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

281–290 of 327 posts

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

#281

Post by potamic »

divbzero wrote: post #226

Wikipedia’s account of Koh-i-Noor’s history contains this curious tidbit not mentioned in OP. Although Victoria wore it often, she became uneasy about the way in which the diamond had been acquired. In a letter to her eldest daughter, Victoria, Princess Royal, she wrote in the 1870s: "No one feels more strongly than I do about India or how much I opposed our taking those countries and I think no more will be taken, f…

This is the real reason the British would want to give it back to India. Whether it belongs to India is highly contestable. But the British holding on to it will continue to remind them of their dark days, the manner in which they acquired this and the consequences they created around the world. The Koh-i-Noor today, is the perfect symbol of colonial exploitation. Like an Elder Wand, it induces a lust for possession and attracts undue attention to itself. It has never turned out good for any of its owners.

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

#282

Post by kamaal »

betwixthewires wrote: post #254
kamaal wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice excuses to not return it back to the last known owners.

The last known owners aren't sovereigns of a nation anymore. And if they wouldn't give it to the ones before them this entire discussion is a sham.

>>The last known owners aren't sovereigns of a nation anymore.

India is a democracy, people's government. So your argument doesn't stand.

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

#283

Post by rayiner »

osrec wrote: post #250
glandium wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far back should we go? Alexander the Great?

I guess then in your opinion what the Nazis did was fair game, and they should not have had to pay reparations either? What, in your opinion, is the cutoff point in time, where sins are universally absolved? Edit: It's clearly a subjective topic, but there are significant impacts felt the world over due to the British empire. I'm not sure you can say the same of Alexander the Great. People are directly and significan…

The nazis paid reparations in the lifetime of the people affected.

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

#284

Post by rayiner »

nradov wrote: post #227
osrec wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Should Mali also pay reparations to Ghana over the atrocities they committed during 13th century wars of conquest?

And Hindus should demand reparations from Muslims for the 800 years of colonization before the British. That’ll go over great.

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

#285

Post by matthewheath »

alephnerd wrote: post #96
alfl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Crown pays taxes: https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0?ch=5#bio-section-4

Queen did which is good! I'm curious whether King Charles will though as he seems to own a fair number of private enterprises, as well as the other royals (I think Prince Harry and Megan Markle announced raising a Series B for their company earlier today for example)

Yes, King Charles III will pay the same taxes as Queen Elizabeth II did - he agreed to it during the Accession Council meeting. Only the Monarch and income from the Duchy of Cornwall (paid to the Prince of Wales) are exempt from income, capital gains, and inheritance tax.

Every other member of the Royal Family are liable to tax, the same as us. They can offset the cost of their official duties against their taxes though.

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

#286

Post by ceejayoz »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #200
ceejayoz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure; as an example, the attack on the USS Cole. Clear military target, widely described as a terrorist attack, including by the FBI ( https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing ).

>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.

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

#287

Post by rayiner »

cafed00d wrote: post #212
imgabe wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 for…

Bangladesh has aboriginal people too. There is zero chance in hell we ever give back the land. Why should we view the British any differently?

The problem with your line of thinking is that it’s never applied equally. It always ends up with only white people being assigned moral agency.

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

#289

Post by Symbiote »

OJFord wrote: post #279
Symbiote wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim of income from tourism is wrong: https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism (At least if you believe the figures from Visit Britain, the government organization for tourism.)

I said ignoring that, largely because I didn't want to cause an argument about the value of it. That said, it seems silly to argue it brings no tourism whatsoever, and indeed the page you linked doesn't - it claims £500M, which it (fairly enough) goes on to say is negligible in the scheme of UK total tourism revenue and economy. But that's not the point is it - when people make the claim it says is wrong, or certainl…

The linked page says Visit Britain claimed £500M, but couldn't justify those figures, and has internal documents showing tourism reduced for previous large royal events.

I don't much care about the costs, but it is a good demonstration of how opaque this part of government is.

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

#290

Post by DivineBicycle »

Thrymr wrote: post #108
patchtopic wrote: post #77

what about returning the Anglo Saxon Kingdom stolen by violence in 1066 and returning to Normandy and the Channel Islands while they are at it?

Then the Celts kick them out of Gaul and send them back to Scandinavia where they came from.

Actually the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes came from Germany (IIRC). The Danes came from Scandinavia.
Post reply on HN