3 ms·

the harm is that usually the decision about whether the "one group" wanted it was made by the "another group", probably without actually consulting with anyone

the harm is that usually the decision about whether the "one group" wanted it was made by the "another group", probably without actually consulting with anyone in the first group. And you know what, maybe they don't in the moment. But essentially none of these things ever get repatriated even when the people they came from explicitly say they want them back. And you can see the logic that justifies this ongoing theft all over this comment thread: "the people who stole it are dead so it's ours now." This is the problem with all of these after-the-fact justifications. In order for them to exist, the things have to have been taken before the destruction. If I steal your TV and then your house burns down, have I "saved" your TV even though I still won't give it back? Am I now in the moral right? These small analogies are obviously not perfect, but I think they illustrate the order of causality when we talk about "harm".

bawolff 4y ago
> If I steal your TV and then your house burns down, have I "saved" your TV even though I still won't give it back? What if you die and i buy your tv at an estate sale, and then later your ancestors change their mind? [I'm mostly just posing this as a thought experiment, i dont think its exactly the same as this either] I mean there is a lot of nuance involved. Sometimes i think repatriating artifacts is the right thing to do. However, if we were talking about say Roman artificats i would say that the modern descendents are so far removed that their claim is no more legitament than anyone else. But there are certainly cases where modern descendents have compelling claims.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  Rome is a very particular case. I suppose some friction in this whole comment blob might be from people trying to limit their scope to the artifact in the article. But really, for the most part Roman artifacts are in Rome or Italy or the descendants of Roman client states they came from. Rome was never really looted like Africa or the Americas or even much of Asia were over the colonial power era. Likewise, neither were the colonial powers themselves, so there’s no real culture drain being helped along by holding on to a Roman or British or French or Spanish artifact. For the most part when conversations need to be had about restoring artifacts, it’s that period we’re really talking about.

bawolff 4y ago

> If I steal your TV and then your house burns down, have I "saved" your TV even though I still won't give it back? What if you die and i buy your tv at an estate sale, and then later your ancestors change their mind? [I'm mostly just posing this as a thought experiment, i dont think its exactly the same as this either] I mean there is a lot of nuance involved. Sometimes i think repatriating artifacts is the right thing to do. However, if we were talking about say Roman artificats i would say that the modern descendents are so far removed that their claim is no more legitament than anyone else. But there are certainly cases where modern descendents have compelling claims.

stormbrew 4y ago
Rome is a very particular case. I suppose some friction in this whole comment blob might be from people trying to limit their scope to the artifact in the article. But really, for the most part Roman artifacts are in Rome or Italy or the descendants of Roman client states they came from. Rome was never really looted like Africa or the Americas or even much of Asia were over the colonial power era. Likewise, neither were the colonial powers themselves, so there’s no real culture drain being helped along by holding on to a Roman or British or French or Spanish artifact. For the most part when conversations need to be had about restoring artifacts, it’s that period we’re really talking about.