5 ms·

The Government was stable, until the US of A decided to bless them with freedom and democracy. Your logic is absurd. Should a rich and stable nation steal all

The Government was stable, until the US of A decided to bless them with freedom and democracy. Your logic is absurd. Should a rich and stable nation steal all things of historical value from a poorer nation, in the name of history preservation? > The Elgin marbles are safe in the British Museum. Would they have been safe, left where they were found, for 100 years? It frankly doesn't matter. It was the right of the native people to decide what to do with them.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Right, that's the PC line. Rational and reasonable. Sadly, likely to result in more lost antiquities. None of that argument actually addresses the safety of the artifacts, which is my single point I'm making here. Argue all we like about what 'should' be. The reality is, they were lost once and could be lost again. All in support of the 'native people', who in these cases would include hungry looters.
- enitihas 6y ago
  The "hungry" looters getting food by selling them is a much better outcome then the rich "gentleman" taking pleasure by seeing them in a museum. Just because one won the genetic lottery by being born in a richer nation doesn't mean their entertainment has more value than the food of "hungry" looters, who too are human beings.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? But a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? That's what I mean by 'PC'. One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
    - enitihas 6y ago
      Sure, if a national treasure is found below your home, you think it's okay to kick you out without any compensation, because history >> individuals? Do you want to share the natural resources of your own nation with others for free? If not, how on earth is it OK to snatch that of others from them, just because they fit your historical curiosity? This is basically saying we are superior people, and we need to keep things away from the hand of barbarians.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Ok now that's just putting words in mouths. I have a policy of not feeding trolls.
    - testbot123 6y ago
      > So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? No. But two wrongs don't make a right. > a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? When the thieves illegally steal a nation's artifacts and illegally sell them to a private buyer? Yes. > One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil. ... he said, from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Not fair! I'm not suggesting a course of action, or passing judgement on the right solution; that is squarly with responders here. I simply observe, the 'right' action will likely result in the destruction/loss of more antiquities. Which is amply supportable by history, recent and ancient.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - serf 6y ago
      >One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. you paint an unfair picture. you fail to mention that, in the case of this argument at least, preserving the artifact by means of foreign intervention may very well result in the starvation of the would-be local thieves. many would argue that the loss of any human life is greater than the loss of all the world's artifacts. It isn't really that unfounded a concept. A well studied and documented artifact has only a specific amount of practical importance, aside from some sort of cultural significance. A human life has an unknown future, be it good or evil -- and unlimited (human) possibility if given the opportunities. It's a fairly simple value proposition when simplified unreasonably this way : "Do you let another human die for the sake of storing an already studied artifact in a location where the object is safer?"
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  You cannot steal someone else's property even if you rightly believe that the owner wouldn't treat it very well. The same holds between civilized countries, of course. It is obvious that the people who think otherwise employ double moral standards and would never agree to the theft of their country's cultural heritage under similar conditions.
  - pyronik19 6y ago
    We take peoples kids when they wouldn't be treated well.
    - jonathanstrange 6y ago
      That's because they are not their parent's property, but have their own rights as a person.
adventured 6y ago
> The Government was stable, until the US of A decided to bless them with freedom and democracy. The Iraqi dictatorship was not stable at all. There were constant purges, murders, by Saddam Hussein's regime. That occurred the entire time Saddam was in power. Please explain how that's a stable situation. The fact that Saddam had to constantly murder members of his own government, demonstrates beyond doubt that it was not stable at all. The routine execution of members of the Iraqi Government was required due to the extreme instability that such an oppressive minority dictatorship prompts.
- enitihas 6y ago
  You seem to be confusing dictatorship with instability. On your criterion Russia and Turkey would also be classified as unstable, which they do not seem to be. And off course, stability is relative. Compared to the current state of affairs, Iraqi government 20 years back was far more stable.
  - erik_seaberg 6y ago
    The Soviet Union was systematically vandalizing their history to prop up dogma. I hope we rescued anything we possibly could. Thirty years of sanity after that is nice to see but a pretty modest track record. But I think I'm with Danny Hillis, anything buried and forgotten is safer than anything in a museum.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Right, that's the PC line. Rational and reasonable. Sadly, likely to result in more lost antiquities. None of that argument actually addresses the safety of the artifacts, which is my single point I'm making here. Argue all we like about what 'should' be. The reality is, they were lost once and could be lost again. All in support of the 'native people', who in these cases would include hungry looters.

enitihas 6y ago
The "hungry" looters getting food by selling them is a much better outcome then the rich "gentleman" taking pleasure by seeing them in a museum. Just because one won the genetic lottery by being born in a richer nation doesn't mean their entertainment has more value than the food of "hungry" looters, who too are human beings.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? But a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? That's what I mean by 'PC'. One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
  - enitihas 6y ago
    Sure, if a national treasure is found below your home, you think it's okay to kick you out without any compensation, because history >> individuals? Do you want to share the natural resources of your own nation with others for free? If not, how on earth is it OK to snatch that of others from them, just because they fit your historical curiosity? This is basically saying we are superior people, and we need to keep things away from the hand of barbarians.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Ok now that's just putting words in mouths. I have a policy of not feeding trolls.
  - testbot123 6y ago
    > So its ok if local thieves and looters take the treasures with no thought of their preservation or provenance? No. But two wrongs don't make a right. > a methodical effort of record-keeping and analysis is wrong, simply because of the thieves nationality? When the thieves illegally steal a nation's artifacts and illegally sell them to a private buyer? Yes. > One is 'better' than the other, only from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil. ... he said, from a comfortable armchair far from the turmoil.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Not fair! I'm not suggesting a course of action, or passing judgement on the right solution; that is squarly with responders here. I simply observe, the 'right' action will likely result in the destruction/loss of more antiquities. Which is amply supportable by history, recent and ancient.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - serf 6y ago
    >One results in the loss forever of the treasure; the other at least preserves them. you paint an unfair picture. you fail to mention that, in the case of this argument at least, preserving the artifact by means of foreign intervention may very well result in the starvation of the would-be local thieves. many would argue that the loss of any human life is greater than the loss of all the world's artifacts. It isn't really that unfounded a concept. A well studied and documented artifact has only a specific amount of practical importance, aside from some sort of cultural significance. A human life has an unknown future, be it good or evil -- and unlimited (human) possibility if given the opportunities. It's a fairly simple value proposition when simplified unreasonably this way : "Do you let another human die for the sake of storing an already studied artifact in a location where the object is safer?"
jonathanstrange 6y ago
You cannot steal someone else's property even if you rightly believe that the owner wouldn't treat it very well. The same holds between civilized countries, of course. It is obvious that the people who think otherwise employ double moral standards and would never agree to the theft of their country's cultural heritage under similar conditions.
- pyronik19 6y ago
  We take peoples kids when they wouldn't be treated well.
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    That's because they are not their parent's property, but have their own rights as a person.

adventured 6y ago

> The Government was stable, until the US of A decided to bless them with freedom and democracy. The Iraqi dictatorship was not stable at all. There were constant purges, murders, by Saddam Hussein's regime. That occurred the entire time Saddam was in power. Please explain how that's a stable situation. The fact that Saddam had to constantly murder members of his own government, demonstrates beyond doubt that it was not stable at all. The routine execution of members of the Iraqi Government was required due to the extreme instability that such an oppressive minority dictatorship prompts.

enitihas 6y ago
You seem to be confusing dictatorship with instability. On your criterion Russia and Turkey would also be classified as unstable, which they do not seem to be. And off course, stability is relative. Compared to the current state of affairs, Iraqi government 20 years back was far more stable.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  The Soviet Union was systematically vandalizing their history to prop up dogma. I hope we rescued anything we possibly could. Thirty years of sanity after that is nice to see but a pretty modest track record. But I think I'm with Danny Hillis, anything buried and forgotten is safer than anything in a museum.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]