Re: oldest American skull found!

From: Erik A. Mattila (emattila_at_oco.net)
Date: 10/11/04 

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:44:55 -0700

pwilson wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila emattila@oco.net wrote:
>
>>pwilson wrote:
>>
>>>Erik A. Mattila emattila@oco.net wrote:
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>Well, I suppose you have a reason to prefer your ancestors be buried
>>>forever. Others are not as ashamed of their lineage as you appear to
>>>be.
>>
>>But that's not true at all, wilson.
>
>
> What part of it isn't true?

"Ashamed of their lineage." Not only untrue, but quite cynical.

>
>
>>Do a little research on cemetary laws in western civilization. The
>>entire concept of "desecration of graves" is a grand cultural tradition.
>
> I am not challenging the concept of "desecration of graves". But if one
> of my ancestors is Charlemagne, I will have no problem having his grave
> opened in the interest of scientific research.

No one can say yay or nay about your particular values, wilson. But
others who do not share your values shouldn't be denigrated as "being
ashamed of their ancestors" because they don't want their relatives
displayed in a museum or even studied for science. Is that so difficult
to concede to?

>>Don't believe me.
>
>
> OK, I won't.
>
>
>>Well, then, just go do some forensic anthropology in your local cemetary
>>and see where it gets you.
>
>
> If you need to do forensic anthropology research in your local cemetery,
> you can get permission from the courts to do so (assuming you can
> articulate a valid reason). Exhumation is not impossible.

Which is the issue (and also why argue with Yuri that it is a political
issue.) What permission is acquired from a court on archaelolgical
digs? What court, in fact? Isn't that the whole purpose of NAGPRA? To
represent the interests of communities who might have a problem with
their ancestors bones being dug up and displayed as curios, or even
studied as material artifacts.

>
>
>>>Trigger was a horse, you dummy, not his great aunt.
>>
>>Oh, pardon me. I thought Trigger was Roy's aunt. Silly me.
>
>
> Yes, you are. But recognition is a great step forward.
>
> [...]
>
>>>I would feel very fortunate and privileged to have an ancestor
>>>deemed important enough to have his/hers bones displayed in a
>>>museum. I think it would be great to take your date to a museum and
>>>say "Look, there is the shinbone of my great-great uncle - he used it
>>>to kick the living *** out of Custer at the Little Big Horn". I
>>>would guarantee that alone would mean you'd score that night. And
>>>that's pretty much all that really matters, no?
>>
>>Probably not, but some seem obsessed with such things.
>
>
> What ... scoring? You say it like it's a bad thing.
>
> >I think it all
>
>>rests on the intents of burial of the deceased family.
>
>
> What are you talking about? How can a "deceased family" have a 'burial
> intent'?

Deceased's family, but I imagine you figured that out.

>
>
>>That ought to be respected, don't you think?
>
>
> What ought to be respected? Your entire paragraph doesn't make any sense.
> You have enormous difficulty expressing yourself clearly.

Why are you being so childish? You know exactly what I'm saying.

>>>Quit worrying about the bones of ancestors you never met.
>>>Concentrate instead on being a decent human being. That's really all
>>>that matters in the end.
>>
>>You seem overly concerned with "that's all that really matters."
>
>
> I am just giving you friendly advice. But if you prefer to dwell on
> things that don't really matter (i.e., treatment of ancient bones), go
> ahead and waste your time, if it gives you a sense of accomplishment.

You're about as phoney as a three dollar bill, my friend. Now why don't
you just jump the *** out of this thread like you jumped in. If you're
not interested in the discussion, *** off.

>
>
>>Is this some sort of philosopher's stone that you're seeking?
>
>
> I have already found it. But it's not turning the crap you are posting
> into anything sensible.
>

Quantcast