5 ms·

Yes...you should return what you took by force. The history and cultural value of the items belong to the country of origin. Why is this even a question? These

Yes...you should return what you took by force. The history and cultural value of the items belong to the country of origin. Why is this even a question? These artifacts are symbols that represent cultural identity of individuals in the country of origin right now! I suspect the whole "culture and tradition is not a big deal" indoctrination prevalent in the west makes it difficult for some westerners to imagine associating your identity and even value as a member of the society the artifact represents.

KaiserPro 7y ago
> imagine associating your identity and even value as a member of the society the artifact represents. If that was the case, these artefacts would hold no value. I don't think sweeping statements like this help any argument. We should gladly share our culture. If that means shifting heritage artefacts around the world to spread understanding, then so be it. So yes return items to originating countries, but also share them to other countries on loan. This allows normal people to learn about other cultures from first principles. It also means that in case of war, or difficulty, items can be preserved from damage.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Sharing is up to the owner not the receiver. You are concerned about learning about other culutures, that is what I mean by a disconnect, if they had the ability the countries of origin would inavde (war, killing,etc..) Over those artifacts. This would be unthinkable in a western context. Look at syria,do you think they would prefer if the US or UK permanetly took their artefacts to preserve them instead of letting ISIS destroy them? Imagine someone taking libery statue and the whitehouse by force to keep them safe and learn about american culture. You're speaking this way because you are confident those countries won't invade your country and kill your people over it
  - KaiserPro 7y ago
    I was talking about all artefacts. rembrant, van gough, the grays inn hand axe, the sutton hoo hoard, should be on tour, for the world to see and learn about. > if they had the ability the countries of origin would inavde (war, killing,etc..) Over those artifacts If I understand you properly, you are saying that a number of countries would engage in war to retrieve statues et al, not for the financial gain, but for _morale_? I think you misunderstand what expansionism is about. > Look at syria,do you think they would prefer if the US or UK permanetly took their artefacts to preserve them instead of letting ISIS destroy them? I doubt the vast majority care, I think they want peace, food, healthcare and jobs. It is a privileged to care about cultural sights. When you are at the point of having to live in a roman tomb to survive the winter, I think you cease to care about the cultural or historical provenance of a building/object. > Sharing is up to the owner define owner. Should the Flaminio obelisk be repatriated, if so, where to, Greece? after all it was stolen from Hellenic egypt. the Koh-i-Noor is another more complex one to solve. Its been stolen twice(at least), once by Nader Shah, then again by the Durrani who sold it/gave/traded/lost it to the Singh dynasty. It was then traded to the East India Company in exchange for them saving the ruling class from its incredible standing army(who would have conquered india if they hadn't been betrayed by their own leaders). The Elgin Marbles is more simple, but thats rare. The actual mechanics of repatriation is pretty hard. Which is why putting all these artefacts into a supra-national trust, travelling around the world is better, because _everyone_ gets to see it. Hopefully it will also stop corrupt governments seconding them to adorn private residences. Like all the stuff looted from iraq.
fatumasvoice 7y ago
Agreed! But should we share based on choice or because it was stolen and we have no say over it?

KaiserPro 7y ago

> imagine associating your identity and even value as a member of the society the artifact represents. If that was the case, these artefacts would hold no value. I don't think sweeping statements like this help any argument. We should gladly share our culture. If that means shifting heritage artefacts around the world to spread understanding, then so be it. So yes return items to originating countries, but also share them to other countries on loan. This allows normal people to learn about other cultures from first principles. It also means that in case of war, or difficulty, items can be preserved from damage.

badrabbit 7y ago
Sharing is up to the owner not the receiver. You are concerned about learning about other culutures, that is what I mean by a disconnect, if they had the ability the countries of origin would inavde (war, killing,etc..) Over those artifacts. This would be unthinkable in a western context. Look at syria,do you think they would prefer if the US or UK permanetly took their artefacts to preserve them instead of letting ISIS destroy them? Imagine someone taking libery statue and the whitehouse by force to keep them safe and learn about american culture. You're speaking this way because you are confident those countries won't invade your country and kill your people over it
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  I was talking about all artefacts. rembrant, van gough, the grays inn hand axe, the sutton hoo hoard, should be on tour, for the world to see and learn about. > if they had the ability the countries of origin would inavde (war, killing,etc..) Over those artifacts If I understand you properly, you are saying that a number of countries would engage in war to retrieve statues et al, not for the financial gain, but for _morale_? I think you misunderstand what expansionism is about. > Look at syria,do you think they would prefer if the US or UK permanetly took their artefacts to preserve them instead of letting ISIS destroy them? I doubt the vast majority care, I think they want peace, food, healthcare and jobs. It is a privileged to care about cultural sights. When you are at the point of having to live in a roman tomb to survive the winter, I think you cease to care about the cultural or historical provenance of a building/object. > Sharing is up to the owner define owner. Should the Flaminio obelisk be repatriated, if so, where to, Greece? after all it was stolen from Hellenic egypt. the Koh-i-Noor is another more complex one to solve. Its been stolen twice(at least), once by Nader Shah, then again by the Durrani who sold it/gave/traded/lost it to the Singh dynasty. It was then traded to the East India Company in exchange for them saving the ruling class from its incredible standing army(who would have conquered india if they hadn't been betrayed by their own leaders). The Elgin Marbles is more simple, but thats rare. The actual mechanics of repatriation is pretty hard. Which is why putting all these artefacts into a supra-national trust, travelling around the world is better, because _everyone_ gets to see it. Hopefully it will also stop corrupt governments seconding them to adorn private residences. Like all the stuff looted from iraq.

fatumasvoice 7y ago

Agreed! But should we share based on choice or because it was stolen and we have no say over it?