7 ms·

While these discussions are always loaded with sentimental intepretation, and complex questions of what "rightful owner" after hundreds or thousands of years ev

• chx 2y ago
  https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@rygorous/113219189748801451 https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@rygorous/113219189748801451 > art project idea: "The British Museum", which is housed somewhere outside the UK and will accept and display any donations from anonymous donors into its collection that were provably stolen from Great Britain
  • bilbo0s 2y ago
    Well, in fairness, Britain would have the right to demand the artifacts be returned. Please don't shoot the messenger here. I'm just saying hypocrisy doesn't negate legal rights. I'm American, so no dog in the fight, but the UK would have the right to take those artifacts back.
• dijit 2y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, however in some ways it should be something that is permitted to move. The UK has been very stable for a long time, however they are profiting indirectly from the museums, since it s a driver of tourism. Should the UK become less stable, we should have a hard look at ensuring the continuity of the collection. As others have mentioned, a lot of these things would have been destroyed or forgotten had the British not decided it was important to keep it - and as time goes on, those things become even more irreplaceable.
  • yawnxyz 2y ago
    If the UK became less stable, maybe someone like Germany could take custody and seize the collection, for UK's own good?
    • dijit 2y ago
      Or France, or Belgium, or Finland, or Netherlands.
      • alluro2 2y ago
        That's quite a jump from discussing Germany taking custody of a museum collection. I don't think these countries would like being taken too.
        • dijit 2y ago
          If this is a joke I am perhaps too tired to understand it.
          • alluro2 2y ago
            It was a pretty cheap and light-hearted aside shot at your comment meaning that Germany should, since we're talking about it taking the collection into custody, take those countries into custody as well. Nothing smart was missed - I wish you a good rest!
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• zpeti 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • AdamN 2y ago
    There are alot of question marks around what actually happened with the library in Alexandria.
  • mihaic 2y ago
    > Should we give everything back to them, a culture that seems hellbent on destroying everything they don’t like? Not sure if I was unclear, but my thinking is that: no, nothing should be given back from the British Museum.
• comte7092 2y ago
  While London is indeed a global city, access is very much not equal. Immigration/tourism requirements are always the strictest against the very countries who were plundered during colonial times, in comparison to rich countries with an imperial past/present. Most of the world will never visit the UK. Most of the value that the British museum supplies goes back to the UK in the form of tourism and to close allies of the UK in terms of exposure to these artifacts.
  • Cyph0n 2y ago
    Exactly. The majority of HN users have a privilege that they are not even aware of: visa-free/on arrival access to a large chunk of the world.
  • matwood 2y ago
    What place is easier for 'most of the world' to visit?
    • jogjayr 2y ago
      Singapore allows visa-free travel to passport holders from 159 countries + many more with an e-visa or visa on arrival. The UK allows only 83 countries' passport holders visa-free. I picked Singapore at random. Probably some other country is even more visitor-friendly. https://embassies.net/singapore-visa-exemption https://embassies.net/singapore-visa-exemption https://embassies.net/united-kingdom-visa-exemption https://embassies.net/united-kingdom-visa-exemption
      • kelipso 2y ago
        Though you got lucky with Singapore, it is famously known to have the strongest passport and visa-free agreements are usually reciprocal.
      • matwood 2y ago
        ChatGPT included Singapore and London in it's list of 'easiest' cities to visit, but picked Dubai as the main one because of centrality. The “easiest” city to visit for the majority of the world depends on several factors, such as accessibility, flight connections, visa requirements, and infrastructure. However, based on these considerations, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is often cited as one of the easiest cities for global travelers to visit. Here’s why: 1. Geographical Location: Dubai is centrally located between Europe, Asia, and Africa, making it a natural hub for international travel. Most of the world’s population is within an 8-hour flight of Dubai. 2. Major International Airport: Dubai International Airport (DXB) is one of the busiest airports globally, with direct flights to over 240 cities across six continents. Emirates Airline, based in Dubai, has extensive routes connecting the world. 3. Visa Policies: The UAE has relatively flexible visa policies. Many nationalities can obtain a visa on arrival, while others have access to electronic visas or straightforward visa processes. 4. Tourism Infrastructure: Dubai is extremely tourist-friendly with world-class hotels, transport systems, and tourist attractions. 5. Political Stability and Safety: Dubai is considered a safe and politically stable city, which adds to its appeal for international visitors. Other cities like Istanbul, Singapore, or London also offer excellent global connectivity and infrastructure, but Dubai’s visa policies and central location make it a standout.
• juliuskiesian 2y ago
  [flagged]
• TremendousJudge 2y ago
  > After all, the British Museum, the main example for restitutions, is located in a global city, given completely free access to its huge collection on display and pays for preservation. The global cultural value it adds is much larger than individual museums all over the would could provide. Most of the collection of the British Museum is not on display at any given moment (if ever). They could lose 90% of their inventory and the display would be exactly the same. But that's beside the point. Museum entry may be free, but London is pretty expensive to go to, especially if you are from a place where the items in question were plundered (ie poor third world countries). In some cases it may even be illegal. Most of the people whose cultures those items belong to cannot afford to go visit the museum.
  • mihaic 2y ago
    Most of these third world countries also have some artefacts on their soil as well. Do they need literally all of them, and you'd have to visit the globe to see international artefacts? The most famous ones, like the Rosetta Stone, only became famous from their usage by Western archeologists. As for London being expensive, well visiting any foreign country is expensive by non-natives. At least in London you can get a large set of cultural exposure in a single visit. > Most of the people whose cultures those items belong to cannot afford to go visit the museum. There is no ancient Greek or Egyptian alive today, those cultures are long dead. What claim do modern inhabitants of those regions have over these artefacts?
    • senderista 2y ago
      Modern Greeks and Egyptians have significant genetic and cultural continuity with the ancient peoples of those regions. (No, the Arabs did not displace the Egyptians.)
      • mihaic 2y ago
        Genetic continuity, sure. But I can't see any cultural continuity at all. Why do you see one?
    • 2y ago
• seatac76 2y ago
  This assumes global cultural value matters more than the native cultural value of the people to whom the artifacts belong. I think the default should be to return to the native country wherever possible. Although it does beg the question of what to do if the native countries have changed significantly due to imperialism/colonization, idk. But I do appreciate the value of cross cultural sharing so perhaps museums could have a rotating selection that they can borrow for some time from the native country, as long as the transport does not have negative impacts on the artifacts.
• jntun 2y ago
  Looting and pillaging is fine, as long as you build an entire economic / social system around it? Because that is the only semblance of logic I can take away from your statements. These museums didn't just pop into place for the artifacts to reside in; they were built to show off their spoils.
  • ipaddr 2y ago
    Take the Taliban example of destroying Buddhist culture in the 90s. They are/were the current people in power would you suggest returning items to be destroyed or carefully preserving them for future. Would you return items to a place incapable of taking care of them?
    • jntun 2y ago
      Do you have any interest in talking about the British & American roles in funding, training, and arming the Taliban in the 70, 80s, and early 90s? Or would you prefer creating a hypothetical where we are burdened to take care of the people who just can't take care of themselves (after we wreak havoc on them)?
      • ipaddr 2y ago
        We can talk about the US and USSR proxy wars and how they trained and armed people on different sides because they did not want to engage directly. Doesn't change the fact that the Buddhist cultural items were being destroyed because it conflicted with their version of Islam. Handing them back would be unwise.
        • jntun 2y ago
          Well I don't want to talk about that first part, mainly because it's a very poor interpretation of history. You brought up the Taliban and I wanted to investigate that thought you had further. You seem to be trying to paint an ideological picture unrelated to the topic and insist on a leading question built on the assumption "if you give the artifact back, it will be destroyed".
• WhyNotHugo 2y ago
  > British Museum, […], is located in a global city, given completely free access to its huge collection on display and pays for preservation. It grants free access to British citizens and those few who can afford to travel to the UK. The grand majority of the world’s population cannot afford this. Most important, the locals living in cities that were pillaged by the British can’t access cultural items at all. Sure, the museum entry might be free, but they can’t afford to travel to an island far far away.
• bee_rider 2y ago
  It would be sort of interesting, maybe if there was some sort of right to visit these artifacts, the idea that the UK was preserving their cultures for these countries would be a little more defensible. What percentage of a country’s population should be given a museum-funded trip to the UK, before we can say the museum is actually living up to that promise, I wonder? Half or so?
• veggieWHITES 2y ago
  > complex questions of what "rightful owner" after hundreds or thousands of years even means I think that's besides the point. To me this means a goodhearted effort to right past wrongs.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Covenant0028 2y ago
  > After all, the British Museum, the main example for restitutions, is located in a global city, given completely free access to its huge collection on display and pays for preservation. The global cultural value it adds is much larger than individual museums all over the would could provide. Firstly, as others have pointed out, the British Museum is not freely accessible to the vast majority of the world population. The world is larger than WEIRD countries and the richer sections of formerly colonised countries countries Secondly, it is not the British Museum's decision to make about whether the cultural artifacts of other people is more valuable to "global culture" than it is to the culture it originated from. Let's take an example: India and China both have a population more than double that of the EU. Which means a museum located in either country provides visa-free access to billions of people with relatively cheap travel. Would that be an argument to move the Girl With the Pearl Earring from The Hague's Mauritshuis to New Delhi or Beijing? Would it be an argument to move the painting to the British Museum? Indeed why not move the entire Mauritshuis to the British Museum? After all London receives far more visitors than The Hague does. Surely the global cultural value of those artifacts is greater than the value that the Dutch place on it. Consider that you apply this logic to extract all Dutch artwork from that country and place it in a second country. Consider that the second country was largely responsible for such extraction, which included not only cultural artifacts but also wealth. Consider that the second country now places visa restrictions that make it harder for Dutch people to visit the country and even if they did, the cost of actually doing so would largely exclude most Dutch people. What effect would this extraction of cultural heritage have on the Dutch?
• legacynl 2y ago
  > Abused children are taken away from their parents, but artefact are to simply be given back to whatever state has jurisdiction over some area they were in way back? The reason why children are protected from abusive parents, is because they are protected by human right laws. A child is legally entitled to an upbringing safe from abuse, so a state is obligated to remove children from abusive housrholds. Of course antiquities aren't people so they don't have any human rights. That is why it's stupid to compare artifacts to abused children.