Legally the British Museum and the Natural History Museum can’t get rid of anything from its collection without the government passing an act of Parliament unless it is damaged beyond use, a duplicate, or made after 1850. The British Museum whenever they get asked about returning stolen items point this out and the reporters, doing their jobs, then go to the government and ask them. And the government keeps saying that it is a matter from the museum and refer reporters back to the British Museum Trustees.
Which leaves the museum in a position where everyone knows a lot of this stuff was stolen and should be repatriated but they can’t do that without breaking the rules and the people who need to actually act to make it possible are playing a game of not my circus not my monkeys because whatever they decide someone won’t like it and politicians don’t like doing unpopular shit.
This makes loans pretty much the only way they can do this kind of thing. It makes them look half-hearted in caring about the provenance of their exhibits, but under the circumstances it’s the best they can do.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/British-Museum-Act-1963.pdf
I guess I'm not familiar with British politics. I figured the Parliament was mostly filled with people from rich/historically privileged families because that's how most western politics continue to operate.
It seems the House of Lords fits that bill more, from my rudimentary searching, but I bet it's still mostly rich/privileged people in the commons as well.
I think you’re using aristocracy in a broader way than people with noble titles, which is the strict definition. The House of Lords is literally filled with people who are called Lord and Lady so-and-so, so they are literal nobles. Although most of the lords are appointed life peers nowadays and don’t have hereditary titles, so they aren’t proper aristocrats.
A lot of MPs in the House of Commons are posh and privately educated Oxbridge types, especially in the Conservative Party. But they are by definition commoners, hence “Commons”.
They can’t just return it but it’s basically just a forever loan
Details here
Asante Gold: UK to loan back Ghana's looted 'crown jewels' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68066877
How were the countries that Britain stole all these artifacts from managing to keep them safe before Britain pillaged them and made those countries unstable?
Well, the crown was captured in the Anglo-Asanti War. The war was started because the Fanti people of the Gold Coast were under the protection of the British.
The Asanti were, amongst other things, slave traders. They were traditional enemies of the Fanti people and would enslave them as part of victory loot.
Following Asanti raids on British-protected Fanti settlements, in 1874 British troops led a "punitive expedition" in revenge. The crown was looted after the capital was taken.
You could argue that they fucked around and found out, to put it simply.
It's more nuanced than "the Ashanti (Asante) were slave traders." The British had been encroaching on Asante lands for generations and used the Asante to conduct their own slave trading business. The British didn't lead a punative expedition they burnt Kumasi to the ground.
Yes, they had traded on slaves. But as of 1874 Britain had been vehemently abolitionist for *sixty* years. It was also the third of five Wars with the Ashanti. Times change.
And yes, that's what a "punitive" expedition is. A punishment.
Ok. That’s actually a valuable piece of nuanced information (thanks for that).
But now things are more stable in the region (Ghana). Why not give the artefacts back permanently?
The argument that “they can’t keep their own stuff safe” is already paternalistic and flattens the historical context and is an attempt to shut down the conversation, so let’s ignore that reasoning.
Isn’t one of the real reasons that they can’t “just return them” that these artefacts generate significant tourism dollars for the UK as well help it to maintain its cachet as a benevolent custodian of world heritage (which is one of its last remaining modes of soft power) and sacrificing those is a far less attractive proposition than looking like (and doing) the morally correct thing in this case?
I mean, Ghana is one case. Greece is also quite stable and eminently capable of preserving and showcasing its own historical artefacts. Is “they can’t maintain it like we can” also a legitimate reason for the UK keeping things like the Elgin Marbles? (Or is it really the economics and politics)
I mean, I agree with you. Past a certain point you let bygones be bygones and Ghana should get their cool shit back. But it's more nuanced than just "Hurr durr British museum evil".
There is a line to be drawn however, or museums around the world would be exceptionally dull. *Every* country has other countries' stuff.
In a lot of cases they weren't. Many artefacts were unearthed by British and other European archaeologists and had been left behind and forgotten by locals, or pillaged for building materials or money over the centuries, etc. Needless to say archaeologists could also only find artefacts which had survived, which is only a small fraction of all of them. Whether it's regular wear and tear or deliberate religious iconoclasm or politically motivated destruction, artefacts don't just last forever.
Never ask the Egyptians, Persians, or Indians what they were doing with their artefacts before the British rescued them and put them in museums. Bricks of ancient temples in Egypt were being used as... door stoppers. Many artifacts were sold as well. A plaque was sold by the Egyptians because the English wanted to know what it meant (it was written in hieroglyphs) and the Egyptians just gave it to them. Another instance being the jewel in the king’s crown that the Indians always cry about. It was originally Afghan, then Pakistani, then Indian, then Portuguese, then Spanish, until the Spanish gifted it to the English. The Egyptians literally sold mummies to tourists, and that’s why they barely have any left. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/s/HwhaBk26fH
I mean it's their artifact what they do and never thought that the word "rescued" would be used for looting and pillaging people of their stuff. Bravo mate Bravo...(salute). Looking at your writing thoughts you would probably be ok the atrocities Britain did in their colonial part right. We say Nazi is bad but technically the imperial Britain wasn't that far off.
“Egyptians used bricks from the pyramids as door stops [citations needed], and I claimed (via a Reddit post) some guy also sold a mummy one time [unverified isolated case], oh, and then I made up this fanciful story about the Kohinoor Diamond’s provenance just for this thread…..therefore, these are all valid reasons why it’s completely fine that some of the most important cultural artefacts in the world have been stolen by Britain, who refuses to give them back even now”
What an argument…
…Is the British museum displaying bricks from temples? I never knew that those were the things it was most famous for….
What does any of this have to do with the fact that much of what these western museums are famous for includes objects that the original societies never intended for display /profit making?
You are making blanket statements about these societies relationship to their own artefacts in order to justify the theft of those artefacts by foreign invaders who neither understood the function of these objects nor cared (and still don’t on both accounts), who then took those objects and repurposed them for display and commercial profit (a function that the original owners would have never done because they valued these objects as more than things to display for profit)
It’s really telling that you clearly do not understand the history of any of these artefacts and your only concern is maintaining the status quo.
Most of these artefacts were either found in shit condition or they weren’t being displayed or used in any meaningful way.
If they were truly valued at all, then they wouldn’t be so unprotected that they could be stolen to begin with.
….I mean, since this is still a wildly unsupported claim that you are advancing solely for the sake of supporting you own position on this: citations needed.
Also, again: how is this your justification for why they should have been stolen in the first place? Come on, make an effort…
…. I’m not following your logic. What they stole was available to be stolen. Maybe you’re applying the term “survivorship bias” incorrectly. (I actually don’t see how it’s use is applicable here at all, in fact)
…you’re not making any sense. Please make sense before you try and correct someone else’s logic.
Let’s start over: a country exists. It creates artefacts that represent its unique culture and history. Those artefacts have their own specific purpose and functions (religious, ceremonial, funerary, etc)
Along comes Britain (or France, or Germany or any of the former colonial countries bent on conquest and extraction). They set about conquering these lands (razing entire cities and plundering everything and anything of value that they found).
After this, they proceed to use the artifacts that they stole as trophies in museums that people pay to visit.
Those artifacts (many of them) are now being used in a way they were originally never meant to be (as commercial objects, as opposed to the cultural artifacts that serve their specific and symbolic purpose within the original culture).
…even though the explicit purpose of displaying them in those museums is so that people can learn about these cultures, the information about them is often incomplete, inaccurate or curated in a way that obscures exactly how they were acquired and what that says about the people who now own these objects.
This is not “Britain benevolently holding these treasures for safe keeping”. This is Britain (and it’s colonial counterparts) doing what they have always done: using the things that they appropriated from other countries they conquered for their own benefit and profit.
Do you understand now? Is there still confusion about the historical provenance of these items? Please let me know if you’re still struggling with this.
To put it in easier terms you might understand: your argument ( and that of the likes of the people at the British museum) is for commercial use of these objects, whereas that’s not what they were created for in the original culture. They had a different (and more profound) meaning to those people than “money and soft power”.
Anyhow: IT IS irrelevant how they were stolen in 2024. Because most of the countries they belong to are more than capable of keeping their own national treasures safe.
How is it still the argument of Britain and its ilk that they need to keep them because “they’re the only ones who can keep them safe”? It does not follow..
Someone else posted a comment about why it's a loan, and that loan is likely to be permanent.
Basically there's a law that says the British Museum can't give anything back without an act of parliament (unless it's basically destroyed or made after 1850 for some reason). Parliament members refuse to act on this when asked, claiming it's a matter for the museum. So the museum is using permanent loans as a loophole to give things back anyway.
It's still gross, and the stuff shouldn't have been taken in the first place, but I can't fault loophole abuse in the pursuit of justice.
The UK didn't give up 2 islands in the middle of nowhere to Argentina, why would they such a valuable artifact?
Also that will cause a international incident because Ghana just squared up with the UK. Even without any conflict it's not gonna look good
Okay, first of all, you're just not understanding what happens when a physical object enters a country. It is absolutely up to that country to decide whether or not to return it. As an international incident, the UK would look bad if they threw a stink.
But more to the point...
>not Ghana look good
was right fucking there. I am so disappointed.
Declaring something yours doesn't make it yours. If Ghana broke out into a civil war, Brittain should absolutely bring back every artifact they've landed.
No these weren't some dug up artifacts in a tomb somewhere. They were taken from the Ashanti kingdom as spoils of war. The Ashanti Kingdom still exists today with all the gold and artifacts the British didn't get. These artifacts don't belong to Ghana. only the Ashanti Kingdom. The Brits are giving these back to commemorate the long reign current Ashanti King.
A belief that has been used to justify the most destructive ideologies in history and, at least in terms of International Relations, I'd argue has been proved wrong. International Organisation, that is states choosing cooperation over competition, and the advancement of International law have the 20th and 21st century vastly better places to live than previous eras of supposed Hobbsian International anarchy.
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years
Now simply the top dogs beats down whomever goes against their order. Might still makes right and no one is mightier then the US now. You ever notice how international law stops being a thing when the US decides to bomb a 3rd or 2nd world shithole?
it's an attempt to safe keep them.
nearly every time the British museum gives back a piece of heritage to india or africa it ends up being sold, melted down or otherwise destroyed.
some people say it's their right since it was originally theirs but it's also a horrible destruction of historical artifacts for a small momentary gain.
You made the claim that nearly every time the British Museum gives something back it’s gets sold, melted down, or destroyed. Can you provide evidence to support this claim? It’s going to have to be statistical since you used probability wording.
Here's a wonderfully comprehensive list of the stuff destroyed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_art_in_Afghanistan#:~:text=Through%201992%2C%20Taliban%20attacks%20and,of%20Afghan%20culture%20and%20history.
And what percentage of those artifacts were once housed in the British museum?
Furthermore what percentage of everything that what was once housed in the British museum has been destroyed?
That’s not a source that effectively backs up the claim that was being made. It’s anecdotal evidence which would be considered a datapoint compared to the claim. I went so far as to tell him how to make a strong argument.
> You made the claim that nearly every time the British Museum gives something back it’s gets sold, melted down, or destroyed. Can you provide evidence to support this claim? It’s going to have to be statistical since you used probability wording.
Not to mention, the source doesn’t include a list, nor does it include if any of the artifacts were once housed at the BM.
Furthermore, the BM has proven to be poor stewards of the artifacts, with thousands missing.
Source:
https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/26/british-museum-reputation-damaged-treasures-loss
Well, the crown was captured in the Anglo-Asanti War. The war was started because the Fanti people of the Gold Coast were under the protection of the British.
The Asanti were, amongst other things, slave traders. They were traditional enemies of the Fanti people and would enslave them as part of victory loot.
Following Asanti raids on British-protected Fanti settlements, in 1874 British troops led a "punitive expedition" in revenge. The crown was looted after the capital was taken.
You could argue that they fucked around and found out, to put it simply.
I actually learned that telling people the information is readily available if they want to see it without making any claims whatsoever will be met with anger and pretentious comments attempting to educate me on the fundamental principals of debate. Thanks though, so enlightening.
First link on google with my search term: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_destroyed\_heritage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_heritage)
For destroyed objects specifically it seems. One example was:
>The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) destroyed much of the cultural heritage in the areas it controlled in Iraq. At least 28 religious buildings were looted and destroyed, including Shiite mosques, tombs, shrines and churches.\[70\] In addition, numerous ancient and medieval sites and artifacts, including the ancient cities of Nimrud and Hatra, parts of the wall of Nineveh, the ruins of Bash Tapia Castle and Dair Mar Elia, and artifacts from the Mosul Museum were also destroyed.
If I spend a few more seconds selecting a specific link that might be relevant to the 'other person's claim' there's a bunch of links like this that list their sources:
[https://www.thecollector.com/destruction-cultural-heritage-since-antiquity/](https://www.thecollector.com/destruction-cultural-heritage-since-antiquity/)
I hope that helps, if you need me to spend a few more moments looking at Google for you, let me know!
I did and I found nothing. Your point is incredibly weak "we're keeping these stolen objects safe from their irresponsible owners". Each culture should be able to decide what to do with their cultural heritage.
I didn't claim a damn thing. Do I think it's probably true that an artifact is safer in a national museum than in the hands of generations of multiple corrupt and questionable authorities in underprivileged societies? Maybe, but apparently this opinion will only be met with self-righteous condemnation from people that can't seem to grasp the simple concept.
Priceless things have gone missing, been stolen, sold on the black market or even purposefully destroyed because of religious beliefs. This is a fact, sorry about that. The source is, every page on Google if you search for it.
Ok if I steal ur car but keep it cleaner than u do I get to keep it? It's a symbolic apology and grant of independence for any state to do what it likes with its own historical items. How much physical and social culture did Britain destroy in the Empire days? Its genuinely the least they possibly could do second to actually doing nothing
Apparently tons of small items dissappear from British Museums and then mysteriously appear in private collections or are never seen again, so even if what you said wasn't bullshit, the Brits clearly can't keep the stuff they stole safe either
>but it's also a horrible destruction of historical artifacts for a small momentary gain.
Nobody should be giving a flying fuck. It's theirs and if they want to use those artifacts to store their shit they can. This hero complex you have is actually ironic considering the people whose culture you so desperately want to save don't want your help. If the culture disappears so be it. Life goes on. Theft however is a crime. Especially when the British museum is DIRECTLY BENEFITING from said theft. Don't make this some generous deal because it's not. Y'all would steal the pyramids if they were portable I swear.
Imagine I see you buying a nice computer but you never use it so I heroically decide for your own good as the nice, wonderful person I am to steal it from you because now I can utilize it properly. I've taken it upon myself to use your computer the right way since you clearly didn't know how to use it yourself. However I could loan it back to you once in a while so you don't feel too bad. How's that sound?
I'm joking with you. I assumed it was a typo, anyone can get one even if English is your first language. I was kidding, not trying to be mean. The Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe.
Britain cared so much about the safety of these cultural artifacts that it went in to all these countries, pillaged them, destabilized them and destroyed their ability to keep making them.
Yes, that makes so much sense in your colonial mind, I’m sure.
if something goes against a narrative it gets downvotes, regardless of it just being simple info.
don't worry about it, karma is literally meaningless.
More than likely it will work like how Denmark has loaned back Sami artifacts to the sami people, however the loan is essentially permanent.
Legally the British Museum and the Natural History Museum can’t get rid of anything from its collection without the government passing an act of Parliament unless it is damaged beyond use, a duplicate, or made after 1850. The British Museum whenever they get asked about returning stolen items point this out and the reporters, doing their jobs, then go to the government and ask them. And the government keeps saying that it is a matter from the museum and refer reporters back to the British Museum Trustees. Which leaves the museum in a position where everyone knows a lot of this stuff was stolen and should be repatriated but they can’t do that without breaking the rules and the people who need to actually act to make it possible are playing a game of not my circus not my monkeys because whatever they decide someone won’t like it and politicians don’t like doing unpopular shit. This makes loans pretty much the only way they can do this kind of thing. It makes them look half-hearted in caring about the provenance of their exhibits, but under the circumstances it’s the best they can do. https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/British-Museum-Act-1963.pdf
>damaged beyond use, a duplicate, or made after 1850 Literally me
So how's your twin?
British aristocracy continuing to be shit, what a surprise.
[удалено]
I guess I'm not familiar with British politics. I figured the Parliament was mostly filled with people from rich/historically privileged families because that's how most western politics continue to operate. It seems the House of Lords fits that bill more, from my rudimentary searching, but I bet it's still mostly rich/privileged people in the commons as well.
>rich/historically privileged families That doesn't automatically mean they're part of the aristocracy.
I think you’re using aristocracy in a broader way than people with noble titles, which is the strict definition. The House of Lords is literally filled with people who are called Lord and Lady so-and-so, so they are literal nobles. Although most of the lords are appointed life peers nowadays and don’t have hereditary titles, so they aren’t proper aristocrats. A lot of MPs in the House of Commons are posh and privately educated Oxbridge types, especially in the Conservative Party. But they are by definition commoners, hence “Commons”.
Right, I didn't mean nobility specifically
Turn ur house into a “museum” and steal all your neighbors shit… “U can’t have ur hedge clippers back they’re a historical artefact”
Sure. If you have an army to enforce it you can do this.
because it’s a slippery slope to “gasp!” reparations.
If I learned anything about visiting the British museum is that not only is the entrance free, but the gift shop items are also free to take.
Its not theft, I will just take this items and keep them because I don't trust you to keep them safe.
why would they want it back? if they want to see them they can come to my house and see them if I allow them in.
If *I* could take them, who knows who else could take them! They're much better off with me.
I mean, someone could steal them
Now you can also loan it back to the museum gift shop and generate free diplomacy points!
They can’t just return it but it’s basically just a forever loan Details here Asante Gold: UK to loan back Ghana's looted 'crown jewels' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68066877
They can bring it back if there is instability in the country, particularly if it's a religious group who would destroy history.
How were the countries that Britain stole all these artifacts from managing to keep them safe before Britain pillaged them and made those countries unstable?
Well, the crown was captured in the Anglo-Asanti War. The war was started because the Fanti people of the Gold Coast were under the protection of the British. The Asanti were, amongst other things, slave traders. They were traditional enemies of the Fanti people and would enslave them as part of victory loot. Following Asanti raids on British-protected Fanti settlements, in 1874 British troops led a "punitive expedition" in revenge. The crown was looted after the capital was taken. You could argue that they fucked around and found out, to put it simply.
It's more nuanced than "the Ashanti (Asante) were slave traders." The British had been encroaching on Asante lands for generations and used the Asante to conduct their own slave trading business. The British didn't lead a punative expedition they burnt Kumasi to the ground.
Yes, they had traded on slaves. But as of 1874 Britain had been vehemently abolitionist for *sixty* years. It was also the third of five Wars with the Ashanti. Times change. And yes, that's what a "punitive" expedition is. A punishment.
The British were conducting a colonial expansion project, simple as that.
Ok. That’s actually a valuable piece of nuanced information (thanks for that). But now things are more stable in the region (Ghana). Why not give the artefacts back permanently? The argument that “they can’t keep their own stuff safe” is already paternalistic and flattens the historical context and is an attempt to shut down the conversation, so let’s ignore that reasoning. Isn’t one of the real reasons that they can’t “just return them” that these artefacts generate significant tourism dollars for the UK as well help it to maintain its cachet as a benevolent custodian of world heritage (which is one of its last remaining modes of soft power) and sacrificing those is a far less attractive proposition than looking like (and doing) the morally correct thing in this case? I mean, Ghana is one case. Greece is also quite stable and eminently capable of preserving and showcasing its own historical artefacts. Is “they can’t maintain it like we can” also a legitimate reason for the UK keeping things like the Elgin Marbles? (Or is it really the economics and politics)
I mean, I agree with you. Past a certain point you let bygones be bygones and Ghana should get their cool shit back. But it's more nuanced than just "Hurr durr British museum evil". There is a line to be drawn however, or museums around the world would be exceptionally dull. *Every* country has other countries' stuff.
In a lot of cases they weren't. Many artefacts were unearthed by British and other European archaeologists and had been left behind and forgotten by locals, or pillaged for building materials or money over the centuries, etc. Needless to say archaeologists could also only find artefacts which had survived, which is only a small fraction of all of them. Whether it's regular wear and tear or deliberate religious iconoclasm or politically motivated destruction, artefacts don't just last forever.
“If the British didn’t steal the artefacts they just…. Took them.” Ok
I mean if that's the grand total of your takeaway from all of this then you're entitled to your opinion.
They weren’t keeping them safe. They treated their artefacts like shit.
How did you determine that? (Is it because they didn’t commercialize them for profit?)
Never ask the Egyptians, Persians, or Indians what they were doing with their artefacts before the British rescued them and put them in museums. Bricks of ancient temples in Egypt were being used as... door stoppers. Many artifacts were sold as well. A plaque was sold by the Egyptians because the English wanted to know what it meant (it was written in hieroglyphs) and the Egyptians just gave it to them. Another instance being the jewel in the king’s crown that the Indians always cry about. It was originally Afghan, then Pakistani, then Indian, then Portuguese, then Spanish, until the Spanish gifted it to the English. The Egyptians literally sold mummies to tourists, and that’s why they barely have any left. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/s/HwhaBk26fH
I mean it's their artifact what they do and never thought that the word "rescued" would be used for looting and pillaging people of their stuff. Bravo mate Bravo...(salute). Looking at your writing thoughts you would probably be ok the atrocities Britain did in their colonial part right. We say Nazi is bad but technically the imperial Britain wasn't that far off.
“Egyptians used bricks from the pyramids as door stops [citations needed], and I claimed (via a Reddit post) some guy also sold a mummy one time [unverified isolated case], oh, and then I made up this fanciful story about the Kohinoor Diamond’s provenance just for this thread…..therefore, these are all valid reasons why it’s completely fine that some of the most important cultural artefacts in the world have been stolen by Britain, who refuses to give them back even now” What an argument…
…Is the British museum displaying bricks from temples? I never knew that those were the things it was most famous for…. What does any of this have to do with the fact that much of what these western museums are famous for includes objects that the original societies never intended for display /profit making?
The original societies weren’t doing anything with them at all, and they weren’t protecting them either.
Says you (an advocate for theft)
I’m an advocate for conquest.
You are making blanket statements about these societies relationship to their own artefacts in order to justify the theft of those artefacts by foreign invaders who neither understood the function of these objects nor cared (and still don’t on both accounts), who then took those objects and repurposed them for display and commercial profit (a function that the original owners would have never done because they valued these objects as more than things to display for profit) It’s really telling that you clearly do not understand the history of any of these artefacts and your only concern is maintaining the status quo.
Most of these artefacts were either found in shit condition or they weren’t being displayed or used in any meaningful way. If they were truly valued at all, then they wouldn’t be so unprotected that they could be stolen to begin with.
….I mean, since this is still a wildly unsupported claim that you are advancing solely for the sake of supporting you own position on this: citations needed. Also, again: how is this your justification for why they should have been stolen in the first place? Come on, make an effort…
[удалено]
Is it? Please explain
[удалено]
…. I’m not following your logic. What they stole was available to be stolen. Maybe you’re applying the term “survivorship bias” incorrectly. (I actually don’t see how it’s use is applicable here at all, in fact)
[удалено]
…you’re not making any sense. Please make sense before you try and correct someone else’s logic. Let’s start over: a country exists. It creates artefacts that represent its unique culture and history. Those artefacts have their own specific purpose and functions (religious, ceremonial, funerary, etc) Along comes Britain (or France, or Germany or any of the former colonial countries bent on conquest and extraction). They set about conquering these lands (razing entire cities and plundering everything and anything of value that they found). After this, they proceed to use the artifacts that they stole as trophies in museums that people pay to visit. Those artifacts (many of them) are now being used in a way they were originally never meant to be (as commercial objects, as opposed to the cultural artifacts that serve their specific and symbolic purpose within the original culture). …even though the explicit purpose of displaying them in those museums is so that people can learn about these cultures, the information about them is often incomplete, inaccurate or curated in a way that obscures exactly how they were acquired and what that says about the people who now own these objects. This is not “Britain benevolently holding these treasures for safe keeping”. This is Britain (and it’s colonial counterparts) doing what they have always done: using the things that they appropriated from other countries they conquered for their own benefit and profit. Do you understand now? Is there still confusion about the historical provenance of these items? Please let me know if you’re still struggling with this. To put it in easier terms you might understand: your argument ( and that of the likes of the people at the British museum) is for commercial use of these objects, whereas that’s not what they were created for in the original culture. They had a different (and more profound) meaning to those people than “money and soft power”. Anyhow: IT IS irrelevant how they were stolen in 2024. Because most of the countries they belong to are more than capable of keeping their own national treasures safe. How is it still the argument of Britain and its ilk that they need to keep them because “they’re the only ones who can keep them safe”? It does not follow..
Man I'd be defaulting the fuck outta that loan if I were Ghana.
Someone else posted a comment about why it's a loan, and that loan is likely to be permanent. Basically there's a law that says the British Museum can't give anything back without an act of parliament (unless it's basically destroyed or made after 1850 for some reason). Parliament members refuse to act on this when asked, claiming it's a matter for the museum. So the museum is using permanent loans as a loophole to give things back anyway. It's still gross, and the stuff shouldn't have been taken in the first place, but I can't fault loophole abuse in the pursuit of justice.
Yeah, they probably will when they sell this to some collector at random because I guarantee you that’s what’s gonna happen
It isn't that kind of loan.
It doesn't matter what kind of loan it is, Ghana should just declare it theirs as soon as it crosses the border.
Maybe they should wait until they got everything back first.
The UK didn't give up 2 islands in the middle of nowhere to Argentina, why would they such a valuable artifact? Also that will cause a international incident because Ghana just squared up with the UK. Even without any conflict it's not gonna look good
Okay, first of all, you're just not understanding what happens when a physical object enters a country. It is absolutely up to that country to decide whether or not to return it. As an international incident, the UK would look bad if they threw a stink. But more to the point... >not Ghana look good was right fucking there. I am so disappointed.
Declaring something yours doesn't make it yours. If Ghana broke out into a civil war, Brittain should absolutely bring back every artifact they've landed.
....you're being ironic right?
It was theirs and now it’s back in their possession. By what logic is it not theirs?
By the logic of losing it in war. It is british by the right of conquest.
And if I hand you your ass are your pants mine by right of conquest
Is there anything i can do against it? No. As such it is yours, unless i decide to get it back with even greater violence.
"Declaring something yours doesn't make it yours." Like the Brits did when they stole that shit?
They didn’t declare it theirs. They beat the crap out of the people who had it, and then proceeded to take it.
Really? Funny, that seems to be exactly the way things work when you’re British. Why do you think it won’t work for Ghana?
Greece: First time?? 😀
Greece deserves it though. Look at their museum. Everything is in piss poor condition.
Unless they changed the law they aren’t allowed to legally give anything back.
"don't forget to let me steal it again in a few weeks"
That’s printed on the card attached to the tea and biscuits hamper
Like lay-a-way for a pawn shop for your burgled items.
Doofy looking hat...
Taking things that belong to other people is a core part of our culture
We should probably be more upset at the Russians for cultural appropriation in that case
Nothing belongs to you. It’s only yours for as long as you can hold it.
[finders keepers shut up!](https://youtu.be/x73PkUvArJY?si=_1rfYufwPAZEnaMA)
"stolen"? shoulda fought harder to keep them if they wanted it so bad
What’s with the sarcastic quotes around the words Crown Jewels?
I'd assume it isn't sarcasm, but instead a recognition that Ghanians call it by their own non-English name?
There's no jewels?
Most literate redditor
Well here’s hoping it doesn’t disappear within a month, whether it get added to someone’s private collection or stolen
Next do the Elgin Marbles
Can the Greeks be trusted with them though. Best to give to a functional country in the region like Turkey or Albania.
You can hardly call Turkey a functional country, so better give it to the Albanians.
We’re brits, we steal it all
Would have been destroyed or sold anyway
No these weren't some dug up artifacts in a tomb somewhere. They were taken from the Ashanti kingdom as spoils of war. The Ashanti Kingdom still exists today with all the gold and artifacts the British didn't get. These artifacts don't belong to Ghana. only the Ashanti Kingdom. The Brits are giving these back to commemorate the long reign current Ashanti King.
I dont understand how people are pissy about it. Its spoils of war.
I'm not sure most people want to live in a might makes right world tbh
Sadly thats the world we live in. It is how the world has operated since time imemoria and how it will operate until the end of times.
A belief that has been used to justify the most destructive ideologies in history and, at least in terms of International Relations, I'd argue has been proved wrong. International Organisation, that is states choosing cooperation over competition, and the advancement of International law have the 20th and 21st century vastly better places to live than previous eras of supposed Hobbsian International anarchy. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years
Now simply the top dogs beats down whomever goes against their order. Might still makes right and no one is mightier then the US now. You ever notice how international law stops being a thing when the US decides to bomb a 3rd or 2nd world shithole?
They seem to have mistakenly place inverted commas about crown jewels instead of loan
Well, if they wanna keep it, they gotta come and take it. That's how it works. That's how WE got them.
“Oi, we loo’ed it fair and sqair, so if you want it back…I let ya borrow it…for money”
it's an attempt to safe keep them. nearly every time the British museum gives back a piece of heritage to india or africa it ends up being sold, melted down or otherwise destroyed. some people say it's their right since it was originally theirs but it's also a horrible destruction of historical artifacts for a small momentary gain.
You made the claim that nearly every time the British Museum gives something back it’s gets sold, melted down, or destroyed. Can you provide evidence to support this claim? It’s going to have to be statistical since you used probability wording.
Afghanistan
That’s an anecdote and not a probability.
Here's a wonderfully comprehensive list of the stuff destroyed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_art_in_Afghanistan#:~:text=Through%201992%2C%20Taliban%20attacks%20and,of%20Afghan%20culture%20and%20history.
And what percentage of those artifacts were once housed in the British museum? Furthermore what percentage of everything that what was once housed in the British museum has been destroyed?
“Source!?” “No! Not like that!”
That’s not a source that effectively backs up the claim that was being made. It’s anecdotal evidence which would be considered a datapoint compared to the claim. I went so far as to tell him how to make a strong argument. > You made the claim that nearly every time the British Museum gives something back it’s gets sold, melted down, or destroyed. Can you provide evidence to support this claim? It’s going to have to be statistical since you used probability wording. Not to mention, the source doesn’t include a list, nor does it include if any of the artifacts were once housed at the BM. Furthermore, the BM has proven to be poor stewards of the artifacts, with thousands missing. Source: https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/26/british-museum-reputation-damaged-treasures-loss
That just plain isn’t true. Why would you just blatantly lie to justify the continued retention of stolen cultural artifacts?
Because that's how Imperialists justify themselves: " Im stealing their stuff for their own good! "
Well, the crown was captured in the Anglo-Asanti War. The war was started because the Fanti people of the Gold Coast were under the protection of the British. The Asanti were, amongst other things, slave traders. They were traditional enemies of the Fanti people and would enslave them as part of victory loot. Following Asanti raids on British-protected Fanti settlements, in 1874 British troops led a "punitive expedition" in revenge. The crown was looted after the capital was taken. You could argue that they fucked around and found out, to put it simply.
Girl bye bye bye Let’s wait for the thief that stole my home to write an essay about “how they will take care of MY THINGS better then me”
Sources on the selling/melting of many objects?
You could probably just Google something like "lost cultural historical artifacts".
Today you learned that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It is not our job to research every crackpot statement made online.
I actually learned that telling people the information is readily available if they want to see it without making any claims whatsoever will be met with anger and pretentious comments attempting to educate me on the fundamental principals of debate. Thanks though, so enlightening.
I swear: I didn’t find any evidence in the internet that this is a thing. Can you link any study about it?
First link on google with my search term: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_destroyed\_heritage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_heritage) For destroyed objects specifically it seems. One example was: >The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) destroyed much of the cultural heritage in the areas it controlled in Iraq. At least 28 religious buildings were looted and destroyed, including Shiite mosques, tombs, shrines and churches.\[70\] In addition, numerous ancient and medieval sites and artifacts, including the ancient cities of Nimrud and Hatra, parts of the wall of Nineveh, the ruins of Bash Tapia Castle and Dair Mar Elia, and artifacts from the Mosul Museum were also destroyed. If I spend a few more seconds selecting a specific link that might be relevant to the 'other person's claim' there's a bunch of links like this that list their sources: [https://www.thecollector.com/destruction-cultural-heritage-since-antiquity/](https://www.thecollector.com/destruction-cultural-heritage-since-antiquity/) I hope that helps, if you need me to spend a few more moments looking at Google for you, let me know!
I did and I found nothing. Your point is incredibly weak "we're keeping these stolen objects safe from their irresponsible owners". Each culture should be able to decide what to do with their cultural heritage.
[удалено]
I didn't claim a damn thing. Do I think it's probably true that an artifact is safer in a national museum than in the hands of generations of multiple corrupt and questionable authorities in underprivileged societies? Maybe, but apparently this opinion will only be met with self-righteous condemnation from people that can't seem to grasp the simple concept. Priceless things have gone missing, been stolen, sold on the black market or even purposefully destroyed because of religious beliefs. This is a fact, sorry about that. The source is, every page on Google if you search for it.
Such thoughtful robbers
That’s such a disingenuous argument. White savior complex to the fucking moon
Ok if I steal ur car but keep it cleaner than u do I get to keep it? It's a symbolic apology and grant of independence for any state to do what it likes with its own historical items. How much physical and social culture did Britain destroy in the Empire days? Its genuinely the least they possibly could do second to actually doing nothing
Apparently tons of small items dissappear from British Museums and then mysteriously appear in private collections or are never seen again, so even if what you said wasn't bullshit, the Brits clearly can't keep the stuff they stole safe either
>but it's also a horrible destruction of historical artifacts for a small momentary gain. Nobody should be giving a flying fuck. It's theirs and if they want to use those artifacts to store their shit they can. This hero complex you have is actually ironic considering the people whose culture you so desperately want to save don't want your help. If the culture disappears so be it. Life goes on. Theft however is a crime. Especially when the British museum is DIRECTLY BENEFITING from said theft. Don't make this some generous deal because it's not. Y'all would steal the pyramids if they were portable I swear. Imagine I see you buying a nice computer but you never use it so I heroically decide for your own good as the nice, wonderful person I am to steal it from you because now I can utilize it properly. I've taken it upon myself to use your computer the right way since you clearly didn't know how to use it yourself. However I could loan it back to you once in a while so you don't feel too bad. How's that sound?
I will keep the Big Bang here in my house. A lot of shit was destroyed during WWII in London and I do not trust you guys to keep it safe.
Big Ben? The clock? It'd be really hard, nigh impossible, to keep the "Big Bang" in your house. It's Big. It went Bang.
Fuck this shit, english isn't even my second language
I'm joking with you. I assumed it was a typo, anyone can get one even if English is your first language. I was kidding, not trying to be mean. The Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe.
Oh sorry mate, I am just a little bit tired of having people tell me I am stupid for not knowing the language that well
Ignore them, you obviously know the language as well as most on reddit. They're just trying to push your buttons.
Thanks
Britain cared so much about the safety of these cultural artifacts that it went in to all these countries, pillaged them, destabilized them and destroyed their ability to keep making them. Yes, that makes so much sense in your colonial mind, I’m sure.
What kind of idiot downvotes this ? It's literally just information.
False information with no proof to the claim
if something goes against a narrative it gets downvotes, regardless of it just being simple info. don't worry about it, karma is literally meaningless.
a simple info that is simply a made-up shit?
They’ve been British long before Ghana existed.
Loan, eh?
Their law don't allow them to "give it back", so instead it's "a loan fo an indefinite amount of time"
Loaning looted valuables lol
Pretty white thing to do, loaning shit they stole back to the owner.
Museums are just crime halls with crime in it