• Z3k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s an interesting point. While I agree it’s kinda shitty the UK nicked everyone’s cool stuff and shoved it in 1 building. I’m willing to bet if we hadn’t the number of pieces that would be lost to time would not be zero

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sure, I’m gonna steal your TV because I’ll take better care of it than you would.

      You’re welcome

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          This is a conundrum I can’t wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).

          If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don’t need to study history, it’s not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don’t think that also helps.

          And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don’t quite see what moral ground is there for it.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Temporary custody for future generations seems like a good moral standpoint.

            I can’t see the moral arguments for keeping the items.

            Original items should be returned, but maybe exact copies should be made first (at the whose expense I don’t know).

            • lad@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.

              But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes

          • InputZero@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            There is no moral grounds for stealing cultural artifacts. Even if it means the culture that rightfully possesses it wants to destroy it. That choice is entirely that cultures decision to make. Even if we disagree. It’s one thing to clutch your own pearls but so much worse to do that to someone else’s.

            • lad@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

              It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

              • InputZero@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                While there can definitely be some legitimate discussion and ambiguity over which culture/country gets to inherit Mayan artifacts, for example, saying that the British, for example, should inherit it is a very weak argument. It’s not like the entirety of an extinct societies people just dropped dead. Some survived and after some time rebuilt new societies. Using Mayan artifacts as an example, Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras have a better claim to them then the British. It’s not propaganda or useless to say that items of cultural heritage should be returned.

                So how about this what about-ism, if you live in the United States, the British took cultural artifacts from your lands too and aren’t giving them back right this moment. Where did you think all those native American artifacts in British museums came from? They didn’t make them and it’s not like North America was spared from British plundering. Might be nice to get that stuff back.

                • lad@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

                  Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

                  Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        If by steal, you mean purchase from me for cheap because I don’t give a shit about it and don’t appreciate its value, only for my great grandson to show up years later and call you a thief, then sure!

    • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      except that not actually an other hand sorta thing at all, almost exclusively it was colonizers and their wars that destroyed so many of artifacts the artifacts that werent stolen, if they weren’t delivery destroyed by colonizers to erase history and beyond even that the colonizers carelessness, greed, and racism which they brought to archeology led to much more than just artifacts being destroyed. There are so many historical sites whose histories we will never know at all because these clown excavated them to take “relics” and took little if any records where their precious artifacts were found and how, and that is if sites were not destroyed in their entirety out of sheer idiocy in the search of something else like how troy was. 18th, 19th, and even some 20th century so called archeology is a history of the destruction of history.

      • 50_centavos@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Holy run-on sentences. I agree with you, but it was done, it’s already in the museums. Signing petitions and raising awareness of agencies/museums that are trying to get the stuff back is probably a better way to funnel your frustrations.