-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
"The British Museum is world's largest receiver of stolen goods", says QC
- Thread starter Sqrt
- Start date
It's tough because arguably the only reason a lot of these artefacts exist (at least in the condition they are in) is because the British empire stole them and put them on museums.
look what happened to palmyra, or when Greece tried to restore the Parthenon etc.
look what happened to palmyra, or when Greece tried to restore the Parthenon etc.
colonizer voice It belongs in a museum! Specifically, one which we control and profit from!
Not just the museum but the country and city that the museum exists in. The museum may not turn a profit but that doesn't mean it isn't a part of the larger tourism industry for London. The people who live there receive economic benefit from it being near them.
But the actual plot undermines all of it, unfortunately.
Still, some damn good scenes with this dude.
In this particular case that diamond has a pretty long history of changing hands (and some of those changes were done under duress), so who exactly gets it? India because the Mughals has it? Iran because they won a war, took it amongst other valuables they looted, and took it back home? Afghanistan because a dynasty there had it at one point? Pakistan because the Afghan Sultan "gave" it to his Sikh host in Lahore for protecting him?
Stuff like the Easter island artefacts need to go back immediately. There's no question the community and nation it belongs to. That diamond though is messy beyond belief. The way it got to Britain is no different than the way that multitudes of previous owner before got a hold of it. Pakistan's claim on it is also the most nonsensical, so you can rule them out. But between India, Iran, and Afghanistan, how do you determine who should have a jewel that was repeatedly taken through conquest?
Thanks, white man!
I love that every single labeled rock in that cartoon is something I inherently associate with white Americans now.
What? He was the bad guy because he wanted to destroy Wakanda as we knew it, and start a war with entire planet. Not for the reason you are trying to say in here.
Hmmm I'm always so torn on the Western European museums that have conquests from the pillage and rape of other cultures.
I'm against them having them, but would those artifacts have still existed without that having happened? There's a stability and security rarely found outside in these countries for the proper care and treatment of those artifacts. You also need to consolidate them to bring in enough tourism dollars to fund this as well. Without them being centralized, would that be possible?
It's a tough one. From a principal point I'm so against this but pragmatically I dunno.
I'm against them having them, but would those artifacts have still existed without that having happened? There's a stability and security rarely found outside in these countries for the proper care and treatment of those artifacts. You also need to consolidate them to bring in enough tourism dollars to fund this as well. Without them being centralized, would that be possible?
It's a tough one. From a principal point I'm so against this but pragmatically I dunno.
The slavery one would be, were it not for the human cost, hilarious in its wrongness. WE STILL HAVE SLAVERY HERE
Like I said earlier, in this case it'd be the country where it had the longest history. The earliest reliable account (by historian's standards) of its first owner was that of the then ruler of Indian subcontinent, who mentioned that it was obtained from Southern India. Sure India back then also encompassed parts of Afganistan but the ruler/owner was in Delhi and the government was called the Delhi Sultanate. Even if that's disputable, what's indisputable is that the diamond was in India from 14th century to 19th century, close to almost 600 years.
Last edited:
Should all go back to museums of the home countries... But its probably mostly private collectors complaining about this.
These current countries didn't even exist then. The founder of the Delhi Sultanate was a Turkic Mumluk, and that Sultanate encompassed what are now multiple different countries. Archaeological works, art, works of religious nature, etc, those are items I can understand and I want returned to the people and cultures they belong to. A piece of diamond taken out of a mine under the orders of a foreign invader, that for centuries men fought wars and looted from one another, is not something I would say belongs to an actual country. I brought Iran up specifically because one of their Sultans fought a war against the Mughals, beat them, and then looted their capital and took it back to Iran with him. The diamond then subsequently ends up in Afghanistan, where a member of a dynasty there flees to Lahore for shelter, where he is convinced to give it up to the founder of the Sikh Empire because he offered him protection. The latter group is who Britain took the diamond from.
That delegation from Easter Island last year. Yeah, give those people their artifacts back. This diamond though. I don't think natural material you dig out of the ground belongs to a country, especially with the history that particular diamond has. An individual had it dug up for vanity and display of power. His descendants lost the diamond to others who also coveted said diamond for reasons of vanity and display of power, and then they lost it as well. And that's the history of this stupid thing till you get to the British Empire. Let me ask you this. If the diamond was still in the possession of the descendants of the Afghan Sultanate or somehow in the national museum of Iran, do you believe they should return it to India even though the Mughals are long gone? Because if the answer to that is no, than I don't see a particular difference between any of these conquerors who at various points had control over it.
Also, you're confusing a few things here. The diamond wasn't in India from the point of extraction all the way up to Britain taking it. Nadir Shah took it back to Persia with him when he looted the Mughal treasury. When his dynasty lost it, it ended up in Afghanistan with Ahmed Shah Durrani who founded the Afghan Empire. The claim Afghanistan makes is not because the Delhi Sultanate once ruled over parts of Afghanistan, it's because centuries after that, an Afghan dynasty literally had the stupid thing in their possession. I'm telling you this diamond has a very messy history.
Last edited:
Which colonial or imperial power do you think Killmonger represents in the film?
Because I don't think he did, either in text or subtext.
In text he is a rogue agent hunted by his former imperialist masters, and more importantly, in the subtext, he's talking about a global revolution of oppressed people. This is not imperialist of colonialist talk. I think he's written to have the political beliefs of someone like Thomas Sankara.
There is however a literal agent of imperial power in this film, he's even white, but he's written to be the good guy.
No 100% sure which "empirical evidence" you're talking about here, but I generally don't think Africa got screwed because bad people used anti-colonialist language to get into power.
That's literally the origin of his name, how many confirmed kills he racked up in the middle east as an agent of US Imperialism.
No that's not why Africa got screwed, I didn't even mention Africa. I'm not even talking about anti-colonialist sentiment specifically, just arguments that the public might be sympathetic too but that are actually ploys to gain power and then do fucked up shit (Duterte, Modi, etc. are examples of these types of leaders.)
The movie doesn't take place in the middle east. Again, which imperial interests do you feel Killmonger represent in the film?
And I really don't see a whole lot of parallels to people like Duterte or Modi, which are right wing nationalists who won democratic elections. I don't think that's where the film was going with his character either.
He's not wrong.
Queen's Counsel. And I don't think it's their job to advise the Queen, at least not any more...
Whether the film takes place in the middle east or not is irrelevant, the film directly states that's what Killmonger's origins are. He directly states the origins of the marks on his body are from the people he killed in the middle east. Which is integral to understanding his character, his (justified) anger at colonialism is a smokescreen, because he is quickly established as a former agent of colonialism who wants to use Wakanda's power for more conquest and colonialism.
You don't think Killmonger is a fascist? He is explicitly fascist in his ideology, which is one of carnage and conquest. That's all he knows because that's what he devoted his entire life to (the film directly states this in fact).
At the very least revenue generated should be distrubuted among the places the items were taken from.
No shit that's literally what museums are, the British Mueseum just happens to be the best. And I'm fine with it staying that way.
Wakanda's
Killmonger literally is an imperialist, he just wants to shuffle around who is in charge.
Okay so I think we derailed the thread enough, and I'm not sure we're talking about the movie on the same level even, but I don't think he's written to be a fascist.
There weren't really black fascists revolutionaries in Africa, I think he's modeled after (and coded as) someone like Thomas Sankara.
Yup
It's not exactly subtle. The film literally beats you over the head with this idea. If you want to continue this discussion feel free to PM me.
Maybe they are stolen but I have no issues with the victors keeping trophies, those are part of their history too after all.
Is like Chile keeping the Huascar from Peru.
Is like Chile keeping the Huascar from Peru.
Definitely. And a lot of that stuff, especially pertaining to indigenous cultures would serve much more use being repatriated. Couple with the fact that they were acquired under very dodgy circumstances. I mean they serve a far shallower purpose being there. I have been the British library many times, and enjoy it well enough. Of course, it doesn't compare to seeing the stuff in context at all.
The body that defines what is internationally recognized as world heritage is the UNESCO.
The UNESCO is, by far and away, not solely made up of former colonial countries. Nearly 200 countries are members.
I do absolutely agree that museums should return stolen artifacts. If they want to use them for exhibitions, they can borrow.
Or just return the origional and keep a copy of it for display.
Solution seems pretty straightforward to me. Arrange a wide-ranging international historical artifact exchange agreement so that people in all countries (not just the UK) get to experience a range of items from across the world. As part of this, return ownership of these artifacts to their original countries of origin.
Queens Counsel. A highly skilled and well respected lawyer.
Maybe its time to return the artifacts to Museums at where they were sourced run by the actual decendents of said artifacts
The biggest active crime scene in the world stands in solidarity with the Black community throughout the world (as long as they don't demand repatriation for their stolen heritage). What a joke.
The treasures white Europeans pillaged from the global south should be repatriated. They are no longer safe in Europe where violent protests and riots are ongoing and intensifying. The global south should also stealtake relevant European heritage and put it in their museum since Europeans can't be trusted to take care of them under this very unstable situation.
I mean it's a tough decision but it could arguably be the only way a lot of these artifacts can continue to exist (at least in the condition they are in)
I mean I'm against the global south having European heritage, but will those artifacts still exist if they don't take them now? There's a stability and security rarely found in the West these days which part of the global south have for the proper care and treatment of those artifacts. It's a tough one. From a principal point I'm so against this but pragmatically I dunno.
or something about victors keeping trophies
or they were stolen something something but they are in better hands now
or something something Europeans not being able to take care of their heritage because <insert typical colonial mindset excuse in these topics here>
I mean it's a tough decision but it could arguably be the only way a lot of these artifacts can continue to exist (at least in the condition they are in)
I mean I'm against the global south having European heritage, but will those artifacts still exist if they don't take them now? There's a stability and security rarely found in the West these days which part of the global south have for the proper care and treatment of those artifacts. It's a tough one. From a principal point I'm so against this but pragmatically I dunno.
or something about victors keeping trophies
or they were stolen something something but they are in better hands now
or something something Europeans not being able to take care of their heritage because <insert typical colonial mindset excuse in these topics here>