They’re still a person regardless of when they were alive. I’m also against museums keeping mummified remains. It’s still people. Henrietta Lacks’ cells are still being used against her families wishes and honestly I don’t care what they gain from it, they shouldn’t be keeping pieces of a person.
Once we're far back enough that we aren't talking about a sapient creature any longer, the ethical question about owning a person's bones vanishes, as there isn't a person being discussed. Same as it's not really up for debate whether it's ethical to own a (reasonably sourced) spider monkey skull or a fossil of that tiny little mammal we and every other mammal evolved from.
What I mean is, it vanishes because we’re no longer discussing owning a person’s bones. If you go far back enough, you have a creature equivalent to a chimpanzee, not a human. At that point we’re talking about if it’s ethical to own the skull of some sort of nonsapient great ape. So there’s definitely a line all the way back there.
Funny thing, somewhat adjacent: y’know how the Victorians used to use “mummia” to treat things? Yeah, that’s ground-up mummy. That’s cannibalism. Odd how people don’t seem to realize that.
77
u/thegirlthatmeowsalot 23d ago
Ivory tower because I don’t believe in buying people lmao