7 ms·

- 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 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
    Hey listen, I come from a country colonized by the British, and it was brutal. It's created generational poverty because they stole the most fertile land and have kept it until today, while sharing with a few corrupt Africans. But have you met the Belgians? Heard of King Leopold II? Now those guys know cruelty and atrocities.
- matwood 2y ago
  You joke, but many of the artifacts in question would likely have been destroyed if it were not for the British stealing them.
bee_rider 2y ago
That seems more like a judgement call that should be made by the legitimate owners of the artifacts (I liked in the other comment, that there was a focus on the problem of figuring out who the legitimate owners were, and the practicalities of getting them the artifacts).
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  The legitimate owners died a long time ago.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I must have contributed to it somehow, since conversations require two parties. But I have no idea how we got from the thoughtful comment that focused on the interesting part of the problem, to here, and so quickly.
danparsonson 2y ago
That argument wears thin very quickly, especially when the people of the culture from which the artifact originates are not able to view it (because it now lives in London instead of their home country), and thereby learn about their own history. See for example the Benin Bronzes; imagine that the original US Constitution document were housed in a museum in Nigeria.
- graemep 2y ago
  The Benin Bronzes if returned will go to the descendants of the original owners - the kings of a kingdom built on slavery. I certainly know many people in countries from which these things were taken who think they are safer somewhere stable - I have heard exactly the comment that returning things will probably mean then end up stolen by politicians from Sri Lankans with regard to the things the Netherlands returned to Sri Lanka. Also, consider what would have happened if the things from what is now Iraq had been there at the mercy of the likes of ISIS. In many cases the people know occupying a territory have a different culture and history to the ancient people who made something. They may even have been the conquerors who destroyed the culture that made artifacts.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    > the kings of a kingdom built on slavery. You cannot put that as a reason to keep the artifacts in the UK, of all places.
    - graemep 2y ago
      Why not? The UK had being making huge military efforts to suppress the slave trade for ninety years at the time it seized the Bronzes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
      - makeitdouble 2y ago
        That doesn't dispel that the kingdom has been built on slave trade. It's more about what happened from there. And of course there's a lot to say about it, even taking the absolute most charitable view, that's 90 years of mild effort after 3 centuries of slave trade. Considering what the UK keeps doing at that time and for the century after, I also wouldn't take the a naively charitable read of it in the first place.
golergka 2y ago
Also, in a lot of cases people living there have no relation to people of culture that the artefact has originated from. And usually the way that happened was not much better than what British did with their colonisation of these countries later on.

- 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
  Hey listen, I come from a country colonized by the British, and it was brutal. It's created generational poverty because they stole the most fertile land and have kept it until today, while sharing with a few corrupt Africans. But have you met the Belgians? Heard of King Leopold II? Now those guys know cruelty and atrocities.
matwood 2y ago
You joke, but many of the artifacts in question would likely have been destroyed if it were not for the British stealing them.

bee_rider 2y ago

That seems more like a judgement call that should be made by the legitimate owners of the artifacts (I liked in the other comment, that there was a focus on the problem of figuring out who the legitimate owners were, and the practicalities of getting them the artifacts).

bpodgursky 2y ago
The legitimate owners died a long time ago.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I must have contributed to it somehow, since conversations require two parties. But I have no idea how we got from the thoughtful comment that focused on the interesting part of the problem, to here, and so quickly.

danparsonson 2y ago

That argument wears thin very quickly, especially when the people of the culture from which the artifact originates are not able to view it (because it now lives in London instead of their home country), and thereby learn about their own history. See for example the Benin Bronzes; imagine that the original US Constitution document were housed in a museum in Nigeria.

graemep 2y ago
The Benin Bronzes if returned will go to the descendants of the original owners - the kings of a kingdom built on slavery. I certainly know many people in countries from which these things were taken who think they are safer somewhere stable - I have heard exactly the comment that returning things will probably mean then end up stolen by politicians from Sri Lankans with regard to the things the Netherlands returned to Sri Lanka. Also, consider what would have happened if the things from what is now Iraq had been there at the mercy of the likes of ISIS. In many cases the people know occupying a territory have a different culture and history to the ancient people who made something. They may even have been the conquerors who destroyed the culture that made artifacts.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  > the kings of a kingdom built on slavery. You cannot put that as a reason to keep the artifacts in the UK, of all places.
  - graemep 2y ago
    Why not? The UK had being making huge military efforts to suppress the slave trade for ninety years at the time it seized the Bronzes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      That doesn't dispel that the kingdom has been built on slave trade. It's more about what happened from there. And of course there's a lot to say about it, even taking the absolute most charitable view, that's 90 years of mild effort after 3 centuries of slave trade. Considering what the UK keeps doing at that time and for the century after, I also wouldn't take the a naively charitable read of it in the first place.

golergka 2y ago

Also, in a lot of cases people living there have no relation to people of culture that the artefact has originated from. And usually the way that happened was not much better than what British did with their colonisation of these countries later on.