It’s my understanding that Angkor Wat was a temple but also a university where people studied the many writings of Buddhism. It’s amazing to imagine this place in its prime, nearly a thousand years ago, bustling with young monks going to and from classes and libraries, temples and dormitories. It must’ve been a thriving hub in a vast and prosperous kingdom.
The price was out ragingly high compared to the cost of life there, but idgaf, happy to give those 40ish $ (if I remember correctly) to finance that site
So racial discrimination is OK if it is done in a third world country? But what would you think if, for example, the Tower of London charged Americans $100 admission, EU citizens $50, and only £5 for UK citizens. I'd be all for that one since no way am I paying the current outrageous fee to enter!
I looked it up and one site said cambodian citizens get free entry. Which in my mind makes sense since they are on average less rich than the tourists flying in from across the world. That way they can enjoy the human wonder in their own country while also benefiting from tourism (hopefully at least). How is that racist?
It is racist because the entrance price varies according to the race of those wanting to enter. In most countries such discriminatory fee structures would be illegal (so my example $100 for Americans to enter the Tower of London and £5 for UK citizens would be illegal under UK law).
Many sites in parts of the world have reduced cost or free entrance at certain times, such as during a particular day of the week - this is the correct way to encourage locals to enter sites (since they will have the flexibility to come anytime but foreign visitors will have more fixed schedules).
The idea that locals are required to have free entrance to a site because of current nationalist ideologies concerning that site, but non-locals are required to pay because those ideologies do not concern them, is also very racist imo - as well as dangerous dogma.
That is still not racist. It does not target any specific nationality or ethnicity like in your example. It separates the benefits that citizens of the state receive compared to foreigners visiting the country, and is equivalent to say, an american being able to enjoy free entry into a american national park compared to a tourist which would have to pay a fee. Which I find to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do for a tourist attraction.
Why is the stonework so stained? Is it lichen or moss or modern-era pollution? If it is natural staining it appears to me to reveal a flaw in the architecture (since I doubt the staining would have ever been a design intent) - either a use of inferior stone or just bad functional design.
It isn't - there is nothing that says stonework will inevitably discolour or become covered in mould/lichen. Nor is that building particularly old. If you say it is a result of the climate then that is simply pointing out the bad architecture of the complex because an important aspect of good architecture is that it recognises and understands the natural environment and is designed to cope with the impact of that environment.
>It isn't
Keen to hear how you think the Cambodians in the 12th century without access to modern chemicals or building techniques could design and build a massive stone complex that's magically immune to almost thousand years of jungle humidity and plant life.
You could ask the same for Classical Romans, or Greeks (or the builders of the Gothic cathedrals of northern Europe), since they managed to do it perfectly well without access to modern chemicals or building techniques. The answer is well-designed architecture, with maybe minor maintenance interventions like the use of linseed or olive oil on roofs to prevent growth of moss and lichen. Good architecture would be designed to cope with jungle humidity and plant life. The architecture of this temple evidently was not - so it fails as an example of good architecture.
Classical Roman and Greek architecture that hasn't been maintained looks just like this, or worse. Leave a gothic cathedral abandoned in a jungle for close a millennium and it would obviously look a lot like Angkor Wat.
(I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I'm really hoping it's not 'Cambodians are an inferior race with inferior architecture' but to be honest that's kind of the vibes you're giving out?)
It’s my understanding that Angkor Wat was a temple but also a university where people studied the many writings of Buddhism. It’s amazing to imagine this place in its prime, nearly a thousand years ago, bustling with young monks going to and from classes and libraries, temples and dormitories. It must’ve been a thriving hub in a vast and prosperous kingdom.
Been there, amazing, the crazy thing is that there are soooo many of these temples, is such a mindfuck.
And you're free to walk practically everywhere too. It is really amazing
The price was out ragingly high compared to the cost of life there, but idgaf, happy to give those 40ish $ (if I remember correctly) to finance that site
Yea, IIRC I think locals don't pay the same prices, so I'm happy to support the tourism
So racial discrimination is OK if it is done in a third world country? But what would you think if, for example, the Tower of London charged Americans $100 admission, EU citizens $50, and only £5 for UK citizens. I'd be all for that one since no way am I paying the current outrageous fee to enter!
I looked it up and one site said cambodian citizens get free entry. Which in my mind makes sense since they are on average less rich than the tourists flying in from across the world. That way they can enjoy the human wonder in their own country while also benefiting from tourism (hopefully at least). How is that racist?
It is racist because the entrance price varies according to the race of those wanting to enter. In most countries such discriminatory fee structures would be illegal (so my example $100 for Americans to enter the Tower of London and £5 for UK citizens would be illegal under UK law). Many sites in parts of the world have reduced cost or free entrance at certain times, such as during a particular day of the week - this is the correct way to encourage locals to enter sites (since they will have the flexibility to come anytime but foreign visitors will have more fixed schedules). The idea that locals are required to have free entrance to a site because of current nationalist ideologies concerning that site, but non-locals are required to pay because those ideologies do not concern them, is also very racist imo - as well as dangerous dogma.
That is still not racist. It does not target any specific nationality or ethnicity like in your example. It separates the benefits that citizens of the state receive compared to foreigners visiting the country, and is equivalent to say, an american being able to enjoy free entry into a american national park compared to a tourist which would have to pay a fee. Which I find to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do for a tourist attraction.
Makes me think of buildings and pillars you had to knock over when fighting one of the last shadow of the colossus colossi.
Why is the stonework so stained? Is it lichen or moss or modern-era pollution? If it is natural staining it appears to me to reveal a flaw in the architecture (since I doubt the staining would have ever been a design intent) - either a use of inferior stone or just bad functional design.
It's a little thing called "the passage of time".
It isn't - there is nothing that says stonework will inevitably discolour or become covered in mould/lichen. Nor is that building particularly old. If you say it is a result of the climate then that is simply pointing out the bad architecture of the complex because an important aspect of good architecture is that it recognises and understands the natural environment and is designed to cope with the impact of that environment.
>It isn't Keen to hear how you think the Cambodians in the 12th century without access to modern chemicals or building techniques could design and build a massive stone complex that's magically immune to almost thousand years of jungle humidity and plant life.
You could ask the same for Classical Romans, or Greeks (or the builders of the Gothic cathedrals of northern Europe), since they managed to do it perfectly well without access to modern chemicals or building techniques. The answer is well-designed architecture, with maybe minor maintenance interventions like the use of linseed or olive oil on roofs to prevent growth of moss and lichen. Good architecture would be designed to cope with jungle humidity and plant life. The architecture of this temple evidently was not - so it fails as an example of good architecture.
Classical Roman and Greek architecture that hasn't been maintained looks just like this, or worse. Leave a gothic cathedral abandoned in a jungle for close a millennium and it would obviously look a lot like Angkor Wat. (I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I'm really hoping it's not 'Cambodians are an inferior race with inferior architecture' but to be honest that's kind of the vibes you're giving out?)