddie
Hi
No you don't speak for the ancestors, that's my point. You CLAIM to speak for them, they haven't appointed you. You seem incapable of recognising that you have no mandate from them and cannot accept that in fact you speak only for yourself and YOUR views, you have to make a huge number of assumptions to take any other stance. Its fine to have a faith based (or even humaniatian) stance about reburial but making exagerated claims that you represent the ancestors is just silly.
When you say unprofessional do you mean my comments were contrary to professional standards? Hmmm...interesting I consider that they are based on professional opinion added to a sarcastic personality mixed with an individual concern over your motives. This is quite different from your comments which use a religious bias and false sometimes contradictory statements. Do you really consider your statements to have grace? I have read the request and no other option except reburial is offered and indeed despite saying that discussion is needed the request condemns any form of retention and shuts down any further debate by saying potential research techniques are an unconvincing argument for retention. It conveniently ignores future funding potential for already tried and tested techniques above and beyond the initial project budget!
You didn't quote S & T, you stated an opinion, so backtracking now to try and academically legitimise a bigoted statement doesn't cut it with me.
As historic building points out you are just plain WRONG about mandatory burial of christains, its not true! The guidelines clearly state that when human remains have future research potential "deposition in a suitable holding institution should be arranged". What you seem to actually be doing is just attacking the christian church because you appear to believe we are all in thrall to the church and scared of saying anything against them. Well as I have made churches deal properly with their buried parishioners and indeed (advised and gained) refusal of planning permission for development of a church on archaeological/human remains issues I can disabuse you of this notion.
Steven