5 ms·

History happened. The British Empire was. In the historical context of the time, the objects were legitimate acquisitions. It's much like the historical fact o

History happened. The British Empire was. In the historical context of the time, the objects were legitimate acquisitions. It's much like the historical fact of nations going to war and conquering and enslaving each other. If someone wants to return parts of the US to the Cherokee, then we should also return much of Europe to the Picts. How far back do you go? Somehow, though, we only have this existential anguish about the last couple of rounds of conquest. History happened. Let it be. If conquest doesn't match our modern values, then we can choose to avoid starting any new wars of conquest. Sadly, human nature doesn't seem to have actually changed: Wikipedia currently lists 56 ongoing armed conflicts.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yard2010 3y ago
I think you're missing the point - the reasons to return stuff like these are not practical but symbolic
rbanffy 3y ago
This is not about land ownership, but historical artifacts. Acts of good will can go a long way towards strengthening the friendly relationships between two peoples.
GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
Should ISIS not give back all the historical Christian artifacts that they looted?
- defrost 3y ago
  ISIS largely destroyed artifacts with explosives and bulldozers and the Christian sites were almost the least of it; In 2014, media reported destruction of multiple religious buildings belonging to both Sunni and Shia sects throughout areas captured by IS. Among them were the tomb of Ibn al-Athir, Imam Abbas Mosque in Mosul, the Sheikh Jawad Al-Sadiq Mosque, Tomb of Sayyid Ar-Mamut Baba, Qaddo Mosque, Martyrs' Mosque, Saad Ibn Aqeel Shrine in Tal Afar, the Sufi Ahmed al-Rifai Shrine and Sheikh Ibrahim's shrine in Mahlabiya District. Very old pre Christian sites were also destroyed, but more often looted to sell to collectors to raise money: In May 2014, IS members smashed a 3,000-year-old neo-Assyrian statue from Tel Ajaja. Later reports indicated that over 40% of the artifacts at Tel Ajaja (Saddikanni) were looted by IS. There's a pretty sizable list of what they destroyed and looted in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_the_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_herita... the group released photos of militants rigging the 1,900-year-old Temple of Baalshamin with explosives and blowing it up. It was one of Palmyra’s best-preserved buildings, originally dedicated to a Phoenician storm god. Now it is nothing but rubble. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/ancient-sites-damaged-and-destroyed-by-isis https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisatio...
  - amiga386 3y ago
    So, the question is, if some usurper takes over a region and becomes de-facto government in that region... and you have artifacts _from_ that region that you took with the legal authority of the previous government... would you hand the artifacts over to the usurpers?
defrost 3y ago
> In the historical context of the time, the objects were legitimate acquisitions. Nonsense. Many of the historic aquisitions by "collectors" were as sketchy AF in the context of the times. The Elgin marbles, for example, were removed from Greece by an English lord and an Italian painter while Greece was under Ottoman rule .. The legality of this was questionable at best and a House of Commons Select Committee held public hearings on whether Elgin had acted within the law - many considered he had not. Given this hearing ocuurred well after the fact, the damage was done, and the booty was now in England being sold for a song it was all rather swept under the carpet. A thief is a thief ... unless they are a Lord. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles#Acquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles#Acquisition The Benin Bronzes and other related artifacts were straight up targeted theft as a by product of war - if might makes right then they were legitimate, otherwise they're on the same footing as objects stolen by armed invaders that kill half your family and set your house on fire. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2022/09/benin-bronzes-return-to-nigeria https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2022/09/benin-br...
- karencarits 3y ago
  According to the Wikipedia article, he did get approval from state officials although it is hard to interpret if he went beyond the approval. However, the Committee you mentioned > cleared Elgin of all allegations that he had acquired the marbles illegally or had misused his powers as ambassador
  - defrost 3y ago
    As I said, the legality was sketchy AF. Dodgy enough that a pubic inquiry was held, and sketchy in that a British Lord and ambassador was cleared when anybody else would be facing punishment.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> Thief is a thief ... unless they are a Lord. So he wasnt a thief. The laws of the time ebbed and flowed based on the social standing of the alleged perpetrators. That was the then accepted rule. It is less true today but not absolutely. Who are we to ignore the actions of a past select committee? Are we to revisit every not-guilty decisison on the basis that a modern investigation would have acted differently? By way of example, women were in the past treated very badly. Revisiting every historic legal determination that stripped a woman of her propery would render all modern property rights suspect.
karencarits 3y ago
Also, should protestant countries return "stolen" goods back to the Catholic church? Art, churches, monasteries, land, cathedrals, relics, ...
truculent 3y ago
> If someone wants to return parts of the US to the Cherokee, then we should also return much of Europe to the Picts 1. Land is not an object held in a museum 2. There are over 300,000 enrolled tribal members of the Cherokee Nation (per Wikipedia). There are ~0 Picts, as far as I know. Obviously the effects of more recent rounds of conquest are more apparent and felt more keenly by those suffering as a result. > History happened. Let it be. Sure, but if someone wants to let it be, how long before we let the present turn into history? It's just raising the same question you dismissed!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AussieWog93 3y ago
  >2. There are over 300,000 enrolled tribal members of the Cherokee Nation (per Wikipedia). There are ~0 Picts, as far as I know. Be careful with that logic! If we agree as a species that surviving conquered people have a right to reclaim their land and assets, but extinct ones don't, then the obvious course of action for the conquering force is to simply exterminate every native mercilessly.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    .. and that has happened more times than we talk about
  - truculent 3y ago
    > If we agree as a species that surviving conquered people have a right to reclaim their land and assets, but extinct ones don't If?
- sarchertech 3y ago
  >There are over 300,000 enrolled tribal members of the Cherokee Nation (per Wikipedia). There are ~0 Picts, as far as I know. So what part of the US do we return to the Cherokee? The parts the US gave them when they forced them out of the South East? Or their original territory? My hometown was originally populated by a separate tribe. The Cherokee came later. How do we split the land between the Eastern and Western bands of Cherokee? To a large extent, the borders of the various tribes that are still existent today are a result of their interactions with the European colonial powers. So the "political map" of the US in 1794, looks vastly different than it did in 1720. The current map is entirely arbitrary and unfairly benefits some groups over others. But picking any other historical map is also entirely arbitrary. There's no way to go back and pick the "correct" one.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

yard2010 3y ago

I think you're missing the point - the reasons to return stuff like these are not practical but symbolic

rbanffy 3y ago

This is not about land ownership, but historical artifacts. Acts of good will can go a long way towards strengthening the friendly relationships between two peoples.

GaryNumanVevo 3y ago

Should ISIS not give back all the historical Christian artifacts that they looted?

defrost 3y ago
ISIS largely destroyed artifacts with explosives and bulldozers and the Christian sites were almost the least of it; In 2014, media reported destruction of multiple religious buildings belonging to both Sunni and Shia sects throughout areas captured by IS. Among them were the tomb of Ibn al-Athir, Imam Abbas Mosque in Mosul, the Sheikh Jawad Al-Sadiq Mosque, Tomb of Sayyid Ar-Mamut Baba, Qaddo Mosque, Martyrs' Mosque, Saad Ibn Aqeel Shrine in Tal Afar, the Sufi Ahmed al-Rifai Shrine and Sheikh Ibrahim's shrine in Mahlabiya District. Very old pre Christian sites were also destroyed, but more often looted to sell to collectors to raise money: In May 2014, IS members smashed a 3,000-year-old neo-Assyrian statue from Tel Ajaja. Later reports indicated that over 40% of the artifacts at Tel Ajaja (Saddikanni) were looted by IS. There's a pretty sizable list of what they destroyed and looted in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_the_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_herita... the group released photos of militants rigging the 1,900-year-old Temple of Baalshamin with explosives and blowing it up. It was one of Palmyra’s best-preserved buildings, originally dedicated to a Phoenician storm god. Now it is nothing but rubble. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2017/11/ancient-sites-damaged-and-destroyed-by-isis https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisatio...
- amiga386 3y ago
  So, the question is, if some usurper takes over a region and becomes de-facto government in that region... and you have artifacts _from_ that region that you took with the legal authority of the previous government... would you hand the artifacts over to the usurpers?

defrost 3y ago

> In the historical context of the time, the objects were legitimate acquisitions. Nonsense. Many of the historic aquisitions by "collectors" were as sketchy AF in the context of the times. The Elgin marbles, for example, were removed from Greece by an English lord and an Italian painter while Greece was under Ottoman rule .. The legality of this was questionable at best and a House of Commons Select Committee held public hearings on whether Elgin had acted within the law - many considered he had not. Given this hearing ocuurred well after the fact, the damage was done, and the booty was now in England being sold for a song it was all rather swept under the carpet. A thief is a thief ... unless they are a Lord. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles#Acquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles#Acquisition The Benin Bronzes and other related artifacts were straight up targeted theft as a by product of war - if might makes right then they were legitimate, otherwise they're on the same footing as objects stolen by armed invaders that kill half your family and set your house on fire. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2022/09/benin-bronzes-return-to-nigeria https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2022/09/benin-br...

karencarits 3y ago
According to the Wikipedia article, he did get approval from state officials although it is hard to interpret if he went beyond the approval. However, the Committee you mentioned > cleared Elgin of all allegations that he had acquired the marbles illegally or had misused his powers as ambassador
- defrost 3y ago
  As I said, the legality was sketchy AF. Dodgy enough that a pubic inquiry was held, and sketchy in that a British Lord and ambassador was cleared when anybody else would be facing punishment.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> Thief is a thief ... unless they are a Lord. So he wasnt a thief. The laws of the time ebbed and flowed based on the social standing of the alleged perpetrators. That was the then accepted rule. It is less true today but not absolutely. Who are we to ignore the actions of a past select committee? Are we to revisit every not-guilty decisison on the basis that a modern investigation would have acted differently? By way of example, women were in the past treated very badly. Revisiting every historic legal determination that stripped a woman of her propery would render all modern property rights suspect.

karencarits 3y ago

Also, should protestant countries return "stolen" goods back to the Catholic church? Art, churches, monasteries, land, cathedrals, relics, ...

truculent 3y ago

> If someone wants to return parts of the US to the Cherokee, then we should also return much of Europe to the Picts 1. Land is not an object held in a museum 2. There are over 300,000 enrolled tribal members of the Cherokee Nation (per Wikipedia). There are ~0 Picts, as far as I know. Obviously the effects of more recent rounds of conquest are more apparent and felt more keenly by those suffering as a result. > History happened. Let it be. Sure, but if someone wants to let it be, how long before we let the present turn into history? It's just raising the same question you dismissed!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AussieWog93 3y ago
>2. There are over 300,000 enrolled tribal members of the Cherokee Nation (per Wikipedia). There are ~0 Picts, as far as I know. Be careful with that logic! If we agree as a species that surviving conquered people have a right to reclaim their land and assets, but extinct ones don't, then the obvious course of action for the conquering force is to simply exterminate every native mercilessly.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  .. and that has happened more times than we talk about
- truculent 3y ago
  > If we agree as a species that surviving conquered people have a right to reclaim their land and assets, but extinct ones don't If?
sarchertech 3y ago
>There are over 300,000 enrolled tribal members of the Cherokee Nation (per Wikipedia). There are ~0 Picts, as far as I know. So what part of the US do we return to the Cherokee? The parts the US gave them when they forced them out of the South East? Or their original territory? My hometown was originally populated by a separate tribe. The Cherokee came later. How do we split the land between the Eastern and Western bands of Cherokee? To a large extent, the borders of the various tribes that are still existent today are a result of their interactions with the European colonial powers. So the "political map" of the US in 1794, looks vastly different than it did in 1720. The current map is entirely arbitrary and unfairly benefits some groups over others. But picking any other historical map is also entirely arbitrary. There's no way to go back and pick the "correct" one.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]