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

[Mo_reese]

The argument in favor argues that the artifacts are an integral part of the plundered countries' cultures and is a dark reminder of the imperialism and colonialism that those countries had to endure. Also, in a world where we hopefully value justice, returning the items would essentially provide justice for the theft of the items.
I agree with this line of thinking. What do others think?

[LuckyR]

I think you've outlined one of many reasonable perspectives. The "legality" of the original archeological dig is another. The ability of the potential recipient to care for the artifact is yet another. The attitude of the potential recipient towards the ancient culture is vastly important (why would you send antiquities to a government hell bent on destroying all trace of an opposition culture/religion?)

[Sy Borg]

No. Every group of people alive has at some stage been plunderers and plundered.

Most times, if the artefacts weren't "plundered" they would have been lost to history.

[Lagayascienza]

Where feasible, some should be returned. The Elgin Marbles are a case in point. They are of huge cultural, artistic and historical significance to Greece. The legality of their acquisition by the UK is highly questionable. In modern times Greece has a history of caring for its cultural and artistic heritage. They should go back to Greece.

That said, the world is awash with artifacts taken from their countries of origin, many of them legally acquired, and it would be unnecessary and in many cases impossible to return them all. These items are often valuable and so they are cared for where they are. In some cases, there is no guarantee that they would be preserved if returned. Imagine returning ancient artifacts to Afghanistan, for example. The Islamic authorities there have a history of destroying such things on religious grounds.

[Mo_reese]

No. Every group of people alive has at some stage been plunderers and plundered.

Most times, if the artefacts weren't "plundered" they would have been lost to history.

You said no meaning that stolen artifacts shouldn't be returned to the original owners?

[Sy Borg]

Correct. No means to not return artefacts unless there's an especially compelling case for it.

Many artefacts were gained via swaps. Colonisers and indigenous people were regularly bartering because that's what humans do. They also fight, kill and steal. The chain of wars and conquests in history goes back to prehistoric times and, no doubt, before humans.

Should China give back the artefacts they have that were plundered by Genghis Khan? How far back should we go? Perhaps it's time to agitate for the rights of Neanderthal descendants? No doubt at least some of them suffered mistreatment and theft at the hands of H. sapiens.

[Mo_reese]

Correct. No means to not return artefacts unless there's an especially compelling case for it.

Many artefacts were gained via swaps. Colonisers and indigenous people were regularly bartering because that's what humans do. They also fight, kill and steal. The chain of wars and conquests in history goes back to prehistoric times and, no doubt, before humans.

Should China give back the artefacts they have that were plundered by Genghis Khan? How far back should we go? Perhaps it's time to agitate for the rights of Neanderthal descendants? No doubt at least some of them suffered mistreatment and theft at the hands of H. sapiens.

Do you feel that possession is 9/10ths of the law? So England has the right to retain the Elgin Marbles and other Greek artifacts that they got from the Ottoman Empire that controlled Greece?
Granted the English may have saved the artifacts from being lost to history but shouldn't they be returned to the Greeks now?

I believe that colonial powers “bartering” with poor indigenous peoples amounted to theft.

You asked a good question as to how far back should we go. I don't know, what do you think?

[Sy Borg]

Correct. No means to not return artefacts unless there's an especially compelling case for it.

Many artefacts were gained via swaps. Colonisers and indigenous people were regularly bartering because that's what humans do. They also fight, kill and steal. The chain of wars and conquests in history goes back to prehistoric times and, no doubt, before humans.

Should China give back the artefacts they have that were plundered by Genghis Khan? How far back should we go? Perhaps it's time to agitate for the rights of Neanderthal descendants? No doubt at least some of them suffered mistreatment and theft at the hands of H. sapiens.

Do you feel that possession is 9/10ths of the law? So England has the right to retain the Elgin Marbles and other Greek artifacts that they got from the Ottoman Empire that controlled Greece?
Granted the English may have saved the artifacts from being lost to history but shouldn't they be returned to the Greeks now?

I believe that colonial powers “bartering” with poor indigenous peoples amounted to theft.

You asked a good question as to how far back should we go. I don't know, what do you think?

No, swapping with indigenous people was barter, not theft. I appreciate that the patronising modern view is that indigenous people were, and are, mindless children. However, the modern view is wrong. These were adults who expressed their preferences more or less like any other. In these cases, the indigenous people wanted some of the stuff that technologically advanced outsiders brought more than the stuff they bartered away. If you put aside Marxist ideology (which I find the best thing to do), all you have are humans sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating.

As for the Elgin Marbles, the Ottomans took them, and the British took them from the Ottomans. If the Greeks desperately need more of their old artefacts, they can negotiate with England but I see no moral need for England to repatriate them.

It's not rational to simply draw an arbitrary line in the past and declare that the situation was right before that time and the conditions of that arbitrary time must be reinstated.

[Pattern-chaser]

The argument in favor argues that the artifacts are an integral part of the plundered countries' cultures and is a dark reminder of the imperialism and colonialism that those countries had to endure. Also, in a world where we hopefully value justice, returning the items would essentially provide justice for the theft of the items.
I agree with this line of thinking. What do others think?

How far will you go with this? What are your rules of engagement? What are your limits or constraints?

[To Sy Borg:] You asked a good question as to how far back should we go. I don't know, what do you think?

For a start, do you wish to discuss the concept of ownership? What definition (of "ownership") are we using? If it's an imprecise definition (as seems likely), is it precise enough to allow our discussions here? [I'm not a definition-bigot, but I think some brief thoughts about what it is we're discussing might prove interesting, at the least.] Dictionary definitions of ownership seem to be somewhat circular in nature...

If ownership exists, what limits are there? Limits on time? Is ownership eternal or temporary? Limits on/in space? How far, in physical distance, does 'ownership' extend? And so on. After all, there have to be some limits, or our discussion will fade into infinity, as we try to discuss the entire Universe, in all its wonder. For practical convenience, if nothing else, we need some limits. So what are they?

Perhaps more importantly than the above, and even more fundamentally, what is the justification for ownership? What is it that would — morally? Is this a moral discussion? — allow for one individual, or a group of individuals, to obtain and/or retain 'ownership' of all or part of The Universe? Why or how is this ownership permissible, even desirable?

Are there 'common sense' aspects to this discussion, any empirical input to the discussion, or is this topic purely Ivory-Tower theoretical?



And finally, I think we should bear in mind, in this discussion, that ownership is built-in to our English (and American) language. Consider words, common and often-used words, like "mine" and "yours", for a start. Isn't it a bit difficult to discuss something when that something is embedded in the language we use to describe and discuss it? It's a bit like trying to discuss time...

[Pattern-chaser]

No, swapping with indigenous people was barter, not theft.

How about the possessions (art, etc) taken from Jews by the Nazis, after they'd been sent to the camps? Was that "barter"? I think not. I think there have been many other similar thefts too, throughout history, where bartering played absolutely no part. What do you think? And should stuff such as this be returned to its former 'owners'? After how long should this stop?

[Sy Borg]

No, swapping with indigenous people was barter, not theft.

How about the possessions (art, etc) taken from Jews by the Nazis, after they'd been sent to the camps? Was that "barter"? I think not. I think there have been many other similar thefts too, throughout history, where bartering played absolutely no part. What do you think? And should stuff such as this be returned to its former 'owners'? After how long should this stop? 🤔

It's a matter of negotiation between the parties.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, swapping with indigenous people was barter, not theft.

How about the possessions (art, etc) taken from Jews by the Nazis, after they'd been sent to the camps? Was that "barter"? I think not. I think there have been many other similar thefts too, throughout history, where bartering played absolutely no part. What do you think? And should stuff such as this be returned to its former 'owners'? After how long should this stop?

It's a matter of negotiation between the parties.

Never mind the euphemisms — what about the questions I asked (that I hope are constructive)?

[Sy Borg]

No, swapping with indigenous people was barter, not theft.

How about the possessions (art, etc) taken from Jews by the Nazis, after they'd been sent to the camps? Was that "barter"? I think not. I think there have been many other similar thefts too, throughout history, where bartering played absolutely no part. What do you think? And should stuff such as this be returned to its former 'owners'? After how long should this stop? 🤔

It's a matter of negotiation between the parties.

Never mind the euphemisms — what about the questions I asked (that I hope are constructive)?

There are no euphemisms.

Nazis did not colonise Jews, they just slaughtered them. It's completely different. 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.

[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?

[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?