9 ms·

Stuff the British Stole is a really good podcast (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) that explores the difficulties of these situations: https://www.abc.net.

Stuff the British Stole is a really good podcast (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) that explores the difficulties of these situations: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/stuff-the-british-stole https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/stuff-the-british-sto... Things like: - The current government in power may not allow the artifacts to be returned to the original people, but will accept them and place them in the national museum. In many of these cases; the original people actually oppose the "return" for now, and are waiting for the political situation to change. - The current government actively blocks the return of artifacts as it would be victory for their opponents - In some cases, the artifact would have been wholly unremarkable except for the fact it was taken by the British; that is it has a lot more significance as a "Thing the British Stole" and would have been lost to time otherwise - Many artifacts require very intricate preservation activities that the receiving country isn't equipped for - If the artifact involves human remains, there are all kinds of laws preventing the movement/transfer/relocation of human remains in both countries In general I think returning them is a good thing, but more often than not there's an enormous legal/moral/ethical quagmire surrounding them Edit: No judgement intended either way on this particular instance. I just wanted to provide a good resource if others are interested in learning more about the general situation.

arethuza 2y ago
The UK government occasionally does give things back on the understanding that they can be returned for a bit when required... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone
- tivert 2y ago
  I don't really see how that example is "giv[ing] things back." That stone is still the property of the British government and kept continuously on British territory.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    It's Complicated(tm) - Scotland and England are, currently, both part of Britain. Historically, not so much. And they were often far-from-friendly, with wars fought and everything. In a referendum 10 years ago, ~45% of Scottish voters wanted to separate again.
    - arethuza 2y ago
      My own reaction to the most recent Scottish independence referendum was pretty much "Oh well, at least we're still in the EU"...
    - chgs 2y ago
      Scotland and England has been the same country for far longer than say the USA has even existed.
      - skylurk 2y ago
        And Scotland has been crowning Scottish kings with it since before England even existed, if you believe the legends ;)
        chgs 2y ago
        Including James 6th, who then took over England.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        1707 versus 1776 isn’t what I would describe as “far longer”.
        chgs 2y ago
        In the context of crowning kings, the union of the crowns was 1603, before the mayflower, before new Amsterdam, even before Jamestown. But even with 1707 you’re talking 30% of the age of the USA again.
        2y ago
- libraryofbabel 2y ago
  The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example. Sure, it’s symbolic, but Scotland is in the UK and so this was really just moving something around within the UK borders.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    >The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example The Stone of Scone is a good example of something else, though: if you declare that your king is coronated on a particular stone, when your neighbor conquers you what do you think your neighbor is going to do with the stone? Same thing you would do if you conquered them. Anyway, James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, which merged the claims, and meant that from then on, claims to the Scottish throne and claims to the English throne would be the same thing.
trwhite 2y ago
- the artifact is likely to be seen by significantly more people and serves a much greater purpose to expose/educate those people (from other cultures) to/about the culture from which it came
- thinkingtoilet 2y ago
  We should be thankful the British stole it!
  - tetris11 2y ago
    Honestly, of all the empires that could have stolen I'm glad it was the British. Cruel, destabilizing, more atrocities than any other empire, but somehow the royal class had a culture of conservation for (some) wildlife and historical artefacts.
    - danparsonson 2y ago
      They had/have a culture of conserving wealth. Attractive gardens and foreign treasures are just conspicuous displays of wealth.
    - noworriesnate 2y ago
      > more atrocities than any other empire This is an interesting example of survivor's bias. We know about the atrocities the British Empire committed because many of their victims survived. You should read about the Soviets, the Assyrians, or heck even just read the Bible. History has a lot of atrocities in it. As an empire goes the British were pretty run-of-the-mill, maybe a bit light on the genocide.
    - gadders 2y ago
      >>Cruel, destabilizing, more atrocities than any other empire Lol, no. Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
    - thevillagechief 2y ago
aamargulies 2y ago
Acaster’s brilliant, funny bit on this: https://youtu.be/x73PkUvArJY?si=eRB3RIuR7rjXvw_i https://youtu.be/x73PkUvArJY?si=eRB3RIuR7rjXvw_i
INTPenis 2y ago
I just learned about how in 1890 a ship filled with 19.5 tons of unwrapped cat mummies sailed from Alexandria to Liverpool, and the cargo was sold mostly as fertilizer. Now I also learned that Egyptian authorities have since found even more mummified cats, perhaps even millions. But it's still a very striking example of the plundering mentality of the big naval powers. https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0jr4z6k/why-tonnes-of-mummified-cats-ended-up-in-england https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0jr4z6k/why-tonnes-of-mummif...
- jahewson 2y ago
  That’s amazing. I’d heard of mummies being used for paint [1] but fertilizer is a new one. To be fair it’s not “plundering” because they purchased them from an Egyptian farmer who discovered them on his land. Very much a two party activity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown
  - INTPenis 2y ago
    It's a complete disregard of a nation's heritage. Even if Egyptians were less focused on their legacy in the 19th century, they are today and have the means to preserve it now. To be semantic it's not plundering, even slaves were purchased from locals.
Yizahi 2y ago
And massive return of artifacts (as opposed to one or two once every decade) will open some very inconvenient flood gates, like the fact that Britain was not the only empire in the history. And some "non-western" countries were or are empires too. Imagine that after India get their stuff back, Afghanistan comes next to India and asks for their share. That would be very bad optics. While without actually receiving stolen or gifted stuff, countries can keep their moral high ground and common external enemy (which is conveniently very far away).

arethuza 2y ago

The UK government occasionally does give things back on the understanding that they can be returned for a bit when required... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone

tivert 2y ago
I don't really see how that example is "giv[ing] things back." That stone is still the property of the British government and kept continuously on British territory.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  It's Complicated(tm) - Scotland and England are, currently, both part of Britain. Historically, not so much. And they were often far-from-friendly, with wars fought and everything. In a referendum 10 years ago, ~45% of Scottish voters wanted to separate again.
  - arethuza 2y ago
    My own reaction to the most recent Scottish independence referendum was pretty much "Oh well, at least we're still in the EU"...
  - chgs 2y ago
    Scotland and England has been the same country for far longer than say the USA has even existed.
    - skylurk 2y ago
      And Scotland has been crowning Scottish kings with it since before England even existed, if you believe the legends ;)
      - chgs 2y ago
        Including James 6th, who then took over England.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      1707 versus 1776 isn’t what I would describe as “far longer”.
      - chgs 2y ago
        In the context of crowning kings, the union of the crowns was 1603, before the mayflower, before new Amsterdam, even before Jamestown. But even with 1707 you’re talking 30% of the age of the USA again.
        2y ago
libraryofbabel 2y ago
The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example. Sure, it’s symbolic, but Scotland is in the UK and so this was really just moving something around within the UK borders.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example The Stone of Scone is a good example of something else, though: if you declare that your king is coronated on a particular stone, when your neighbor conquers you what do you think your neighbor is going to do with the stone? Same thing you would do if you conquered them. Anyway, James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, which merged the claims, and meant that from then on, claims to the Scottish throne and claims to the English throne would be the same thing.

trwhite 2y ago

- the artifact is likely to be seen by significantly more people and serves a much greater purpose to expose/educate those people (from other cultures) to/about the culture from which it came

thinkingtoilet 2y ago
We should be thankful the British stole it!
- tetris11 2y ago
  Honestly, of all the empires that could have stolen I'm glad it was the British. Cruel, destabilizing, more atrocities than any other empire, but somehow the royal class had a culture of conservation for (some) wildlife and historical artefacts.
  - danparsonson 2y ago
    They had/have a culture of conserving wealth. Attractive gardens and foreign treasures are just conspicuous displays of wealth.
  - noworriesnate 2y ago
    > more atrocities than any other empire This is an interesting example of survivor's bias. We know about the atrocities the British Empire committed because many of their victims survived. You should read about the Soviets, the Assyrians, or heck even just read the Bible. History has a lot of atrocities in it. As an empire goes the British were pretty run-of-the-mill, maybe a bit light on the genocide.
  - gadders 2y ago
    >>Cruel, destabilizing, more atrocities than any other empire Lol, no. Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
  - thevillagechief 2y ago

aamargulies 2y ago

Acaster’s brilliant, funny bit on this: https://youtu.be/x73PkUvArJY?si=eRB3RIuR7rjXvw_i https://youtu.be/x73PkUvArJY?si=eRB3RIuR7rjXvw_i

INTPenis 2y ago

I just learned about how in 1890 a ship filled with 19.5 tons of unwrapped cat mummies sailed from Alexandria to Liverpool, and the cargo was sold mostly as fertilizer. Now I also learned that Egyptian authorities have since found even more mummified cats, perhaps even millions. But it's still a very striking example of the plundering mentality of the big naval powers. https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0jr4z6k/why-tonnes-of-mummified-cats-ended-up-in-england https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0jr4z6k/why-tonnes-of-mummif...

jahewson 2y ago
That’s amazing. I’d heard of mummies being used for paint [1] but fertilizer is a new one. To be fair it’s not “plundering” because they purchased them from an Egyptian farmer who discovered them on his land. Very much a two party activity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_brown
- INTPenis 2y ago
  It's a complete disregard of a nation's heritage. Even if Egyptians were less focused on their legacy in the 19th century, they are today and have the means to preserve it now. To be semantic it's not plundering, even slaves were purchased from locals.

Yizahi 2y ago

And massive return of artifacts (as opposed to one or two once every decade) will open some very inconvenient flood gates, like the fact that Britain was not the only empire in the history. And some "non-western" countries were or are empires too. Imagine that after India get their stuff back, Afghanistan comes next to India and asks for their share. That would be very bad optics. While without actually receiving stolen or gifted stuff, countries can keep their moral high ground and common external enemy (which is conveniently very far away).