5 ms·

Very ironic considering one of their excuses on returning artifacts to countries of origin is “they wouldn’t be cared for and would be stolen”.

twixfel 2y ago
Same excuse every museum gives. The US is full of European art and artifacts.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  American museums also seem to have a stronger financial muscle [0] as they tend to be overwhelmingly funded by self sustaining endowments and more open to monetization strategies like IP Licensing (eg. MoMA+Uniqlo's partnership) [0] - https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/the-business-model-of-the-nonprofit-museum https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/the-b...
- bossyTeacher 2y ago
  The US is a former British colony so it makes sense for it have british artifacts
  - twixfel 2y ago
    European, not just British.
    - bossyTeacher 2y ago
      Brits had all sorts of European forces on their lands and each brought cultural artifacts with them
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  There's a difference between museums and galleries where pieces were purchased and have a good chain of ownership and pieces where the museum knows one of the owners in the chain looted the piece
- throw5345346 2y ago
  Small beer when it's also built in very large part on stolen land, eh? If giving stuff back is important (and I think it is), I'd love it if the knee-jerk thinkers of HN would start by looking at where they live and which tribe it was stolen from by force and murder.
  - tasuki 2y ago
    Sure, but which land isn't stolen?
    - twixfel 2y ago
      Well, the USA was completely stolen, every single square inch, and the natives genocided. Whereas the Basques for example, if they stole their land, did it in deep prehistory.
      - MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
        The natives weren’t one political group of people. They were hundred or thousands of tribes. And at some point each tribe “stole” it from some other tribe and territory. Some tribes (example: the Iroquois) were genociding other tribes.
        throw5345346 2y ago
        You know this is the same form of justification that used to be used for squirrelling things away in western museums?
        MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
        Yes.
    - throw5345346 2y ago
      In many cases, the USA knows the names and families of the people it stole land from. Knows their lineage. Even has photographs of some of them! In historical terms it is a recent, deliberate, judicially-supported, documented theft. Not some undocumented invasion in hazy pre-history. Acts of Congress were passed to do it. The British Museum (along with the V&A) has some stuff (well looked-after) that people want back. Currently the law literally prevents it being returned, and these organisations are in many cases trying to find ways to work around that law so that it is long-loaned back forever, until the law is changed. There's no simple intransigence; there is dialogue and politics. The British Empire did some amazing things, and many, many ugly things. You won't find a person in the UK who doesn't understand that now, and there are all sorts of reparation campaigns, restitution campaigns, history projects, etc. etc.; nationally we rub our own noses in it so often that there's a right-wing backlash. So it's tedious in the extreme the way Americans keep prattling on about British museums as if there is only stonewalling, and as if there is no appropriation from native culture in its post-independence history. It's literally on paper.
justanotheratom 2y ago
yup, no sympathy for "British Museums".
mensetmanusman 2y ago
There is no one to return them to, everyone from the past is dead.
- wigster 2y ago
  my first girl friend is still alive.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  I think since these are cultural artifacts, many times looted in war or conquest, there's an argument to be made they could be returned to the cultural institutions or museums of the place they were taken from.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    What if the culture requesting it has artifacts of their own that they can’t give back, because they themselves genocided those cultures. No one is innocent.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      It's not about innocence or guilt. It's about, if you have a piece in your museum, and you know in its chain of ownership, it was looted from, say, France during, say, the German occupation in WWII. Even if all the parties involved are now dead, there's a case to be made to transfer the artifact from a German museum to a French museum. And this argument holds some weight and can be extrapolated to many other scenarios. In your case if items exist in the museum looted from a nation that no longer exists (and isn't like Czechoslovakia which was split up into currently existing nations) and the nations in that same land aren't culturally connected or caring to have the artifacts, fine. Nothing else can be done
- pests 2y ago
  What about everyone from the present? You don't think they care about their own heritage?
- 2y ago

twixfel 2y ago

Same excuse every museum gives. The US is full of European art and artifacts.

alephnerd 2y ago
American museums also seem to have a stronger financial muscle [0] as they tend to be overwhelmingly funded by self sustaining endowments and more open to monetization strategies like IP Licensing (eg. MoMA+Uniqlo's partnership) [0] - https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/the-business-model-of-the-nonprofit-museum https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/the-b...
bossyTeacher 2y ago
The US is a former British colony so it makes sense for it have british artifacts
- twixfel 2y ago
  European, not just British.
  - bossyTeacher 2y ago
    Brits had all sorts of European forces on their lands and each brought cultural artifacts with them
aprilthird2021 2y ago
There's a difference between museums and galleries where pieces were purchased and have a good chain of ownership and pieces where the museum knows one of the owners in the chain looted the piece
throw5345346 2y ago
Small beer when it's also built in very large part on stolen land, eh? If giving stuff back is important (and I think it is), I'd love it if the knee-jerk thinkers of HN would start by looking at where they live and which tribe it was stolen from by force and murder.
- tasuki 2y ago
  Sure, but which land isn't stolen?
  - twixfel 2y ago
    Well, the USA was completely stolen, every single square inch, and the natives genocided. Whereas the Basques for example, if they stole their land, did it in deep prehistory.
    - MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
      The natives weren’t one political group of people. They were hundred or thousands of tribes. And at some point each tribe “stole” it from some other tribe and territory. Some tribes (example: the Iroquois) were genociding other tribes.
      - throw5345346 2y ago
        You know this is the same form of justification that used to be used for squirrelling things away in western museums?
        MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
        Yes.
  - throw5345346 2y ago
    In many cases, the USA knows the names and families of the people it stole land from. Knows their lineage. Even has photographs of some of them! In historical terms it is a recent, deliberate, judicially-supported, documented theft. Not some undocumented invasion in hazy pre-history. Acts of Congress were passed to do it. The British Museum (along with the V&A) has some stuff (well looked-after) that people want back. Currently the law literally prevents it being returned, and these organisations are in many cases trying to find ways to work around that law so that it is long-loaned back forever, until the law is changed. There's no simple intransigence; there is dialogue and politics. The British Empire did some amazing things, and many, many ugly things. You won't find a person in the UK who doesn't understand that now, and there are all sorts of reparation campaigns, restitution campaigns, history projects, etc. etc.; nationally we rub our own noses in it so often that there's a right-wing backlash. So it's tedious in the extreme the way Americans keep prattling on about British museums as if there is only stonewalling, and as if there is no appropriation from native culture in its post-independence history. It's literally on paper.

justanotheratom 2y ago

yup, no sympathy for "British Museums".

mensetmanusman 2y ago

There is no one to return them to, everyone from the past is dead.

wigster 2y ago
my first girl friend is still alive.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
I think since these are cultural artifacts, many times looted in war or conquest, there's an argument to be made they could be returned to the cultural institutions or museums of the place they were taken from.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  What if the culture requesting it has artifacts of their own that they can’t give back, because they themselves genocided those cultures. No one is innocent.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    It's not about innocence or guilt. It's about, if you have a piece in your museum, and you know in its chain of ownership, it was looted from, say, France during, say, the German occupation in WWII. Even if all the parties involved are now dead, there's a case to be made to transfer the artifact from a German museum to a French museum. And this argument holds some weight and can be extrapolated to many other scenarios. In your case if items exist in the museum looted from a nation that no longer exists (and isn't like Czechoslovakia which was split up into currently existing nations) and the nations in that same land aren't culturally connected or caring to have the artifacts, fine. Nothing else can be done
pests 2y ago
What about everyone from the present? You don't think they care about their own heritage?
2y ago