4 ms·

I think, as others have mentioned, there is an implicit ethnonationalism here in linking various governments, specifically post-colonial states (say Nigeria) wi

I think, as others have mentioned, there is an implicit ethnonationalism here in linking various governments, specifically post-colonial states (say Nigeria) with the tribes that live in them. Now, its important to note two things here. 1) many of these tribes, before colonialism, before the establishment of the contemporary west-african states, were in fact slave empires, and the reason they had such rich cultural products was for the same reason that western nations, at the time, did. So the moral status of those objects is ambiguous at best, which leads to point 2) that these objects should be stored in whatever facility can host them best. We all admit Nigeria is not as wealthy as the UK, so its entirely possible that the UK after returning perhaps, thousands of precious artifacts, worth an uncountable sum, a desperate government might, given the right circumstances, sell them, whereas the UK probably will not (at least not in the near future). Call me conservative if you like, but culturally important objects are often only designated as such the moment they are placed in a museum. Who knows if the former slave empire tribes of west Africa would've valued all the pieces so highly had they not been put on display. By "getting them back," these ethnic groups are merely reproducing the same order that they oppose, in fact they have completed, in a way, the colonial circuit, by becoming a mirror of the power that created them.

throwawaytwit9 3y ago
This is an absurd argument. It reads as a self serving rationalization of cultural appropriation. They didn’t value what they had and can’t be trusted with it today. As if the only option is to give objects back to poor or corrupt governments. Even if true that doesn’t mean people are undeserving of their past. How about strengthening local non-governmental institutions to care for these objects?
- jterrys 3y ago
  >As if the only option is to give objects back to poor or corrupt governments. Even if true that doesn’t mean people are undeserving of their past. How about strengthening local non-governmental institutions to care for these objects? Right, and if that doesn't work, or until that works, is it morally objectionable to hold on to those objects? Is it truly the right thing to return items to governments that can't guarantee their safety or don't hold those items to the same values? What's the better choice here? Preserving anthropological history of mankind or respecting the wishes of hereditary descendants? What if they don't give a shit about their past? Does the rest of the world need to be deprived of the history of humanity because the current, local, inhabitants don't care for their own? Your solution is to teach them to care, which is hilariously just as colonialist and culturally "appropriatiative" as the person you're replying to.
  - throwawaytwit9 3y ago
    >Your solution is to teach them to care, which is hilariously just as colonialist and culturally "appropriatiative" as the person you're replying to. Don’t put words in my mouth. There is an obvious difference between imposing one’s views and capacity building. EDIT: As in financial support, advising governance structures, conservation training. Supporting institutions who already deeply care. >What if they don't give a shit about their past? Is that really the case? Last time I checked Greece was keenly interested it’s past and wanted their antiquities back. While Rishi was saying they were a “huge asset” to the UK. Please :eyeroll:
    - jterrys 3y ago
      >Don’t put words in my mouth. I'm not. >As in financial support, advising governance structures, conservation training. Supporting institutions who already deeply care. IS literally teaching them how to care. But whatever >Is that really the case? Yeah. Consider any country in the ME that sees artifacts prior to the Prophet Muhammad's existence heresy. Destruction of artifacts in Iraq. Destruction of artifacts in Syria. Afghanistan famously rid itself of Buddhist statues and artifacts in the not-too-distant past. Even in the Western world, countries regularly deface and destroy statues and historical sites because prior political beliefs and mores run contrary to today's moral standards. Here's a fairly recent example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67298103 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67298103 >"After years of controversy, the society will remove all human names for bird species, including those linked to people with racist histories. >Their goal is to create a more inclusive environment for bird-watching fans. >Seventy to 80 birds will be renamed. >"Exclusionary naming conventions developed in the 1800s, clouded by racism and misogyny, don't work for us today, and the time has come for us to transform this process and redirect the focus to the birds, where it belongs," Is literally erasing the history of people who studied and catalogued these bird species because their moral standards don't fit with our current worldviews today.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  Who does the past belong to? Does it belong to specific groups of people alive today, or does it belong to humanity as a whole? If I’m interested in Chinese history should I be forced to go to communist China? If I’m interested in Assyrian history should I be forced to risk my life and head to Iraq? The custodians of historical objects have a moral obligation to ensure that they are displayed for the benefit of as many humans as possible, and that is certainly something that could be improved. The enforcement of inter-civilization property rights across time is in my opinion a not a moral obligation.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    >Who does the past belong to? This is the ultimate question. Who owns an object that is so old that the chain of ownership can't be easily reconstructed? Is it the country that controls the land where it was created? Is it the country that owns the land where it was last legally held? Do we apply modern laws or the laws of the time when determining this? Or is it the descendants of the culture that created it? Is this the cultural descendants? Is it the literal descendants of the people living in the area where it was created, at the time it was created? There are almost certainly more people of British descent living in the United States today than there are living in Great Britain. Should the United States demand a larger share of our cultural history from Great Britain? At some point we have to realize that any method we pick is going to, in large part, be arbitrary.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
3xnl 3y ago
> I think, as others have mentioned, there is an implicit ethnonationalism here in linking various governments, specifically post-colonial states (say Nigeria) with the tribes that live in them. Saying that a government/colonial construct where most of those tribes were forced into, doesn't/shouldn't represent them is beyond absurd. London represents them then? Or they are considered lost? >Now, its important to note two things here. 1) many of these tribes, before colonialism, before the establishment of the contemporary west-african states, were in fact slave empires, and the reason they had such rich cultural products was for the same reason that western nations, at the time, did. You are forgetting that most of those items can be traced to their indigenous owners. You prefer calling them tribes but they were in fact nations/kingdoms of their own that were forced into colonial constructs like Nigeria, so don't lie yourself that Nigeria is somehow trying to act like colonial Britain. >2) that these objects should be stored in whatever facility can host them best. We all admit Nigeria is not as wealthy as the UK, so its entirely possible that the UK after returning perhaps, thousands of precious artifacts, worth an uncountable sum, a desperate government might, given the right circumstances, sell them, whereas the UK probably will not (at least not in the near future). This would be amusing if it wasn't some sort of gaslighting. Yes Africa is poor, most states corrupt. But saying that UK should help them store those items, without their consent, items that they took by force. Wow > Call me conservative if you like, but culturally important objects are often only designated as such the moment they are placed in a museum. What does conservative even mean in this case? Aren't you just mixing neocolonialism with conservatism? So why did the colonial plunderers think they are worth a trip from rural Nigeria, Benin, deep India to the Empire's capital if they were values at the time in their owners poor huts, shambas and valleys? >Who knows if the former slave empire tribes of west Africa would've valued all the pieces so highly had they not been put on display. You are really something. Someone sits in India, creates a paint on their own without force. Thieves still it. After 200 years, you sit in your house to tell us that they didn't know what they created? By the way, how do you think the plunderers discovered them? Or why do you think the owners at the time put in their time to create/preserve them until they were found? Is your talk of former slave empire tribes of West Africa aimed at a negating European colonial crimes? >By "getting them back," these ethnic groups are merely reproducing the same order that they oppose, in fact they have completed, in a way, the colonial circuit, by becoming a mirror of the power that created them. As I said above, the owners of those items can be traced.

throwawaytwit9 3y ago

This is an absurd argument. It reads as a self serving rationalization of cultural appropriation. They didn’t value what they had and can’t be trusted with it today. As if the only option is to give objects back to poor or corrupt governments. Even if true that doesn’t mean people are undeserving of their past. How about strengthening local non-governmental institutions to care for these objects?

jterrys 3y ago
>As if the only option is to give objects back to poor or corrupt governments. Even if true that doesn’t mean people are undeserving of their past. How about strengthening local non-governmental institutions to care for these objects? Right, and if that doesn't work, or until that works, is it morally objectionable to hold on to those objects? Is it truly the right thing to return items to governments that can't guarantee their safety or don't hold those items to the same values? What's the better choice here? Preserving anthropological history of mankind or respecting the wishes of hereditary descendants? What if they don't give a shit about their past? Does the rest of the world need to be deprived of the history of humanity because the current, local, inhabitants don't care for their own? Your solution is to teach them to care, which is hilariously just as colonialist and culturally "appropriatiative" as the person you're replying to.
- throwawaytwit9 3y ago
  >Your solution is to teach them to care, which is hilariously just as colonialist and culturally "appropriatiative" as the person you're replying to. Don’t put words in my mouth. There is an obvious difference between imposing one’s views and capacity building. EDIT: As in financial support, advising governance structures, conservation training. Supporting institutions who already deeply care. >What if they don't give a shit about their past? Is that really the case? Last time I checked Greece was keenly interested it’s past and wanted their antiquities back. While Rishi was saying they were a “huge asset” to the UK. Please :eyeroll:
  - jterrys 3y ago
    >Don’t put words in my mouth. I'm not. >As in financial support, advising governance structures, conservation training. Supporting institutions who already deeply care. IS literally teaching them how to care. But whatever >Is that really the case? Yeah. Consider any country in the ME that sees artifacts prior to the Prophet Muhammad's existence heresy. Destruction of artifacts in Iraq. Destruction of artifacts in Syria. Afghanistan famously rid itself of Buddhist statues and artifacts in the not-too-distant past. Even in the Western world, countries regularly deface and destroy statues and historical sites because prior political beliefs and mores run contrary to today's moral standards. Here's a fairly recent example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67298103 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67298103 >"After years of controversy, the society will remove all human names for bird species, including those linked to people with racist histories. >Their goal is to create a more inclusive environment for bird-watching fans. >Seventy to 80 birds will be renamed. >"Exclusionary naming conventions developed in the 1800s, clouded by racism and misogyny, don't work for us today, and the time has come for us to transform this process and redirect the focus to the birds, where it belongs," Is literally erasing the history of people who studied and catalogued these bird species because their moral standards don't fit with our current worldviews today.
zarzavat 3y ago
Who does the past belong to? Does it belong to specific groups of people alive today, or does it belong to humanity as a whole? If I’m interested in Chinese history should I be forced to go to communist China? If I’m interested in Assyrian history should I be forced to risk my life and head to Iraq? The custodians of historical objects have a moral obligation to ensure that they are displayed for the benefit of as many humans as possible, and that is certainly something that could be improved. The enforcement of inter-civilization property rights across time is in my opinion a not a moral obligation.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  >Who does the past belong to? This is the ultimate question. Who owns an object that is so old that the chain of ownership can't be easily reconstructed? Is it the country that controls the land where it was created? Is it the country that owns the land where it was last legally held? Do we apply modern laws or the laws of the time when determining this? Or is it the descendants of the culture that created it? Is this the cultural descendants? Is it the literal descendants of the people living in the area where it was created, at the time it was created? There are almost certainly more people of British descent living in the United States today than there are living in Great Britain. Should the United States demand a larger share of our cultural history from Great Britain? At some point we have to realize that any method we pick is going to, in large part, be arbitrary.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

3xnl 3y ago

> I think, as others have mentioned, there is an implicit ethnonationalism here in linking various governments, specifically post-colonial states (say Nigeria) with the tribes that live in them. Saying that a government/colonial construct where most of those tribes were forced into, doesn't/shouldn't represent them is beyond absurd. London represents them then? Or they are considered lost? >Now, its important to note two things here. 1) many of these tribes, before colonialism, before the establishment of the contemporary west-african states, were in fact slave empires, and the reason they had such rich cultural products was for the same reason that western nations, at the time, did. You are forgetting that most of those items can be traced to their indigenous owners. You prefer calling them tribes but they were in fact nations/kingdoms of their own that were forced into colonial constructs like Nigeria, so don't lie yourself that Nigeria is somehow trying to act like colonial Britain. >2) that these objects should be stored in whatever facility can host them best. We all admit Nigeria is not as wealthy as the UK, so its entirely possible that the UK after returning perhaps, thousands of precious artifacts, worth an uncountable sum, a desperate government might, given the right circumstances, sell them, whereas the UK probably will not (at least not in the near future). This would be amusing if it wasn't some sort of gaslighting. Yes Africa is poor, most states corrupt. But saying that UK should help them store those items, without their consent, items that they took by force. Wow > Call me conservative if you like, but culturally important objects are often only designated as such the moment they are placed in a museum. What does conservative even mean in this case? Aren't you just mixing neocolonialism with conservatism? So why did the colonial plunderers think they are worth a trip from rural Nigeria, Benin, deep India to the Empire's capital if they were values at the time in their owners poor huts, shambas and valleys? >Who knows if the former slave empire tribes of west Africa would've valued all the pieces so highly had they not been put on display. You are really something. Someone sits in India, creates a paint on their own without force. Thieves still it. After 200 years, you sit in your house to tell us that they didn't know what they created? By the way, how do you think the plunderers discovered them? Or why do you think the owners at the time put in their time to create/preserve them until they were found? Is your talk of former slave empire tribes of West Africa aimed at a negating European colonial crimes? >By "getting them back," these ethnic groups are merely reproducing the same order that they oppose, in fact they have completed, in a way, the colonial circuit, by becoming a mirror of the power that created them. As I said above, the owners of those items can be traced.