Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 327 posts

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

#211

Post by Grimburger »

UncleMeat wrote: post #152
twblalock wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Frum's new Atlantic article shows a similar situation in Nigeria: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/benin-b... Basically the Nigerian federal government, the state government of Benin, and the descendants of the kings of Benin who originally owned the stolen Benin bronzes all think they should be the ones to whom the bronzes should be returned -- and in the case of the current king, he assert…

Okay. But that's surely not a reason why the Brits get to keep it. "This is too hard, let's give up and keep bringing in tourist money to our museums through these artifacts" feels like an awfully convenient excuse.

I was under the impression that most museums around the world are a cost to governments rather than a boon, there's probably a few exceptions.

People who are travel to see the crown jewels are going whether or not this one is there with it.

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

#212

Post by cafed00d »

imgabe wrote: post #176
cafed00d wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those diamonds were mined in Kollur in modern day south India. It should go back to them. And yes, before you harp on it, the land we call America should go back to the Native Americans, the aboriginals of Australia and New Zealand should also get their lands back. Or whoever else has been the subject of conquest. Ultimately, slavery, caste, and colonization are institutions of brutality. Reparations are owed. Britai…

Civilizations clash. Some win, some lose. Should Gaul go back to the Romans? You would have the Earth remain completely static, and wherever your ancestors happened to evolve into humans that’s where you and your descendants live forever until the end of time? It’s ridiculous. Things change. Move on.

That’s a dangerous precedent to set. You’re essentially egging on today’s generation to “clash back”.

Colonialism isn’t the same as ancestral predator prey mechanics. Or, that we should reverse every unjust war waged in the world.

Some are just blatantly brutal. Simple. We owe it to our species to recognize mistake, apologize and make repairs.

Would Britain really say “it’s ridiculous. Things change. Move on” for forcefully castrating Turing simply because he was gay? Oh wait. No. They didn’t actually do that.

Some atrocities are just that bad. Things don’t change. It’s ridiculous. Grow a spine!

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

#213

Post by glenngillen »

Grimburger wrote: post #211
UncleMeat wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. But that's surely not a reason why the Brits get to keep it. "This is too hard, let's give up and keep bringing in tourist money to our museums through these artifacts" feels like an awfully convenient excuse.

I was under the impression that most museums around the world are a cost to governments rather than a boon, there's probably a few exceptions. People who are travel to see the crown jewels are going whether or not this one is there with it.

Especially when most museums and galleries in London (all of the UK?) are free to enter. It’s usually only touring/limited display special features that have a modest fee to see them.

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

#214

Post by Nursie »

SilasX wrote: post #172
alephnerd wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By record high I meant in recent memory - good catch, should have clarified. To your second point, CoL in London is basically LA level. London rents+council tax make rental prices SF level (around $1-2k/month in rent and around $1-2k/month in local property tax, which rentors apparently pay as well) while London median incomes are below poverty line LA or SF levels (around $40,000/year) [0], and inflation around 8-9%…

That makes it sound like a small miracle that 80% of the people there can afford to live there at all.

> That makes it sound like a small miracle that 80% of the people there can afford to live there at all.

Oh it absolutely is! People in London pay a lot of money just to be there, and over the last couple of decades I've watched friends move further and further out, some still in flat-share arrangements into their 40s, as the idea of owning property anywhere in anything resembling an inner zone moved from "expensive" to "surely nobody can afford that?" to completely out of the question. And my friends tend to be at least vaguely professional workers, which of course means they are part of waves of gentrification pushing the people with less resources even further away.

How the whole thing sustains itself is something of a mystery to me. The city still needs cleaners.

(FWIW the whole of the UK is pretty much used to quite small living accomodation now, compared to the average American or Australian home)

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

#215

Post by kamaal »

sangnoir wrote: post #181
patchtopic wrote: post #179

with modern synthetic diamond processes, couldn't enough Koh-O-Noor Diamonds be produced to keep everyone happy?

As the article notes: it became a symbol of potency an empire. A lab-made diamond just doesn't have enough blood on it to mean anything: it'd be a giant synthetic rock.

The jewellery value of it comes exactly from what you wrote.

Like you could buy a $15 Casio wrist watch and it will tell you time just fine, but if you buy a Rolex you aren't exactly paying for time keeping. The value here is not time or time keeping, it is meant to show the wages and expenses of people/resources taken to produce it up the chain.

It took X slaves to produce this.

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

#216

Post by naravara »

alephnerd wrote: post #126
naravara wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it's not nearly as complicated as all that. The Governments of India and Pakistan formally inherited the relevant obligations and ownership rights from the British Raj, which itself assumed control over the same from the East India Company. The chain of ownership is clear and the only issue in dispute is whether it should be India or Pakistan who is more entitled to it, an issue which both nations are per…

But which state inherited Jammu Kashmir? That becomes the key question when the Kohinoor comes up, because Gulab Singh was the Wazir/PM of the Sikh Empire at the time, and Afghanistan doesn't recognize the Durrand Line, so arguably half of Afghanistan can be argued as still in play.

India did. It was acceded by the Maharaja. Afghanistan’s opinions on the Durand line are, likewise, irrelevant.

And in any case, these countries are perfectly capable of sorting these disputes out amongst themselves, the same way they had to sort out much else after independence, like who inherits the armed forces and the treasury.

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

#217

Post by soperj »

alephnerd wrote: post #17
soperj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

UN?

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

#218

Post by kamaal »

pacetherace wrote: post #41
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India should focus on getting their own shit together. They can be content in the knowledge that Britain is a shadow of its former self, without the resources to pay back a fraction of what they took.

Oh the reparations are not happening. But world needs to be aware of the level of apathy the British government had towards its colonies (even in the 20th century)

>>Oh the reparations are not happening.

That is not how anything works in history. When Britain gets weak enough, The sub continent will likely invade and exact its reparations by strip mining every last square foot of Europe.

To think that some war or conflict stops for you just because you are former party to it is hilarious to imagine. What do you think your victims will do the moment they have any power over you?

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

#219

Post by mattclarkdotnet »

golem14 wrote: post #87
electriclove wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put it in a museum in India. Yes, it might piss some off, but this idea of keeping the status quo (keeping it with the British) because it is complicated is ridiculous.

If it needs to be given away, maybe to a museum belonging to the United Nations? I'm not sure if there are truly extraterritorial museums, though.

A UN museum of escrow might be neat. Here’s all the awesome stuff people are too pigheaded to come to an agreement on, complete with explanations of why.

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

#220

Post by npinterview »

alephnerd wrote: post #3

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 is not very hard, it can go to a museum and can go around the country. After all in a democracy the people are the kings.

Personally I would not want it back, because it is just the tip of the iceberg. The church of England (now csi and cni) hold on to 1000s of acres of colonial land across the country.

The kohinoor is just a drop in the ocean.

Post reply on HN