How many countries does England have stuff to return to?
The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
111–120 of 220 posts
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#112While these discussions are always loaded with sentimental intepretation, and complex questions of what "rightful owner" after hundreds or thousands of years even means, I think more of an emphasis should be put on impact for the population. After all, the British Museum, the main example for restitutions, is located in a global city, given completely free access to its huge collection on display and pays for preserv…
[deleted]
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
- the artifact is likely to be seen by significantly more people and serves a much greater purpose to expose/educate those people (from other cultures) to/about the culture from which it came
We should be thankful the British stole it!
You joke, but many of the artifacts in question would likely have been destroyed if it were not for the British stealing them.
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#114The labeling of things in museums as "stolen" is lacking, IMO. In some cases, yes... straight up looted items are in museums. In other cases, though, the items could easily have ended up lost to time (or political, economic, social turmoil) if they had not been taken and put in museums outside of the places where they originated. Additionally some of these places would not have had the means to care for antiquities b…
>The labeling of things in museums as "stolen" is lacking, IMO. In some cases, yes... straight up looted items are in museums.
If the best place to hide a lie is between two truths then the best place to hide a stolen item is between two that were legitimately acquired. This debate always seems to acknowledge that there are items completely illigitmately acquired but then shrug shoulders that nothing can be done because there are other items that were legitmatley acquired and somehow that's supposed to be convicing.
It's an idictment against the British Museum and by extension the UK that these items we do agree are stolen simply aren't returned.
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looting and pillaging is fine, as long as you build an entire economic / social system around it? Because that is the only semblance of logic I can take away from your statements. These museums didn't just pop into place for the artifacts to reside in; they were built to show off their spoils.
Take the Taliban example of destroying Buddhist culture in the 90s. They are/were the current people in power would you suggest returning items to be destroyed or carefully preserving them for future. Would you return items to a place incapable of taking care of them?
[deleted]
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure I follow - The items were taken from somewhere at some point in time and now there is a country on that territory.
Take an extreme hypothetical. Suppose in the 1500s the government of Spain had taken some artifacts relating to the indigenous peoples of New Mexico. Would the government of the United States really be the rightful owner of these artifacts? For other countries it's not quite as extreme, but in general the link between ancient culture in place X and modern country in place X is less strong than people try to make out.
I don’t see the controversy of your example because since there was no UNESCO and other global agreements in the 1500s, the indigenous people of this area are still around and so it would be the local Native American tribes that can have a legitimate claim on their heritage.
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#117While these discussions are always loaded with sentimental intepretation, and complex questions of what "rightful owner" after hundreds or thousands of years even means, I think more of an emphasis should be put on impact for the population. After all, the British Museum, the main example for restitutions, is located in a global city, given completely free access to its huge collection on display and pays for preserv…
While London is indeed a global city, access is very much not equal. Immigration/tourism requirements are always the strictest against the very countries who were plundered during colonial times, in comparison to rich countries with an imperial past/present. Most of the world will never visit the UK. Most of the value that the British museum supplies goes back to the UK in the form of tourism and to close allies of t…
What place is easier for 'most of the world' to visit?
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looting and pillaging is fine, as long as you build an entire economic / social system around it? Because that is the only semblance of logic I can take away from your statements. These museums didn't just pop into place for the artifacts to reside in; they were built to show off their spoils.
> These museums didn't just pop into place for the artifacts to reside in; they were built to show off their spoils. You have a very cynical and skewed view of things. These museums were built specifically for the public good, to show off things that were of no interest in their original countries at that time. The British didn't say they wanted to build public museums to increase tourism, that came later as an unint…
[deleted]
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no "nation from which the items were taken".
I’m not sure I follow - The items were taken from somewhere at some point in time and now there is a country on that territory.
The idea of a nation-state is surprisingly recent and not completely universal, right? Historically people might be organized along kinship, tribal, ethnic, religious, or some other lines. Then an empire could pop up and control various groups of those, often against their wills, sometimes via intermediaries (which might not even map well to the underlying peoples).
I do think the best thing to do is to return artifacts to their rightful owners, but figuring out who the rightful owners is, can be quite difficult.
I mean, if they stole some artifacts from a tribe, which was subsequently wiped out by a tribe of bitter rivals, do they give their artifacts back to the rival tribe that later went on to form a government? (Just as a hypothetical, hopefully this is general enough that it is clear that I’m not trying to describe any particular real situation).
Re: The Netherlands has returned some stolen artifacts to Indonesia
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure I follow - The items were taken from somewhere at some point in time and now there is a country on that territory.
It is an interesting theory, if I understand it. Is the Idea that controlling a geographic region makes one the rightful heir to any artifacts created by people and cultures previously in the region? Does the USA have a claim to all indigenous Artifacts created in the US? It doesn't seem that different than Egypt laying claim to Egyptian artifacts.
I think it’s clear the spirit of my comment was to mean that the descendants of the original owners would be one of the parties with a claim to have their artefacts repatriated. It’s clearly not a strictly geographical problem.