81–90 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> isn’t the rightful owner. And who is qualified to determine the "rightful owner"? The current government of the nation from which the items were taken is the one in charge of policy regarding their cultural and historical artefacts.
There is no "nation from which the items were taken".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems more like a judgement call that should be made by the legitimate owners of the artifacts (I liked in the other comment, that there was a focus on the problem of figuring out who the legitimate owners were, and the practicalities of getting them the artifacts).
The legitimate owners died a long time ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should be thankful the British stole it!
Honestly, of all the empires that could have stolen I'm glad it was the British. Cruel, destabilizing, more atrocities than any other empire, but somehow the royal class had a culture of conservation for (some) wildlife and historical artefacts.
Lol, no. Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
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…
> the kings of a kingdom built on slavery. You cannot put that as a reason to keep the artifacts in the UK, of all places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know some of the museums aren’t the right place to keep some of the artifacts, but I also feel that in general they have been good stewards. My counterpoint is wondering how many would have been destroyed by ISIS or civil unrest in some of the less stable regions of the world.
There's 2 separate Hague conventions establishing an international framework for how to protect heritage in conflict regions. They're not perfect (like pretty much any convention), but they address all the basic issues like sheltering artifacts abroad and dedicating military units to prevent destruction. Also, western institutions have not been ideal stewards themselves, historically. The Pergamon kept the Ishtar gat…
It's not working well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan#Destruction...
Earlier 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is spot on. Why should a “mosern country” be the owner of an artifact? I wonder honestly, I am not just whining.
You steal a mummy from egipt, take it to london, put it in a museum. Who has more claim on the item... someone who stole it and kept it for 100, 150, 200 years? Or people of egypt represented by their government,living in an area where the mummy was stolen from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is spot on. Why should a “mosern country” be the owner of an artifact? I wonder honestly, I am not just whining.
Because they are more secure there. These are irreplaceable items. Pick your favorite cultural artifact, would you help move it to a more secure location if there was a lot of instability that could lead to it being destroyed? Even if that more secure location was a different country? I personally would.
While 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…
It grants free access to British citizens and those few who can afford to travel to the UK. The grand majority of the world’s population cannot afford this.
Most important, the locals living in cities that were pillaged by the British can’t access cultural items at all. Sure, the museum entry might be free, but they can’t afford to travel to an island far far away.
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…
> the kings of a kingdom built on slavery. You cannot put that as a reason to keep the artifacts in the UK, of all places.
The idea of reparations has come up. Should the US be paying or the African countries who profited and kept it going for another 100 years.