|
 |
Give Rosetta Stone to Egypt? | ||
Tags: Egypt | Rosetta Stone | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Cultural Experiences in Foreign Languages |  | |
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes  20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 9 of 34 11 December 2009 at 3:57am | IP Logged | |||||
There is that too, whereby the precedent would be set, and then all sorts of museum exhibits worldwide would be affected and returned to their "proper" place. As to being proud of one's history, it seems to me to be as comparable to being proud of one's language (Note that this is not related to the idea of knowing/learning history (or a language for that matter) which should be encouraged regardless of whether one has some personal connection to the historical narrative (or language) in question). Yet to be proud of that history or language seems to me to be as silly as being proud of being born with a face, hair, torso, limbs etc. It's this kind of national/linguistic pride that acts as a common prerequisite for people to support "correction" of some historical "injustices" or inflammatory claims/language policy that bring up the "superiority" of a language over others. This nationalist undertone in Hawass' reasoning is what gets my "antennae" up (notwithstanding the practical problems for curators that it would create). 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Paskwc Pentaglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5677 days ago 450 posts - 624 votes Speaks: Hindi, Urdu*, Arabic (Levantine), French, English Studies: Persian, Spanish | Message 10 of 34 11 December 2009 at 4:43am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Some societies can't really be trusted with safe-guarding their cultural
heritage (note the Taliban and Buddhist statues). Egyptians don't have a very good record of taking care of their own antiquities and some may say that they're only involved so far as they can attract tourists; the artifact may be in better hands in Britain than it would be in Egypt. Edited by Paskwc on 11 December 2009 at 4:59am 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| cordelia0507 Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5838 days ago 1473 posts - 2176 votes Speaks: Swedish* Studies: German, Russian | Message 11 of 34 11 December 2009 at 10:36am | IP Logged | |||||
|
My personal opinion is that the Talibans were idiots for blowing up the statues. And I am sure it's true that Egypt have made many mistakes when it comes to looking after the ancient culture there.
But it's not my business. And I dont think it's the business of anyone else in Europe or North America either. Let he who is free of sin throw the first stone... My own country ruined tons of old culture when it became Christian (just for starters), then later when it became Lutheran. It blew up a sizeable historical quarters as late as the 1960s to build a pathetic, bland "modern" business area. Much worse has happened elsewhere in Europe. I respect both Egypt's and Afghanistan's ultimate right to do what they want within their own borders and I am totally opposed to the "world police" mentality of telling other countries what to do. Imagine if it was the other way around. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Gusutafu Senior Member Sweden Joined 5521 days ago 655 posts - 1039 votes Speaks: Swedish* | Message 12 of 34 11 December 2009 at 10:55am | IP Logged | |||||
Exactly. It may of course be true that some countries can't take care of their heritage, but when you start talking about interventions you come very close to what America is doing. It is infinitely sad what is happening all over the world, not least in China before the Asian games, and the Olympics, but on what grounds could 'we' intervene? And how? Militarily? I do wish someone had stopped the 60's madness in Stockholm, by force if necessary. There is one proper street left in that area now, with low 18th century houses. I can only imagine what was lost. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| cordelia0507 Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5838 days ago 1473 posts - 2176 votes Speaks: Swedish* Studies: German, Russian | Message 13 of 34 11 December 2009 at 11:08am | IP Logged | |||||
|
@Gusutafu: A friend of mine studied a subject called Urban planning at university. She found out that the only reason these lunatics didn't level the Old Town (of Stockholm) was that the lead planner unexpectedly died of a heart attack and the project was halted for a few months. This gave the opponents enough time to get organised and stop the madness. I guess this must have been around 1970 or so.
Since I'm on the topic - this didn't just happen in Stockholm. It happened in every other town in the country. Unbelievable after surving the war intact! They sure built plenty of ugly blocks of flats in Eastern Europe, but at least they didn't tear down historical buildings just for the sake of it.. Edited by cordelia0507 on 11 December 2009 at 12:46pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Captain Haddock Diglot Senior Member Japan kanjicabinet.tumblr. Joined 6768 days ago 2282 posts - 2814 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: French, Korean, Ancient Greek | Message 14 of 34 11 December 2009 at 11:43am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Thinking about all the wonderful treasures that are stored in the Louvre and the British Museum, one has to realize
these represent French and British history too. There was a great epoch of exploration where adventurers from these countries went around the world, braving wars and disease to uncover history and find artifacts that would have otherwise been lost forever, and to introduce the histories, languages, and cultures of distant peoples to Europe. The Rosetta Stone may have been dug up in Egypt, but it has no connection to modern Arab-Egyptian society. Rather, it has deep connections to the history of civilization in the Mediterranean and to French scholarship and is an inspirational metaphor to the Western world. As for ownership, well, finders keepers. Edited by Captain Haddock on 11 December 2009 at 11:49am 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Gusutafu Senior Member Sweden Joined 5521 days ago 655 posts - 1039 votes Speaks: Swedish* | Message 15 of 34 11 December 2009 at 12:00pm | IP Logged | |||||
No, people are not proud of having a language, they are proud of the particular language and culture they belong to. Your second point, that pride has to go arm in arm with supremacism, is just plain stupid. I'm sure everyone is proud of their family, not because they are necessarily 'superior' to everyone else. A country is in effect a very extended family. It is very natural to feel affection for the culture you are brought up in. It is a very strange and frightening point of view that you can only be proud of things that are somehow 'better' than everything else. The very idea that cultures could be measured on a linear scale is ludicrous. The question of Rome and Italy is complex, since parts of Italy were Greek and the present day border does not reflect any kind of inner Roman empire, as opposed to the French parts. It is not like a city in modern Italy is necessarily more Roman than some city in France or Germany. At the same time, all descendants of the Roman empire should be able to take pride in their history, Europe would be very different now if it weren't for the Romans, right or wrong. What is a people without a history? It is just a random collection of people that happen to live close to each other. That's a pretty depressing thought. Edited by Gusutafu on 11 December 2009 at 2:09pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 16 of 34 11 December 2009 at 5:34pm | IP Logged | |||||
I think what is getting lost here is the distinction between knowing something, and then being proud of something. Pride of being part of something accidental or random (e.g. being born into a cultural group or in a town) seems meaningless. One can however have pride in an accomplishment (e.g. I studied hard, and got a positive outcome from my effort). I can (and should) learn my ancestors' or ethnic kin's history, but it doesn't mean I must take pride in that history associated with my ancestors or ethnic kin. When you consider nationalist or even patriotic movements, the common thread is having pride in one's association with a culture, history or even language. In some cases, these nationalists/patriots move onto saying that they're proud of those things because they are "better", "more sophisticated" or "more expressive". This more than just a case of simple love for such things. I've found it more depressing to see people getting carried with historical pride or being burdened by it, than to learn about history, yet have pride in working toward simply getting along with random people/neighbours. When it comes to family, it's the same thing. I love my family, but it evokes little pride for me. For example, what my sister accomplishes, however impressive, is really something that is first and foremost to her credit. I can talk glowingly about her exploits (or be jealous of them if I'm so inclined), yet I'd feel odd (not to mention silly) to take pride in those exploits which were not of my doing and am associated with only by accident of birth. I'd look like some sort of wanker who's trying to milk a familial (but in the grand scheme, accidental) connection, wouldn't I? That's what I see at the core of this dispute over the Rosetta Stone. Hawass is playing a nationalist game by insinuating that the Rosetta Stone is better served by being among the arms of the people who now inhabit the area where it was found. Hawass ignores the fact that the Rosetta Stone is a product of an era/civilization that has little to do with modern Egypt other than having shared the same piece of real estate. The Stone is no more culturally or linguistically linked to modern Egyptians than to the European finders of the Stone. Whether the Stone is in England or Egypt seems meaningless since neither place is really the "rightful place". By the same token, if pieces of Stonehenge had been shipped to France, apart from reasons of English national pride, why should modern Britons have fits if a "national treasure" weren't in Britain? Stonehenge is a product of a culture that is poorly understood - we're not even sure if the Celts had built it and for sure it wasn't the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Normans or whoever else from Scandinavia who built it. As such long-time residents of the UK (who trace their descent to those ancient migrations) have no more "claim" to Stonehenge than a UK-born child of Indian immigrants who settled in England in the 1950s. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
