3 ms·
>> 1. Some items are from areas now controlled by very different people to those for whom the item was originally important. Do modern descendants of the Spanis
by x-complexity 4y ago
>> 1. Some items are from areas now controlled by very different people to those for whom the item was originally important. Do modern descendants of the Spanish have any moral claim to Aztec or Inca artefacts, for example?
> 1. Most Mexicans or Peruvians have indigenous ancestry, they are not exclusively (or even mostly) descendants of the Spanish. It would be better to return those artifacts to the descendants of those from whom it was stolen.
This is an "easy to say, near-impossible to do" task that's been shoved with little effort from the proposer onto the museum staff. Short of comprehensive DNA analysis, finding the proper descendants for a particular artifact is not trivial. The response given does not take into account multiple competing claims towards the artifact, nor the possibility of all descendants that could properly claim it being dead, whether natural or not.
>> 2. Some items have complex histories, where multiple competing countries could all claim it as part of their history. Where the item was found is not the end of the story. Items from Greece, Turkey, Cyprus for example.
> 2. Who has an even weaker claim than all other claimants? The British Museum.
Calling misdirection on this response: It does not properly address the original question posed.
In an attempt to give a proper solution: Items with histories from multiple countries will have to put it into a round-robin-style sharing agreement, where the item/artifact will pass through the countries one by one before circling back.
- thebooktocome 4y ago> This is an "easy to say, near-impossible to do" task that's been shoved with little effort from the proposer onto the museum staff. In principle, this is true, but in many cases the responsible party is very well-known and yet there is active resistance from the British Museum to repatriate the plundered items. For example, the Parthenon Marbles.
- Chris2048 4y ago> the responsible party is very well-known > For example, the Parthenon Marbles. Can you clarify this?
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoAccording to Wikipedia, the Parthenon marbles in Britain has been repeatedly asked (by the Greek government, then by UNESCO itself) to be returned to its original Athens, Greece location. They were literally taken out of Greece by an Earl of England claiming (with no paperwork!) authority from the empire occupying Greece at the time. There is a literal museum in Greece containing every part that wasn't stolen this way, in their exact original placement, waiting for the stolen pieces to be returned to complete it. And the British are still resistant.
- Chris2048 4y ago> from the empire occupying Greece at the time Does this make it invalid? For example the Koh-i-Noor diamond passed through many hands, often through conquest. And perhaps the ruler who originally owned it didn't obtain it through entirely fair means.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoThere was no paperwork or anything to actually verify this claim, please note. The guy could've been lying.
- Chris2048 4y agomaybe, but that was said originally; but if it was verified, what difference would it have made that they where an occupier?
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago1. This makes the task seem hard when in fact it is easy. If you have looted artifacts from the territory of Mexico, return them to the government of Mexico. While this is an imperfect solution, it is better than keeping the looted priceless cultural patrimony. 2. It’s not misdirection it’s a prioritization of claims. The British Museum’s claim is weaker than all regional inheritors. Therefore, picking one is a better solution than the British Museum keeping it.
- blowski 4y ago> The British Museum’s claim is weaker than all regional inheritors. Why? If one of the regional inheritors only possessed it in the first place because it stole it from somebody else (albeit a long time ago), what makes their claim more valid?