Live data from Hacker News

The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

smithsonianmag.com

11–20 of 327 posts

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#11
post #2

Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.

Also, any efforts by the powerless to redress the balance are generally labeled terrorism.

Hard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled terrorism, and rightly so.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#13

Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…

Also would the world be a better place if they gave it back to some third party, so it can be sold to a private collection and be locked in a vault somewhere?

Where it is now has a lot of historical and cultural significance. It is currently being admired publicly by thousands of people, sitting on the coffin of Queen Elisabeth.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#14
post #5

“And just as with ethnology, which plays at extricating itself from its object to better secure itself in its pure form, demuseumification is nothing but another spiral in artificiality. Witness the cloister of Saint-Michel de Cuxa, which one will repatriate at great cost from the Cloisters in New York to reinstall it in "its original site." And everyone is supposed to applaud this restitution (as they did "the exper…

I don't think this repatriation actually happened. Is that because someone actually listened to Baudrillard? In any case, complaining about an event which didn't happen as "indulging in retrospective hallucination" adds another layer. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/470314

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#15

Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…

> It's a conundrum and an complicated legal question that honestly isn't worth it for any of the countries, all of whom have bigger issues to deal with.

Sure, but the crown shouldn't keep it. Give it to a neutral 3rd party until an agreement is in place.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#16
post #2

Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.

Quoted post unavailable.

Clearly Bobby was not much of a victor in this case. Related to TFA: if the Indians want their diamond back, let them come and get it. It's pretty clear why they don't, and who Tony and Bobby are in this particular version of the story.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#17
post #15

Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…

> It's a conundrum and an complicated legal question that honestly isn't worth it for any of the countries, all of whom have bigger issues to deal with. Sure, but the crown shouldn't keep it. Give it to a neutral 3rd party until an agreement is in place.

Who would the neutral 3rd party be? It would still cause the same argument as above. The United States (Afghanistan would say no), China (India would say no), the Commonwealth (Afghanistan isn't a member), the UN (which Afghan government?), etc.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#20

Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…

It's like the argument that California should be given back to Mexico, when Mexico itself was a Spanish colonial construct.
Post reply on HN