Shithole countries, obviously.Ethiopia is one country, you wrote "those countries". What "countries" were you talking about?
Edit: Darn it! Beaten!
Shithole countries, obviously.Ethiopia is one country, you wrote "those countries". What "countries" were you talking about?
Nothing, I just used it as an example how many irreplaceable cultural artefacts were recently destoyed, which would still exist if they had been in the British Museum.
There are constant civil wars, unrest etc. in many parts of Africa. Artefacts get stolen and sold to private collectors by unscrupulous dealers. At least in the British Museum, these artefacts are safely kept and can be enjoyed by everyone.
I won't even entertain this nonsense.Atm, yes. I believe there is a possibility that if returned now, they might be sold.
No one has colonized Ethiopia.Not sure what you are talking about. Britain did not colonize Ethiopia. There were no settlers.
You guys are fucking incredible.Atm, yes. I believe there is a possibility that if returned now, they might be sold.
Ah yes, let's move the goal postAh yes, UK a beacon of anti-corruption. When I think of "least corrupt country" I definitely think of the UK lol
I never said it was right.Loan my belongings that you stole from me. Yeah, that makes sense.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you a troll looking to stir shit up?
No one said they were legally obligated to do it. We're saying they should do it because it's the right thing to do.In case anyone cares about international law, I looked it up. There is no legal or customary basis to demand the return of anything plundered prior to the turn of the 20th century. You can't retroactively apply modern law, ex post facto law is forbidden.
Ah yes, UK a beacon of anti-corruption. When I think of "least corrupt country" I definitely think of the UK lol foh
What does other countries in Africa have to do with Ethiopia?
God forbid someone believes the opposite because stuff from museums have been stolen and sold.
You're the one randomly talking about corruption. I only kicked the ball where you moved the goal to.
Exactly my thoughts. I wasn't expecting a colonial looting defense force on Era but I'm not surprised.
Yes, and that is clearly going to be what happens here since we all know that only white westerners are capable of properly caring for historic artifacts.God forbid someone believes the opposite because stuff from museums have been stolen and sold.
I wish.Yes, and that is clearly going to be what happens here since we all know that only white westerners are capable of properly caring for historic artifacts.
I've read up on it just now and its not quite as simple as "they stole our shit".
The Ethiopian Emperor at the time "imprisoned several missionaries and two representatives of the British government in an attempt to get the attention of the British government, which had decided against his requests for military assistance." He was fighting rebels and asked for help... and when he got turned down he pretty much declared war on Britain.
Fun fact. One of the hostages was an ambassador sent by Queen Victoria to represent Britain. That man was an Iraqi, Hormuzd Rassam.
The Etheopians were the aggressors in this one. I don't think they're gonna get the artefacts back, nor is it surprising.
It shouldn't surprise you. I didn't expect any less. This forum positioned itself as being better than Gaf. But it's just more of the same. Unfortunately.I didn't quite expect the level of colonial chauvinism in this thread.
The ones with all the horrible Blacks in them.Isn't this story about Ethiopia, what other countries are you talking about?
If they return them, I give it a year before they go to "private" collections.
The corruption levels in those countries is staggering.
I've read up on it just now and its not quite as simple as "they stole our shit".
The Ethiopian Emperor at the time "imprisoned several missionaries and two representatives of the British government in an attempt to get the attention of the British government, which had decided against his requests for military assistance." He was fighting rebels and asked for help... and when he got turned down he pretty much declared war on Britain.
Fun fact. One of the hostages was an ambassador sent by Queen Victoria to represent Britain. That man was an Iraqi, Hormuzd Rassam.
The Etheopians were the aggressors in this one. I don't think they're gonna get the artefacts back, nor is it surprising.
If European countries had to give back the shit they stole from other countries, they'd be left literally destitute.
lol.They weren't "illegally looted", they started a war and they lost. Victor takes the spoils. Besides, you can't apply modern rules of diplomatic relations to the past. The British actions were acceptable by the standards of the time.
Not surprised at these mindsets at all really. #Inherent.I didn't quite expect the level of colonial chauvinism in this thread.
By the way, where should the line be drawn? Should spoils of war taken by the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago be returned?
As has been pointed out by another poster, the victor's right to plunder after military conflict was accepted practice until very recently in human history.
Right?Racist ass post all up in this thread.
Goddamn Era showing true colors nowadays
Here's a simple one that actually involves Ethiopia. If spoils of war need to be returned regardless of how, when, and where they were taken (which is an absolutely fair argument), then Ethiopia itself needs to abide by those rules and let the people of the Ogaden have their self determination. Britain should return the artifacts, and I don't believe that returning them should be on the condition that Ogaden be given independence. But the minute the artifacts go back, Ethiopia needs to give up their claim to the region (a claim made possible by conquest), and then answer for the numerous human rights violations and war crimes happening there right now (the rebels also on the latter point). You can't have it both ways Ethiopia. You can't both be a belligerent expansionist and also cry foul when bigger, nastier expansionists fuck you over.By the way, where should the line be drawn? Should spoils of war taken by the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago be returned?
As has been pointed out by another poster, the victor's right to plunder after military conflict was accepted practice until very recently in human history.
Right?
Resetera was like the one place on the Internet that didn't constantly lower my opinion on humanity. So much for that.
Sooo. Ethiopia shouldn't get back what's rightfully theirs, because all the paper work involved. That's a good reason. *rolls eyes*The looting/safety argument isn't actually relevant here, since the V&A said they would be willing to give it on a long term loan. If that's true, then they would trust the institution to hold the pieces for years on end, meaning that their facilities are up to the loaning institution's standards and the institution has suitable curatorial and security staff and policies. They aren't worried about corruption or looting or anything, it's just an issue of ownership and the validity/value of deaccessioning works within the museum's collections. At most large institutions acquisitions and deaccessions are handled by a committee of curators and registrars, however when objects are to be sold or repatriated, senior administration comes into play, which is always going to make it more complicated. Ultimately it comes down to repatriation being a slippery slope and senior staff not being interested in testing the waters to see how quickly more dominoes will fall. In order to move forward and see more objects be treated properly in this matter, the only way is going to be installing more minorities into senior museum staff and making social justice a core element of the institution's guiding principles, which thankfully is becoming increasingly common within the field.
Personally as much as I recognize the validity of the reason for most repatriation, I would still be reluctant to willingly sign away objects in the collection I work with, largely because a change to any part of your collection like this involves a shit ton of paperwork and difficult decisions. Managing a collection, the most important customer is the person who will manage the collection after you, and these situations have so many potential ways you can screw up and leave your future successor, or in this case, new owners in a bind. I'd do it, but I'd hate how stressful the process would be.
And yet. Not a single warning or ban. Funny how that works, in'it.Racist ass post all up in this thread.
Goddamn Era showing true colors nowadays
Sooo. Ethiopia shouldn't get back what's rightfully theirs, because all the paper work involved. That's a good reason. *rolls eyes*
And yet. Not a single warning or ban. Funny how that works, in'it.
Yea because only the UK has this magical technology called museums lol, the fuck is this
We third world countries need the benevolent white men to take care of our artifacts, of course.
Nah, he's simply trying to figure out what the freudian slip of "those countries" meant.Why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you a troll looking to stir shit up?
I never said that. If they have the proper storage solutions and security procedures, transferring the item is still within the realm of possibility. The museum's job is to minimize risk to the collections and ensure access to researchers. Moving the artifacts in this case would be downgrade all across the board.
Who said anything about benevolence? This is about conservation and ease of access for the viewing public.
You do know the museum in Ethiopia houses many important hominid fossils, including Lucy. So their ability to house and preserve things is not really in questionI never said that. If they have the proper storage solutions and security procedures, transferring the item is still within the realm of possibility. The museum's job is to minimize risk to the collections and ensure access to researchers. Moving the artifacts in this case would be downgrade all across the board.
Who said anything about benevolence? This is about conservation and ease of access for the viewing public.
Uh no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that any transfer of ownership is expensive, time consuming, and fraught with potential issues which makes it a real pain to deal with. That's a primary reason why you don't see repatriation happen often, because doing the right thing is hard and overcoming institutional inertia requires either a great push from senior management or very very strong influence from lower curators and registrars. Collections management is usually stressful enough, adding responsibilities is not exactly appreciated, no matter how justified it may beSooo. Ethiopia shouldn't get back what's rightfully theirs, because all the paper work involved. That's a good reason. *rolls eyes*
And yet. Not a single warning or ban. Funny how that works, in'it.
The problem is that although it was a Sikh who was the last to have it before Britain, the diamond was cut and owned by the Mughals. Then the Persians sacked the capital, looted the Mughal treasury, and then took the jewel out of India. It finally came into the possession of the Emir of Afghanistan who after being overthrown went to Lahore, and that's when his host (Ranjit Singh) requested it due to him sheltering the Emir. From there Ranjit Singh willed the diamond to a temple and then it was taken by Britain. So if you're Britain, who do you give this diamond to when there are competing claimants to it that are hostile to each other? Should it go to the Sikhs because they were the last to have it before Britain? Should it go to Afghanistan who can claim that the diamond was given up under duress? Or perhaps it should go to the descendants of the Mughals who would argue that the diamond is theirs, and the Persian theft of it doesn't mean they gave up ownership? And of course the Iranians claim it as well, since you know they first jacked it.Man they won't even return the Koh-i-Noor Diamond to the Sikhs/India. They badly chopped and cut it into a piece of shit for the Crown of the Empress and a country like India is about to surpass them economically and is already ahead militarily. What could Ethiopia do to get its heritage and artifacts back.
I don't think it's so simple. You can also think of these artifacts not only as Ethiopian heritage but also World heritage. That's why we are horrified when we see things like Baghdad museum being raided and ancient sites like Palmira or the giant Budas in Afghanistan be destroyed, and don't just go "Oh it's a Syrian/Afghan issue. Welp..."I'm not sure how corruption is a point in the first place. It's irrelevant. Give the shit back, if Ethiopia or whomever fucks up and they're lost, then they're lost. It's neither the UK's concern nor responsibility for stuff that's not theirs in the first place.
Uh no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that any transfer of ownership is expensive, time consuming, and fraught with potential issues which makes it a real pain to deal with. That's a primary reason why you don't see repatriation happen often, because doing the right thing is hard and overcoming institutional inertia requires either a great push from senior management or very very strong influence from lower curators and registrars. Collections management is usually stressful enough, adding responsibilities is not exactly appreciated, no matter how justified it may be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)#ExhibitionsI don't think it's so simple. You can also think of these artifacts not only as Ethiopian heritage but also World heritage. That's why we are horrified when we see things like Baghdad museum being raided and ancient sites like Palmira or the giant Budas in Afghanistan be destroyed, and don't just go "Oh it's a Syrian/Afghan issue. Welp..."
I'm for artifacts to return to their place of origin, but let's not pretend their safe preservation isn't something to take into account.
What do you wish?
I don't think there was anything freudian about it. He made it pretty clear with that third world country nonsense. "Only "white" countries can be trusted to take care of artifacts."Nah, he's simply trying to figure out what the freudian slip of "those countries" meant.
I've read up on it just now and its not quite as simple as "they stole our shit".
The Ethiopian Emperor at the time "imprisoned several missionaries and two representatives of the British government in an attempt to get the attention of the British government, which had decided against his requests for military assistance." He was fighting rebels and asked for help... and when he got turned down he pretty much declared war on Britain.
Fun fact. One of the hostages was an ambassador sent by Queen Victoria to represent Britain. That man was an Iraqi, Hormuzd Rassam.
The Etheopians were the aggressors in this one. I don't think they're gonna get the artefacts back, nor is it surprising.