-Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
-Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
Imagine doing a Gate of Ishtar maneuver but with the pyramids
It’s not quite the same thing (particularly because of the motivation), but, uhh…I suggest you read about Abu Simbel, if you haven’t already.
To be fair. Most of the pyramids were raided far before the British took an interest and whatever they held has now been lost to time.
Eh, I meant the whole pyramids but fair enough.
how to write lists
- Why there are pyramids in Egypt? - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.renders to
- Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
- Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.
Edit: Disregard. They were trying to do quotation dashes.
Well, that’s the reason why I didn’t write it like that. I wanted it to look like a dash, just like in novels.
By the way, Markdown also takes escape
\, which is why sometimes the shrugging emoticon is missing left arm.- So this
- also works with spaceSo you don’t even necessarily have to leave out the space.
Apparently there is already a separate symbol for speech dash, which is —. However its keyboard shortcut is obscure and I couldn’t remember it later, but Markdown already covered this it seems. Writing
renders as —, which I’ll do from now on, if I don’t forget about it next time.
So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.
How is it breaking accessibility?
Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds
when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined
The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.
If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.
It doesn’t look like a list to me, but a riddle.
Would putting a Q: and A: in front of them satisfy you or would that send you off on a different tangent of chastising web users on their formatting?
Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech, the tech should get better at interpreting human tendencies of writing. Even today I can write in a non-structured natural language form and a decent chat bot can typically make a reasonable interpretation of it without help.
It doesn’t look like a list to me
Then the
-weren’t needed.Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech
- Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices:
-SPACE list item. Even aesthetically, the plain text looks atrocious without a space there & worse when rendered. - The technology is fine, there was even a button in the toolbar. It’s not that hard to figure out to anyone trying: there’s a preview button & they can edit.
All anyone has to do is (1) follow regular convention or (2) use the technology. Getting this wrong despite the technology & standard convention is less a technology problem & more a user problem.
Edit: I understand what you both meant now: quotation dashes. They’re less common in English, but still correct! Edited my comment above to reflect this. Thanks.
- Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices:
I don’t have a screen reader installed so I cannot try it but I can guess how it can screw with it. However I agree with Monkey With A Shell here. It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics, this can only be solved with a better software.
While I use markdown daily, apparently there are still things I don’t know about it. Well, I mostly learn them when I need them but still. So, I could use
—(speech dash) instead of-, which I assume wouldn’t cause a problem with a screen reader. There is no way for me to remember its shortcut on the keyboard, but it seems Markdown already covered this withwhich ends up rendered as—.Thanks for making me noticing about it, learned something new today.
It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics
Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys
-first -second -thirdlooks obviously bad whereas
- first - second - thirdlooks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview. You also had a button in the toolbar to create a list.
I don’t think this is asking much.
If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.
I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.
TIL what quotation dashes are.
What’s the opinion on certain high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
if a museum feels under threat
If you run a museum in Afghanistan and are afraid that the Taliban is going to execute you unless you destroy some blasphemous statue, are you going to risk your life to send the artifact to the British Museum, or are you just going to destroy it? Yeah, some heroes will definitely risk their lives, but most won’t.
Better than nothing
The alternative isn’t “nothing”, it’s getting precious cultural artifacts out of high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed.
How do you think consent works?
If they are consenting then that’s just my suggestion already
Who’s consenting?
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it’s so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
That’s the question. Where is the line between racism and artifact protection?
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
“It’s safer with us” is an excuse that’s been abused by colonizers and raiders for too long.
What if some of the locals want it taken away for protection, but the government wants it destroyed?
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases. I think it places where it’s uncertain, then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
You will never be able to get everyone to agree on anything and you can’t hold a referendum for every artifact.
So as far as responsibility goes, barring edge cases, it should be left upto the government to decide, as they represent the people.
And tbh, this feels like an argument made in bad faith, because this is such a rare case. No government is going to ask for an artifact back and then destroy it. What happened in afganistan and Syria was a tragedy (they didn’t ask for those artifacts back, they were already there) But that only happened because the previous governments had been destabilized by Russian and American influences. (Iraq war - Isis, Afganistan war - alqaeda)
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases.
Just return it to the country where it was taken from. And I don’t think there are many cases where ownership is vague, most are pretty plain and clear.
then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
That’s not on you, that’s on their original keepers. Otherwise you are propagating colonial era crimes and justifying them by arguing in bad faith.
P.s.
- Museums have a notorious record when it comes to maintaining artifacts (they aren’t shining beacons of humanity), especially the British museum.
- They also do less than what’s needed to discourage artifact smuggling.
- watch: https://youtu.be/eJPLiT1kCSM
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
Which people? The government? So in Afghanistan it’s up to the Taliban? If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
And, again, which people? Is a totem pole in a museum in Canada the property of the Canadian people? Or is it something that belongs to the Haida people, and it doesn’t matter what other Canadians want? If it is up to the Haida, it is up to the Council of the Haida Nation, or is it up to the band the original artist belonged to?
What about a Tatar artifact found in Donetsk? Who gets control over that? Is it the Russians since they occupy Donetsk? The Ukrainians because they used to occupy it? Do you have to study the blood of various Ukrainian people to figure out who has the most surviving Tatar DNA?
If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
You mean most governments?
In many cases there is no owner, they’re from a completely separate culture that happened to occupy the same region in the past.
Many cases
Source: my ass
deleted by creator
If you’re suggesting a daring heist at the Smithsonian, I’m in!
Adults have the right to make their own mistakes?
better a museum than on a shelf in someone’s living room (no I won’t be donating it)
They are my human skulls I found them fair and square
This is why I always donate my finished books to my local library. I don’t need them and, if I want to read them again, I can always just go check it out from the library.
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Those relics belong to dead people.
Attributing modern concepts of borders to Westphalia is a Eurocentric worldview. What, you don’t think they had the concept of statehood and sovereignty in Asia for at least a few thousand years prior to this?
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Stealing this foolproof argument for when I next apply for a UK visa to go to British Museum. Thanks!
Those relics belong to dead people.
No, it belongs to a community. Does something stop belonging to a people if the original creators die? No.
That way nobody owns any land, because it belongs to the amoeba.
Returning the artifacts is meant to be a good will gesture, and a sort of a reparation (in lieu of the actual reparations) for all the horrible colonial era crimes that were propagated not more than even 100 years ago.
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept
Very Lemmy comment haha
When I was in grad school, the philosophy of science students would egg me on with things like: “I’ll buy you a beer if you can prove the electron is real”. I’d like to think I’m carrying on their tradition in science memes.
I think I get the gist of what you’re saying but they’re very much not arbitrary. They’re a direct manifestation of a state’s ability to exert control.
We agree entirely.
Without the ability to exert control and therefore reinforce the definition, borders are as arbitrary as any other law. They are created by people, enforced by people, and if we change our mind then they can go away. It’s not some intrinsic property of the planet.
While I’m ranting, the definition of a relic or artifact is equally arbitrary. As well as the definition of a people. And ownership. At any point in history, these definitions will be different. Right now we’ve defined it in such a way that we’ve decided that it is socially acceptable to return relics to people who live inside geographic areas where the relics originated from. This is also arbitrary.
But as long as people, decide to exert force to reinforce this definitions, there is true as any other law.
Gotta love how the first movie opens with him stealing an idol from an uncontacted Peruvian tribe, and the heroic music swells as he narrowly escapes with spears flying around them.
Granted, this takes place in 1936 and his actions were the norm for the period, but despite coming out in 1981 the movie plays this scene out rather uncritically.
Yeah, but if the tribe made those traps that still work perfectly after hundreds of years, imagine how advanced they must be by now. Dr Jones was probably within miles of a hidden techno utopia and never had a clue.
Marion, this is a movie made in the 1980s and set in the 1930s, what the hell are you even talking about?
It should belong to the country of origin, but it could also be shared and tour around museums across the globe so an even greater number of people can check it out. They do this with art pieces. Why not cultural artifacts, too? Is not everyone entitled to learning about anything, including someone else’s culture?
I would assume there would be arguments around transporting them increasing the chances of it breaking. It would really only make sense to move these back to their country of origin and have them remain there to minimize potential points of failure. The rarer the artifact itself (another rusted out sword or plain clay cup versus a one of a kind manuscript whose pages have become incredibly delicate) the less their respective owners are going to want it to be moved.
Instead, we should be allowing more people the ability to travel and take time to go explore other cultures in their country of origin instead of trying to transport priceless artifacts across the globe.
Fun fact: Many cultural artificats do go on tour!
For example I’ve seen both Pompeii & King Tutt exhibits in San Diego that have since rotated. I’ve also seen other traveling exhibits in several other major cities I’ve lived in that were far more than art.
Many cities also have free admission days to museums for people that live nearby (depends on the institution but it could be for City/County/State).
With this knowledge, you too, can now learn and explore societies that predate written word.
Well I’m British so… fuuuck that!
scandalized stare
edit *innocent stare I meant
Many ethnic minorities complain that their cultural heritage is exhibitioned in the capital far away. Countries are a social construct
doesn’t mean crackers are off the hook for centuries of theft
Mf’kin crackahs be trippin and shit.
Do you REALLY think a minority ethnic group in say, Nigeria, would rather have their artifacts locked away in London under the stewardship of Anglos rather than displayed in Lagos where they can at least visit it?
I didn’t say that, how do people read that into my comment? I was giving additional context that it is not enough to bring it anywhere into the country. Sure, keeping it in London is worse, I never said it’s better.
Many anti-colonial activists will point out that the modern day governments are the collaborators from back then and still they get the reparations and artifacts. Sure, keeping them in London is worse, I never defended that.
My bad. But you can see how your comment reads like a whataboutism, right?
So it’s better to keep it somewhere thousands of kilometres away where they’ll never be able to see it as compared to being able to see it albeit with difficulty?
That’s an internal problem for them to solve, not an excuse to hoard someone else’s culture.
I never said it’s better to keep it but it’s not enough to bring it somewhere in the country. Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs. Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
Exactly. We agree there then.
Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs.
I think this tricky. Usually, I think the Cultural heritage belongs to the countries from where the artifacts were taken, so that’s where the artifacts should be returned to. Otherwise, How do you decide who to give an artifact to? Most inhabitants of central America share Mayan ancestry, and they no longer follow the maya religion.
I guess it’s a case to case basis. I am sure the rare cases in which there is a dispute it should be left upto the countries or institutions that claim the artifact to arbitrate.
So a museum in Western Europe or the US is better, or just as bad?
It’s worse, obviously. It’s not enough to bring it into the country but it’s worse to keep it in Western Europe or the US. You could argue that once it’s in the capital it won’t travel anywhere closer to the people but when it stays in London or Berlin, it’s not moving anywhere. On the other hand, once you ship it to the country of origin, you can take the extra mile and bring it to the cultural heirs. But keeping it is the worst option.
You’re right, and I was being facetious.
You responded well and explained it for all. Thank you.
Why are there pyramids in egypt?
Because they were too big for the british museum.
Karen Allen, the perfect example of aging naturally and radiating beauty.
Petite brunette women with green eyes have always been my thing. I realised recently that is entirely due to Karen Allen.
She isn’t even specifically my type, but her smile in this Indy 4 promo foto
was just absolutely captivatingShe has a beautiful smile.
Honestly, “country of origin” will have straight lines drawn on a map that are so far removed from where the people who lived there originally considered their borders even that’s probably not pinning it down well enough.
Britannia Jones and the stolen museum artifacts.
The museum could pay rent per item to the country the artifacts originate from? Bad idea?
