11 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0
(A) — In cooperation with Federal and State agencies, local governments, and private organizations and individuals, direct and conduct a comprehensive statewide survey of historic properties and maintain inventories of such properties;
(B) — Identify and nominate eligible properties to the National Register and otherwise administer applications for listing historic properties on the National register;
(C) — Prepare and implement a comprehensive statewide historic preservation plan;
(D) — Administer the State program of Federal assistance for historic preservation within the State;
(E) — Advise and assist, as appropriate, Federal and State agencies and local governments in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities;
(F) — Cooperate with the Secretary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other Federal and State agencies, local governments, and organizations and individuals to ensure historic properties are taken into consideration at all levels of planning and development;
(G) — Provide public information, education and training, and technical assistance relating to the Federal and State Historic Preservation Programs; and
(H) — Cooperate with local governments in the development of the local historic preservation programs and assist local governments in becoming certified pursuant to subsection C.
The demand for archaeologists and other preservationists for these jobs led to the birth of the Cultural Resource Management industry. Which now accounts for 90% of archaeology in the United States. That and archaeologists hired by federal and state government directly. CRM archaeologists locate, record and evaluate archaeological sites (defined as sites over 50 years old) on Federal and state lands for inclusion on the NRHP and the state equivalents. We monitor government and private infrastructure development on state lands to protect those sites, and when we really have to, we preform data recovery operations to record as much data out of sites that said government and private entities have no choice but to build through.
Ironically, IPX is closer to reality than most, with archaeologists working for private corporations. However, Eilerson is...annoying. Odds are the kind of archaeology he's doing in unclaimed space would still be the purview of academic archaeologists. Firms like IPX would be called in on projects in Earth controlled space for the reasons above. Also, they pay you a set rate based on your position and making discoveries like on Ceti wouldn't make a difference. A Principle Investigator like Doctor Eilerson and Doctor Hendricks from "Infection" would be making about as much as he can in the type of position he occupies anyway. Which admittedly isn't enough but it's enough to be comfortable... we don't go into archaeology to make money. Anyone who really wants to have a six figure job in academia should go into engineering.
Gandhi, the father of Indian independence, was notoriously racist against Africans, and much of his legal activism in South Africa wasn't about abolishing apartheid altogether, but allowing Indians to be exempt on the same basis as Whites in South Africa. I can't speak to whether or not his views changed on that point, particularly when he met MLK, but he did have those views.
There isn't a single prominent person from any group who's questionable activities haven't been cleaned up in order to present a sainted 2-D angel for the political gain of the group in question. At the same time, however, Gandhi helped free India from centuries of British rule, and Churchill was instrumental in keeping Britain in the game during the bloodiest war in human history. A nuanced and more critical view of these men can't just ignore that.
And I'm specializing in archaeology. My entire training is centered around fighting for peoples who are underrepresented in history. But to quote this show, "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side, and the truth." Records from the dominant people in a narrative should always be taken with a grain of salt in order to account for unconscious biases, but they're still important resources. For that matter, everyone has unconscious biases that need to be accounted for.
Plus, human history is a massive pallet of grays, and it's not always the case that the views of the underrepresented people you so rightfully mention are diametrically opposed to the accounts that have hitherto dominated. And the views of the previously dominant narrative aren't always unsympathetic or uncritical of their treatment of other groups. Which is doubtless inconvenient to nationalists of all stripes, but there it is.
As the head of the anthropology department told us in class two days ago, "you don't base your proposals on trying to read the minds of dead people,"
"Of course to historians of a certain kind any elevation of the individual is unpalatable and misleading. Engels famously stated that great men appear when a given socio-economic situation requires them, but the argument is circular because the only sign that social circumstances require them is the fact that they actually do appear."
As for Churchill, one of the things that's drilled into students of both fields over and over is to avoid "presentism" at all costs. You don't judge historical figures based on our values. You just don't, it distorts our ability to actually put their actions into context.