As someone from a country who has been a colony of a handful of other countries during its history, I understand and can relate to your argument. Also, as some

As someone from a country who has been a colony of a handful of other countries during its history, I understand and can relate to your argument. Also, as someone from a continent that still has millitias funded by other countries, I find the idea of funding a militia appalling, specially if the purpose is not to at least try and save people, but to save cultural artifacts ... That said, I think you are oversimplifying things a bit in your comment. This part: >Those people have a right to decide what to do about the destruction of their cultural artifacts, because they are people and have agency. Think of how even in geographically small countries, there is often cultural heterogeneity, and you can see that it's not easy to say if those deciding to destruct some cultural artifact actually "own" it. I think this is specially important since cultural artifacts tell a culture's history (books are the most obvious example, but we are able to learn basic things about pre-historic cultures by looking at their non textual artifacts), and the aftermath of a war typically includes the winner rewriting history, which is something that destroying the loser's artifacts makes easier. Let me finish with a quote I identify a lot with, from Lukas Ligeti[1]: "It makes no sense to group people together according to superficial characteristics. There are no majorities in the world: we are, each and every one of us, a minority of one" [1] "Secret Instruments, Secret Destinations", from ARCANA II