191–200 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just accept the situation as part of the ebb and flow of history? They certainly weren’t the first empires in history. I think a lot of the objection is more about nationalistic sentiment than anything else and I don’t feel it needs to be done to reclaim cultural heritage.
I will never accept colonialism in whatever way, shape, or form.
The amount of pro-colonial sentiment in the thread here is baffling. The people that were colonized and stolen from have the right to do whatever they want with these artifacts, even if you believe they may not have the means, or will sell them to private collectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other cases, though, the items could easily have ended up lost to time (or political, economic, social turmoil) That's a hard sell when the country that winds up with the artifacts was also the primary agitator of political, social and economic turmoil (you know, the usual colonial stuff). An arsonist shouldn't get to keep victims' heirlooms to "save them from the conflagration".
[flagged]
The 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…
You don't seem to be disputing that the items were stolen but rather claiming that some of the theft was justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's entirely possible that Indonesia would not exist without Dutch colonisation. Indonesian nationalism was a response to colonialism.
Same goes for the parent comment about India. The decline of the Mughal empire and the possibility of multiple states arising instead of an unified India doesn't justify the British colonialism and in no way absolves them of their atrocities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other cases, though, the items could easily have ended up lost to time (or political, economic, social turmoil) That's a hard sell when the country that winds up with the artifacts was also the primary agitator of political, social and economic turmoil (you know, the usual colonial stuff). An arsonist shouldn't get to keep victims' heirlooms to "save them from the conflagration".
What did the Dutch do in Indonesia to spark social and economic turmoil? Genuinely curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Graves generally aren't permanent; most plots are leased for a fixed term. What is done with the caskets and contents thereafter varies widely.
Is that really how pyramids worked? King Tut in the pyramid for 60 years then to the Nile his bones?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Benin Bronzes if returned will go to the descendants of the original owners - the kings of a kingdom built on slavery. I certainly know many people in countries from which these things were taken who think they are safer somewhere stable - I have heard exactly the comment that returning things will probably mean then end up stolen by politicians from Sri Lankans with regard to the things the Netherlands returned…
> kingdom built on slavery I’m not being facetious here, but isn’t the USA (and other nations) basically that? So much of the wealth was accrued through the “low” labor costs of early industry.