Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 233 posts

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#221

Post by goodSteveramos »

8note wrote: post #220
goodSteveramos wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No most Europeans, including those in Australia care deeply about cultural preservation. In this case every European involved, the government, media and owner of the land all do. The odd thing is how the aboriginal people have done nothing to preserve this art for thousands of years. I would be curious to know if the previous vandals mentioned in TFA were leaving European or aboriginal names behind. One of the compla…

Europeans everywhere care mostly about owning and profiting off of artwork, preservation of a work is important insofar as it allows Europeans to hoard the art and sell it, or grant prestige to their museums and galleries compared to other museums and galleries. The cultural preservation is utterly unwanted - that's why things like the Benin bronzes have been forever broken and split up amongst Europeans in pieces, r…

How was the Australian government profiting from installing security measures at the prehistoric cave art in TFA? I agree Europeans value history and sometimes see things as too static, but this is because Europeans are a thoughtful and sentimental people not because we are somehow profiting from putting delicate cave artifacts behind a gate.

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#222

Post by glandium »

tarsinge wrote: post #218
glandium wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in France now are barely related to the people who were there 10k years ago. Heck, I'm not even sure there are a lot of descendants of the Gauls left.

The thing is it’s the Gauls that are not much related to the people that drew cave art. European hunter gatherers were replaced by eastern farmers in the Neolithic.

My point was that the Gauls, who were much closer to us than 10k years ago, have been replaced too.

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#223

Post by bigDinosaur »

esperent wrote: post #212
bigDinosaur wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilisation as a value judgement is distinct from the literal description that defines the word, which is the development of cities.

The development of cities is the origin of the word, it's not the current meaning , at best, it's one part of that meaning. Pretty much all words work this way - see the joke thread under this one saying that the perpetrators in this case shouldn't be called vandals because that's originally the name of a specific German tribe. The current colloquial definition of civilization almost certainly includes aboriginal soc…

You lose the meaning of the word if it becomes too inclusive, and you'd simply have to use a new word to distinguish between societies that developed cities and other major technological advancements and those that did not. There were key and fundamental differences between pre-colonial Indigenous Australian nations and the way people lived in say, England, at the same time.

While the origin of the word itself is quite literally Eurocentric, being a judgement and description invented by Romans, the consensus has been for a long time that civilisation did not start in Europe which undermines the idea that it's simply a Eurocentric/racist idea.

You can also certainly argue that civilisation has major faults and ignored local indigenous knowledge in colonial contexts due to a misguided sense of superiority. If I may suggest a good book on this kind of thing, check out Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott. I don't buy into the idea that civilisation is inherently superior (although I do like a lot of the things that come with it) which is probably why I don't see a need to make the word more inclusive.

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#224

Post by henriquemaia »

BEEdwards wrote: post #141
henriquemaia wrote: post #126

I know this is the article's title, and that this may sound as a tangent, but whoever destroyed the cave drawings were definitely not Vandals: > The Vandals were a Germanic people who first inhabited what is now southern Poland. They established Vandal kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean islands, and North Africa in the fifth century. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

That's the origin of the word, but not what anyone (outside of historians) mean when they say it. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vandal

I really want to thank you for your reply. You took the time to point me to what you think is the right direction, i.e., the current meaning of the word.

However, I know I didn't mention this before, but my point was more subtle, even to me at the time as I was not totally aware on why I even bothered to point out the origin of the word.

Today, looking at your reply, I had it more clear. Here we have an article telling us about a terrible thing, that is, the destruction of an unrecoverable piece of history. And in that same article, the writer engages in a language that is just the result of a prejudice against an old group of people, namely the Vandals.

Why are the Vandals vandals? Because they destroyed parts of the Roman empire. So the Romans and their ways stand for what is considered correct, civilized, the apex of civilization, while all other peoples including the Vandals are not. The Vandals vandalize in the sense that they go against the established order.

But hidden in this assumption is the very idea that Romans acted differently from the Vandals. That they, when they imposed themselves on others, were somewhat more polished, more sophisticated. They were not. They vandalized, or should I say _romanized_, the Vandals and all other peoples around them.

So by using this language, even when we are not thinking about it, we end up perpetuating these hidden assumptions. The same could be said about using other words, but this word in particular made me feel this way when I read the article.

Anyway, thanks again for your comment. If I wasn't aware of the new meaning of the word, your comment would definitely improve my understanding. Unfortunately, I was just too obscure to really get my point across at the time.

. Growing up in Portugal, and learning about the Vandals in school, gave me a kind of feeling of relating more closely to that group. Partly because of this, they are not just historic trivia. I feel somewhat connected to them, though this may not be a real biological connection. I hope you get the gist of it.

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#225

Post by henriquemaia »

armada651 wrote: post #142
henriquemaia wrote: post #126

I know this is the article's title, and that this may sound as a tangent, but whoever destroyed the cave drawings were definitely not Vandals: > The Vandals were a Germanic people who first inhabited what is now southern Poland. They established Vandal kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean islands, and North Africa in the fifth century. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

Noun vandal (plural vandals) 1. A person who needlessly destroys, defaces, or damages other people's property. Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vandal

Thanks for your reply, really. Please check my reply here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34174433

That is, if you so wish. I replied only today because only today I had it more clear what I wanted to say. Thanks anyway!

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#226

Post by autoexec »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #167
dannyw wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hypothetical, but a couple cameras and a sign letting people know the area is under surveillance will probably do.

According to the article: > The vandals forced their way past barbed wire and dug under a steel gate so I doubt cameras and a sign sign would've deterred then.

In fairness, that same article suggests cameras would have helped.

> “The failure to build an effective gate, or to make use of modern security services, such as wildlife monitoring cameras that operate 24/7, has in many ways allowed this vandalism to occur,”

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#227

Post by bufferout »

spritefs wrote: post #64

Question for Australians here: is racism against aboriginals widespread in Australia? How does the govt work to prevent it?

It's a complex topic. Cosmopolitan white Australians generally tend to overcompensate on the virtue posturing front in regards to being pro black rights. Many not actually having ever met an indigenous member of our population. Rural whites tend to be more cynical as they have direct exposure to the effects of rampant alcoholism and crime in many indigenous communities.

I grew up around indigenous kids in Townsville several decades ago (shoes at our school were optional which I thought was a win for everyone). Honestly didn't consider the black kids any different, despite my actively racist parents.

The general consensus now is that the indigenous population is no doubt disadvantaged, but there's still an undercurrent of it being perceived as a self inflicted situation due to poor choices / victim mentality / whatever. A common story that does the rounds is of government provided housing having campfires lit in the living room.

I'd say it's a pretty universal opinion that all gov policy on the matter has been, and still is, ineffective or wasteful. I have no idea how you'd actually legislate effective change here though as it's most certainly not a matter of just throwing more money at the problem.

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#228

Post by armada651 »

henriquemaia wrote: post #224
BEEdwards wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the origin of the word, but not what anyone (outside of historians) mean when they say it. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vandal

I really want to thank you for your reply. You took the time to point me to what you think is the right direction, i.e., the current meaning of the word. However, I know I didn't mention this before, but my point was more subtle, even to me at the time as I was not totally aware on why I even bothered to point out the origin of the word. Today, looking at your reply, I had it more clear. Here we have an article telli…

> So by using this language, even when we are not thinking about it, we end up perpetuating these hidden assumptions.

It's definitely interesting to learn about the history behind the words we use. However words like these have long since lost their original meaning. I fail to see how it can perpetuate an assumption about the Vandals if most people don't even realize the word was originally referring to a group of people. Too much emphasis is placed these days on the words we use rather than the idea we're attempting to get across.

I understand that you feel a personal connection with the Vandals. But you can take comfort in the fact that nobody who uses that word in its current meaning is speaking ill of the Vandals as a people. And it gives you an opportunity to educate people about the history behind that word and the important lesson about hubris that we should learn from it. Because despite the negative connentation the word now has, wouldn't erasing the word from our language be another step towards forgetting about the Vandals and their history?

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#229

Post by henriquemaia »

armada651 wrote: post #228
henriquemaia wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want to thank you for your reply. You took the time to point me to what you think is the right direction, i.e., the current meaning of the word. However, I know I didn't mention this before, but my point was more subtle, even to me at the time as I was not totally aware on why I even bothered to point out the origin of the word. Today, looking at your reply, I had it more clear. Here we have an article telli…

> So by using this language, even when we are not thinking about it, we end up perpetuating these hidden assumptions. It's definitely interesting to learn about the history behind the words we use. However words like these have long since lost their original meaning. I fail to see how it can perpetuate an assumption about the Vandals if most people don't even realize the word was originally referring to a group of pe…

Once again, thanks for engaging.

I feel I'm getting entangled in a discussion I'm not really a part of. I'm not a prescriptivist, I don't really care that much about the direction most of the language takes. I know it's alive; it has its own ways; it will change continuously despite all the efforts some may put behind keeping it in this or that way.

My point was just that it's a bit sad how what was nothing more than a prejudice, and an very biased one, got 'normalized' without us even being aware of it now.

And yes, your point is pretty valid.

> But you can take comfort in the fact that nobody who uses that word in its current meaning is speaking ill of the Vandals as a people.

That being quite true, that also shows how we are not really paying attention how language has been shaped by ideologies/prejudices/biases. In a way, it's also comforting to know that despite the way ideologues/those with prejudice try to shape our minds, all that gets silenced in the long run. Language has a life of its own.

> Because despite the negative connentation the word now has, wouldn't erasing the word from our language be another step towards forgetting about the Vandals and their history?

Well, one thing's for sure: no Vandal will feel vandalized by the historical vandalism of calling someone a vandal. May they all rest in peace.

Once again, thanks a lot for engaging. Your comments have been insightful. I really appreciate that.

Re: Vandals destroy 30k-year-old indigenous cave drawings in Australia

#230

Post by TheHappyOddish »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #206
yawnxyz wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get really mad at you when you tell them their acknowledgment of land / country to the Gadigal / other peoples is just a way to pay lip service and not actually do what’s required. If they really actually cared, they would have protected these sites.

It absolutely is just lip service. So was Rudd's apology, milestone that it was. "We acknowledge we're on stolen land" "Are you gonna give it back?" "Nah" Imagine if I pinched my neighbour's TV, plugged it in and said "I acknowledge the traditional owner of this television" before switching it on. Wonder if he'd be cool with it.

This is what pisses me off about the acknowledgements cropping up everywhere now. "We acknowledge this land was never ceeded". Ok, so isn't the next rational step to give it back then?

I've never met a white person who spouts "it's still their land" who actually gives back their 700sqm they worked to buy.

Post reply on HN