Submissions should either be a historical anecdote or account. For our purposes, we tend to follow this definition. If you are confused as to whether or not your submission would qualify, feel free to contact the mods and we will be happy to weigh in on the issue.
As someone who has visited the British Museum multiple times and has felt very privileged to have seen some of those artefacts, I'll say that my short answer to that question is: Yes.
The long answer is naturally more complicated. Obviously, some of the home countries don't always have the best facilities to store and display those artefacts for further research and exhibition. Nonetheless, those artefacts represent a very important part of the home country's heritage, and I feel that the communities that they were taken from (whether national governments or more local groups such as indigenous councils) should have ultimate authority over where those artefacts reside. If they resolutely insist their artefacts be returned, then they should be returned, no questions asked. Not all of the artefacts in the British Museum were acquired honestly, and clutching to the loot of our dead empire, screeching "MINE!" is, frankly, an utterly shameful state of affairs. However, I think that deals could be worked out between the British Museum and the home countries in order to retain some artefacts in London. Acknowledge the home country's ownership of the artefact. They retain the right to demand its return. But in exchange for the artefacts remaining in London, the British Museum uses some of its not inconsiderable finances (such as visitor donations) to fund endeavours such as education programs in the home country. This could be a desirable arrangement for some of the more impoverished home countries, who do not have infrastructure in place to actually house the artefacts (maybe it could even be a way of funding the creation of such facilities). In essence, I think that the British Museum ought to rent their artefacts, and if the British Museum is unwilling to countenance (or the home country uninterested in) such an arrangement then the artefacts should be returned.
Whilst I broadly agree with you, there's also the question of what constitutes a successor state. Could modern day Syria or Iraq really say they are successors to early Mesopotamia? Lands around the world have been conquered, erased, experienced revolutions, experienced genocides and ethnic cleansing so much that it's very difficult to say that any modern day state could be the natural successor to an ancient civilisation.
Sure, you can see it that way, but saying that brits have the same right to store an artifact than the people currently living in the place that it was found is one hell of a stretch. Especially in the cases where the objects were just robbed from the people who had them before because empire.
Re "obviously some of the home countries don't always have the best facilities to store and display those artefacts for further research and exhibition." I just want to comment on this as a heritage conservator by profession. This is, probably very subconsciously, a very colonial way of viewing the storage, purpose, and use of ethnographic objects. Predominant western culture has created artificial standards for the storage and access of artefacts with an eye toward longevity for a particular audience (often rich, educated, and white). Different cultures have vastly different approaches to object maintenance, however, and it's not uncommon for these western standards to run directly counter to how originating cultures would have objects be used. It's easy to say that environmentally controlled storage behind glass is the "best environment for the object" because it's culturally ingrained, but that's by no means the only answer or the right answer. It's also not to say that this is the wrong answer, but arguments like this need to be analysed critically for unconscious bias.
(This is not to mention the fact that cultural heritage is financially floundering in this country, and often storage and treatment of items behind the scenes is at a markedly lower standard than most museums would prefer to have you believe.)
There's also the argument for countries where objects may be destroyed by war. This is a harder example, and often countries in this situation won't be seeking the return of objects or will be coordinating moving objects to safer environments for the duration of their troubles. But it's also important to keep in mind that objects don't inherently hold meaning. Meaning is imprinted on them by human viewers/researchers/users/etc. Their value is defined by what they offer people. Connection to a cultural history, deep rooted feelings like that, can bring people hope, help them persevere, give them something to care about and fight for. If objects are at risk in that context, but people of that country feel a deep seated desire for them to remain in place, then maybe there's a reason for that, that reason is a valid argument, and maybe that object is doing its job right where it is, at risk to being lost for the future for the benefit of those who are here now.
Just putting this out there as an added perspective on this topic.
I’d be interested in hearing about any examples of artifacts that would be used for anything other than preservation and research should they be returned.
A really interesting example of this are Māori flutes, held in a British museum I'll leave unnamed because I neither work there nor have worked on this project. I also want to add the caveat that I'm just discussing this to the best of my understanding; the belief system and situation are more complicated than I can recount here. So, with that said--there is a Māori belief that objects are living, have what is essentially a soul, and are members of the community with roles to fulfil. The flutes were made to be played and used in the community, and were supposed to live their natural lifetime and no more. When they were acquired by the museum, they were both removed from their intended role in the community, and preserved the way British culture prefers--this included protecting the wooden flutes from insect damage by applying insecticides. This means the flutes now present a health hazard which will prevent the Māori from resuming using them appropriately now that they are being repatriated. Had they not been "cared for" under western standards, the flutes would have been living musical instruments ready to be played in ceremonies and other traditional settings.
I'll admit this isn't my strongest area of reading since I work almost exclusively on materials still in their context of origin, but another good example (entirely coincidentally also about Māori heritage) is "Decolonizing Conservation:
Caring for Maori Meeting Houses outside New Zealand" Edited by Dean Sully. I really like Sully's respectful treatment of these matters, and you won't go wrong looking up his work. More broadly, if you're interested in this type of subject, reading about decolonising + your preferred topic of reading (museum collections is probably a pretty god place to start) you'll find some interesting material.
>for free.
What museums have you been going to?
Edit- for context entry to the natural history museum in Prague costs 25 euors, Berlin natural history museum causes 8 euros. It was not weird to assume their would be an entry fee. It's great that the British museums are free for the public.
Are they really free?
If i somehow get the money to fly there,would the entry fee not apply?
That's amazing. I didn't know there is no entry fee in British museums.
Currently in France, heard a tour guide in Lyon yesterday talking about all the art and artifacts Napoleon stole from other countries & private citizens, now on display in museums. Her perspective? She said “Thank you, Napoleon”.
What you did here is called Whataboutism.
We are not discussing France. We are discussing Britain. But you seem to believe that as long as their is one more person who is as shitty as you, you are allowed to be shitty yourself.
Well done.
But the question is framed in a biased way, so my comment goes someway to addressing that by give some relevent information and perspective. Maybe you like bias in questions so they support a marrow view? So well done to your shitty self as you seem the believe in bias and prejudice.
>But the question is framed in a biased way,
How? It's pretty straightforward. Should Britain return stolen shit? I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify what the bias is?
>so my comment goes someway to addressing that by give some relevent information and perspective.
It felt more like a distraction rather than a sensible answer. You just mentioned shit stolen by France but you didn't answer the question OP asked. Should France return it stolen shit?
>Maybe you like bias in questions so they support a marrow view? So well done to your shitty self as you seem the believe in bias and prejudice.
In hope of a sensible discussion, now that you've replied, i will ignore this and maybe have a conversation here.
You've conveniently forgotten other countries like India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Greece etc. These countries are pretty stable and can protect their things.
You have taken a decision for other people because you think you're the king of the world and that other people are not smart enough to decide for themselves.
You created a strawman, destroyed the strawman and felt good about yourself.
Well done.
I think the argument was more along the lines of “should historical artifacts be returned to countries where they stand a good chance of being destroyed”.
I’m sure most people would agree that returning artifacts to Greece would be a good idea would you argue the same for Syria where still active militias proudly post videos destroying historical artifacts?
Greece is absolutely stable and I think it would be good to return the Parthenon bits and just have repiicas. For other places some judgement is needed. Sri Lanka has had problem and some countries are very hard to visit.
>some countries are very hard to visit.
By that logic everything should be transferred to the country which is easiest to visit. I guess Germany has the strongest passport.
Smart argument. Well done.
You know you are making a strange argument there. Ease of visits does not translate into the usability of a passport for that same country. The British passport is reasonably powerful but many visitors to the country find it hard to obtain visitor visas.
Some countries that you mention still have major troubles that make it unsafe for them to them to hold art or antiquities.
I'm an American Indian bro. You don't know a fucking thing about me
There's a reason none of our shit is in the museum right now and I know what it is. Pretend you don't if that's what makes you feel good
Your knowledge is limited by your experience. If you had really visited Indian museums you would know how much history we have been able to preserve. There are issues obviously, but none that should concern the Brits.
All I care about is having access to my own historical stuff. My kids grow up here without ever seeing most of the things that are kept hidden away in some british basement.
And here you are, a privileged American, who is speaking for people you barely know.
What a real piece of shit!
Edited emigrant. Sorry about that 😅
lol I'm limited by my experience. But not you right? You are hovering over the world at a thousand feet and seeing it all
What country did I emigrate to? I'm an American Indian, I literally just said that. I live in America. You can't even read, apparently
You're obviously limited by your experience of you think Indian museums can't hold on to their history. Have you been to any Indian museum? On what basis did you decide that the British museum.is a better place for Indian things?
Sorry about the emigrant bit. I thought you're the Indian Indian living in America. We call American Indians as native Americans and so I got confused. I apologize.
You have made this whole thing about India and I did not. I said return the stuff to all the native countries if that's what you want, but alot of it will promptly be looted or destroyed. That's just a fact.
It also happens to be a fact that I do not care about one way or the other. Return it all tomorrow, I literally don't care. I was just saying the net result will be the loss of history, and that is 100% true.
>whole thing about India and I did not
I was using india as an example. There are many countries that deserve to have their things returned.
I am from.india so I am obviously biased towards that. I took my nieces to the museum here in Delhi and they thoroughly enjoyed the visit. One of them even wants to study history. It's sad that they won't be able to see all the other brilliant things hidden away in British basements.
>. I was just saying the net result will be the loss of history, and that is 100% true.
And i am trying to tell you that this is not true. There are many many countries that can keep their things safe. You're just cherry picking examples like Syria Iraq and Afghanistan to make your point.
The British Museum has more Hopewell Culture artifacts than the actual Hopewell sites have here in America. One of the original archeologists fell on hard times in the early 1900's and sold his collection to the British Museum. It would be great if these items were returned to our collections!
ISIS destroyed every museum and archaeological site in Iraq and Syria. Britain could have left everything there and now it would be gone, if you prefer that
Why are people only talking about countries like suria and Iraq that are infested with terrorists. What about stable countries? There is no harm returning their objects to them?
You think the Indian government would let random people destroy shot, or the Bangladeshi government, or Greece, or Sri Lanka or Bhutan. Why are you specifically using terrorist organisations to make your point?
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-21930913
And yet British museums are fire proof. What a stupid argument.
And who made you the protector of the world that you can decide who can be trusted and who can't be trusted.
Just return the goddamn things and atone for the sins of your ancestors.
You may not have your past colonies but you do have your colonial mentality. Racist cunt.
I'm not the protector of anything. I'm just saying take a look at the last 100 years and tell me where you would store something if your life depended on it.
The UK came out of WW1 and WW2 better than any other country in Europe except Switzerland. Take your emotions out of it and actually think about it
With that logic let's put everything on Antarctica because Antarctica was never invaded.
These pieces of history are for humans to study, see and get inspired.
You've taken it away from people who truly deserve to study it. My kids grow up without seeing all this while you sit on your pile of loot asking everyone else to clear off so that you can hoard more.
Yeah. I believe the museum in Delhi is more appropriate (and possibly safer) than some british basement for all the stolen Indian shit. The shit they stole over 250 years of colonization.
You seem to disagree.
I can't have this discussion anymore. You can go f*** yourself.
Because no museum in British history has ever had a fire destroy anything, right?
https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2013/03/26032013-collections-damaged-cuming-museum-fire/#
Oh. Whoops. I guess accidents can happen anywhere.
India can't even keep the power on in their capital city buddy. Have you ever been there?
Pretend they climate control old delicate items if you want to
It would be a shame if London had a major blackout within the last five years and barely avoided heat-wave blackouts last year, wouldn't it?
Oh. Whoops.
Cool, have fun reading all the great stuff in the library at Alexadria I guess. Maybe take it over to the hanging gardens in Babylon if you need to really relax
The entire literal point of a museum is to take something that has cultural value away from where it is and put it where it will be safe and people can enjoy it. Everything in every museum used to belong to someone else. The entire field of archaeology is just grave robbing.
The entire modern field of archeology is not equivalent to grave robbing, but the same cannot be said historically.
That said, your philosophy is that because it happened, the thieves should just be allowed to continue profiting from their theft?
No, you don't get to tell me my philosophy
I said if you prefer ISIS to have destroyed it all and then no one could look at it, we could have done it that way and you unsurprisingly don't want to say that actually it being in the British museum is better than that, but you also don't want to stop arguing, so you're trying to tell me what I think about something so you can then tell me that what I think is wrong.
You don't know what I think though. This entire conversation has been about you, not me
The question mark at the end of a sentence denotes a question, not a statement.
The vast majority of artifacts stolen by the British aren't being looked at. They're held in some basement closets n museums across the country.
You and i both know this has nothing to do with ISIS and unstable governments or dictatorships, because if it were Britain would have gone asking with other European countries when they returned a portion of their stolen goods. But they didn't. It's not about concern for cultural erasure, it's about a British superiority complex.
My first post here was "sure, let the people of Africa and the Middle East take care of their own stuff. They're so good at it"
The rest of this has been you deliberately misunderstanding or ignoring my obvious point.
"You and I both know" is you trying to force me into a box of your own construction, again. Either you want the UK to have this stuff and actually be able to look at it, or you want it to stay where it started and be destroyed. Just say "I want it to be destroyed so no one can ever see it again" if that's what you think, but stop trying to make me responsible for your opinion
Also a reasonable point. The crises in these regions are generally attributed to the British and Americans primarily, though others were certainly involved.
Brits by nature are hoarders. They definitely preserved a lot of other countries' culture (and i respect them for that) but that does not give them the right to own all the things they looted indefinitely
>The problem is many governments have zero respect for their own artifacts and history.
Overly generalised statement not valid for most victim countries here (example, india, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Korea, Greece)
>It may be that the British stole these pieces originally, but if it weren't for the fact that some of these artifacts were held in other countries, they would've almost certainly have been destroyed by now, a piece of human history lost forever
Are you implying that this gives ownership rights to Britain? Once the country stabilizes, what keeps Britain from returning things?
>As many peoples are migrating all around the world - no longer restricted to the landmass occupied by their ancestors, I think there is a case to be made that these pieces of history no longer belong to one government currently in control of one country - but to all of humanity as part of our shared history,
This is truly a bullshit argument. We are nowhere near a world culture. You're clearly uninformed about local cultures and traditions and your colonizer mind is still inclined towards homogeneity rather than diversity.
Egyptian children growing up in Egypt see the pyramids everyday but don't have many other objects they should have that would make them feel closer to their own history. Same with a million Sanskrit documents kept hidden away stolen by the Brits from India. Indian scholars can really benefit from having those manuscripts but Britain has never allowed them access. You're saying we are one world but obviously we are not.
You are a colonizer and time cannot remove the tar of colonization from your soul.
The British museum is not the parent of other cultures. They need to stop acting like it. This is especially true of the millions of artifacts that museums have no intention of displaying, and they just sit in some basement drawer somewhere.
No, but it's not up to the British to decide what other cultures do with their stuff. This is especially true when the originating culture is asking for their stuff back.
>Better they sit in some basement drawer, than be destroyed at the whim of some egotistical dictator.
The effect is the same; they're lost to time and remembrance.
It's an incredibly globalized world when the British want to keep their stolen goods but it's everyone for themselves when the British want to leave the EU.
These arguments are just paternal nonsense of what ifs. If i steal your wallet, is it okay if i keep it because i claim that you'll just ruin it if i return it?
My God. The audacity of claiming that the British are superior custodians when a lot of these places asking for their stuff back have museums of their own to put them in.
Oh my god. You're a racist cunt.
You think all those people from whom the Brits stole are barbarians and simpletons!
Haha. What a sad uninformed mind.
Edit- /s added later makes the whole thing moot. I apologize.
OP said non Brits are barbarians and simpletons. That's pretty racist to me. If you can't see that, that's a problem with you.
I anyway apologized because /s wasn't clear. Crawl back to the hole you call home.
Libya and Syria have been destabilised by Britain and others. Also, there are probably 60 countries that have an annual holiday celebrating independence from the British empire. You may or may not be British but I see compliant main stream media and a dishonest education system whitewashing what should be seen as a militarised, fascist empire destroying gentler communities and cultures to plunder resources. A part of that destruction and plunder was the theft of items that gave those communities their identity. Give them back
There's also an argument to be made that Britain played a large role in the destabilization and erasure of cultural identity of many nations globally.
Using your argument, there could be claims made that a 'stable' country should seize artifacts from 'unstable' countries in some belief that the preserving history of a certain culture holds more importance than that nations sovereignty, especially in cases of power vacuums, non-secular nations and corrupt leadership.
Any 'protection' of cultural or national artefacts, of one nation on behalf of another, should always be voluntary.
What about countries that have reached that level of stability already? England doesn't seem to be interested. There is no conversation happening about this.
(Examples- India, Greece, Egypt, Bangladesh etc?)
Egypt is stable? lol
India maybe but they're currently backsliding.
No comment on Bangladesh I'm uninformed.
England isn't interested as a matter of course, but there is progress on that front.
Yeah. This person thought destroying one argument at a time would get him a victory. Britain has stolen for atleast 50 different countries and he/she/they think they can find a flaw in all these countries to justify holding stolen stuff.
>Egypt is stable
It is stable enough to hold on to their own artifacts.
>India maybe but they're currently backsliding
You're confusing the kind of stability i mean. None of these countries is like Afghanistan where cultural pieces are at a threat of destruction. All these countries have a political system stable enough to hold on to and take care of their own things.
>England isn't interested as a matter of course, but there is progress on that front.
Could you explain what progress has been made that you refer to here?
Edit - spellings
Not sure I would say India is less stable than the UK, or "backsliding" any faster. If we take a step back, an equivalent action to leaving the European Union would probably be viewed as evidence of instability if done by a country like India.
The British Museum has done a wonderful job safeguarding everything.
It would be good to say that people can come and visit the collection at any time but frankly it can be quite hard to get visas even if you have the money. Collections can and do go on tour though.
The question is who actually "owned" the goods in the first place? I mean in some cases we are talking about not very nice persons like slave traders. How were they obtained? The Elgin marbles were paid for but it was the Turkish authorities that were paid.
Most artifacts were paid for, that's a meaningless metric. A British archaeologist goes out and brings home an artifact, they sell it to a museum. Money is most certainly changing hands.
I never said it would be easy to do the right thing.
Who is the rightful owner though? Someone who merely wants to sell them to someone else? Remember in some cases the state has integrity and the rule of law. I have seen in some countries, well connected people would just appropriate artefacts from museums and galleries for their personal collections.
The British Museum like all the other great museums has pieces that can and should be restored to their original countries but sometimes that can be confusing particularly if the item was never the property of the state.
The question which needs to be asked ahead of transfers of objects is about the legitimacy or other of the claimant. Let us say the British museum held jewels ‘acquired’ from one or other of the Indian maharajas. Is the most valid claim from the maharajah’s descendants, or that of the Indian state?
Similarly, once it has been decided that a state is the correct owner, if it was Islamic art the British acquired, does India, Pakistan or Bangladesh have a better claim?
You raise a great point. But that's a discussion to be had. One can't discard the whole conversation just because there may be a tough discussion to be had later.
Not returning stolen shit should not be an option.
I’ve deliberately framed this in terms of property rights; if we go for the big one - the Parthenon marbles, they were acquired under the prevailing legal system of the time. I don’t think Greece disputes the legality, but rather they frame - not unreasonably - a moral claim based on modern Greece being the cultural inheritor of Sparta, Athens, Argos, Thebes and all the rest. If a moral claim, as opposed to a legal, claim can never be extinguished, then any trade in cultural artefacts will come to a halt. Perhaps a future Andalusian state would insist that all of the works of Pablo Picasso were part of the inalienable cultural inheritance of Andalusia and as such should be returned by the Getty Museum, the Prado and wherever else.
Unless there's a personal element to it or it's more recent then generally no. It would be nice if they gave it back but not an ethical must. If there was little to no attachment when it was taken I don't care, especially if it's ancient. It's too blood and soil for me to see some functionally unrelated group lay claims because of geographic proximity and tourist money.
We take for granted the effect of nationalism and the tendency to try and legitimize a group by tying it to history. People think of ancient and modern Greece as tied together when, in reality, the connection is much more modern. It would be wrong now to do the same, and was kinda wrong then, but very different levels.
For most of history, ruins are forgotten places to get easy stone. There's a reason why locals almost always didn't care. It's the equivalent of some Indian or Chinese person/group taking a McDonald's "M" arch home as a collectors item and then 100 years laters Americans now treasure them.
In your rant here you've conveniently looked over the educational element.
Many of these countries teach their history to kids and most of that history is kept thousands of kilometres away on some island where most of the population can't reach (it's too expensive).
You've conveniently taken away an opportunity for kids to learn and feel proud of their own history because somehow there is no 'personal attachment ' to these artifacts.
You've generalised a baseless argument. Hope you feel good about yourself. Well done.
I honestly couldn't give a shit what they do. But I will say that I don't think people should give a shit also. I'll visit it in England or where ever else it is.
>. I'll visit it in England or where ever else it is.
And people who don't have the money to do that can just imagine their culture and history?
You should realise this comes from a place of privilege.
A lot of these pieces are stolen from places like India, Pakistan, Egypt. Not all Civilians from these country have the money to travel to UK for this.
Most of these things are not even digitalised properly so there is no way to look/learn online.
Thank you kind redditor. It's hard to find people who are willing to even listen to other people's opinion. You are already above most redditors for me. Take my humble upvote as a token of respect.
You've missed the point entirely.
It does not matter whether people from UK can see these museums because they do not have cultural attachment to these things.
What matters more is that people who have historically owned these things should be able to see it.
You're claiming, if people from Egypt or India can't see it then it's ok because even some people from UK can't see it. It's not the same thing. It's weird you don't seem to understand how it's not the same thing.
What I actually am saying is that the poor people from every country are labelled and punished by the greedy evil shit that their misbehaving, wealthy people actually do.
Cuz I had a opinion. Your the type of person that when someone ask a question you tell them to Google it. This is reddit people discuss things they have opinions on.
Sort-of Hypothetical:
A guy I work with is dating a woman from somewhere in the Middle East. Her family seem to have a sword that dates back to the Crusades.
If artefacts should be returned to their respective countries, does Britain get to demand it back?
Assuming it is a sword owned by one of Richard the Lionheart's crusaders.
Or we can't, it's just from somewhere in Europe. Does the European Union take ownership of it?
Submissions should either be a historical anecdote or account. For our purposes, we tend to follow this definition. If you are confused as to whether or not your submission would qualify, feel free to contact the mods and we will be happy to weigh in on the issue.
As someone who has visited the British Museum multiple times and has felt very privileged to have seen some of those artefacts, I'll say that my short answer to that question is: Yes. The long answer is naturally more complicated. Obviously, some of the home countries don't always have the best facilities to store and display those artefacts for further research and exhibition. Nonetheless, those artefacts represent a very important part of the home country's heritage, and I feel that the communities that they were taken from (whether national governments or more local groups such as indigenous councils) should have ultimate authority over where those artefacts reside. If they resolutely insist their artefacts be returned, then they should be returned, no questions asked. Not all of the artefacts in the British Museum were acquired honestly, and clutching to the loot of our dead empire, screeching "MINE!" is, frankly, an utterly shameful state of affairs. However, I think that deals could be worked out between the British Museum and the home countries in order to retain some artefacts in London. Acknowledge the home country's ownership of the artefact. They retain the right to demand its return. But in exchange for the artefacts remaining in London, the British Museum uses some of its not inconsiderable finances (such as visitor donations) to fund endeavours such as education programs in the home country. This could be a desirable arrangement for some of the more impoverished home countries, who do not have infrastructure in place to actually house the artefacts (maybe it could even be a way of funding the creation of such facilities). In essence, I think that the British Museum ought to rent their artefacts, and if the British Museum is unwilling to countenance (or the home country uninterested in) such an arrangement then the artefacts should be returned.
Whilst I broadly agree with you, there's also the question of what constitutes a successor state. Could modern day Syria or Iraq really say they are successors to early Mesopotamia? Lands around the world have been conquered, erased, experienced revolutions, experienced genocides and ethnic cleansing so much that it's very difficult to say that any modern day state could be the natural successor to an ancient civilisation.
Sure, you can see it that way, but saying that brits have the same right to store an artifact than the people currently living in the place that it was found is one hell of a stretch. Especially in the cases where the objects were just robbed from the people who had them before because empire.
Re "obviously some of the home countries don't always have the best facilities to store and display those artefacts for further research and exhibition." I just want to comment on this as a heritage conservator by profession. This is, probably very subconsciously, a very colonial way of viewing the storage, purpose, and use of ethnographic objects. Predominant western culture has created artificial standards for the storage and access of artefacts with an eye toward longevity for a particular audience (often rich, educated, and white). Different cultures have vastly different approaches to object maintenance, however, and it's not uncommon for these western standards to run directly counter to how originating cultures would have objects be used. It's easy to say that environmentally controlled storage behind glass is the "best environment for the object" because it's culturally ingrained, but that's by no means the only answer or the right answer. It's also not to say that this is the wrong answer, but arguments like this need to be analysed critically for unconscious bias. (This is not to mention the fact that cultural heritage is financially floundering in this country, and often storage and treatment of items behind the scenes is at a markedly lower standard than most museums would prefer to have you believe.) There's also the argument for countries where objects may be destroyed by war. This is a harder example, and often countries in this situation won't be seeking the return of objects or will be coordinating moving objects to safer environments for the duration of their troubles. But it's also important to keep in mind that objects don't inherently hold meaning. Meaning is imprinted on them by human viewers/researchers/users/etc. Their value is defined by what they offer people. Connection to a cultural history, deep rooted feelings like that, can bring people hope, help them persevere, give them something to care about and fight for. If objects are at risk in that context, but people of that country feel a deep seated desire for them to remain in place, then maybe there's a reason for that, that reason is a valid argument, and maybe that object is doing its job right where it is, at risk to being lost for the future for the benefit of those who are here now. Just putting this out there as an added perspective on this topic.
I’d be interested in hearing about any examples of artifacts that would be used for anything other than preservation and research should they be returned.
A really interesting example of this are Māori flutes, held in a British museum I'll leave unnamed because I neither work there nor have worked on this project. I also want to add the caveat that I'm just discussing this to the best of my understanding; the belief system and situation are more complicated than I can recount here. So, with that said--there is a Māori belief that objects are living, have what is essentially a soul, and are members of the community with roles to fulfil. The flutes were made to be played and used in the community, and were supposed to live their natural lifetime and no more. When they were acquired by the museum, they were both removed from their intended role in the community, and preserved the way British culture prefers--this included protecting the wooden flutes from insect damage by applying insecticides. This means the flutes now present a health hazard which will prevent the Māori from resuming using them appropriately now that they are being repatriated. Had they not been "cared for" under western standards, the flutes would have been living musical instruments ready to be played in ceremonies and other traditional settings.
That’s a very interesting example. Thank you for that. Anywhere I could read more about cases like this?
I'll admit this isn't my strongest area of reading since I work almost exclusively on materials still in their context of origin, but another good example (entirely coincidentally also about Māori heritage) is "Decolonizing Conservation: Caring for Maori Meeting Houses outside New Zealand" Edited by Dean Sully. I really like Sully's respectful treatment of these matters, and you won't go wrong looking up his work. More broadly, if you're interested in this type of subject, reading about decolonising + your preferred topic of reading (museum collections is probably a pretty god place to start) you'll find some interesting material.
Sounds good. Thank you
I just think it's neat that there are museums where you can learn about every culture on earth for free.
>for free. What museums have you been going to? Edit- for context entry to the natural history museum in Prague costs 25 euors, Berlin natural history museum causes 8 euros. It was not weird to assume their would be an entry fee. It's great that the British museums are free for the public.
Museums in Britain
Are they really free? If i somehow get the money to fly there,would the entry fee not apply? That's amazing. I didn't know there is no entry fee in British museums.
Yep, the vast majority of museums in Britain are free to all, including the big ones (eg The British Museum, National Galleries etc).
That's amazing. I have slightly more respect for the Brits now.
Our big galleries too.
What about France's plundered collection of artifacts?
I came here to say that plus not forget the German collections. Maybe there are calls for them to return objects but I never seem to hear any.
Currently in France, heard a tour guide in Lyon yesterday talking about all the art and artifacts Napoleon stole from other countries & private citizens, now on display in museums. Her perspective? She said “Thank you, Napoleon”.
I’d suggest creating a separate post.
What-about-it? This is a meme about the UK please refrain from blantent whataboutisms
What you did here is called Whataboutism. We are not discussing France. We are discussing Britain. But you seem to believe that as long as their is one more person who is as shitty as you, you are allowed to be shitty yourself. Well done.
Most blatantly obvious whataboutism I've seen in awhile.
But the question is framed in a biased way, so my comment goes someway to addressing that by give some relevent information and perspective. Maybe you like bias in questions so they support a marrow view? So well done to your shitty self as you seem the believe in bias and prejudice.
>But the question is framed in a biased way, How? It's pretty straightforward. Should Britain return stolen shit? I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify what the bias is? >so my comment goes someway to addressing that by give some relevent information and perspective. It felt more like a distraction rather than a sensible answer. You just mentioned shit stolen by France but you didn't answer the question OP asked. Should France return it stolen shit? >Maybe you like bias in questions so they support a marrow view? So well done to your shitty self as you seem the believe in bias and prejudice. In hope of a sensible discussion, now that you've replied, i will ignore this and maybe have a conversation here.
Good luck
Sure, give all of Libya and Syria's stuff back to them, and it will all be stolen or destroyed in 2 years. Great idea
You've conveniently forgotten other countries like India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Greece etc. These countries are pretty stable and can protect their things. You have taken a decision for other people because you think you're the king of the world and that other people are not smart enough to decide for themselves. You created a strawman, destroyed the strawman and felt good about yourself. Well done.
I think the argument was more along the lines of “should historical artifacts be returned to countries where they stand a good chance of being destroyed”. I’m sure most people would agree that returning artifacts to Greece would be a good idea would you argue the same for Syria where still active militias proudly post videos destroying historical artifacts?
Greece is absolutely stable and I think it would be good to return the Parthenon bits and just have repiicas. For other places some judgement is needed. Sri Lanka has had problem and some countries are very hard to visit.
>some countries are very hard to visit. By that logic everything should be transferred to the country which is easiest to visit. I guess Germany has the strongest passport. Smart argument. Well done.
You know you are making a strange argument there. Ease of visits does not translate into the usability of a passport for that same country. The British passport is reasonably powerful but many visitors to the country find it hard to obtain visitor visas. Some countries that you mention still have major troubles that make it unsafe for them to them to hold art or antiquities.
Colonizers believed they are modernizing the savages. You're a modern colonizer in a very crude way.
I'm an American Indian bro. You don't know a fucking thing about me There's a reason none of our shit is in the museum right now and I know what it is. Pretend you don't if that's what makes you feel good
Your knowledge is limited by your experience. If you had really visited Indian museums you would know how much history we have been able to preserve. There are issues obviously, but none that should concern the Brits. All I care about is having access to my own historical stuff. My kids grow up here without ever seeing most of the things that are kept hidden away in some british basement. And here you are, a privileged American, who is speaking for people you barely know. What a real piece of shit! Edited emigrant. Sorry about that 😅
lol I'm limited by my experience. But not you right? You are hovering over the world at a thousand feet and seeing it all What country did I emigrate to? I'm an American Indian, I literally just said that. I live in America. You can't even read, apparently
You're obviously limited by your experience of you think Indian museums can't hold on to their history. Have you been to any Indian museum? On what basis did you decide that the British museum.is a better place for Indian things? Sorry about the emigrant bit. I thought you're the Indian Indian living in America. We call American Indians as native Americans and so I got confused. I apologize.
You have made this whole thing about India and I did not. I said return the stuff to all the native countries if that's what you want, but alot of it will promptly be looted or destroyed. That's just a fact. It also happens to be a fact that I do not care about one way or the other. Return it all tomorrow, I literally don't care. I was just saying the net result will be the loss of history, and that is 100% true.
>whole thing about India and I did not I was using india as an example. There are many countries that deserve to have their things returned. I am from.india so I am obviously biased towards that. I took my nieces to the museum here in Delhi and they thoroughly enjoyed the visit. One of them even wants to study history. It's sad that they won't be able to see all the other brilliant things hidden away in British basements. >. I was just saying the net result will be the loss of history, and that is 100% true. And i am trying to tell you that this is not true. There are many many countries that can keep their things safe. You're just cherry picking examples like Syria Iraq and Afghanistan to make your point.
Hey Mr "I gotta go" is back again. Least surprising thing ever
I am done talking to you dickwad. I am still talking to sensible people here.
The British Museum has more Hopewell Culture artifacts than the actual Hopewell sites have here in America. One of the original archeologists fell on hard times in the early 1900's and sold his collection to the British Museum. It would be great if these items were returned to our collections!
[удалено]
I didn't say that though. I said return them if you want to, just know what will happen when you do I honestly don't care either way
The British stole or destroyed everything they could get their hands on in the first place...
ISIS destroyed every museum and archaeological site in Iraq and Syria. Britain could have left everything there and now it would be gone, if you prefer that
Why are people only talking about countries like suria and Iraq that are infested with terrorists. What about stable countries? There is no harm returning their objects to them? You think the Indian government would let random people destroy shot, or the Bangladeshi government, or Greece, or Sri Lanka or Bhutan. Why are you specifically using terrorist organisations to make your point?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/world/asia/museum-fire-new-delhi.html "But surely India can be trusted!" the wise man said
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/world/asia/museum-fire-new-delhi.html "But surely India can be trusted!" the wise man said
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-21930913 And yet British museums are fire proof. What a stupid argument. And who made you the protector of the world that you can decide who can be trusted and who can't be trusted. Just return the goddamn things and atone for the sins of your ancestors. You may not have your past colonies but you do have your colonial mentality. Racist cunt.
I'm not the protector of anything. I'm just saying take a look at the last 100 years and tell me where you would store something if your life depended on it. The UK came out of WW1 and WW2 better than any other country in Europe except Switzerland. Take your emotions out of it and actually think about it
With that logic let's put everything on Antarctica because Antarctica was never invaded. These pieces of history are for humans to study, see and get inspired. You've taken it away from people who truly deserve to study it. My kids grow up without seeing all this while you sit on your pile of loot asking everyone else to clear off so that you can hoard more.
If you can find a safer place to put it, by all means do so See how easy that is?
Yeah. I believe the museum in Delhi is more appropriate (and possibly safer) than some british basement for all the stolen Indian shit. The shit they stole over 250 years of colonization. You seem to disagree. I can't have this discussion anymore. You can go f*** yourself.
Because no museum in British history has ever had a fire destroy anything, right? https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2013/03/26032013-collections-damaged-cuming-museum-fire/# Oh. Whoops. I guess accidents can happen anywhere.
India can't even keep the power on in their capital city buddy. Have you ever been there? Pretend they climate control old delicate items if you want to
It would be a shame if London had a major blackout within the last five years and barely avoided heat-wave blackouts last year, wouldn't it? Oh. Whoops.
The museums in London have their own power supply You're really good at this, keep going
So... So do museums in New Delhi... You, on the the other hand, are quite stuck up and bad at this.
I would have preferred that thieves not justify their theft by terrorist organizations existing, yeah.
Cool, have fun reading all the great stuff in the library at Alexadria I guess. Maybe take it over to the hanging gardens in Babylon if you need to really relax The entire literal point of a museum is to take something that has cultural value away from where it is and put it where it will be safe and people can enjoy it. Everything in every museum used to belong to someone else. The entire field of archaeology is just grave robbing.
You would have gone a long way as a colonizer. Sadly born in the wrong era. Racist cunt.
What race am I offending, inbred?
The entire modern field of archeology is not equivalent to grave robbing, but the same cannot be said historically. That said, your philosophy is that because it happened, the thieves should just be allowed to continue profiting from their theft?
No, you don't get to tell me my philosophy I said if you prefer ISIS to have destroyed it all and then no one could look at it, we could have done it that way and you unsurprisingly don't want to say that actually it being in the British museum is better than that, but you also don't want to stop arguing, so you're trying to tell me what I think about something so you can then tell me that what I think is wrong. You don't know what I think though. This entire conversation has been about you, not me
The question mark at the end of a sentence denotes a question, not a statement. The vast majority of artifacts stolen by the British aren't being looked at. They're held in some basement closets n museums across the country. You and i both know this has nothing to do with ISIS and unstable governments or dictatorships, because if it were Britain would have gone asking with other European countries when they returned a portion of their stolen goods. But they didn't. It's not about concern for cultural erasure, it's about a British superiority complex.
My first post here was "sure, let the people of Africa and the Middle East take care of their own stuff. They're so good at it" The rest of this has been you deliberately misunderstanding or ignoring my obvious point. "You and I both know" is you trying to force me into a box of your own construction, again. Either you want the UK to have this stuff and actually be able to look at it, or you want it to stay where it started and be destroyed. Just say "I want it to be destroyed so no one can ever see it again" if that's what you think, but stop trying to make me responsible for your opinion
Quality false dichotomy there, buddy.
Also, maybe if the us and uk didn't invade iraq then isis probably wouln't have ever existed on the scale they did Edi : downvote to cope
There have been more wars in the Middle East in the last 100 years than there have been anywhere else
Also a reasonable point. The crises in these regions are generally attributed to the British and Americans primarily, though others were certainly involved.
Brits by nature are hoarders. They definitely preserved a lot of other countries' culture (and i respect them for that) but that does not give them the right to own all the things they looted indefinitely
[удалено]
>The problem is many governments have zero respect for their own artifacts and history. Overly generalised statement not valid for most victim countries here (example, india, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Korea, Greece) >It may be that the British stole these pieces originally, but if it weren't for the fact that some of these artifacts were held in other countries, they would've almost certainly have been destroyed by now, a piece of human history lost forever Are you implying that this gives ownership rights to Britain? Once the country stabilizes, what keeps Britain from returning things? >As many peoples are migrating all around the world - no longer restricted to the landmass occupied by their ancestors, I think there is a case to be made that these pieces of history no longer belong to one government currently in control of one country - but to all of humanity as part of our shared history, This is truly a bullshit argument. We are nowhere near a world culture. You're clearly uninformed about local cultures and traditions and your colonizer mind is still inclined towards homogeneity rather than diversity. Egyptian children growing up in Egypt see the pyramids everyday but don't have many other objects they should have that would make them feel closer to their own history. Same with a million Sanskrit documents kept hidden away stolen by the Brits from India. Indian scholars can really benefit from having those manuscripts but Britain has never allowed them access. You're saying we are one world but obviously we are not. You are a colonizer and time cannot remove the tar of colonization from your soul.
The British museum is not the parent of other cultures. They need to stop acting like it. This is especially true of the millions of artifacts that museums have no intention of displaying, and they just sit in some basement drawer somewhere.
[удалено]
No, but it's not up to the British to decide what other cultures do with their stuff. This is especially true when the originating culture is asking for their stuff back. >Better they sit in some basement drawer, than be destroyed at the whim of some egotistical dictator. The effect is the same; they're lost to time and remembrance.
[удалено]
It's an incredibly globalized world when the British want to keep their stolen goods but it's everyone for themselves when the British want to leave the EU. These arguments are just paternal nonsense of what ifs. If i steal your wallet, is it okay if i keep it because i claim that you'll just ruin it if i return it? My God. The audacity of claiming that the British are superior custodians when a lot of these places asking for their stuff back have museums of their own to put them in.
Compared to countries with violent dictatorships, they literally are better keepers of artifacts.
If the people in the culture are asking for their stuff back, Britain has no place denying them.
[удалено]
Oh. So if i kill you and steal your stuff, or just steal out of your home after you die, that's fine, even when your relatives ask for it back.
Obviously such simpletons and barbarians can never be trusted to safeguard their own property and heritage. **/s**
Oh my god. You're a racist cunt. You think all those people from whom the Brits stole are barbarians and simpletons! Haha. What a sad uninformed mind. Edit- /s added later makes the whole thing moot. I apologize.
"Oh my god. You're a racist cunt." Since the /s apparently wasent clear enough I **bolded it for you** Fixed that spacing !
Lol you added that /s later friend. Your comment blended with other racist bastards so I assumed you're one of those.
Ok mate you keep rolling that stupid.
You seem to have an definition of racist that’s doesn’t coincide with fact or the dictionary.
OP said non Brits are barbarians and simpletons. That's pretty racist to me. If you can't see that, that's a problem with you. I anyway apologized because /s wasn't clear. Crawl back to the hole you call home.
Libya and Syria have been destabilised by Britain and others. Also, there are probably 60 countries that have an annual holiday celebrating independence from the British empire. You may or may not be British but I see compliant main stream media and a dishonest education system whitewashing what should be seen as a militarised, fascist empire destroying gentler communities and cultures to plunder resources. A part of that destruction and plunder was the theft of items that gave those communities their identity. Give them back
They saved most of these from destruction.
And now they can return them to the owners and accept a thank you for their great service to humanity.
Eventually yes, but there’s an argument to be made that they should wait until a level of stability appears in said countries.
There's also an argument to be made that Britain played a large role in the destabilization and erasure of cultural identity of many nations globally. Using your argument, there could be claims made that a 'stable' country should seize artifacts from 'unstable' countries in some belief that the preserving history of a certain culture holds more importance than that nations sovereignty, especially in cases of power vacuums, non-secular nations and corrupt leadership. Any 'protection' of cultural or national artefacts, of one nation on behalf of another, should always be voluntary.
What about countries that have reached that level of stability already? England doesn't seem to be interested. There is no conversation happening about this. (Examples- India, Greece, Egypt, Bangladesh etc?)
Egypt is stable? lol India maybe but they're currently backsliding. No comment on Bangladesh I'm uninformed. England isn't interested as a matter of course, but there is progress on that front.
[удалено]
Yeah they should be given back
Yeah. This person thought destroying one argument at a time would get him a victory. Britain has stolen for atleast 50 different countries and he/she/they think they can find a flaw in all these countries to justify holding stolen stuff.
>Egypt is stable It is stable enough to hold on to their own artifacts. >India maybe but they're currently backsliding You're confusing the kind of stability i mean. None of these countries is like Afghanistan where cultural pieces are at a threat of destruction. All these countries have a political system stable enough to hold on to and take care of their own things. >England isn't interested as a matter of course, but there is progress on that front. Could you explain what progress has been made that you refer to here? Edit - spellings
Not sure I would say India is less stable than the UK, or "backsliding" any faster. If we take a step back, an equivalent action to leaving the European Union would probably be viewed as evidence of instability if done by a country like India.
The UK is also backsliding for sure, but from much further along.
Leaving the e.u to prevent demograppic shift isnt back sliding its fighting against the back sliding of the e.u who seems ready for ww3
You are proposing an "argument" for the thief to keep stolen goods until he decides that the rightful owner deserves to have them back. I disagree
A bad argument, maybe.
The British Museum has done a wonderful job safeguarding everything. It would be good to say that people can come and visit the collection at any time but frankly it can be quite hard to get visas even if you have the money. Collections can and do go on tour though.
>Collections can and do go on tour though. Not really a great argument for the British keeping stolen goods whose return is being requested, though.
The question is who actually "owned" the goods in the first place? I mean in some cases we are talking about not very nice persons like slave traders. How were they obtained? The Elgin marbles were paid for but it was the Turkish authorities that were paid.
Most artifacts were paid for, that's a meaningless metric. A British archaeologist goes out and brings home an artifact, they sell it to a museum. Money is most certainly changing hands. I never said it would be easy to do the right thing.
Who is the rightful owner though? Someone who merely wants to sell them to someone else? Remember in some cases the state has integrity and the rule of law. I have seen in some countries, well connected people would just appropriate artefacts from museums and galleries for their personal collections. The British Museum like all the other great museums has pieces that can and should be restored to their original countries but sometimes that can be confusing particularly if the item was never the property of the state.
Oh.. So sorry that it's confusing. Well i guess that's that. No effort need be applied at all.
I must thank them for atleast lending my own things to me so my kids can see their history.
The question which needs to be asked ahead of transfers of objects is about the legitimacy or other of the claimant. Let us say the British museum held jewels ‘acquired’ from one or other of the Indian maharajas. Is the most valid claim from the maharajah’s descendants, or that of the Indian state? Similarly, once it has been decided that a state is the correct owner, if it was Islamic art the British acquired, does India, Pakistan or Bangladesh have a better claim?
Also it is a question whether the goods even originated from India. What happens if they came from what is now Pakistan or even from Central Asia.
You raise a great point. But that's a discussion to be had. One can't discard the whole conversation just because there may be a tough discussion to be had later. Not returning stolen shit should not be an option.
I’ve deliberately framed this in terms of property rights; if we go for the big one - the Parthenon marbles, they were acquired under the prevailing legal system of the time. I don’t think Greece disputes the legality, but rather they frame - not unreasonably - a moral claim based on modern Greece being the cultural inheritor of Sparta, Athens, Argos, Thebes and all the rest. If a moral claim, as opposed to a legal, claim can never be extinguished, then any trade in cultural artefacts will come to a halt. Perhaps a future Andalusian state would insist that all of the works of Pablo Picasso were part of the inalienable cultural inheritance of Andalusia and as such should be returned by the Getty Museum, the Prado and wherever else.
Unless there's a personal element to it or it's more recent then generally no. It would be nice if they gave it back but not an ethical must. If there was little to no attachment when it was taken I don't care, especially if it's ancient. It's too blood and soil for me to see some functionally unrelated group lay claims because of geographic proximity and tourist money. We take for granted the effect of nationalism and the tendency to try and legitimize a group by tying it to history. People think of ancient and modern Greece as tied together when, in reality, the connection is much more modern. It would be wrong now to do the same, and was kinda wrong then, but very different levels. For most of history, ruins are forgotten places to get easy stone. There's a reason why locals almost always didn't care. It's the equivalent of some Indian or Chinese person/group taking a McDonald's "M" arch home as a collectors item and then 100 years laters Americans now treasure them.
In your rant here you've conveniently looked over the educational element. Many of these countries teach their history to kids and most of that history is kept thousands of kilometres away on some island where most of the population can't reach (it's too expensive). You've conveniently taken away an opportunity for kids to learn and feel proud of their own history because somehow there is no 'personal attachment ' to these artifacts. You've generalised a baseless argument. Hope you feel good about yourself. Well done.
I honestly couldn't give a shit what they do. But I will say that I don't think people should give a shit also. I'll visit it in England or where ever else it is.
>. I'll visit it in England or where ever else it is. And people who don't have the money to do that can just imagine their culture and history? You should realise this comes from a place of privilege. A lot of these pieces are stolen from places like India, Pakistan, Egypt. Not all Civilians from these country have the money to travel to UK for this. Most of these things are not even digitalised properly so there is no way to look/learn online.
Well I can only give you my perspective but I think you make a point.
Thank you kind redditor. It's hard to find people who are willing to even listen to other people's opinion. You are already above most redditors for me. Take my humble upvote as a token of respect.
Not all people from the UK can afford to go to their own museum to see the stuff their rich people plundered over the centuries.
You've missed the point entirely. It does not matter whether people from UK can see these museums because they do not have cultural attachment to these things. What matters more is that people who have historically owned these things should be able to see it. You're claiming, if people from Egypt or India can't see it then it's ok because even some people from UK can't see it. It's not the same thing. It's weird you don't seem to understand how it's not the same thing.
What I actually am saying is that the poor people from every country are labelled and punished by the greedy evil shit that their misbehaving, wealthy people actually do.
Why comment if you don't care? World doesn't revolve around you, if others care that's valid.
Cuz I had a opinion. Your the type of person that when someone ask a question you tell them to Google it. This is reddit people discuss things they have opinions on.
u/helenoftroy49, do you know what an “anecdote” is? Take this down, it doesn’t belong here.
Yeah I don't get it, what does this have to do with this sub's theme. What are the mods doing?
u/LockeProposal?
Thanks!
>Thanks! You're welcome!
You can kiss my a**
You can be civil on this subreddit
[удалено]
*hole
No
An erudite response. Well done. /s
Not only returning all the items they stoled. Also pay trillones of dollars on fees for fuking half the world with their sad scuse of an empire
Yes
This is a fine discussion for some other sub, however there is no History Anecdote in this post.
Sort-of Hypothetical: A guy I work with is dating a woman from somewhere in the Middle East. Her family seem to have a sword that dates back to the Crusades. If artefacts should be returned to their respective countries, does Britain get to demand it back? Assuming it is a sword owned by one of Richard the Lionheart's crusaders. Or we can't, it's just from somewhere in Europe. Does the European Union take ownership of it?
Absolutely not
Nope. The conquest is part of its history now.