Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Human, when they encounter each other either fight, barter or ignore. I they fight, well, then it's a matter of who wins, as it has been since the beginning.

OK, so:

Should stuff such as this be returned to its former 'owners'?

After how long should this stop?

"Should" does not apply. Just reality. There are invasions and looting happening in many places in the world as we speak. Since most invasions don't directly involve the west, left wingers don't care, since they seem to see the non-western world as somewhat subhuman and thus not subject to the same moral requirements as the west, who "should know better".

Returning stuff can happen on a case-by-case basis. There are artefacts that would have not been preserved by indigenous people but, since the west has preserved them, they are suddenly claimed to be important to the culture. If objects and remains are important, then there can be a conversation between parties.

Do members want a totalitarian Marxist world government that forces all western nations to surrender their artefacts?

I find it a bit strange that you always seem to want to tear down the beliefs of others, rather than explaining how your beliefs are a better alternative. You seem concerned solely with attacking "Marxism" and those you believe to be "anti-West".

Why not just come straight out and say that theft (of land, as well as goods or artefacts) is just a part of life, and that you are prepared to accept it — or even to nurture and support it? — without a murmur? That's what you seem to be saying, yes?

[Sy Borg]

Human, when they encounter each other either fight, barter or ignore. I they fight, well, then it's a matter of who wins, as it has been since the beginning.

OK, so:

Should stuff such as this be returned to its former 'owners'?

After how long should this stop? 🤔

"Should" does not apply. Just reality. There are invasions and looting happening in many places in the world as we speak. Since most invasions don't directly involve the west, left wingers don't care, since they seem to see the non-western world as somewhat subhuman and thus not subject to the same moral requirements as the west, who "should know better".

Returning stuff can happen on a case-by-case basis. There are artefacts that would have not been preserved by indigenous people but, since the west has preserved them, they are suddenly claimed to be important to the culture. If objects and remains are important, then there can be a conversation between parties.

Do members want a totalitarian Marxist world government that forces all western nations to surrender their artefacts?

I find it a bit strange that you always seem to want to tear down the beliefs of others, rather than explaining how your beliefs are a better alternative. You seem concerned solely with attacking "Marxism" and those you believe to be "anti-West".

Why not just come straight out and say that theft (of land, as well as goods or artefacts) is just a part of life, and that you are prepared to accept it — or even to nurture and support it? — without a murmur? That's what you seem to be saying, yes?

Given that I am western and Marxists have long been open about wanting to bring down the west, I will speak up for the west against the current wave of self-hating, anti-western Marxism. People forget all the good done by the west.

Your comment about me tearing down others' ideas without offering anything was simply a lie, suggesting that you are not confident in your position, and you are keen to occupy The Moral High Ground.

"Theft" has occurred between societies for all of humanity's existence. Bad humans! Naughty humans! Realistically, there is no theft between societies because societies do not operate on the same morality as individuals, and never have done so. Societies compete or cooperate, and there are often winners and losers, that's all. There is no obligation on the winners of conflicts to pay the losers.

Individuals must cooperate or societies fall, because there are so many people to coordinate. Throughout history there has never been the same need for cooperation at the societal level, not until the last century when the world was finally connected by technology. Now you want to change the rules retroactively, to make modern rules apply to societies before globalisation, complete with restitution.

I see no problem with negotiation between individual nations regarding artefacts, do you?

[Lagayascienza]

Standards change. In this post-colonial era, invasion of less powerful societies and the large scale pillage of their artifacts no longer occurs. There are no places left on earth to invade and pillage, and international law forbids it. Rightly so, IMO. Hopefully, that indicates that we are learning to be kinder to each other.

Unfortunately, some past wrongs cannot be undone and restitution of artifacts is not possible. We must hope they will be cared for where they are currently situated. Where it is possible, I think artifacts of great cultural, historical and artistic value, such as the Elgin Marbles, the legality of whose expropriation is highly questionable, should be returned to their country of origin if it is clear they can and will be cared for there.

However, around the world there are millions of Greek, Roman, and indigenous artifacts on people's mantlepieces and in private and public collections. In most cases, it is impractical and unnecessary to return these. Their original owners are long dead and the way they were acquired is unknown. Many of them will have been legally acquired. There is no case for returning these.

[Mo_reese]

I agree that it isn't practical to demand the return of all artifacts that have been stolen. But where it's obvious where they originated and how they were obtained, like the Elgin Marbles they should be returned.

While colonialism has mostly died out, imperialism still exists as seen by the US invasion of Iraq. Tens of thousands of artifacts were stolen and still haven't been returned. If they are located they should be returned.

I believe that the artwork and religious artifacts that the Nazi took from the Jewish people should be returned.

And again I believe that bartering between a colonial power and indigenous people amounted to thief. Did Columbus barter with the indigenous people in good faith?

[Sy Borg]

Did Columbus barter with the indigenous people in good faith?

It probably depended on the individual. Some would, some wouldn't.

Again, with the examples you gave, there's nothing stopping the groups negotiating over valued items.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your comment about me tearing down others' ideas without offering anything was simply a lie, suggesting that you are not confident in your position, and you are keen to occupy The Moral High Ground.

I don't tell/post lies. Like everyone, I can be mistaken or just plain wrong, but my responses are honest, and I believe them to be true. I have no interest in the "moral high ground", but only in moving toward a helpful and useful understanding of the historic thefts we are discussing.

I see no problem with negotiation between individual nations regarding artefacts, do you?

Negotiation seems to be one way in which nations communicate. It's certainly much better than war, which is what we humans fall back on, when diplomacy has failed. But if we're talking about theft, the only obvious response is surely, "Well, give it back, then."

Theft — the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

[Mo_reese]

Pattern-chaser: “Negotiation seems to be one way in which nations communicate. It's certainly much better than war, which is what we humans fall back on, when diplomacy has failed. But if we're talking about theft, the only obvious response is surely, "Well, give it back, then." “

Trying to negotiate with a bully is absurd and pointless. Greece has no leverage to negotiate with against England.
In a good world we would have international laws that would seek justice. The US and their puppet state of Israel are showing the world how worthless international laws are if you are a big bully state.
If negotiations worked we would not have the disaster we have in the middle east.

[Sy Borg]

Your comment about me tearing down others' ideas without offering anything was simply a lie, suggesting that you are not confident in your position, and you are keen to occupy The Moral High Ground.

I don't tell/post lies. Like everyone, I can be mistaken or just plain wrong, but my responses are honest, and I believe them to be true. I have no interest in the "moral high ground", but only in moving toward a helpful and useful understanding of the historic thefts we are discussing.

You lied. Just admit it, rather than doubling down. You said I'm always tearing down others' ideas, which you know veeyr well is wrong on every level after all these years.

I talk about Marxism because, at present, self-hating Marxism is destroying the west. The west is magnificent, a tremendous innovation in governance. Who put an end the slavery? Who drove the industrial and information revolutions. Who created women's rights and, let's face it, minority rights per se?

Being comprised of humans, the west is far from perfect, but it seems to be a fair way less imperfect than other systems - at least until the recent Marxist erosion of its culture.

I once believed that patriotism was the domain of knaves and fools. Now I see that it's a matter of self-preservation. The world is competitive, and a failure to protect one's own will always end badly.

I see no problem with negotiation between individual nations regarding artefacts, do you?

Negotiation seems to be one way in which nations communicate. It's certainly much better than war, which is what we humans fall back on, when diplomacy has failed. But if we're talking about theft, the only obvious response is surely, "Well, give it back, then."

And this goes back how far in history? Where do we draw the line? And who is to judge a theft to be "obvious" in the argy bargy of conflict? International courts and agencies today are so compromised and partisan that few take them seriously any more.

Theft — the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

This does not apply to nations. Nations may comprise many people but nations and societies are not people. They operate on a more basic level. Try being on a committee and seeing your will be done. Now try being in a nation and even being noticed. No, committees take on their own life, and nations more so. It would be illogical, even insane to apply the same standards to nations that are applied to individuals.

[Pattern-chaser]

I see no problem with negotiation between individual nations regarding artefacts, do you?

Negotiation seems to be one way in which nations communicate. It's certainly much better than war, which is what we humans fall back on, when diplomacy has failed. But if we're talking about theft, the only obvious response is surely, "Well, give it back, then."

Trying to negotiate with a bully is absurd and pointless. Greece has no leverage to negotiate with against England.
In a good world we would have international laws that would seek justice. The US and their puppet state of Israel are showing the world how worthless international laws are if you are a big bully state.
If negotiations worked we would not have the disaster we have in the middle east.

I'm not advocating negotiation, but only replying to Sy Borg's specific suggestion. And I see all the points you make here too.

[Pattern-chaser]

You lied.

Please stop posting such calumnies about me. I do not lie. Thanks.

[Sy Borg]

You lied.

Please stop posting such calumnies about me. I do not lie. Thanks.

Now you are tripling down on the lie. If you don't want flak, don't make false claims about people, as you did about me.

[Pattern-chaser]

You lied.

Please stop posting such calumnies about me. I do not lie. Thanks.

Now you are tripling down on the lie. If you don't want flak, don't make false claims about people, as you did about me.

So this sequence of untruths is your vendetta, because you think I have insulted you?

If I have made a false claim, I withdraw it and apologise.

This is a philosophy forum, not a school playground.

[Sy Borg]

You lied.

Please stop posting such calumnies about me. I do not lie. Thanks.

Now you are tripling down on the lie. If you don't want flak, don't make false claims about people, as you did about me.

So this sequence of untruths is your vendetta, because you think I have insulted you?

If I have made a false claim, I withdraw it and apologise.

This is a philosophy forum, not a school playground.

Might I remind you:

you always seem to want to tear down the beliefs of others, rather than explaining how your beliefs are a better alternative

When I called you out on this wrongful claim you doubled down, and now you are trying to present me as a schoolyard agitator. You paint yourself as being more moral than I am, as if more precious morality equals more philosophical sophistication. It doesn't.

I'm not interested in playing victim or apology games, but acknowledgement of reality would be nice. Same with this issue.

Apologies and gestures matter less to me than history, logic and practicality. The world has always been a hard, competitive place. Conflicts arise and the winners claim the spoils of war. So it goes. Afterwards, when the dust has settled, a conversation can be had about any special things gone missing, but there's no obligation for the return of those things. Each side acting in good faith helps - the possessor to acknowledge if something is truly precious to the other, and the claimant not to be acting vexatiously, claiming great importance about things they cared little about until recently.

Any international arbiter set up to adjudicate will necessarily be biased, just as the UN, IMF and ICC display obvious biases. Thus, negotiation between parties is simpler than judgement or arbitration; each might deliver a reasonable and rational outcome, but neither can guarantee it. This makes direct negotiation similarly effective, but simpler and cheaper.

[Pattern-chaser]

Might I remind you:

you always seem to want to tear down the beliefs of others, rather than explaining how your beliefs are a better alternative

When I called you out on this wrongful claim you doubled down...

This "claim" is a common way in which people interact. You are one of many. But I regret I must repeat my "claim": that you, like, for example, politicians, prefer to tell their audience why and how their opposition is wrong, rather than why *they* are right.

This is a very common practice, and it is one that you use, from time to time. In particular, it is one that you have used here, in this topic, leading to my comment(s). And please let's remember, this is something we all do from time to time. It's not a big deal, and it's not a personal attack, just a reminder.

Nevertheless, I apologise for any offence caused; that was never my intention.

[Sy Borg]

Might I remind you:

you always seem to want to tear down the beliefs of others, rather than explaining how your beliefs are a better alternative

When I called you out on this wrongful claim you doubled down...

This "claim" is a common way in which people interact. You are one of many. But I regret I must repeat my "claim": that you, like, for example, politicians, prefer to tell their audience why and how their opposition is wrong, rather than why *they* are right.

This is a very common practice, and it is one that you use, from time to time. In particular, it is one that you have used here, in this topic, leading to my comment(s). And please let's remember, this is something we all do from time to time. It's not a big deal, and it's not a personal attack, just a reminder. 👍

Nevertheless, I apologise for any offence caused; that was never my intention.

I don't get offended, this is not about me. I'm just saying that your statements about me were wrong and that you avoided admitting that you got carried away and said things about me that are simply not true.

As always, the intent is to better understand reality, not play games.