Obsession with who was first/oldest

Here's a tweet I saw recently -
https://x.com/IndianGems_/status/1855281822524899597

Why does it matter which language is the oldest? We see this being done for religion, regions, tribes, nationalities, civilisations etc as well. If someone's just stating facts then there's nothing more to it. But in most cases, its not about facts, its about superiority. If its older, its supposedly better and deserves more importance.

With the recent middle east crisis, we see similar arguments, we got here first or they were there before etc etc. In religious matters too. In India, Subramanian Swamy says everyone is a Hindu and we were converted, it is older.

I get why they make these arguments but what's the point? Before the thing that was the oldest there's probably something older. There are wide ranging estimates but most historians agree that humanity is more than 50000 years old with some even saying more than 250000. Our solar system is perhaps billions of years old. So the fact that someone, something is older shouldn't necessarily mean its better or superior or claim it to be theirs. Especially for land, we were here 5000 years ago, so what? There were probably others before? If not, there were animals or insects or other life form?

Why use this is as an argument at all? I'm never convinced whenever makes this point.

I think Claude AI agrees -

This is a thoughtful reflection on a common rhetorical pattern in cultural, religious, and territorial disputes. Let me break down why the "appeal to antiquity" argument is problematic while being so pervasive:

1. Cultural Identity and Power

• People often use antiquity claims to establish legitimacy and authority
• It's a way of saying "we were here first, therefore we have more right to X"
• This gets tied to cultural pride and identity, making it emotionally charged

2. The Historical Reality

• As you correctly point out, human history is incredibly deep (50,000+ years)
• Most modern cultural, linguistic, and religious formations are relatively recent
• Populations have mixed, migrated, and evolved constantly
• Drawing clear lines of "who was first" becomes increasingly difficult as you go back in time

3. The Logical Fallacies

• Being older doesn't inherently make something better (appeal to tradition fallacy)
• Most cultures and languages have evolved and borrowed from others
• Modern Hindi, Arabic, Hebrew etc. are very different from their ancient forms
• The "purity" or "originality" being claimed often doesn't exist

4. Political Motivation

• These arguments are often used selectively to support current political goals
• The same people making antiquity claims might ignore historical facts that don't suit their narrative
• It's less about historical accuracy and more about present-day power dynamics

5. Better Approaches

• Cultural value should be based on current merit and contribution
• Multiple cultures can coexist and enrich each other
• Historical claims should be studied for understanding, not superiority
• Focus on building inclusive futures rather than exclusive claims to the past

Your point about even earlier life forms is particularly insightful - if we follow the "oldest claim" logic to its conclusion, we might have to give precedence to bacteria! The argument ultimately breaks down under scrutiny.

A more constructive approach would be to:

Base claims on current needs and ethical considerations rather than ancient history

Acknowledge shared heritage and interconnections

Celebrate diversity without requiring superiority

Focus on how cultures can coexist and evolve together