"... where tourists seated at white tablecloths drink sparkling wines and eat canapés as the setting sun turns Uluru a vivid red. Those tourists point to other dualities, too. While Uluru is so sacred to the Anangu that there are certain parts that they do not want photographed or even touched, they welcome the visitors who tool around its base on camels or Segways, or take art lessons in its shadow. Then there is the challenge that comes with making the case that the rock is sacred without being able to say why.... 'They can’t tell you the secrets it holds, because then they’d be breaking their traditional law, and if they break their traditional law, they’re rubbishing their inheritance,' [the author of a book about Uluru] Ms. Cowley said.... Some people who say the rock should remain open to climbing argue that it is part of a national park and therefore should belong to everyone. And there are those who discount the indigenous claims that climbing the rock offends their laws, pointing to photos from decades ago showing indigenous guides leading white people up Uluru.... 'Every day, thousands of people are climbing; they’re expressing their opinions by their actions,' [a geologist] said. ;Everyone has a right to experience this place on their own terms without being bothered by petty bureaucracy and the religious views of others.'"
From "A Climbing Ban at Uluru Ends a Chapter. But There’s More to This Australian Story/While the ban on ascending the iconic rock is a once-unthinkable victory for an Aboriginal people, they still face material hardship and a measure of resistance" (NYT). Today is the last day for climbing Australia's big rock.
Lots of photos at the link. To my eye, the people look awful on the rock, and I like the ban if only as a preservation of beauty. Stand back and look. Don't put yourself on the thing and ruin the sight. I don't need a claim of longstanding religious belief to say that. It's sad that people won't simply honor the Anangu and accept their refusal to say why they understand the rock to be sacred. I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
१२८ टिप्पण्या:
It is already 9:40 pm there according to the time and date websites, so it's pretty much over.
Cap'n Kirk says, everyone off Uluru! She's getting a tattoo of Robert E Lee on her side.
The creation stories of the Anangu people are sacred.
"Instructors at Australian university told to teach [Aboriginal] creation myth instead of science"
Around here there is a lot of land, and artifacts, which are supposed to be "sacred" to the Navajos even though they've only been in the area only about 100 years longer than Europeans and are not the descendants of the Anasazi cliff-dwellers who created the artifacts.
What they need is an amusement park all around it.Climbing is for the young folks. And a huge carving on the side could help, like Mount Rushmore. For the carving they can borrow our Presidents or the losers Jefferson Davis with Lee and Jackson riding alongside him. We got that in metro Atlanta. And was once a bare mountain like this one. It just needs some work.
"I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs."
Really?
Substitute Uluru with everything and Anangu with Christian.
"... they still face material hardship and a measure of resistance"
Almost everyone faced material hardship before modern times.
You're absolutely right on the questioning of sacredness. There doesn't need to be an answer for why. Seems daft to need an answer. Look at the mountain! Of course it's sacred.
"Don't put yourself on the thing and ruin the sight" That happens before my eyes every day. Who are all these people in front of me?
Is this Ayres Rock? Renamed by SJWs who are screwing up Australia as fast as they are doing it to Canada and the US?
What does the average Anangu on the street have to say about it? Because, frankly, I could give two shits about what the activists say.
Only white Christians are entitled to hold superstitious religious beliefs. All other religious beliefs are sacred.
It’s worth seeing from up close, walking at the margin of rock and ground, while considering its isolated geological presence in the outback. It really is magnificent, more than I’d anticipated. Australia’s a beautiful country at times. Shame about some of the fucking Australians, they don’t “get” that being wilfully not up to speed, and white, are not compatible.
"It's sad that people won't simply honor the Anangu and accept their refusal to say why they understand the rock to be sacred. I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs."
Now do baking wedding cakes for gay couples.
These abos Need to REALIZE that THEIR PURPOSE IN LIFE, is to allow white people to jet across the world, stay in Luxury Hotels, Drink cocktails; and SEE how Terrible Modern Civilization IS
IF we can't climb up sacred Mountains, while hungover; HOW can we realize our White Privilege?
I've been there. Save yourself a trip.
- It is a long long trip to get there unless you're starting from the North of the Country. Starting from Sydney? I hope you like being uncomfortable.
- It is a giant rock. It is difficult to climb. It is very very hot. You'll spend most of your time looking at it.
- The area is just jampacked with hawkers and vendors and hangers-on of every kind. Everything is expensive, and the tour operators do their damndest to ensure anything you brought with you (water, food) is exhausted or stays on the bus before you disembark.
- The entire experience, from a photo perspective, can be captured using panorama views on google images and all of that in air conditioning.
It's another example of the Mona Lisa effect. Nice to look at if their wasn't a crowd, a 5 hour wait, and selfie-sticks blocking your view from 50 feet away.
live in a trash-strewn community near the rock
That would be Mutitjulu; It is named after a "knee-shaped water-filled rock hole" at the base of Ayers Rock.
Here is a traditional Anangu woman at the Independent Ininti Store (google rating 3.9/5) "No wonder this place is independent....I'm a white boy, they don't let us in here", though an Israeli claims to love the place.
Why did they strew their streets with trash?
Is the trash in the Anangu community sacred too? Is it strewn in secret rituals?
I sometimes wonder whether aboriginal peoples treat themselves to a good giggle when they are alone over the political mileage they get by claiming huge swaths of wilderness are sacred grounds, especially among progressives whose own idea of sacred ground is a church or cemetery that takes up about a quarter of a square block. I can't really blame them, but what a great way to keep whitey at bay!
Whatever became of the expression: "Say that three times fast"?
Many of the Anangu read Maya Angelou.
Here is a traditional Anangu woman... Or man. Sorry, dude(tte), if I misgendered you!
Power play. We may be stupid and backward but we have dignity if we can keep you off the rock. If we have power we must have dignity.
Instead of getting dignity by doing something for somebody else, the only way that works.
What does it mean to respect religious beliefs, symbols, shibboleths? Do the most vocal get to determine what's permitted? If so, say goodbye to Piss Christ. Maybe say goodbye to non-believers performing Bach's Mass in B Minor. Don't publish those cartoons of Mohammed. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wKOs7v5WZ0&lc=z22cgj3ydr3cdbd2qacdp4305u22a5gla34lyupjeuxw03c010c>Don't teach dot painting inspired by aboriginal art.</a> Include me out.
I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
Why?
Because they're noble savages being oppressed by White colonists? You "question the sincerity of professed beliefs" all of the time.
"I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
posted by Ann Althouse at 6:58 AM on Oct 25, 2019"
It's about power, not "sincerity of belief." So is naming geographic features. And the people with power aren't the natives, it's the white elites who run the place.
Mystery Road (2013) is a nice Aboriginal-hero mystery that can be watched with the knowledge that Aboriginals may have a low IQ but character wins. Played off unfortunately against prejudiced whites. Character can win without prejudiced opponents.
@Lucid-Ideas
Thanks. That's what I assumed. It might get better now that people are denied their right to climb the thing.
And you state very well a particular instance that I presume is true of every bucket-list place on earth. You can physically go to the place where it technically is, but you cannot actually go there. The other people have transformed it into something else, and it's not something you want to see in person.
Why not go to see the Taj Mahal and Macchu Picchu and all these famous places? Seems obvious to me.
I like the ban if only as a preservation of beauty . . . It's sad that people won't simply honor the Anangu and accept their refusal to say why they understand the rock to be sacred. I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
Just wait until Althouse sees some photos of aborted babies or the souvenir jars of aborted babies.*
*And I pro-choice but the lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.
This reminds me of the recently published list (opinion) of famous, must-see places you are well to avoid. One is the Tower of Pisa. I've been there, it is interesting to see but a gawdawful place to be.
"It's sad that people won't simply honor the Anangu and accept their refusal to say why they understand the rock to be sacred. I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening?"
I think that the vast majority of Australians don't climb the rock. It gets 300,000 visitors per year and some of them must be foreign tourists rather than Australian. And not all of them climb. But even if they were all Australian and all climbed, that is only 1 of every 82 Australians.
There are fewer than 1 Million Aboriginals, why should they get to impose their religion on the over 20 Million Anglo Australians?
Have Christians believers chimed in?
Smash the idols - jack hammer that rock -
"the Catholics in Vatican" did something to somethings last week.
I'm so old, I can remember when that was called Ayer's Rock.
Sometimes a rock is just a rock. When Progs defend this stuff they’re not being sensitive and multiculti, they’re being racist and paternalistic. If they really cared about the Kupa-kai they’d focus on their living conditions.
Buried deep beneath the stone
Remember!
According to the white activists that "Support" Indigenous peoples...
To Indigenous peoples ALL OF THE EARTH IS SACRED!
And NO DEVELOPMENT CAN BE ALLOWED TO DESECRATE ANY SACRED PLACE!!!
I guess it is some kind of petrified river delta that formed from the erosion of an ancient mountain range and created a pretty durable kind of cement that didn’t have the normal cracks of sedimentary rock to allow it to be broken up by normal erosion processes, which eventually washed away the rock that formed around it. I am starting to think that geology is one of the most romantic sciences.
If it belongs to the aboriginals, let them treat it as they please. They were there first. My two cents.
Oddly enough, my great great great great grand parents had a dream. As a result of this dream, whose details I will not disclose, my family have always seen Lake Mendota and its environs as sacred. No habitation is acceptable. It looks much more beautiful empty.
It’s true my parents and grand parents drove bull dozers and built houses there. But that is not a contradiction. I cannot explain why without revealing the dream, so you will just have to trust me.
And don’t you dare question my sincerity.
I don't need a claim of longstanding religious belief to say that. It's sad that people won't simply honor the Anangu and accept their refusal to say why they understand the rock to be sacred.
So if some Native American tribe showed up and claimed that the area between and around lakes Mendota, Monona, Wingra, Waubesa, and Kegonsa were sacred to them, but they couldn't say why, you'd be glad to move out of your house at their demand?
I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
Ask gays about Christians.
"And there are those who discount the indigenous claims that climbing the rock offends their laws, pointing to photos from decades ago showing indigenous guides leading white people up Uluru"
Just as indigenous peoples considered Everest to be sacred their livelihoods now depend on the climbing parties. Can't have it both ways.
The aborigines have always been oppressed by the white man, and always will be.
I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
What's the word for this? There must be a term for this sort of (sincere) wide-eyed puzzlement over examples of behavior someone regularly engages in himself.
And I do believe it's sincere, and is not disingenuousness, nor labored irony, nor sarcasm, nor even simple unself-reflective unconscious hypocrisy. Nor does it seem to be any species of trolling.
That aside, why is it shocking ("is this really happening", lol) to question the sincerity of anybody's beliefs? Granted it's a thorny area for religious freedom law (it is shocking for the government to presume to dictate what qualifies as "real" religious belief), but the rest of us? Why not? Prohibitions on blasphemy, legal or social, are noxious. The "sacred" is as ripe for hustling and scamming as any other area of human activity, particularly in "multicultural" societies where the "sacred" can run up against competing interests.
"Disrespect" (aka curiosity and intelligent skepticism about religious claims, and refusal to acknowledge protected, "more equal than others" classes among believers) provides a necessary social check against those inevitable hustlers and scammers.
Like many others, I am ... struck by Ann's comment that she cannot believe people don’t respect their beliefs. Has anyone noticed how evangelicals are treated on campus? Insisting that they are hypocrites or don’t believe what they say is ubiquitous.
There was a movie done in the 80s with William Hurt called "The Accidental Tourist". The underlying narrative is actually quite touching. It's about a man who writes travel guides, and travels everywhere without actually being in the places he travels to. Without a spoiler, he comes to realize the places he's traveling to and seeing 'via armchair' aren't actually important at all, and he begins to actually live, breath, and eat in the places he goes to.
My point is this, and I've been just as guilty. People who travel on cruise ships, or go to Uluru, or see the Mona Lisa, or go up the Eiffel Tower are looking for a 'canned' experience. It's a box to check, and they demand the box be checked in safety and in the precisely similar manner the other people who are also checking the box are checking it. There is absolutely nothing 'accidental' about their tourism, and in a strictly moral sense there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it is also a spiritually dead thing, like Machu Picchu pictures on Pinterest.
The best experience I ever had in Australia was drinking Fosters in a pub in Brisbane with a ex-RAAF Tornado pilot who happened to have done several training rotations with the USAF in my hometown. P.S. the pub was air conditioned.
Thanks Lucid-Ideas, for the advice. I have never been a bucket list kind of guy. Unless you count my desire to do bike rides on new trails in the US of A. MY ancestors left Europe on account of it being so damn horseshit they were willing to risk their lives coming to America. My two cents.
Well I can and will question true believers in the Secular Church of Climate Change with little Greta Thunberg as their modern day Virgin of Guadalupe/Joan of Arc.
And I can and will question true believers in the warrior cult of Social Justice.
So why not question a few aborigines?
But that's not to say that I think people should be climbing Ayers Rock, Uluru or that big red thing in the middle of the desert. Some things you just let be.
Oddly enough, my great great grand parents had a dream Too!
In the dream, GOD Explicitly Told them, to:
Get The HELL OUT of Europe, and come to Iowa, and grow corn
GOD Almighty made it Clear; that THE ONLY CORRECT WAY TO WORSHIP was to grow high yield corn
The people that were already In Iowa were growing corn; which pleased GOD...
BUT! they were only getting about 20 or 25 bushels an acre; which made GOD SAD, and tearful
MY People; TO PLEASE GOD, and OBEY his sacred directives developed:
Steel Plows
Combines
Hi-bred seeds
AND ATRAZINE
And they did it ALL, to make GOD Happy; And it WORKED!
Now, quit charging us property taxes on our religious works!!!
Mockturtle: “Can’t have it both ways.”
You can if you have the sacred belief that money takes the stink off.
Why not go to see the Taj Mahal and Macchu Picchu and all these famous places? Seems obvious to me.
I just do not understand this attitude. Other people are somewhere amazing, which, some how, ruins it for me. Filthy tourists!
I have been to Egypt and seen the pyramids. There are crowds, the minute you get off the bus locals start trying to sell you crap, there are horses and camels and therefore piles of manure and therefore flies. In addition, there is litter scattered all over the ground. Its nothing like the pristine space that National Geographic makes it out to be in their TV shows. But you know what, it was still the pyramids and the sphinx and seeing them in person was awesome.
"Like many others, I am ... struck by Ann's comment that she cannot believe people don’t respect their beliefs. Has anyone noticed how evangelicals are treated on campus? Insisting that they are hypocrites or don’t believe what they say is ubiquitous."
Ubiquitous? I don't know, I've been around the UW campus for nearly 4 decades, and I taught Religion and the Constitution for 15 years and I saw very little questioning of the sincerity of religious beliefs here (or in the case law). Sincerity is granted as a matter of social etiquette, but there are objections to the intrusion of religious beliefs into the public and (especially) the governmental sphere. It's more, keep your religion out of MY life. Keep it to yourself. Don't interfere with me or what I want to use the public/gov'tl sphere to do.
Personally, I question religious beliefs. I think almost no one believes the religion they profess. I think of Jesus challenging the Pharisees: They talk about it and try to control others, but they don't really have the true religion in their hearts. I do follow the social nicety of treating individuals as if they're telling the truth about their beliefs however and I almost never have the situation in which I would confront someone. But it's really obvious to me that the world would look very different if people really believed what they say they believe.
"There was a movie done in the 80s with William Hurt called "The Accidental Tourist". “
My favorite movie of all time.
"There was a movie done in the 80s with William Hurt called "The Accidental Tourist"..."
Based on a novel by Anne Tyler, a writer who used to seem quite significant. I've read that book (and seen the movie).
Geena Davis is the love interest for fusty old Hurt.
That came out back in the decade when there were all these movies about stodgy men who met a woman who showed them how to really live.
Another example is "Something Wild" (with Melanie Griffith).
I was very annoyed by this subgenre, because it was based on the idea that a woman's fulfillment didn't matter. She was a device for the man to find the meaning of life. Somehow these lovely, exciting women would immerse themselves in reanimating a male corpse. What's their motivation? Doesn't matter, because the story is about him.
"The aborigines have always been oppressed by the white man, and always will be.”
Probably why they left Africa and found a continent empty of humans to go live.
I never said I wasn’t frusty.
Somehow these lovely, exciting women would immerse themselves in reanimating a male corpse.
Because no woman ever enters into a relationship with a man thinking she can "fix" him.
I question religious beliefs too. But I don’t imagine I am alone. And of course, 40 years ago isn’t 10 years ago
"You can physically go to the place where it technically is, but you cannot actually go there. The other people have transformed it into something else,"
That's very true and it's an insight into modern experience as whole. A place can't move but it can escape; it can be impossible to get there if you rely exclusively on modern transport. I've been to Mass in many cathedrals and seen people walking around snapping pictures which supposedly prove they've "been there" but actually prove the opposite. I read about a man who was the first to climb Mt. Everest by a certain very difficult route. When he got up there he waited for some kind of unique experience but he was unable to be anyone but a man who knew how to climb mountains but not why he was doing it. When I travel I try to make sure I get where I'm going, although if I knew where that was I wouldn't go.
I thought that The Accidental Tourist was about dealing with loss, the loss of a child, and restarting life. Plus I kind of figure that the girl gets something out of it too. A good, caring man. The girl is Bohemian, which is something that the man doesn’t realize he has in himself.
Of course feminists resent the kind of relationship where a man offers what he can give in return for what a woman can give. She should hook up with hippie guys who need to crash on her couch because they are broke, right?
Romantic comedies had to be banned because they supported traditional values. The only recent Hollywood romcom that is at all traditional is “Crazy Rich Asians” ahd had that movie been about white people, it would never have been allowed to be made.
"But you know what, it was still the pyramids and the sphinx and seeing them in person was awesome."
Are you immune from the eerie feeling of dissociation? Have you never gone to a place — a party, an encounter with a lover, an ancient ruin — and felt like it's not real, like you're walking through a dream, that everything is shallow and fake?
It seems to me that if you have emotional depth, you have this vulnerability, and it's very likely to emerge in a foreign place. If you have depth worth feeding, you should make good choices about where to go. If you don't... what's the point? Why are you going?
You say you felt awe, so that is a claim of emotional vulnerability.
Now, if I'd gone to all the trouble to go someplace like that, I'd be highly biased toward saying yes, indeed, I felt the profoundness that was the point of going, and I put aside all the disappointment, the eyesores, the nonlocal people photographing themselves, and everything that seems tawdry and low.
But this is like the question whether people really believe the religious things they say they believe. I'm skeptical.
It's more, keep your religion out of MY life. Keep it to yourself. Don't interfere with me or what I want to use the public/gov'tl sphere to do.
So that's what Piss-Christ meant!
Sure.
but there are objections to the intrusion of religious beliefs into the public and (especially) the governmental sphere. It's more, keep your religion out of MY life. Keep it to yourself. Don't interfere with me or what I want to use the public/gov'tl sphere to do.
This is precisely how and why secularism has taken control of our institutions.
How about: "keep your sexuality out of MY life. Keep it to yourself. Don't interfere with me or what I want to use the public/gov'tl sphere to do."?
"I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful
Oh give me a break. In the U.S. there's a lot disrespect shown to Catholics in particular and Christians in general. But I'm not surprised by it.
But this is like the question whether people really believe the religious things they say they believe. I'm skeptical.
Throughout history there have been an awful lot of people willing to risk everything including their life for their religious beliefs. There have been an awful lot of people willing to commit horrendous acts because of their religious beliefs.
I always begin with the premise that people do believe what they say they believe, and will do what they say they will do. That seems prudent to me.
But this is like the question whether people really believe the religious things they say they believe. I'm skeptical.
Annnnnddddd ... away we go.
Althouse would perhaps consider me emotionally shallow because I don't share her feelings of vulnerability and unreality when traveling and sightseeing. In fact, I usually feel at home wherever I happen to be and the sights and sounds are very real to me, indeed. While I'm not one to go out of my way to see a famous painting, I do go out of my way to see the things I find interesting or meaningful. Abroad, their meaning is usually one of historic interest, such as wandering around Oxford or exploring still-standing [there are few] 16th century Japanese castles. One can picture the events and feel close to the former inhabitants. It makes history more real to be where it happened. I'm sure American Civil War enthusiasts feel the same when visiting battle sites.
You say you felt awe, so that is a claim of emotional vulnerability.
How so?
The dogmatists literalize the religion, missing its point.
Let what is sacred be your rock.
And a huge carving on the side could help, like Mount Rushmore.
Might I suggest Mr. Quigley?
Weird that The Accidental Tourist was written by a woman. Such retrograde thoughts! I loved that the men were living in that house eating “gorp,” just waiting for a woman’s touch!
The man was drowned in grief, the only decent thing was to bury him!
Just wait until the Anangu find out they're to blame for Hillary losing!
It seems to me that if you have emotional depth
Blow ballast tanks! Surface! Surface!
Favorite Althouse WWII movies should all be submarine movies.
Need a klaxon horn to allay deep feelz.
"To my eye, the people look awful on the rock, and I like the ban if only as a preservation of beauty."
Human scum?
It's more, keep your religion out of MY life. Keep it to yourself. Don't interfere with me or what I want to use the public/gov'tl sphere to do.
And if I want to climb Ayre’s Rock, then by damn I don’t want those Anangu imposing their beliefs on MY life! Like far too many liberals Althouse wants to have it one way when she’s emoting over some (allegedly) downtrodden group, but quite another when it impacts HER life.
(autocorrect corrected)
Depth comes for the archbishop, Willa Cather.
I question the outrage about “human scum.”
Chomolungma
Sagarmatha
(and others)
After a bit of shopping at Hobby Lobby, we'll have lunch at Chick Fil-a.
"It's sad that people won't simply honor the Anangu and accept their refusal to say why they understand the rock to be sacred. I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs."
I recall quite a few hostile and skeptical comments from Prof. Althouse about the coherence and sincerity of other people's religious beliefs. Sad.
I’m in Italy now, today we are in Sardinia. We hit the hot spots of Rome and Venice. We went to Capri and walked to Villa Jovis. No shopping - the history was a lot more interesting. We are getting in the tourist stuff, but we are also visiting friends and hitting the out of the way spots. Trying the local foods. Basically what Mockturtle said. I get lost in trying to imagine what it might have been like. It is hard to do in Rome with the built up areas and thousands of tourists around. Easier in Villa Jovis or Paestum. I walked the sunken road at Shilo and appreciated being in a place where so many men fought and died for their beliefs. And I’d love be to see a 16th century Japanese castle
I was very annoyed by this subgenre, because it was based on the idea that a woman's fulfillment didn't matter. She was a device for the man to find the meaning of life. Somehow these lovely, exciting women would immerse themselves in reanimating a male corpse. What's their motivation? Doesn't matter, because the story is about him
Or they show men's lives are worthless until a woman's influence makes them worthwhile. If only someone would develop a principle explaining how to frame gender relations so women aren't offended.
Now, if I disliked travel, and was smug about it, I'd be highly biased toward saying, there is nothing profound about going, and speculate about all the disappointment, the eyesores, the nonlocal people photographing themselves, and everything that seems tawdry and low.
Many of the overcrowded "bucket list" places are only overcrowded in waves. Just wait for the current busload to get their selfies and move on and you'll have the place to yourself again. But not always. When I saw the Mona Lisa in 1990 (in January) you could really get a good look at it and it really was more interesting than just seeing a print. The famous smile actually did have a certain quality that didn't really come through in the prints. However, when I went to the Louvre again in the early 2000s, it was high on a wall in a heavily trafficked spot and the crowds never stopped. Too bad.
My most awe inspiring places have generally been too big to be overrun: the Grand Canyon, Saint Peter's, Gettysburg, Mount Blanc (spend 14 days walking around an enormous grouping of mountains and you'll have plenty of time to yourself, particularly if you stray just a little from the standard route). This also means the experience is really different from just looking at pictures: sit on the rim of the Grand Canyon and just watch for awhile; the view will change, a lot, in just five minutes time: the angle of the light, the shadows, the shades of color, everything is in constant flux. I once spent each Sunday for four weeks walking the Gettysburg battlefield, following the troop movements, reading after action reports. It was quite an experience. Sure, the visitor center is mobbed, but get out and walk around and you'll be fine.
I guess my bottom line is that if you plan to really spend some time getting to know a place, rather than just getting your picture to prove you were there, the mobs will usually just pass through and be only a minor distraction.
Are you immune from the eerie feeling of dissociation? Have you never gone to a place — a party, an encounter with a lover, an ancient ruin — and felt like it's not real, like you're walking through a dream, that everything is shallow and fake?
It seems to me that if you have emotional depth, you have this vulnerability, and it's very likely to emerge in a foreign place. If you have depth worth feeding, you should make good choices about where to go. If you don't... what's the point? Why are you going?
You say you felt awe, so that is a claim of emotional vulnerability.
Now, if I'd gone to all the trouble to go someplace like that, I'd be highly biased toward saying yes, indeed, I felt the profoundness that was the point of going, and I put aside all the disappointment, the eyesores, the nonlocal people photographing themselves, and everything that seems tawdry and low.
But this is like the question whether people really believe the religious things they say they believe. I'm skeptical.
- Dreams do not have to feel shallow or fake. If you associate dreaming with shallowness and falsity, it says more about your connection with dreams than it does about dreams. Perhaps not everyone views dreams the way you do. Perhaps not everyone feels this disconnection
- There is no logical connection between this feeling of unreality and making good choices about where to visit as a tourist. It's entirely emotional and thus completely subjective and thus worthless as a standard to apply to others. Apply if to yourself as you wish. Another thing to note is that not everyone reacts to this feeling of unreality negatively. It is not all the same feeling. Things can feel unreal in many different ways. Many people enjoy at least some of the different ways unreality feels. You apparently do not. Or you're unaware that there are different ways. Which is fine. For you
- It seems to me that telling people they don't have emotional depth if they don't think a certain way is bullshit
- Who says awe is associated with emotional vulnerability? Maybe for you it is
- If you don't like seeing all the proles, then don't go. Geez such a strong damn the serfs polluting everything with their filthy common presence vibe coming off here
"I don't need a claim of longstanding religious belief to say that."
You just need your own sense of aesthetic superiority.
"It's sad that people won't simply honor the Anangu and accept their refusal to say why they understand the rock to be sacred."
It's sad! It's terrible! Then again, the refusal may be BS, and their understanding vacuous.
"I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs."
I'm not. In fact, Althouse long ago proposed the theorem that people don't believe what they profess to believe. Very useful, as in old Althouse posts, to question the sincerity of Christians. But I am not surprised Althouse here proposes the Aboriginal Exception: the Other is always sincere.
I felt the profoundness that was the point of going, and I put aside all the disappointment, the eyesores, the nonlocal people photographing themselves, and everything that seems tawdry and low.
Professor, I don't mean any disrespect, but you strike me as someone who has led a pretty sheltered life. Upper class family, liberal parents, assumption that you are going to go to college, etc. Compared to some of the stuff I have gone through, some aggressive hawkers, fellow tourists, and trash and poop is small stuff. And you don't sweat the small stuff.
The Duomo in Florence was built from 1296 - 1436.
During those 140 years there was a plague that wiped out over half the cities population, numerous battles in various wars, political intrigue (the kind where people actually got killed and quite often tortured), poor hygiene and non-existent public health infrastructure. Yet, they persisted. If people can strife to create something of transcendent beauty whose very purpose was to invoke awe amid death and disease that we moderns find unfathomable, then I think we should be able to overlook some poo and obnoxious tourists when we visit such sights.
Now, if I'd gone to all the trouble to go someplace like that, I'd be highly biased toward saying yes, indeed, I felt the profoundness that was the point of going, and I put aside all the disappointment, the eyesores, the nonlocal people photographing themselves, and everything that seems tawdry and low.
I have no doubt some percentage of people aren't honest (with themselves or others) about how they really felt about some travel experience that's supposed to be wonderful.
But that's true of all kinds of human activities and experiences. Why would travel be any different, and why do you have such a bug up your butt about people being "inauthentic" and "shallow" about travel in particular? The same thing is no doubt true about non-foreign travel, which doesn't bother you, and which you indulge in regularly, yourself. No doubt some percentage of flatlanders who go hiking and camping in Colorado probably really find it physically miserable and un-fun and yet attest that they had loved it and the mountains were glorious and they had a fabulous time. Should we then presume that your claims to enjoy such travel are bullshit, and that you're shallow for claiming otherwise?
As long as we're presuming to mind-read and judge, I hypothesize that you're ultra-defensive about your limited experience of foreign travel because of your home environment: any ultra-blue university town is going to be lousy with I'm-so-cosmopolitan types who think people with lots of empty pages in their passports (or no passports at all!) are inferior provincials. This is likely going to eat at the ego of someone who has a self-image of being a cultured sophisticate. An image, btw, which is incongruent with your constant, weirdly adolescent deployment of "shallow" toward people who claim to enjoy what you make a big show of deploring.
But this is like the question whether people really believe the religious things they say they believe. I'm skeptical.
I'm skeptical that you're being honest with yourself about that bug up your butt about other people's travel habits. I suspect that your rather overwrought, self-flattering critiques are really all about being askeert of furriners.
A critic once said, defending Charlotte Bronte from charges that she was hopelessly in love with a schoolmaster of her youth, that it was “treachery to read too deeply into the personal lives of writers” (or commenters either!) well, I paraphrase. Anyway, I have to still say it’s not a ridiculous to say that The Accidental Tourist is based on a fantasy of hers, or at least a musing that she felt strongly enough to carry her through writing the book. Oh yeah, and Charlotte Bronte’s letters to her old schoolmaster eventually came out (there was the real treachery) that showed that people were right.
"Personally, I question religious beliefs. I think almost no one believes the religion they profess."
Ah, "almost" no one. We used to call that almost a weasel word.
Anyway, Althouse's convenient Aboriginal Exception illustrates that almost no one believes what they profess to believe about religious belief.
@Angle: "I hypothesize that you're ultra-defensive about your limited experience of foreign travel because of your home environment . . . your constant, weirdly adolescent deployment of "shallow" toward people who claim to enjoy what you make a big show of deploring . . . I suspect that your rather overwrought, self-flattering critiques are really all about being askeert of furriners."
And I meta-hypothesize that Althouse Is Always Right, Regardless.
I question the outrage about “human scum.”
It comes from the same place as the outrage about using the word "lynching": Derangement.
In the 1800s, a lot of newly middle class Europeans would go out to the countryside and collect music and stories and anything else they could from the local culture. The collectors would put their own interpretation on them and eventually, some would come to be accepted as the true and eternal marks of the Serbian or Czech or whoever people, people who had never before considered themselves a nationality.
Most of the collectors thought they were discoverers and few were deliberately lying, but I have seen the result referred to as "invented tradition". I wonder if something similar is going on here.
I looked at and declined to rewatch The Accidental Tourist dvd just last night, when I was looking for something to rewatch. I remember crazy lady dog person, breakup of marriage, trip somewhere, but not the ending. Geena Davis is just too annoying at the moment, for some reason. Does she always act the same person?
I noticed Honeysuckle Weeks is like that; always the same acting tics regardless of role.
You know the ancient Romans used to visit Egypt as tourists to see the Pyramids, which were ancient even then. They probably faced crowds of tourists, obnoxious souvenir hawkers, and there were undoubtedly piles of horse and camel poo also.
When I visited Pompeii, which was at least partially a seaside resort before the volcano blew, I noticed that the streets were sunken and stones were in the streets so that wagon and cart wheels would be able to pass between them, but allowed pedestrians to use them to cross the street. That was so you wouldn't have to walk in horse crap.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pompeii+streets&id=598CDB3F53517AB1B7F3628F12FEE82EF807B8CC&s=1&view=detailv2&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dpompeii+streets&FORM=IEQNAI
Melanie Griffith Working Girl (1988) was good. I see I have her in a dozen films but that's the only one I remember as worth watching again.
I've been to Reno, Chicago, Fargo, Minnesota, Buffalo, Toronto, Winslow, Sarasota, Wichita, Tulsa, Ottawa, Oklahoma, Tampa, Panama, Mattawa, La Paloma,Bangor, Baltimore, Salvador, Amarillo, Tocopilla, Barranquilla, Padilla, Boston, Charleston, Dayton, Louisiana, Washington, Houston, Kingston, Texarkana, Monterey, Faraday, Santa Fe, Tallapoosa, Glen Rock, Black Rock, Little Rock, Oskaloosa, Tennessee to Hennessey, Chicopee, Spirit Lake, Grand Lake, Devil's Lake, Crater Lake, Louisville, Nashville, Knoxville, Ombabika, Schefferville, Jacksonville, Waterville, Costa Rica, Pittsfield, Springfield, Bakersfield, Shreveport, Hackensack, Cadillac, Fond du Lac, Davenport, Idaho, Jellico, Argentina, Diamantina, Pasadena, Catalina, Pittsburgh, Parkersburg, Gravelbourg, Colorado, Ellensburg, Rexburg, Vicksburg, El Dorado, Larimore, Admore, Haverstraw, Chatanika, Chaska, Nebraska, Alaska, Opelaka, Baraboo, Waterloo, Kalamazoo, Kansas City, Sioux City, Cedar City, Dodge City, what a pity.
++
Homer: We don't get together to share our emotions. We get together to escape them!
Moe: Yeah. I'd tell you guys "I love you," but, uh, I don't wanna say it and you don't wanna hear it.
Lenny: To nothing!
AA: But it's really obvious to me that the world would look very different if people really believed what they say they believe.
Please expand. What would the world look like if "people really believed what they say they believe"? What people and what beliefs are you referring to?
I have a suspicion that your critique here of "people" and "beliefs" is pretty parochial, as it comes with a big whiff of that adolescent rebellion that some children of the '60s never outgrew. Yeah, of course it's "...Jesus challenging the Pharisees: They talk about it and try to control others, but they don't really have the true religion in their hearts."
But of course. And you're sure you know what the "true religion" (or at least "true Chrisitanity") is. I think it's a safe bet that you think that "if people really believed what they say they believe" that the way in which "the world would look very different" would be that it would be one big progressive utopia, right? (E.g., RCs would totally allow women priests and gay marriage in their churches. Anything else would be pharisaical!)
Delighted to be corrected if I'm way off base here.
Don't interfere with me or what I want to use the public/gov'tl sphere to do.
Please expand on this, too. 'Cause as it stands it's downright Stalin-tastically creepy.
“But it's really obvious to me that the world would look very different if people really believed what they say they believe.”
This strikes me as rather naive. Have you never in your life thought, “Gee, I know having one more scoop of ice cream [one more drink, one more slap of the snooze button, etc., etc.] isn’t good for me, but ... eh, gonna do it anyway”? Do that mean you don’t really believe it would be better if you didn’t? Or does it mean that you’re human and sometimes the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak?
Or as Romans 7:15 has it: “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.”
On second thought, I don't think your comment is naive. I think it's faux-naive because you understand perfectly well that humans don't always follow their beliefs.
"She was a device for the man to find the meaning of life. Somehow these lovely, exciting women would immerse themselves in reanimating a male corpse. What's their motivation? Doesn't matter, because the story is about him.” - Althouse
Now do Dirty Dancing.
I majored in religion in college, and this story takes me back to a class about American Indian religions and their conflict with the white man’s demythologized view of the natural world. Like Ayer’s Rock, Devil’s Tower is popular with climbers and held sacred by indigenous tribes. The attempts of the federal government, which owns the land, to discourage climbing for the sake of the religious beliefs of Indians has resulted in at least one legal challenge on First Amendment grounds. Another story concerned a white landowner in the Southwest (New Mexico, I believe), who wanted to mine a mountain on his property. The local Indians objected, telling him they had a sacred site in the vicinity. He offered to protect the site, but they wouldn’t tell him its location.
An article of faith and a religion as far as its treatment is concerned. Anti-nativism (e.g. genocide, mortal and social) for diverse causes, both noble and corrupt, is in progress, and accelerated in the past century.
"Instructors at Australian university told to teach [Aboriginal] creation myth instead of science"
Social and scientific creation myths. There are few, if any, people who limit their inquiry to the near-domain, and there has been extraordinary progress to conflate logical domains.
Going up in the Eiffel Tower is not a "canned experience." No one who has ever looked out on Paris, with their own eyes, could say that.
I was visiting Mexican ruins back in the day when you could climb the Temple of the Sun at Teotihuacan. To see what the priests saw with your own eyes cannot be duplicated by the National Geographic, and I have seen every one since 1919, the start of my grandparents collection.
“ Professor, I don't mean any disrespect, but you strike me as someone who has led a pretty sheltered life. Upper class family, liberal parents...”
False statements of fact there. I come from a completely middle middle class family, and politically my parents were very conservative. My father thought FDR was the worst president.
They were liberal on some but not all social things,
“ I hypothesize that you're ultra-defensive about your limited experience of foreign travel because of your home environment”
I’ve been to Europe 7 times. Plenty to know what it’s like. I have the time and the money and a passport and could up and go on a trip anytime I want. Any not traveling I do is with sound knowledge and pure personal preference.
Traveling to the "Bucket list" travel sights is usually boring. I had 10x more fun at the Orsay or Louvre - or just walking around Paris - then going to the Eiffel tower. The Grand canyon was a bore until i went down to the river and stayed at the hotel. Hoover dam was interesting, but its just a dam. The tower London were interesting- but I'll never go back. Etc.
In this age of the internet, cable TV and youtube, what are you really going to see when you go to these famous sights, that you haven't already viewed? My wife wants to see the Pyramids, but I don't think they'll look much different in person than they do on TV.
Your Dad was a smart man.
She's a feisty one, that Althouse.
I hate feist.
And she gets the best of every discussion, wins every argument.
A sacred belief versus the right to choose to not see it as sacred. What issue in our own culture is like that, where some believe they have a right to not only ignore what is sacred to others, but to utterly destroy it, kill it, make it never be. That beauty, which is far greater than a rock, is easily sacrificed by the millions, and you can't get it back by just stopping the sacrilege.
" I'm surprised that people are willing to be so disrespectful — is this really happening? — as to question the sincerity of their professed beliefs."
Yes. Yes it is, every day.
False statements of fact there. I come from a completely middle middle class family, and politically my parents were very conservative. My father thought FDR was the worst president.
My bad, hearing about Playboy magazines being left about the house gave me a false impression. Us lower lower class teenagers had to do some considerable sneaking to get a look at a Playboy. However, I still think you are a bit more sensitive to the inconveniences of travel than I. On one of our trips to Italy my wife and I actually got lodging in one of the palaces that line the Grand Canal. It was operating as a bread and breakfast. Our room was supposed to have a double bed, but it was actually two beds, one of which was slightly taller than the other, pushed together. Not great, but survivable, especially since the interior of the palace was spectacular and the food in the dining room was fantastic. Oh, and our room had the largest shower I have ever encountered in Europe, by a large margin.
Been to Europe 7 times? That's "plenty to know what it's like"? Sounds like an American provincial to me, asserting that 7 trips to a continent is actually enough to "know" anything about it. It's certainly enough to profess the belief that one can "know what it's like" after a mere 7 trips. And believe it, to boot.
Back in the early 1970s I had a bit of a job at the travel agency within the Wisconsin Union. College kids would come in and plan their trips to Europe, full of hope for a wonderful experience. The fly in the ointment is that I and one of my colleagues had spent a few years in Europe as guests of the US armed forces. They say that hay smells different to horses and lovers, and so Europe is different if you have wintered over and lived on the low end of the class system for a while. It was depressing that they were going to have a wonderful time experiencing a Europe that was no longer available to us. I've been back once since then, to visit the parts of Central Europe - Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic - which we couldn't visit back then.
AA: I’ve been to Europe 7 times. Plenty to know what it’s like. I have the time and the money and a passport and could up and go on a trip anytime I want. Any not traveling I do is with sound knowledge and pure personal preference.
Lol. Lighten up. I'm razzing you for presuming to *know* that other people are lying if they claim an experience of travel that differs from your own, or revealing their "shallowness" (relative to your deep sensitive self), and for your adamantly insisting on this, in post after post.
Nobody here gives a rat's if you travel abroad or you don't, or thinks less of you for preferring not to. And Christ on a pogo stick, what's with the huffy throw-down here? "I have the time and the money and a passport and could up and go on a trip anytime I want." Wtf? This is beyond childish and addresses absolutely nothing in any of the push-back you've gotten for your sanctimonious judgments here. (It's so childishly status-touchy and off-point that maybe that in-jest counter-psychologizing about your defensiveness hit something. Good Lord, do you seriously take the push-back here to be questioning your possession of the means to travel if you so wished? Bizarre.)
You not only have a bug up your butt on this subject, but a stick up it, too.
The proprietress was an elegant middle aged Italian. It was like being in a movie to a provincial such as myself. I awoke early the morning we were to catch our flight back to the US. I grabbed my camera and hit the Piazza San Marco, which was enveloped in a deep fog. Very mysterious looking. No crowds or tourists. Very awe inspiring.
Much less awe inspiring, but still a good story: the time I woke up early in New Orleans and was asked if I wanted a date by a hooker as I was making my way to Canal Street to get some take out breakfast for me and my wife. Or the time I woke up early in New Orleans and went out looking for someplace to buy antacids, and saw a guy in a toilet costume as the Halloween party was breaking up on Bourbon Street. Or the time I was at Cafe Du Monde at 3:00 AM and saw a guy who looked like Ed Asner wearing a ball gown. Or when I saw the naked guy standing in the doorway of his apartment in the French Quarter. Or the time I wandered into a shop that sold a certain kind of leather gear.
I am glad that I am not the only person bothered, offended really, by the disdain directed at me for my disinterest in travel to exotic places.
I do travel, a lot for work, and at least annually with mrs. stevew to places in Europe, Central America, the Caribbean, and North America. But I am quite content to be at home, as I am right now. On this I am questioned, challenged, and misunderstood. :-(
Nobody here gives a rat's if you travel abroad or you don't, or thinks less of you for preferring not to.
This is true, Angle-Dyne. She fired the first volley.
Sing it... I've been everywhere man, I've been everywhere...
Ehhhh. Althouse has a point. “Travel broadens the mind”, “jet set”, “worldly” — there is definitely a cultural presumption that the better people travel. Add to that the enormous deliberate efforts of the travel industry. She is not imagining it. And it’s probably worse at a left wing university.
Ann Althouse said...
“ I hypothesize that you're ultra-defensive about your limited experience of foreign travel because of your home environment”
I’ve been to Europe 7 times. Plenty to know what it’s like. I have the time and the money and a passport and could up and go on a trip anytime I want. Any not traveling I do is with sound knowledge and pure personal preference.
***************
Wow. The lack of direct experience in any NON-Western cultures explains a lot. How can you claim "sound knowledge" about places you've never experienced?
I know a few people who lack passports and have never been outside the US. They make the same claim you do.
Whew!
This is a political ban.The locals were more than happy for people to climb the rock for about 80 yeras.
I also do not think the locals have been there for hundreds of years.They displaced another people.
One group has got in charge of the park and enforced the ban largely because it can.
have a look at the Quadrant website .A conservative magazine where there are a number of articles offering a different narrative.
Ken B said...
Ehhhh. Althouse has a point. “Travel broadens the mind”, “jet set”, “worldly” — there is definitely a cultural presumption that the better people travel. Add to that the enormous deliberate efforts of the travel industry. She is not imagining it. And it’s probably worse at a left wing university.
****************
"Travel broadens the mind" might ring a few bells, but would you argue that ANY kind of travel experience that causes you to react to different cultures doesn't broaden your view of the world? What's yer point?
Has anyone seen the term "jet set" in the last thirty years?
As for cultural presumptions about "better people": who, besides Democrats sneering at Deplorables, holds themselves out as "better people"?
As for "wordly", I bet the Dalai Lama considers himself "wordly", in a positive sense. Do you think someone living his entire life in Podunksky, Siberia could not benefit by going out to see the world?
Or is "provincial" better than being "worldly"?
Oh, and our room had the largest shower I have ever encountered in Europe, by a large margin.
10/25/19, 4:15 PM
In Europe the showers double as torture chambers. Note the drain in the floor.
Ken B: Ehhhh. Althouse has a point. “Travel broadens the mind”, “jet set”, “worldly” — there is definitely a cultural presumption that the better people travel. Add to that the enormous deliberate efforts of the travel industry.
Nobody's taking issue with her on the point that the travel industry promotes travel. Guess you haven't noticed the pharisaical sanctimony being directed at anybody who claims to enjoy or find worthwhile what her majesty doesn't enjoy or find worthwhile. She's gone full (emo/irrational) moral scold on this one.
And it’s probably worse at a left wing university.
I suggested in jest that this environment may be what she's reacting to, but there may be something to it.
wholelotta: Wow. The lack of direct experience in any NON-Western cultures explains a lot. How can you claim "sound knowledge" about places you've never experienced?
I know a few people who lack passports and have never been outside the US. They make the same claim you do.
Whew!
There's nothing wrong with not having a passport or not traveling. Some people just don't like to travel. I don't find sanctimony about the goodness of traveling any more appealing than Althouse's sanctimony about staying home.
I admit, I do roll my eyes at the naïveté and incoherence on parade in the views of nice Western liberals like Althouse. (And the paternalism. Underneath all the multiculti babble they believe that everybody wants to be just like whitey - prog whitey, that is - and follow the lead of bwana, lol.) But I also know plenty of extremely well-traveled people who remain obdurately en-bubbled in the same "correct" world-view they picked up in college. The class-parochialism of cosmopolitans can be a wonder to behold. And some people wise up without ever going too far from home. I don't know if travel changed my views, or just accelerated the ride to the place I would have ended up, anyway. At any rate, I greatly enjoyed the trip.
Both choices have their virtues and their drawbacks. Can do without the sanctimony either way.
Ann Althouse said...
“ Professor, I don't mean any disrespect, but you strike me as someone who has led a pretty sheltered life. Upper class family, liberal parents...”
False statements of fact there. I come from a completely middle middle class family, and politically my parents were very conservative. My father thought FDR was the worst president.
They were liberal on some but not all social things,
Your father wasn't wrong about Roosevelt, either.
Are we talking about Ayer's Rock? If so can we get a "f/k/a" or two up in here?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा