Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. I believe that is the point. Whats yours?Well, no it wasn't, because the Act doesn't allow for renegotiation upon new discovery.
I think you're still missing the point a bit. This is not an antique vase... Nor is really anything to do with the local aboriginals.Disregarding the law?! Oof!! I'll try.
But first I will say, from a legal perspective if you have a valuable antique, sell it for $10 and later find it's worth well in excess of that, it's not the responsibility of the new owner to renegotiate with you what they're planning to do with what you sold them.
Morally, yeah it's reprehensible that it has been destroyed. But those are the pitfalls of an oral tradition, it's all subject to someones memory and their ability to convey it to the next person. It's a take on the tree falling moral argument; if something is sacred and nobody's around to know that it's sacred anymore, is it still sacred?
Also, do yourself a favour and watch Generation Kill.
I meant you're focusing on the sacred site aspects of it... I'm suggesting there is a bigger failing.Am I though?
“He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.” From the Greek philosopher Socrates.$$$ is the only thing worthy of respect as we continue our global march to the right.
You better not mention this in the "Newly Released..." threads!“He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.” From the Greek philosopher Socrates.
Covering stuff back up again is pretty common. There is a cool Roman town on Mallorca i visited recently that was discovered last century when they did excavations for a road i think, but they kept some of the more interesting parts on display (its an odd feeling sitting on the terraces of a 3000yo amphitheatre....) but most of the town was covered back up again and handed back to the farmers. A metre or two of topsoil preserves things.A greenfield project I was involved with some 15 years ago held a cultural heritage interest. Two groups were listed as having significant interest while 3 or 4 others had passing affiliation. The project went ahead provided anything culturally significant was recorded and relocated. All good so far. A bit of employment as well as preserving the heritage. Except, nothing significant was there (key person from the interested group) because the previous owners who were farmers had stripped it clean years before. Still small sharp stones and marked trees were documented and relocated. Trees were barely 75 years old and the same spokesperson considered the marks were made by dozers clearing the brigalow. Anyway a year or so down the track and a properly significant site was found during excavations for some earthworks. Very interesting, caves and painting. So what is being done I asked? Earthworks replanned and lots moved to preserve the caves. Very good. Will they be fenced off and available for public viewing? No. The caves were mapped with lasers, a model, maybe 1:10 was cast and photographs taken. The caves were filled with concrete to preserve them! Fucking bullshit. The idea of the model and pictures was to create a display in the local town. Never happened. This was a labour state govt project! Indigenous groups were happy with the outcome. Weird.
You didn't see them take the money?Going in for an eye test...coming out almost $1000 lighter.
Clearly not...couldn’t see what I agreed to either.You didn't see them take the money?
Is this the same as when local councils bulldoze dirt jumps in the local forest?It highlights a significant failing of our laws protecting significant sites that are of value to the nation and humanity in general
YepIs this the same as when local councils bulldoze dirt jumps in the local forest?