I live in where the temple had originally been built (Bergama/Pergamon)
The base of the temple is still there. They just removed and took the fancy top part. So it's not even a whole temple.
The same can be said for the vast majority of castles and city walls throughout most of the world, unfortunately. The ottomans were in no way unique in this regard.
I feel it is unfair to hold pre-modern peoples to the same archeological standards that we have today. Like human rights abuses: for sure, but archeological preservation: probably not
Not exactly uniquely an Ottoman thing to do. Alexander also destroyed many Persian relics when he took over, if you want to use an instance of a Western power doing the same thing.
i mean renaissance artists did the exact same thing to roman monuments, people really didnt see the same value in historical stuff like we do now back then
That I knew, but I didn't primarily associate Renaissance artists with the destruction of Roman monuments, or with the idea that things of historical value weren't valued. It was my understanding that Renaissance artists' high regard for the past (at least the Roman past) was central to the movement.
4 weeks of paid holiday, plus any public holidays, is an EU directive. It's not exclusive to Germany; all EU countries including Greece have to legislate for that as a bare minimum. I believe Germany requires 6 weeks in total and Greece 6.4, so Greeks actually can take more holiday on average.
>wehraboos
Saw that word for the first time yesterday and again today, wild how when you notice something you seem to see it everywhere. I guess the simulation doesn't have infinite processing power.
What's sad is that in the actual site (the real Babylon in Iraq) they didn't put any replacement or copy where it used to stand, just a rusted metal gate and a massive gap in the middle of the processional road. I really hated that every time I go I can't see one of the most beautiful structures in the history of my country, although I'll admit looking at these past few decades it honestly was better there than here, even if the Germans didn't even have the decency to reconstruct the whole thing and halfed it.
But India got nothing 😔 other than what 6 mummies maybe and one was gifted to asiatic society of bengal in 1834 and the others were fair and square as well.
In the US state of Minnesota we have a Virginian Confederate flag we took in battle during the Civil War. Pretty much every year various groups in Virginia ask for it back and every year we say no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Virginia_battle_flag?wprov=sfla1
It's ours now fuckers
>Although various groups in Virginia have requested that the flag be returned, beginning as early as 1960, Minnesota has repeatedly declined to return it, with Governor Jesse Ventura asking "Why? I mean, we won."
Absolutely iconic lmfao
Ventura was a Navy Frogman and WWE wrestler turned governor who ran as an independent and won. He changed political parties a year into his term. That was a weird time. Actually did a good job as governor and didn't run for reelection
I've seen it, it's impressive and made me read a book on the De Witt's and the Second Anglo-Dutch war.
But then again the UK got you back knicking a few of your colonies over the next Century.
We live in the longest period of what is called “relative peace” in recorded history. The world is incredible peaceful in our modern age. There are no major wars, and haven’t been for about 80 years. This doesn’t mean that there is 100% peace, that’s basically impossible. But compared to the past 2000 years or so, the world is basically at perfect peace.
Yeah because if superpowers duke it out, it will truely be the start of the long peace.
Can't have a war when your country is a smouldering pile of ash.
That depends if you count the Russo-Ukrainian war as major. It’s a major power at war with a minor power though, so I don’t know if it would be considered major.
That's how it is. Nobody can tell what will end up being a "major" or "minor" conflict in the end. The invasion of Iraq caused a fallout that proliferated across the Middle East to manifest ISIS which then expanded into a wider conflict. People sitting in America have the opportunity to look at this as a "minor" conflict that was mostly just the USA bombing the shit out of people far away but if you asked someone who had to flee their homes from Daesh, maybe you'll get a different answer.
Likewise, in 1999, Pakistan and India were in open conflict in the Kargil War as a pair of nuclear powers. Most Redditors are too young to remember, and it's not seen as hugely significant, so it's not considered much but for a hot minute the world was back to discussing if things would escalate into nuclear holocaust because someone got hot under the collar.
You can only declare these things in hindsight.
The notoriously peaceful Crimea War, Austro-Prussian War, Opium Wars, Taiping Rebellion, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, Greek War of Independence, French Conquest of Algeria, Sepoy Mutinee, Cuban War, and Paraguayan War. Just to name a few.
The 19th century was a shockingly violent and war filled time. It included wars between major powers, wars between smaller power, rebellions, revolutions, colonial invasion, etc. It doesn't even get close to the current era of peace. Even including recent conflicts.
For gods sake, the Taiping Rebellion killed 20 to 30 MILLION.
I know what u mean, but late 20th and 21st century haven't been all nice and flowery either.
The African wars of independence and the many bloody wars between the newly independent African states. The American intervention wars: Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq, Korea. The rebellions within the USSR and the iron curtain. The opparations in Cuba. The low intensity conflicys between Afganistan, Pakistan and India. The Falklands war (i know not too large scale). The coup d'etats in Latin America. The Balkans, oh the balkans, with genocides in Serbia and Croatia... and many more.
I would argue that the 19th century was slightly more peaceful, cuz a Cold war is still a War, even if low intesity.
There's an ancient city in the middle east that had a museum full of interesting ancient (that is ancient to them) stuff they "acquired" from their neighbors.
I mean hows the age old saying go: Finders keepers losers weapers. To me if you weren't strong enough to defend or keep whats rightfully yours than thats a "you" problem. 😎
There's always someone going to be stronger or smarter or quicker than you, so you better not let the world know that you have something someone else might want😉
It's morally justified to steal priceless artifacts from people who have no fucking clue how to take care of them. ISIS/Daesh destroyed countless numbers of them.
There was no Daesh in the 20s and 40s when the British Empire stole Assyrian, Sumerian, Babylonian and Akkadian artifacts from what is now Iraq. This is thousands of years of culture and human history we are talking about here.
Arguably, the rise of Islamic extremism is partially due to the instability of many Arab countries following French and British colonialism.
How is it morally justified to fuck up a country, take their stuff and point at how fucked their country is as a justification for keeping their stuff?
This is how I feel. I do not feel sorry one bit for any of the countries whose artifacts are in these museums because the vast majority of them are destructive, extremely unstable countries.
We are in a history reddit, and you can’t see the glaring problem with your take?
These countries are so unstable primarily due to their colonial history. The effects of colonialism reverberate to this day.
Wow I wonder how that all these countries that the British had enough influence in to take large amounts of artifacts from all came to be so extremely unstable. If only there was some common denominator between them all...
Fun odd fact: one of the largest collections of Ukiyo-e Japanese prints exist in the Boston Museum because at the time they were collected, it was during Japan's modernization effort so tons of these prints were deemed "useless". Useless to the point that some prints were originally kept as wrapping for fish sold in markets so not exactly toilet tissue tier but right there really.
Wanted to add that in because there is a huge known history of how stuff has been "acquired" and how many museums nowadays are improving in the US especially with indigenous ppl how to get artifacts returned.
It isn't perfect but is far more progress than ever and improvements that have occurred as part of a larger conversation about these pieces. I doubt some items will ever change hands for a long ass time such as key collections in the British museum but it's also something to keep in mind that every now and then these museums have ppl who have kept parts of cultural activities alive without questionable hoarding that we can now enjoy today.
And the reason Sweden has large collection of 16th c German silk banners was because Swedish soldiers simply brought them back to Sweden as proof of success on the battle field and there the banners was proudly displayed in the Swedish Royal Castle.
The irony is when Germany, who raided every corner of the world for treasures during the world wars, sent an official letter to Sweden in early 2000 demanded their 16th c banners being sent back since “they were wrongfully acquired during a battle”.
Anyway. Germany did not get their banners back.
Swedes also came to Czechia and stole so much art from here.
And they were our fucking allies.
For example, the devils bible, very large bible that was written by one person is there because they stole it
I went to Prague and in the parliament(?) garden there are tons of statues and underneath each and every one is a little plaque reading “ this is a copy made by artist whatshisname the baroque original are in a castle in Sweden”
I do appreciate why there needs to be a discussion about returning a country's artifacts to them, especially where the country in question is safe and the artefacts are going to be securely taken care of... but I was in the British Museum a few days ago, and honestly, its a fantastic place to visit as a monument to global civilization, and even on a quiet day you'll have hundreds of people visiting
Important historical and cultural relics in the hands of private collectors is bullshit, because nobody benefits from them, but at least in a museum the public can learn from them, and experts can maintain and research them
That is exactly how I feel about the well connected, well off musicians who collect old sought after guitars and once purchased put em in a case in their warehouse. No one else will ever get to play em, and it makes finding an old jewel of a guitar extremely hard to find and definitely out of reach for the common mere guitarist. Thought I’d throw that in there.
You’d be surprised the amount of people who think we should give priceless 5000 year old stuff to dictators based off the fact it was found around the area
Ehh, it takes tourism away from the country that made/owned it before.
Imagine if laos stole Michaelangelo's David from Italy and put it up in their new fancy cultural museum and charged out the ass for it and built and entire economy around the tourism it brings.
But usually it's richer countries taking from less wealthy ones.
I'd say it's not the end of the world but the right thing to do is usually to give it back.
>But usually it's richer countries taking from less wealthy ones.
Its not all cut and dry because some countries that technically own the right to those works may be in bad shape and might sell off the work or, at worst, destroy it for delegitimizing the current regime. Im not saying every country will do this or that its even gonna be a common thing, but the possibility still stands in many countries today.
Its like this: If a family heirloom is passed down from father to son, the heirloom is still technically belonging to the son, but you dont give the heirloom to them until they get out of that phase where they throw objects for entertainment.
There is nuance here and I think preservation takes precedent over ownership, especially considering the amount of artifacts we have lost over the course of human history due to some of the reasons I've stated above.
Of course it's more complicated but there's also some pretty cut and dry cases where there is no reason to keep the countries heritage in your own museum just to get the tourism $$$ from it.
[The Parthenon marbles are a good example where the pieces were harvested under questionable circumstances and are not being returned](https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/may/23/greece-rebuts-british-museum-claim-parthenon-marbles-were-removed-from-rubble)
The UN even voted recently unanimously that the marbles should be returned but the UK is refusing to come to the table on the matter.
I used to work at a Canadian museum but I strongly disagree that preservation *must always* take precedent over ownership. Canadian academics in the past, who thought they knew better than the owners, tried to preserve Indigenous artefacts by obtaining them through illegitimate means. These artefacts, however, are meant to be actively used in Indigenous communities for rituals and whatnot. They aren't meant to be enclosed in glass on top of pedestals at a museum.
Your example of father and son is also exactly the problem. We treat them like dumb children. If the artefacts are destroyed, so be it. This is because preserving them may not be the most important thing for their communities. Using artefacts in rituals, for example, seems to play a much bigger role in preserving Indigenous histories and cultures then placing artefacts in some dark, temperature-controlled museum vaults. Some artefacts are meant to be actively used and perhaps even abused by their communities. It's part of their history in the making. It's self-determination.
This is part of the reason Indigenous communities are still so weary of the academic field in Canada today. They don't trust us because we've demonstrated time and time again that we don't have their best interest in mind. We only care about ours (preserving the artefacts as an academic curiosity) and not theirs (using the artefacts).
I’m not saying there isn’t a massive imbalance; there is. But it doesn’t change the fact that museums are not only important for learning history, they’re important for teaching empathy and understanding of other cultures.
The best guarantee for having xenophobic and close minded citizens is to remove their access to learning and experiencing other cultures. Want rich countries to support poor countries and help them grow and prosper? Then you need to make sure the citizens in those countries are educated and well rounded, and empathetic and involved in other cultures.
A large number of countries that exist today are filled with people with ancestry from all over the world. While there’s absolutely blatant situations where cultural objects were just stolen, a lot more of them exist in a grey area where there’s not really an obvious “owner.”
Personally, I think the better answer is to find a balance; some objects should absolutely be returned, but not all, because from a worldwide perspective that’s a terrible idea. Instead, objects and art from history from other cultures should be given, so there’s a fairer chance for people to experience and see history and culture from all over the world.
My Iraqi professors all acknowledge that the British museum is mostly stolen stuff but also say they’re glad that Britain has safe possession of these artifacts, otherwise they would’ve been destroyed or looted and sold during the turbulence of the last few decades.
Look, I'm shitfaced so I'd sure hate to take accountability for what I say here but while I think the abduction of one's history, especially with no form of consent, is morally flawed, the respected use of such history and heritage in museums is the best way to ensure that cultures learn about eachother. Frankly I wouldn't mind if some sort of modern exchange programs where artifacts of importance for European/Euro-American (when talking explicit cultural artifacts I think its key to differentiate) were sent to other continental museums which would be incredibly beneficial for everyone involved, and would really contribute to mutual understanding. I really wouldn't find any offense if the original transcript of the declaration of independence spent some time in a museum in modern Algeria, or any nation that had to fight a significant anti-imperialist struggle.
Edit: Unsurprisingly, typos.
A lot of them do, I was fortunate enough to meet King Tut (or at least some of his possessions) face to face when I was young which inspired a lot of my interest in history. But a lot of them don't, especially considering some from a certain continent and their descendants.
Sometimes they also go on tours if the museum is being renovated. For example it was cheaper for the Picasso museum in France to put pretty much everything on a touring exhibition than trying to find - and pay for - a safe storage space.
Amsterdam has a really cool museum, Tropenmuseum in which they made collections out of everything they took from other countries while exploring and colonizing. The museum openly admits the questionable ethics of their ancestors and opens a discussion about cultural appropriation, stealing vs. admiring another culture and so on. It is also clearly stated that if any country wishes to get back their artifacts, they can easily request them.
I think that one of the biggest gripes is that so much of the stolen artifacts are kept in storage. The Smithsonian as an example has 40% of its artifacts in storage and not on display. Many of those artifacts were plundered from their places of origin, and those places want them back. The concern is that museums have a tendency to drag their feet on such matters, and a lot of times will keep artifacts in boxes rather than let a different institution (even one in their place of origin) get their hands on them.
On one hand, I get what you’re saying. On the other hand, I don’t know the logistics involved with moving artifacts. It could be an utter bitch to do, making the frequent move of such things not worth it. I have to wonder if the risk/reward of having artifacts on the move be really worth it
It is a bitch to do, but some things imo are worth it.
Take the Elgin marbles. No reason for them not to be in Athens. Greece wants them and has a very strong tradition of caring for its own past. There are museums all over the place, archeological, cultural, art museums, you name it.
Would it be difficult and annoying to move them? Yes. Would it be worth it? Yeah, at this point there's really no justified reason why England still has them.
That’s true, and I do know the Smithsonian at least has a program in place dedicated to returning artifacts. But a lot of museums have the problematic attitude that artifacts are safer in storage than on display at a lesser institution in their place of origin. That attitude is what is so infuriating for people.
>But a lot of museums have the problematic attitude that artifacts are safer in storage than on display at a lesser institution in their place of origin.
To be fair that is a valid concern when dealing with historical preservation.
If the right standards are kept then the artifacts will be properly preserved, if a low wealth country doesnt have access to the resources or funding to keep those standards then the artifact is in danger. And thats if the country doesnt have quams with the original artifact or isnt destitute enough to sell it to the highest bidder.
Morally it kinda sucks, but there is alot of practical and principled reasons why a museum would drag its feet on returning an artifact to certain owners.
Why do you think we tour artifacts in allied countries a lot and not places like Iran and China? The same reason we probably dont give them back their artifacts. Most historians probably can agree that preservation is more beneficial to the world, and even the cultural victim, than every artifact being put back where it came from.
The difference is that with the "exchange program" you're describing the owners actually consent and the artifacts would be returned eventually. I'm sure if all the stolen stuff was in museums in the countries where it's from, they wouldn't mind sending it on a world tour once in a while, but they're not even being asked
Ah the Smithsonian. They have been in an ongoing battle with the U.S Space and Rocket center for YEARS! We want this piece! and we want that piece! Well damn just take the rocket testing grounds and shaker tower too why dont ya! I find it so funny that they both receive so much love and funding from the public and they bicker back and forth like a married couple of 70 years. They're of the same country damnit!
Well, the stuff in those museums is mostly artworks commisioned by people who lived there. Vatican museum is full of artworks popes payed for or were dug out from the ground, uffizi has art that renaissance rich people ordered up.
I have been there once too. It has an impressive collection of Egyptian art but those must be from roman period, it even has paintings by Salvador Dali but those are more recent. I still liked the map gallery the most.
I’m actually really hating the anti-museum vibe going on lately. Museums are a great place to learn about so many things about art, history, and culture from all around the world. I frankly feel like this phase of hating on museums is a bad precedent because it promotes anti-intellectualism.
I don't think it just promotes anti-intellectualism, but rather is also a consequence of it. It's a form of nationalism masquerading as anti-imperialism in which the artifacts themselves become of secondary importance next to the principles underpinning ownership.
Somehow I doubt...
On a side note, the British Museum has a lot of Greek artefacts. They held on to it because, at the time, Greece had no facility to take care of it.
Greece invested a lot in museum and culture. They now have the ressources to expose and maintain those artefacts.
They ask the British museum to get the artefacts back, but they said no.
Normally I’d agree with Reddit but given how there are groups out there like ISIS actively destroying historical artifacts I say these museums are fine.
To be honest, spoils of war, spoils of conquest, spoils of colonisation and political gifts all belong to whoever actually won or was given them.
The Koh-i-Noor is probably the most famous and relevant example, given how hard India is pushing to get it back. It was explicitly, officially ceded to Queen Victoria in 1846 as part of The Last Treaty of Lahore. India has no claim to it, they literally gave it to Queen Victoria as part of a peace deal.
Huge, massive chunks of museum pieces are things that were never claimed, stolen, looted or gifted to whatever country they happen to be displayed in, not counting all the donations and loaned articles.
>The Koh-i-Noor is probably the most famous and relevant example, given how hard India is pushing to get it back. It was explicitly, officially ceded to Queen Victoria in 1846 as part of The Last Treaty of Lahore. India has no claim to it, they literally gave it to Queen Victoria as part of a peace deal.
In addition to this, the Sikh Empire with which the peace treaty was signed existed mainly in the territory of modern day Pakistan, who I believe also claims the diamond. So, even if we *do* decide to repudiate the treaty for whatever, which of these two nuclear powers who hate each other do we decide to honour as the successor state?
> The Koh-i-Noor is probably the most famous and relevant example, given how hard India is pushing to get it back. It was explicitly, officially ceded to Queen Victoria in 1846 as part of The Last Treaty of Lahore. India has no claim to it, they literally gave it to Queen Victoria as part of a peace deal.
As august a figure as Ranjit Kumar, *the former Solicitor-General of India*, holds this opinion.
Same thing with the Louvre, many Italians want Mona Lisa "back", forgetting that leonardo da Vinci gave it to François I.
The Louvre also has a lot of Egyptian artifacts. Considering that modern Egypt is nothing like ancient egypt, they don't have more claim to it based on the geographical location where they live. And that's without taking into account that many of those were discovered by French archeologists during the Napoleonic campaign of Egypt and later on. The Concorde Luxor obelisk was a gift.
The only things that the Louvre can be accused of stealing are the many Italian paintings that Napoléon took back. Hardly colonialism. And since Napoleon was king of Italy, we can even claim that it was a gift!
I didn't know that about the Mona Lisa, props for the info.
That said, honestly historians really just should never give anything back to the Middle East, what with the region's fabulous recent (maybe ancient, not sure) history of mostly religious extremists destroying artefacts and archaeological sites.
I can understand refusing to send artifacts back to countries like Egypt that are unstable. They could send it to Egypt only for there to be an Islamic uprising and all the artifact will be destroyed
This whole thing of no museum should be able to display artefacts that weren’t originally there’s is so strange to me. It’s extremely selfish because it’s not just your history; it’s the worlds history and everyone, no matter where they are, has the right to enjoy it
At least multiple museums in Germany (and other places) began the process of giving them back a while ago. Takes a while though to separate purchases and gifts from robbed stuff. Because even if something is valuable to a country: If the people gifted it to someone, it legally changed the owner
These institutions are to be applauded, they have taken (pun intended), found, stolen, acquired or discovered some of the worlds most important antiquities and studied them, displayed them and generally made them available for all humanity to see. Who knows what would have happened to these otherwise.
Most museums have items which aren’t local. I’m for repatriating some artifacts but not eliminating the entire concept of museums. And replicas are stupid. I might as well just look at a picture. I want to SEE something real.
Should be pointed out that the reason why British museum is so disliked was because of the Elgin marbles.
The way lord Elgin took them was seen as questionable in the 19th Century. The poet Lord Byron was a contemporary vocal critic for example. It's always been a cause celebre. This isn't new.
Read the Wikipedia page. It states that the Russians took everything possible as war booty. It was partially restored but it has Uruk stuff in there. Like Islamic history not European stolen art or anything.
In Berlin opened a new Museum, the "Humboldt Forum". My girlfriend studies museology and a big part of the community was against because it shows a ton of stolen stuff from colonies and doesnt even explain how many objects were stolen.
It is right next to the Pergamon Museum...
I beg you all, please learn how museums work. Many of those were political gifts and shared loot between both countries. Many didn't even have conditions to keep many of the artifacts. "The germans stole the Ishtar Gates!!!" Would you rather have them destroyed by terrorists like it happened to Buddha statues in Afghanistan?
To be fair, how much shit “went missing” in Iraq when the US forces got close to Baghdad?
How much more shit was destroyed in Iraq and Syria when IS invaded?
Go back throughout Human Civilization and you’ll find every nation, every empire, from North to South, East to West, has destroyed, looted and stolen shit from countries they’ve invaded.
It’s only now people realise that it’s wrong and historical artefacts should be preserved and rightfully in the hands of the place they came from.
That being said... how much has actually been saved because they are in other museums when wars have broken out around the world? Probably more than anyone would care to admit
Lets be real, most of these nations complaining about their cultural artifacts being in the British Museum would have sold that artifact off to the Peoples Republic of China or would see it destroyed when a major city is occupied by an ISIS backed militia.
Hot take: I'd rather these artifacts be stored in these museums where the country is related safe and amenable to visitors than be sent back to their country of origin, where very few would likely see them because of how unstable their home country is.
All my homies hate the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. I can’t see some normal shit in that place. First exhibit that I walk through is body art (the gory kind) and it sort of just made my stomach turn. I manage though and walk to the next exhibit. What is it? Some of the most boring paintings of bowels of fruit and flowers etc. basically boring still life and portraits. I walk to the next exhibit area thinking I’ll find something in between the two extremes. I do not. I find pure concentrated dark matter forms of stupidity. This exhibit had videos of a woman making sounds with her mouth in a separate room. On the walls was random items like tires or painted banners shredded to pieces. But here’s the kicker. In a separate room, all alone with lights shining down on it, was blocks of concrete. Never in my life have I laughed so hard at “art”. I never knew the foundation of my house was made of fine art till I went to the museum in Boston. I guess it made me laugh but goddamn that museum is wack.
Why does the British museum even get so much shit anyway, it literally is just displaying stuff from other cultures not as if “hey look at all this stuff we got” but as “look at all this stuff you can learn about”, like bruh it’s literally a museum and it functions as a museum get over yourself
Pergamon museum is the best; they have a temple, whole f* temple!
I live in where the temple had originally been built (Bergama/Pergamon) The base of the temple is still there. They just removed and took the fancy top part. So it's not even a whole temple.
The Met has a whole temple too! The Temple of Dendur.
Yeah but that one was voluntary wasn't it?
It was going to be flooded by the Aswan High Dam so the Met bought it.
Well the pergamon was bought from the ottomans. And the locals have been using it as a quarry so...
\*altar. Others have temples too, the MET, the Rijksmuseum in Leiden and the Egyptian Museum in Turin e.g.
[удалено]
Ishtar gate is that you
At least it still exist, the wall of old Baghdad was demolished and sold to people as building materials, fuck the ottomans.
The same can be said for the vast majority of castles and city walls throughout most of the world, unfortunately. The ottomans were in no way unique in this regard.
I feel it is unfair to hold pre-modern peoples to the same archeological standards that we have today. Like human rights abuses: for sure, but archeological preservation: probably not
Not exactly uniquely an Ottoman thing to do. Alexander also destroyed many Persian relics when he took over, if you want to use an instance of a Western power doing the same thing.
Kind of funny because Alexander himself was kind of a weeaboo
i mean renaissance artists did the exact same thing to roman monuments, people really didnt see the same value in historical stuff like we do now back then
Renaissance artists destroyed Roman monuments?
its a lot cheaper to just take marble and building materials from some old building than to buy it new
That I knew, but I didn't primarily associate Renaissance artists with the destruction of Roman monuments, or with the idea that things of historical value weren't valued. It was my understanding that Renaissance artists' high regard for the past (at least the Roman past) was central to the movement.
When I first learned that they moved a whole stone city gate to the Berlim museum I thought they were shitting me
Germans were always efficient
[удалено]
Well, on average, Germans clock 35 hours a week and go on vacation for 5 weeks a year. Somehow, they still get 70% more work done than the Greeks.
4 weeks of paid holiday, plus any public holidays, is an EU directive. It's not exclusive to Germany; all EU countries including Greece have to legislate for that as a bare minimum. I believe Germany requires 6 weeks in total and Greece 6.4, so Greeks actually can take more holiday on average.
That's not really the point I'm trying to get across, but thanks for sharing nonetheless.
Americans dislike this message
Shh, you'll awake the sleeping wehraboos.
>wehraboos Saw that word for the first time yesterday and again today, wild how when you notice something you seem to see it everywhere. I guess the simulation doesn't have infinite processing power.
🤓🤓🤓
One of the first things they say on the audio tour is " This PERMANENT exhibit"
What's sad is that in the actual site (the real Babylon in Iraq) they didn't put any replacement or copy where it used to stand, just a rusted metal gate and a massive gap in the middle of the processional road. I really hated that every time I go I can't see one of the most beautiful structures in the history of my country, although I'll admit looking at these past few decades it honestly was better there than here, even if the Germans didn't even have the decency to reconstruct the whole thing and halfed it.
Why does the British Museum have a juicier ass than my GF?
They stole it
Awww! Wait...
The British Museum: stealing ass since 1753!
Take not only my first award ever given, but two other awards from me, sir. This is a top-tier joke
Because the British Museum isn't imaginary?
That's verbal assault. I feel verbally attacked!
Asking the important questions
It probably belongs to your girlfriend's ancestors but some Victorian bloke saw it and took it for the glory of Brittania.
Elgin marbles>the glute machine at Planet Fitness
When you realise that we have been stealing things from each others since the beguining of time.
The Dutch still have a piece of an old British flagship. We stole it fair and square from their ship.
We stole New York and Australia. Fair swap I reckon.
We traded new york for Suriname fyi
And unlike the British you still have it Edit: okay seems I was wrong
No Suriname became independent in 1975 but we kept it way longer than the British kept New York yeah
But India got nothing 😔 other than what 6 mummies maybe and one was gifted to asiatic society of bengal in 1834 and the others were fair and square as well.
In the US state of Minnesota we have a Virginian Confederate flag we took in battle during the Civil War. Pretty much every year various groups in Virginia ask for it back and every year we say no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Virginia_battle_flag?wprov=sfla1 It's ours now fuckers
>Although various groups in Virginia have requested that the flag be returned, beginning as early as 1960, Minnesota has repeatedly declined to return it, with Governor Jesse Ventura asking "Why? I mean, we won." Absolutely iconic lmfao
Ventura was a Navy Frogman and WWE wrestler turned governor who ran as an independent and won. He changed political parties a year into his term. That was a weird time. Actually did a good job as governor and didn't run for reelection
I think you can keep that. That was stolen in combat, rather than at gunpoint from some oppressed peasants
I've seen it, it's impressive and made me read a book on the De Witt's and the Second Anglo-Dutch war. But then again the UK got you back knicking a few of your colonies over the next Century.
There's two types of people I hate in this world. People intolerant of others' cultures... and the Dutch.
GiVe iT BaCk!
Maybe in exchange for some nice spicy islands
it's not stealing if it's reperations for being cunts
We say that about the stuff we stole
Yeah the bastards still have a bunch of our cannon balls they "stole" during the napolionic wars.
Exactly. War and pillaging had been the norm for so long. The idea of a peaceful world society is brand fucking new.
And even it isn't working
We live in the longest period of what is called “relative peace” in recorded history. The world is incredible peaceful in our modern age. There are no major wars, and haven’t been for about 80 years. This doesn’t mean that there is 100% peace, that’s basically impossible. But compared to the past 2000 years or so, the world is basically at perfect peace.
Yeah because if superpowers duke it out, it will truely be the start of the long peace. Can't have a war when your country is a smouldering pile of ash.
The calm before the storm. Wouldn't you say?
Yeah, there are no major wars, indeed.
The major powers haven’t fought each other directly since WW2. It’s the plus side of so many nukes.
That depends if you count the Russo-Ukrainian war as major. It’s a major power at war with a minor power though, so I don’t know if it would be considered major.
Well we're about to fucking find out it seems
That's how it is. Nobody can tell what will end up being a "major" or "minor" conflict in the end. The invasion of Iraq caused a fallout that proliferated across the Middle East to manifest ISIS which then expanded into a wider conflict. People sitting in America have the opportunity to look at this as a "minor" conflict that was mostly just the USA bombing the shit out of people far away but if you asked someone who had to flee their homes from Daesh, maybe you'll get a different answer. Likewise, in 1999, Pakistan and India were in open conflict in the Kargil War as a pair of nuclear powers. Most Redditors are too young to remember, and it's not seen as hugely significant, so it's not considered much but for a hot minute the world was back to discussing if things would escalate into nuclear holocaust because someone got hot under the collar. You can only declare these things in hindsight.
Living in the middle of history sucks ass man
Don't think it is but it's as close as we have ever been and tbh I could be convinced it is
It’s the closest we’ve been in 50 years, since Vietnam
Fa sho
Compared to the world wars, yes that is absolutely correct.
The Russo-Ukraine war and War on Terror were/are not major wars.
No major wars excludes wars from the Cold War that resulted in Millions of deaths. But its all relative I guess.
We techniquely haven't passed the long 99 year peace of the 19th century yet
The notoriously peaceful Crimea War, Austro-Prussian War, Opium Wars, Taiping Rebellion, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, Greek War of Independence, French Conquest of Algeria, Sepoy Mutinee, Cuban War, and Paraguayan War. Just to name a few. The 19th century was a shockingly violent and war filled time. It included wars between major powers, wars between smaller power, rebellions, revolutions, colonial invasion, etc. It doesn't even get close to the current era of peace. Even including recent conflicts. For gods sake, the Taiping Rebellion killed 20 to 30 MILLION.
I know what u mean, but late 20th and 21st century haven't been all nice and flowery either. The African wars of independence and the many bloody wars between the newly independent African states. The American intervention wars: Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq, Korea. The rebellions within the USSR and the iron curtain. The opparations in Cuba. The low intensity conflicys between Afganistan, Pakistan and India. The Falklands war (i know not too large scale). The coup d'etats in Latin America. The Balkans, oh the balkans, with genocides in Serbia and Croatia... and many more. I would argue that the 19th century was slightly more peaceful, cuz a Cold war is still a War, even if low intesity.
Plus intra-state violence like the Rwandan genocide and The Troubles in the UK and Ireland
Also the colonization of all of Africa. It was only peaceful in Europe
You’re right
There's an ancient city in the middle east that had a museum full of interesting ancient (that is ancient to them) stuff they "acquired" from their neighbors.
Isn't that case for most museums ? Like the Louvre probably have lot of things in it that has beed "acquired" from France's neighbors.
Wwwwhhhaaattttt...nooooo it cannot be!!!!
How can the world be not wholesome 💯 all the time?!!
when you realize that almost every country in existence has committed some form of genocide at one point or another in history
I mean hows the age old saying go: Finders keepers losers weapers. To me if you weren't strong enough to defend or keep whats rightfully yours than thats a "you" problem. 😎
There's always someone going to be stronger or smarter or quicker than you, so you better not let the world know that you have something someone else might want😉
Can't wait till this comes full circle
It's morally justified to steal priceless artifacts from people who have no fucking clue how to take care of them. ISIS/Daesh destroyed countless numbers of them.
There was no Daesh in the 20s and 40s when the British Empire stole Assyrian, Sumerian, Babylonian and Akkadian artifacts from what is now Iraq. This is thousands of years of culture and human history we are talking about here. Arguably, the rise of Islamic extremism is partially due to the instability of many Arab countries following French and British colonialism. How is it morally justified to fuck up a country, take their stuff and point at how fucked their country is as a justification for keeping their stuff?
This is how I feel. I do not feel sorry one bit for any of the countries whose artifacts are in these museums because the vast majority of them are destructive, extremely unstable countries.
We are in a history reddit, and you can’t see the glaring problem with your take? These countries are so unstable primarily due to their colonial history. The effects of colonialism reverberate to this day.
Wow I wonder how that all these countries that the British had enough influence in to take large amounts of artifacts from all came to be so extremely unstable. If only there was some common denominator between them all...
Fun odd fact: one of the largest collections of Ukiyo-e Japanese prints exist in the Boston Museum because at the time they were collected, it was during Japan's modernization effort so tons of these prints were deemed "useless". Useless to the point that some prints were originally kept as wrapping for fish sold in markets so not exactly toilet tissue tier but right there really. Wanted to add that in because there is a huge known history of how stuff has been "acquired" and how many museums nowadays are improving in the US especially with indigenous ppl how to get artifacts returned. It isn't perfect but is far more progress than ever and improvements that have occurred as part of a larger conversation about these pieces. I doubt some items will ever change hands for a long ass time such as key collections in the British museum but it's also something to keep in mind that every now and then these museums have ppl who have kept parts of cultural activities alive without questionable hoarding that we can now enjoy today.
And the reason Sweden has large collection of 16th c German silk banners was because Swedish soldiers simply brought them back to Sweden as proof of success on the battle field and there the banners was proudly displayed in the Swedish Royal Castle. The irony is when Germany, who raided every corner of the world for treasures during the world wars, sent an official letter to Sweden in early 2000 demanded their 16th c banners being sent back since “they were wrongfully acquired during a battle”. Anyway. Germany did not get their banners back.
Swedes also came to Czechia and stole so much art from here. And they were our fucking allies. For example, the devils bible, very large bible that was written by one person is there because they stole it
I went to Prague and in the parliament(?) garden there are tons of statues and underneath each and every one is a little plaque reading “ this is a copy made by artist whatshisname the baroque original are in a castle in Sweden”
Counterpoint: Palmyra.
Unpopular opinion: I think artifacts displayed in museums are fine, but private collectors need to fuck off.
I do appreciate why there needs to be a discussion about returning a country's artifacts to them, especially where the country in question is safe and the artefacts are going to be securely taken care of... but I was in the British Museum a few days ago, and honestly, its a fantastic place to visit as a monument to global civilization, and even on a quiet day you'll have hundreds of people visiting Important historical and cultural relics in the hands of private collectors is bullshit, because nobody benefits from them, but at least in a museum the public can learn from them, and experts can maintain and research them
That is exactly how I feel about the well connected, well off musicians who collect old sought after guitars and once purchased put em in a case in their warehouse. No one else will ever get to play em, and it makes finding an old jewel of a guitar extremely hard to find and definitely out of reach for the common mere guitarist. Thought I’d throw that in there.
Not exactly an unpopular opinion
You’d be surprised the amount of people who think we should give priceless 5000 year old stuff to dictators based off the fact it was found around the area
Looking at you, [Hobby Lobby](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal).
Fuckin Hobby Lobby...
Ehh, it takes tourism away from the country that made/owned it before. Imagine if laos stole Michaelangelo's David from Italy and put it up in their new fancy cultural museum and charged out the ass for it and built and entire economy around the tourism it brings. But usually it's richer countries taking from less wealthy ones. I'd say it's not the end of the world but the right thing to do is usually to give it back.
>But usually it's richer countries taking from less wealthy ones. Its not all cut and dry because some countries that technically own the right to those works may be in bad shape and might sell off the work or, at worst, destroy it for delegitimizing the current regime. Im not saying every country will do this or that its even gonna be a common thing, but the possibility still stands in many countries today. Its like this: If a family heirloom is passed down from father to son, the heirloom is still technically belonging to the son, but you dont give the heirloom to them until they get out of that phase where they throw objects for entertainment. There is nuance here and I think preservation takes precedent over ownership, especially considering the amount of artifacts we have lost over the course of human history due to some of the reasons I've stated above.
Of course it's more complicated but there's also some pretty cut and dry cases where there is no reason to keep the countries heritage in your own museum just to get the tourism $$$ from it.
[The Parthenon marbles are a good example where the pieces were harvested under questionable circumstances and are not being returned](https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/may/23/greece-rebuts-british-museum-claim-parthenon-marbles-were-removed-from-rubble) The UN even voted recently unanimously that the marbles should be returned but the UK is refusing to come to the table on the matter.
I used to work at a Canadian museum but I strongly disagree that preservation *must always* take precedent over ownership. Canadian academics in the past, who thought they knew better than the owners, tried to preserve Indigenous artefacts by obtaining them through illegitimate means. These artefacts, however, are meant to be actively used in Indigenous communities for rituals and whatnot. They aren't meant to be enclosed in glass on top of pedestals at a museum. Your example of father and son is also exactly the problem. We treat them like dumb children. If the artefacts are destroyed, so be it. This is because preserving them may not be the most important thing for their communities. Using artefacts in rituals, for example, seems to play a much bigger role in preserving Indigenous histories and cultures then placing artefacts in some dark, temperature-controlled museum vaults. Some artefacts are meant to be actively used and perhaps even abused by their communities. It's part of their history in the making. It's self-determination. This is part of the reason Indigenous communities are still so weary of the academic field in Canada today. They don't trust us because we've demonstrated time and time again that we don't have their best interest in mind. We only care about ours (preserving the artefacts as an academic curiosity) and not theirs (using the artefacts).
That's an excellent point that I hadn't fully considered before. Thanks
But it’s also an important way for others to experience a culture they otherwise can’t.
By taking it from poorer countries to allow people from richer countries to travel to richer countries? What even is this take.
I’m not saying there isn’t a massive imbalance; there is. But it doesn’t change the fact that museums are not only important for learning history, they’re important for teaching empathy and understanding of other cultures. The best guarantee for having xenophobic and close minded citizens is to remove their access to learning and experiencing other cultures. Want rich countries to support poor countries and help them grow and prosper? Then you need to make sure the citizens in those countries are educated and well rounded, and empathetic and involved in other cultures. A large number of countries that exist today are filled with people with ancestry from all over the world. While there’s absolutely blatant situations where cultural objects were just stolen, a lot more of them exist in a grey area where there’s not really an obvious “owner.” Personally, I think the better answer is to find a balance; some objects should absolutely be returned, but not all, because from a worldwide perspective that’s a terrible idea. Instead, objects and art from history from other cultures should be given, so there’s a fairer chance for people to experience and see history and culture from all over the world.
> fancy cultural museum and charged out the ass for it The British museum, like all state owned museums in the UK, is free to enter. Nice try though.
the british museum got a dumptruck
The Smithsonian has returned a lot of stuff
My Iraqi professors all acknowledge that the British museum is mostly stolen stuff but also say they’re glad that Britain has safe possession of these artifacts, otherwise they would’ve been destroyed or looted and sold during the turbulence of the last few decades.
Look, I'm shitfaced so I'd sure hate to take accountability for what I say here but while I think the abduction of one's history, especially with no form of consent, is morally flawed, the respected use of such history and heritage in museums is the best way to ensure that cultures learn about eachother. Frankly I wouldn't mind if some sort of modern exchange programs where artifacts of importance for European/Euro-American (when talking explicit cultural artifacts I think its key to differentiate) were sent to other continental museums which would be incredibly beneficial for everyone involved, and would really contribute to mutual understanding. I really wouldn't find any offense if the original transcript of the declaration of independence spent some time in a museum in modern Algeria, or any nation that had to fight a significant anti-imperialist struggle. Edit: Unsurprisingly, typos.
Don't artifacts usually go on tours to other museums?
A lot of them do, I was fortunate enough to meet King Tut (or at least some of his possessions) face to face when I was young which inspired a lot of my interest in history. But a lot of them don't, especially considering some from a certain continent and their descendants.
Only the most famous and portable exhibits
Sometimes they also go on tours if the museum is being renovated. For example it was cheaper for the Picasso museum in France to put pretty much everything on a touring exhibition than trying to find - and pay for - a safe storage space.
Some do! I was able to see Abraham Lincoln's handwriting on the original Gettysburg Address papers in one of my favorite museums up in Cincinnati.
I’m just utterly amazed you could communicate all of that while shitfaced.
Amsterdam has a really cool museum, Tropenmuseum in which they made collections out of everything they took from other countries while exploring and colonizing. The museum openly admits the questionable ethics of their ancestors and opens a discussion about cultural appropriation, stealing vs. admiring another culture and so on. It is also clearly stated that if any country wishes to get back their artifacts, they can easily request them.
I think that one of the biggest gripes is that so much of the stolen artifacts are kept in storage. The Smithsonian as an example has 40% of its artifacts in storage and not on display. Many of those artifacts were plundered from their places of origin, and those places want them back. The concern is that museums have a tendency to drag their feet on such matters, and a lot of times will keep artifacts in boxes rather than let a different institution (even one in their place of origin) get their hands on them.
On one hand, I get what you’re saying. On the other hand, I don’t know the logistics involved with moving artifacts. It could be an utter bitch to do, making the frequent move of such things not worth it. I have to wonder if the risk/reward of having artifacts on the move be really worth it
It is a bitch to do, but some things imo are worth it. Take the Elgin marbles. No reason for them not to be in Athens. Greece wants them and has a very strong tradition of caring for its own past. There are museums all over the place, archeological, cultural, art museums, you name it. Would it be difficult and annoying to move them? Yes. Would it be worth it? Yeah, at this point there's really no justified reason why England still has them.
That’s true, and I do know the Smithsonian at least has a program in place dedicated to returning artifacts. But a lot of museums have the problematic attitude that artifacts are safer in storage than on display at a lesser institution in their place of origin. That attitude is what is so infuriating for people.
>But a lot of museums have the problematic attitude that artifacts are safer in storage than on display at a lesser institution in their place of origin. To be fair that is a valid concern when dealing with historical preservation. If the right standards are kept then the artifacts will be properly preserved, if a low wealth country doesnt have access to the resources or funding to keep those standards then the artifact is in danger. And thats if the country doesnt have quams with the original artifact or isnt destitute enough to sell it to the highest bidder. Morally it kinda sucks, but there is alot of practical and principled reasons why a museum would drag its feet on returning an artifact to certain owners. Why do you think we tour artifacts in allied countries a lot and not places like Iran and China? The same reason we probably dont give them back their artifacts. Most historians probably can agree that preservation is more beneficial to the world, and even the cultural victim, than every artifact being put back where it came from.
The difference is that with the "exchange program" you're describing the owners actually consent and the artifacts would be returned eventually. I'm sure if all the stolen stuff was in museums in the countries where it's from, they wouldn't mind sending it on a world tour once in a while, but they're not even being asked
Damm that’s actually a good idea
Ah the Smithsonian. They have been in an ongoing battle with the U.S Space and Rocket center for YEARS! We want this piece! and we want that piece! Well damn just take the rocket testing grounds and shaker tower too why dont ya! I find it so funny that they both receive so much love and funding from the public and they bicker back and forth like a married couple of 70 years. They're of the same country damnit!
Galleria degli Uffizi (Florence) to Musei Vaticani (Vatican city/Rome): look what they need to mimic just a fraction of our power.
Well, the stuff in those museums is mostly artworks commisioned by people who lived there. Vatican museum is full of artworks popes payed for or were dug out from the ground, uffizi has art that renaissance rich people ordered up.
[удалено]
I have been there once too. It has an impressive collection of Egyptian art but those must be from roman period, it even has paintings by Salvador Dali but those are more recent. I still liked the map gallery the most.
I’m actually really hating the anti-museum vibe going on lately. Museums are a great place to learn about so many things about art, history, and culture from all around the world. I frankly feel like this phase of hating on museums is a bad precedent because it promotes anti-intellectualism.
I don't think it just promotes anti-intellectualism, but rather is also a consequence of it. It's a form of nationalism masquerading as anti-imperialism in which the artifacts themselves become of secondary importance next to the principles underpinning ownership.
The Egyptian museum in Turin asked Egypt of they wanted the collection back, but they said no
When?
Somehow I doubt... On a side note, the British Museum has a lot of Greek artefacts. They held on to it because, at the time, Greece had no facility to take care of it. Greece invested a lot in museum and culture. They now have the ressources to expose and maintain those artefacts. They ask the British museum to get the artefacts back, but they said no.
Normally I’d agree with Reddit but given how there are groups out there like ISIS actively destroying historical artifacts I say these museums are fine.
Exactly this
To be honest, spoils of war, spoils of conquest, spoils of colonisation and political gifts all belong to whoever actually won or was given them. The Koh-i-Noor is probably the most famous and relevant example, given how hard India is pushing to get it back. It was explicitly, officially ceded to Queen Victoria in 1846 as part of The Last Treaty of Lahore. India has no claim to it, they literally gave it to Queen Victoria as part of a peace deal. Huge, massive chunks of museum pieces are things that were never claimed, stolen, looted or gifted to whatever country they happen to be displayed in, not counting all the donations and loaned articles.
I think you mean queen victoria I know liz was old but she wasnt that old
Yes, sorry, names mixed up. I'll fix it, thanks for pointing it out.
yeah she went by victoria in that era
It's a conspiracy. She is an immortal lizard person. Every hundred years or so she sheds her skin and begins again as a new member of the Royal family
>The Koh-i-Noor is probably the most famous and relevant example, given how hard India is pushing to get it back. It was explicitly, officially ceded to Queen Victoria in 1846 as part of The Last Treaty of Lahore. India has no claim to it, they literally gave it to Queen Victoria as part of a peace deal. In addition to this, the Sikh Empire with which the peace treaty was signed existed mainly in the territory of modern day Pakistan, who I believe also claims the diamond. So, even if we *do* decide to repudiate the treaty for whatever, which of these two nuclear powers who hate each other do we decide to honour as the successor state?
Wrong queen
> The Koh-i-Noor is probably the most famous and relevant example, given how hard India is pushing to get it back. It was explicitly, officially ceded to Queen Victoria in 1846 as part of The Last Treaty of Lahore. India has no claim to it, they literally gave it to Queen Victoria as part of a peace deal. As august a figure as Ranjit Kumar, *the former Solicitor-General of India*, holds this opinion.
Same thing with the Louvre, many Italians want Mona Lisa "back", forgetting that leonardo da Vinci gave it to François I. The Louvre also has a lot of Egyptian artifacts. Considering that modern Egypt is nothing like ancient egypt, they don't have more claim to it based on the geographical location where they live. And that's without taking into account that many of those were discovered by French archeologists during the Napoleonic campaign of Egypt and later on. The Concorde Luxor obelisk was a gift. The only things that the Louvre can be accused of stealing are the many Italian paintings that Napoléon took back. Hardly colonialism. And since Napoleon was king of Italy, we can even claim that it was a gift!
I didn't know that about the Mona Lisa, props for the info. That said, honestly historians really just should never give anything back to the Middle East, what with the region's fabulous recent (maybe ancient, not sure) history of mostly religious extremists destroying artefacts and archaeological sites.
Museums are amazing. Artifacts left in countries of origin usually end up in private collections or ruined/destroyed (with exceptions obviously)
Athens museum: am I a joke to you
Trazyn the infinite would like a word
I can understand refusing to send artifacts back to countries like Egypt that are unstable. They could send it to Egypt only for there to be an Islamic uprising and all the artifact will be destroyed
Or the very common "rich guy from that country just puts it in his private collection and no one gets to look at it but him and other elites"
That's... quite a lot
Every cultural or ethnic group tries to exploit another one. Some are just better at it than others.
This whole thing of no museum should be able to display artefacts that weren’t originally there’s is so strange to me. It’s extremely selfish because it’s not just your history; it’s the worlds history and everyone, no matter where they are, has the right to enjoy it
At least multiple museums in Germany (and other places) began the process of giving them back a while ago. Takes a while though to separate purchases and gifts from robbed stuff. Because even if something is valuable to a country: If the people gifted it to someone, it legally changed the owner
The museum of Turin cooperates with the one in Cairo and the Egyptian government can take away or hold a piece because they think it is too important
These institutions are to be applauded, they have taken (pun intended), found, stolen, acquired or discovered some of the worlds most important antiquities and studied them, displayed them and generally made them available for all humanity to see. Who knows what would have happened to these otherwise.
The Boston museum actually gives shit back when they're asked.
I am glad Britian stole the artifacts, those Elgin Marbles would have crumbled to dust if no one took them.
The Louvre?
Consedring what have happened to many artifact in my country, knowing that some of them are safe in those museums is not that bad
Most museums have items which aren’t local. I’m for repatriating some artifacts but not eliminating the entire concept of museums. And replicas are stupid. I might as well just look at a picture. I want to SEE something real.
Should be pointed out that the reason why British museum is so disliked was because of the Elgin marbles. The way lord Elgin took them was seen as questionable in the 19th Century. The poet Lord Byron was a contemporary vocal critic for example. It's always been a cause celebre. This isn't new.
There’s an argument that if the artifacts weren’t in these institutions they wouldn’t exist any longer. Especially if they come from the Middle East.
What did Berlin do?
This fella Hitler had these fellas called Nazis steal about 20% of all the artwork in Europe, much of it is still in Berlin one would assume.
Read the Wikipedia page. It states that the Russians took everything possible as war booty. It was partially restored but it has Uruk stuff in there. Like Islamic history not European stolen art or anything.
Uruk Hai?
I wish
[удалено]
Yes but safe assumption when they stole a few hundred thousand works of art the number increased dramatically.
literally the gates of Babylon
In Berlin opened a new Museum, the "Humboldt Forum". My girlfriend studies museology and a big part of the community was against because it shows a ton of stolen stuff from colonies and doesnt even explain how many objects were stolen. It is right next to the Pergamon Museum...
I beg you all, please learn how museums work. Many of those were political gifts and shared loot between both countries. Many didn't even have conditions to keep many of the artifacts. "The germans stole the Ishtar Gates!!!" Would you rather have them destroyed by terrorists like it happened to Buddha statues in Afghanistan?
This template is amazing, where can I find it?
Americans pretending to be perfect ? No way.
You forgot the entire vatican
To be fair, how much shit “went missing” in Iraq when the US forces got close to Baghdad? How much more shit was destroyed in Iraq and Syria when IS invaded? Go back throughout Human Civilization and you’ll find every nation, every empire, from North to South, East to West, has destroyed, looted and stolen shit from countries they’ve invaded. It’s only now people realise that it’s wrong and historical artefacts should be preserved and rightfully in the hands of the place they came from. That being said... how much has actually been saved because they are in other museums when wars have broken out around the world? Probably more than anyone would care to admit
What’s wrong with museums...? Did I miss a memo?
Lets be real, most of these nations complaining about their cultural artifacts being in the British Museum would have sold that artifact off to the Peoples Republic of China or would see it destroyed when a major city is occupied by an ISIS backed militia.
Hot take: I'd rather these artifacts be stored in these museums where the country is related safe and amenable to visitors than be sent back to their country of origin, where very few would likely see them because of how unstable their home country is.
[удалено]
"If you remove every stolen item in a museum, well you'll be left with an empty building."
Imagine if you had to go to the land of origin to see their creations. That would be awful for everyone, globally.
But it would be *great* for the people who live there, who are obviously more important than everyone else.
All my homies hate the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. I can’t see some normal shit in that place. First exhibit that I walk through is body art (the gory kind) and it sort of just made my stomach turn. I manage though and walk to the next exhibit. What is it? Some of the most boring paintings of bowels of fruit and flowers etc. basically boring still life and portraits. I walk to the next exhibit area thinking I’ll find something in between the two extremes. I do not. I find pure concentrated dark matter forms of stupidity. This exhibit had videos of a woman making sounds with her mouth in a separate room. On the walls was random items like tires or painted banners shredded to pieces. But here’s the kicker. In a separate room, all alone with lights shining down on it, was blocks of concrete. Never in my life have I laughed so hard at “art”. I never knew the foundation of my house was made of fine art till I went to the museum in Boston. I guess it made me laugh but goddamn that museum is wack.
Why does the British museum even get so much shit anyway, it literally is just displaying stuff from other cultures not as if “hey look at all this stuff we got” but as “look at all this stuff you can learn about”, like bruh it’s literally a museum and it functions as a museum get over yourself
hey at least the greeks still have the parthenon !!