|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ancient sites: Protect or Use? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 05:26
|
||
|
"I think there's a case to be made for your point of view, but I think there's equally a case to be made for those who wish to leave non-destructive offerings." Well no, I think they have no case whatsoever actually, and although there's a case for everyone else to tolerate them doing it a bit it ought to be on the understanding that its a concession by the rest not a natural right to be claimed. As I see it, we each own a bit of a site for as long as we're there. Like Time Share. But the moment we walk away our ownership ceases. The idea that anyone can walk away yet leave something imposed upon a site proclaiming to others they still "own" it is completely unfair. Like when my brother used to lick all over all the chocolates before he went out to play, the swine.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 08:36
|
||
|
CianMcLiam wrote: I don't think asking people to leave places as they find it is being intolerant or extremist I never said it was. I was very careful to say that it can create the impression of extremism and intolerance. Now you can choose to shrug your shoulders and ignore that, but if you want to get through to the people that you feel are creating the problem, then alienating them further is going to be entirely counter-productive surely? CianMcLiam wrote: It shouldn't have to be pointed out that you don't need arguments for leaving a place exactly as you found it, it doesn't have good points and bad points, it's just a basic principle of a being with conscience I'm sorry, but that's predicated upon a number of assumptions that are entirely subjective and particular to your world-view. It's not an unreasonable position to hold, but it's very narrow-minded to assume that everyone must or should think the same way. If such was the case, we'd have no concrete markers at Avebury (which would be an improvement, I agree - but the example demonstrates that clearly such thinking is not an objective absolute shared by all). CianMcLiam wrote: ...and the ability to reason that the next person would much rather find a site in the condition brought on by time, as built by whomever thousands of years ago and not lacking in any way for modern 'enhancements' or tokens. That's a pretty big assumption. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of ill-informed visitors actually find the leaving of offerings "quaint". I'm not in basic opposition to you on any of these points, but I do think some effort needs to be made to understand that not everyone approaches the subject with the same assumptions and values. If you want your case to prevail, then you need to show some respect for that fact, and accept that the case needs to be argued. The rationale of your position may be self-evident to you and those who share your values, but they are not self-evident to everyone. I'm not defending that reality - simply observing it. CianMcLiam wrote: If anything many people would find it a bizarre attempt at empathy with the completely unknown, even an alienating attempt to monopolise the right to enjoy and 'use' a shared heritage. And by labelling those actions as such, does it not strike you that you're simply alienating people further and reducing your chances of convincing them with your argument? Progress in such areas is usually made by reaching out to people and attempting to understand their position - not by contemptuously dismissing them. Perhaps they share your integrity, but are not as well informed?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 08:48
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "I think there's a case to be made for your point of view, but I think there's equally a case to be made for those who wish to leave non-destructive offerings." Well no, I think they have no case whatsoever actually That's a really good starting point for dialogue and understanding! They clearly do have a case - just not one that you sympathise with. You can put close your eyes and pretend the sky doesn't exist all you want to - it's still there. Disagree with them - fine. Argue that such actions are destructive - fine. But try and understand that not everyone sees the world in the same way that you do, and whether you disagree with their actions or not, it may be that they feel they're acting with integrity - in exactly the same way that you do. nigelswift wrote: and although there's a case for everyone else to tolerate them doing it a bit it ought to be on the understanding that its a concession by the rest not a natural right to be claimed. There's no such thing as "natural rights", so that's a non-argument to start with. Perhaps your right to enjoy the stones is a concession of the land-owner who doesn't drive you off with a gun? We're entering the realm of abstract ethics here. nigelswift wrote: As I see it, we each own a bit of a site for as long as we're there. Like Time Share. But the moment we walk away our ownership ceases. The idea that anyone can walk away yet leave something imposed upon a site proclaiming to others they still "own" it is completely unfair. You're making a rather large assumption there! I don't think that a statement of ownership is inherent in such actions - simply inferred. And what greater statement of ownership is there than to say that nobody has a right to enjoy an ancient site except in ways that meet with your approval? I mean I'm essentially on your side here, but even I'm finding that attitude a little hard to swallow. I can only imagine the degree to which it alienates the people you really need to convince!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 09:07
|
||
|
"I don't think that a statement of ownership is inherent in such actions - simply inferred." I disagree profoundly. To impose your own physical statement on a place and then leave - a place that cannot be seen as other than "everyone's" - just can't be interpreted as fair to others. I'm not saying a bit of give and take isn't the obvious solution but I do think it should be seen as that not seen as a compromise between two equally valid views. This all reminds me of the metal detecting debate. "We'll do what we want, and not think about the impact on others". "If its a communal resource, its mine". You can tell me I have no right to impose "my" contrary view, to which I would answer "let them show how I'm wrong".... If a person plays loud music or shouts while there
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 09:23
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: If anything many people would find it a bizarre attempt at empathy with the completely unknown, even an alienating attempt to monopolise the right to enjoy and 'use' a shared heritage. And by labelling those actions as such, does it not strike you that you're simply alienating people further and reducing your chances of convincing them with your argument? Progress in such areas is usually made by reaching out to people and attempting to understand their position - not by contemptuously dismissing them. Perhaps they share your integrity, but are not as well informed? People are more likely to want to visit somewhere that doesn't bear markers or labels placed by someone else. The feeling of alienation when arriving at a site that bears marks of ownership is disturbing, making you feel as if you are trespassing on someone else's sacred ground. Surely the idea is to encourage people to visit, feel welcome, and to generate a common feeling of wellbeing and care for the site itself, rather than an uncomfortable visit.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 09:57
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: People are more likely to want to visit somewhere that doesn't bear markers or labels placed by someone else. The feeling of alienation when arriving at a site that bears marks of ownership is disturbing, making you feel as if you are trespassing on someone else's sacred ground. I'd humbly beg to differ. For many people, I think such things increase the exotic appeal of a site, even adding character. Projecting one's personal reaction onto others is always a mistake. Without objective, empirical evidence, any statement about the exact division of reaction can only be speculative. slumpystones wrote: Surely the idea is to encourage people to visit, feel welcome, and to generate a common feeling of wellbeing and care for the site itself, rather than an uncomfortable visit. Absolutely. But your idea of "wellbeing" may differ from someone else's. Again, I'm not saying that you're essentially wrong... just that it would be productive to appreciate that other people can have different ways of viewing the situation whilst still acting with personal integrity. Connecting with such people and trying to understand them and engage them in dialogue will achieve far more than rigid opposition.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 10:07
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "I don't think that a statement of ownership is inherent in such actions - simply inferred." I disagree profoundly. I'm puzzled by how you can reach that position. If I... in innocence and ignorance... leave an offering at an ancient site (highly unlikely, I hasten to add!), simply as a means of expressing how I feel spiritually about the place.... there is no statement of ownership, other than that which is inferred by others. You might equally argue that an assertion that one knows what's best for a site contains an implicit statement of ownership. You're defining what you consider to be acceptable forms of interaction with that site, and hoping to impose them upon others. Now you may very well have the best interests of the site at heart, and your ideas of how it should be treated may very well bear merit... but it's still very possible to infer a statement of ownership from such a position. From an impartial standpoint, the latter point of view would actually appear far more territorial than leaving a few flowers in a stone circle. nigelswift wrote: To impose your own physical statement on a place and then leave - a place that cannot be seen as other than "everyone's" - just can't be interpreted as fair to others. Even your presence imposes a physical statement upon a place. Allowing your children to run around imposes a physical statement upon a place. Holding a picnic at a site imposes a physical statement on a place... all reasonable actions, but far more likely to impose upon the tranquil enjoyment of others than the leaving of a few offerings. nigelswift wrote: I'm not saying a bit of give and take isn't the obvious solution but I do think it should be seen as that not seen as a compromise between two equally valid views. And I'm not saying that I disagree with you regarding "best practices" at ancient sites. I'm suggesting that it's always advantageous to try and understand alternate ways of looking at a situation. If truths were objective and self-evident, we'd always agree on everything! This all reminds me of the metal detecting debate. "We'll do what we want, and not think about the impact on others". "If its a communal resource, its mine". You can tell me I have no right to impose "my" contrary view, to which I would answer "let them show how I'm wrong".... If a person plays loud music or shouts while there
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 10:08
|
||
|
If I can just butt in briefly... I, personally, honestly don't mind people leaving stuff (with the exception of non-biodegradeable tat, of course) if they don't mind me removing it! Fair's fair, and all that! ;o) Carry on! G x
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 10:08
|
||
Whoops. Left a bit of your text on the end of that last post, sorry! My comments ended at "If truths were objective and self-evident, we'd always agree on everything!"
|
|||
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Edited Jun 27, 2007, 10:23
Jun 27, 2007, 10:22
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Whoops. Left a bit of your text on the end of that last post, sorry! My comments ended at "If truths were objective and self-evident, we'd always agree on everything!" Not at all, it's usually self interests and self delusions that cause 'disagreements'. Your starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly & co. on Fox News, when someone states a verifiable fact they retort 'well that's your opinion' before moving on to something else. There's property you own, property you dont and property you share, you modify your behaviour accordingly. It seems people want to treat ancient sites like their own personal property, it just is not. It's shared and should be respected in this way, no personal stamps of ownership or tokens of your visit unless there's a very good reason. I haven't heard a good reason yet why others should leave visual/material pollution that was not there before they arrived.
|
| Pages: 23 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
