3 ms·
In the case of Syria, it wasn't a conscious choice, it was their civil war. Specifically, it was ISIS doesn't care about any of that cultural heritage, but many
by mcv 3y ago
In the case of Syria, it wasn't a conscious choice, it was their civil war. Specifically, it was ISIS doesn't care about any of that cultural heritage, but many other people still do. Why should the most destructive attitude overrule all others?
In many other cases, it was a dictatorship trying to amp up their perceived legitimacy by destroying traces of the past. Again, not exactly a conscious choice of the people living there.
I'm not defending British cultural robbery, but your argument isn't any better.
- krapp 3y agoI'm not arguing that the most destructive attitude should overrule all others - that would be an implicit argument in favor of the colonizers who did far more damage than ISIS ever did. I'm arguing that that cultural transactions should be voluntary and mutually beneficial. It wasn't the conscious choice of anyone to be colonized and exploited by the British, any more than by ISIS or any other dictator. What ISIS is doing is wrong and a crime against humanity, but the "enlightened West" still has no right to step in unannounced and ransack the place just to ensure a marketable trade in Syrian artifacts. Because that's what imperialism and colonization are really about - not preserving history or archaeology, because that can be done ethically - but capitalism. The British Empire wasn't interested in preserving the cultural heritage of the world for its own sake, they robbed Egyptian tombs, ground up mummies and ate them.
- mcv 3y agoYeah, and that's wrong. But you were arguing that if some Egyptians did that themselves. Or Syrians (which means mostly ISIS). And that's the part I disagree with. This shouldn't be a choice between stealing and destroying.