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

301–310 of 327 posts

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

#301

Post by valarauko »

alephnerd wrote: post #93
valarauko wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> defacto owned by Gulab Singh at that point Sure, not in dispute. The point of the exercise is to recontextualize ownership of colonial spoils as the heritage of the colonized people, rather than the personal property of the monarchs involved, or the successor states of an empire. Indeed, I would broaden that to include all wealth plundered from the people, including by their own nobility. If the goal is to restore…

The issue is colonial people in South and Central Asian history is weird because just about every South and Central Asian state (the Durranis, the Sikh Confedracy, the Sikh Empire, the Mughals, the British Raj, the Maratha Empire, the Delhi Sultanate, etc) was a federal system with castes, clans, and ethnic groups being given varying levels of self governance [0][1][2]. So when you say colonial people, does it belong…

What does the legal self governance of any single historic state have to do with the question at hand? We have a fairly reasonable model for the people who constitute modern states, and how they were associated in historic empires. So even if the Persian Empire subjugated parts of modern day Armenia and the Persian Empire held the diamond for a while, do we seriously think the Armenian people have a serious transitive claim to the entirety of the diamond? A lot of the contenders you've raised can certainly be wilted down.

South Asian colonial history is no more complicated than anywhere else in the world. Nor at any point have I deferred to the legal inheritance of successor states.

Consider for example the Elgin marbles, claimed by the British from a section of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire. Do we seriously believe any of the successor states of the Ottoman Empire other than Greece should claim them? If the goal is to restore the marbles to their "home", the answer to where they should go is easy. Yes, the diamond's history is more complicated, but not impossible to figure out where it's "home" should be. I've offered just one possible model, based on a collective ownership model, and weighing it by the factors such as how long it rested in each place.

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

#302

Post by irrational »

betwixthewires wrote: post #265
markdown wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nation of over a billion people. The "they" you speak of doesn't speak for everyone.

Which "they" asked for it back? Do they speak for everyone in doing so?

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/koh...

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

#303

Post by onetimeusename »

phs318u wrote: post #257
onetimeusename wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That effort and debate of repatriation of the Elgin Marbles has been going on for centuries and I think it's debatable if Greece (or the Ottomon Empire) is even part of the western nations. So, kindly, I disagree that there is any urgency or that repatriation of that artefact is even strictly non political. However, there is a movement to repatriate items taken from non-western nations during colonial times which man…

> debate of repatriation of the Elgin Marbles has been going on for centuries > I think it's debatable if Greece (or the Ottomon Empire) is even part of the western nations. The Parthenon marbles are over two millennia old. They were looted by Elgin just over two centuries ago. Greece's history stretches back at least four millennia (since the Mycenaeans - considered the first Greek peoples). The Ottoman empire occup…

Nothing you said refutes either of those claims. The Ottoman Empire controlled Greece at the time the Elgin Marbles were taken and it's unclear that they granted permission to remove them. They probably didn't so they were likely stolen from the Ottomans at the time. Further, the Ottomans were decidedly not a Western nation. Greece's history does not imply they are part of the West either. In a literal sense they are not, being part of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Meanwhile, repatriation of artefacts taken from Asia/Africa is a more modern movement that has coincided with anti-colonialism. So although the debate about repatriating the Elgin Marbles has been going on for ~200 years, in my opinion, it is being lumped together with the anti-colonial movements and even fits into that pattern. If you don't believe there is a movement to repatriate artefacts taken during colonial times from non-western nations see the link above or do a search.

There is no movement to return loot or spoils of war to western beneficiaries. So it seems pretty clear to me that anti-colonalism motivates the current claims which is a political ideology. If it was strictly about the ethics of looting, you might see people advocating for a return of items to churches and western countries but no one does that.

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

#304

Post by stu432 »

osrec wrote: post #198
UncleMeat wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People screech in terror and hide their wallets anytime the word "reparations" is said. I don't think colonial empires are going to be sending a considerable amount of plundered money back any time soon.

Quite true, not sure why you're down-voted. Colonial empires managed to get away extremely lightly, with respect to putting right their wrongs. Compare that to Nazi Germany, where reparations were paid in significant quantities, and kids in schools are still taught to be embarrassed by that section of their country's history. Whereas you get the sense that Britain is still, in some ways, proud of its rather ruthless…

You mean West Germany paid a fraction of what they received under the Marshall plan to Israel, and Israel alone. Doesn't really seem to put right the slaughtering they did all across Europe including the slaughtering they did to their own who weren't considered good enough.

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

#305

Post by ashwagary »

alephnerd wrote: post #165
rajeshp1986 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an approach to decide the ownership. When India got independence and the Republic of Indian union was formed, the Indian central government got ownership of all the assets of the princely states. There are instruments of ascession signed by each Maharaja stating the transfer of rights for properties and assets. I doubt if anyone has even seen these documents in a while but it could technically be traced and…

It's not that cut and dry. First, does it belong to the Sikh Empire or Jammu Kashmir. If it belongs to the Sikh Empire, which Punjab does it belong to? If it belonged to Jammu Kashmir does it belong to AJK or JK? On top of that, if it belonged to JK, did it belong to Kashmir w/ Gulab Singh or Kashmir during the Durrani occupation? If the Durrani Occupation, then which successor of the Durrani state - Afghanistan or P…

It is very cut and dry and simpler than you are making it seem. Return the stolen items to the Indian government and let the domestic courts decide based on cases claimants put forth.

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

#306

Post by Ozzie_osman »

kortilla wrote: post #128
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, for your hypothetical object, all of those parties would have a more legitimate claim than the British, and so I'd argue that any of them would be a step in the right direction (though more specifically, I'd say the tribes' descendants have the most legitimate claim). By the way, there are many examples of colonizing European countries refusing to return things they took during colonization where that "we don't…

> Yes, for your hypothetical object, all of those parties would have a more legitimate claim than the British “We stole it earlier” is not a more legitimate claim.

Recursively, it could be.

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

#307

Post by JamesBarney »

kinj28 wrote: post #187
JamesBarney wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Britain definitely has the best claim. They were given it in a treaty almost 200 years ago, and are currently in possession of it.

Imagine a thief comes to your house with a gun & a treaty paper. He gives you two options - 1) sign the treaty paper where I leave you harmless but take away all your wealth 2) kill you and your family and take away all your wealth Which option would you choose? Your heir 200 years later would stop their claim on it ? Fair deal?

Almost every treaty in history was signed with an implicit or explicit threat of violence (some economic, many physical).

Every piece of land that every country owns was taken at the point of the sword at one point or another.

And to answer your question no I don't think I have any right to the wealth of the great great great great grandchild of the thief. Courts would also share my view.

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

#308

Post by NotYourLawyer »

ceejayoz wrote: post #286
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>war zones Were we at war with Yemen when this happened?

We weren’t at war with the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Still wasn’t a terrorist attack. We can, and should, make a significant distinction between attacks on civilians and attacks on military targets.

I think the main distinction is who’s doing the attacking. If it’s a state-level attack, then it’s an act of war. If it’s just a random group of dudes, it’s terrorism. It doesn’t become not terrorism just because the target is military in nature.

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

#309

Post by nradov »

ashwagary wrote: post #305
alephnerd wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that cut and dry. First, does it belong to the Sikh Empire or Jammu Kashmir. If it belongs to the Sikh Empire, which Punjab does it belong to? If it belonged to Jammu Kashmir does it belong to AJK or JK? On top of that, if it belonged to JK, did it belong to Kashmir w/ Gulab Singh or Kashmir during the Durrani occupation? If the Durrani Occupation, then which successor of the Durrani state - Afghanistan or P…

It is very cut and dry and simpler than you are making it seem. Return the stolen items to the Indian government and let the domestic courts decide based on cases claimants put forth.

According to the article it's not that simple. The governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan also claim ownership. Why should the Indian domestic courts decide whether it stays in India or goes to one of those other countries?

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

#310

Post by morbidious »

concordDance wrote: post #262
morbidious wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's going to give back a sense of pride and belonging to people to see their possession back in their hands

Fomenting nationalism seems like a bad idea.

So you have the George Soros mentality

https://youtu.be/__ouwLEMaTM?t=212

Post reply on HN