Hacker News Reader

Comment by 40acres | Hacker News Reader

Why does this matter? Britain stole them, just because they are "safer" in Britian doesn't mean they belong there.

I agree that the Benin Bronzes should be returned to official custody of Nigerian museums. But concern that the museums are not capable of ensuring their safety can be very real: see for example the fire at the National Museum of Brazil in 2018 that irrevocably destroyed most of our records of extinct indigenous groups in the Amazon.

One of the related articles linked at the bottom of this article is https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/arts/design/germany-museu....

> [An] investigation by the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper found that many of the artifacts that will be on display in the Humboldt Forum, a huge new museum under construction in a rebuilt Berlin palace, had for years been stored in less-than-ideal conditions. The report featured searing depictions of flooded storage rooms and depots choked with toxic dust.

The irony of this is that European art pieces are probably rotting so we can display African potteries and rusty blades. For this reason alone we send all that stuff back (we keep the Egyptian stuff though).

Fires happen in important British collections too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_School_of_Art#Fires

A third of the worlds extant medieval manuscripts were destroyed by German artillery in Belgium in WW I and WW II. Both times the destruction was a deliberate punishment for Belgian resistence.

Clearly European savages cannot be trusted with their own history.

The concern is real but ultimately it does not matter. Fact of the matter is, arguments like this have been used to justify racism for a long time.

"They are Savage so they need our religion. They are savages so they need to put in the fields to work. They are savages so they don't need education. They are savages so their art should be displayed in our museum not theirs."

IMHO, the proper way for the British Museum to move forward would be to take the stance that repatriation of these looted artifacts is the explicit policy, and to define the process and necessary steps that need to happen for repatriation, be it the Rosetta Stone, the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, etc. Repatriation should be a question of when, not if.

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the British Museum doesn't have the same viewpoint--returning these looted artifacts would deprive them of their most valuable visitor draws, so they resort to any argument that will let them avoid repatriation. That viewpoint I very definitely do not agree with, and I do not condone in the slightest.

I agree; the Rosetta Stone should be returned by Britain to France, despite the fact they stole it more than 200 years ago.

What is theft? I’m sure the bronzes were made out of “stolen” materials. How far are we willing to go back to sort this out?

No, but putting them back where they belong and seeing them disappear in 24hours is probably not a good solution either.

I think we should confiscate all the money from those with money management skills mostly the poor, because they are going to squander it. We should give it to the rich because they know how to retain money and will do more good with it... That's your logic.

What makes you think that returning artifacts to the rightful owners will make them disappear?

The perception that the rulers of the country are a bunch of kleptocrats who are likely to be ousted by another set of kleptocrats in short order.

Generally however as long as the artifacts are in hands of a museum they're generally safe no matter how unstable the host government is. The only exception is when certain religious extremists gain power and go on an spree of cultural destruction like in Syria.

I've got bad news for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

If there's one thing we British know about, it's valuable artworks disappearing from their homelands under deals of questionable legitimacy.

Personally I don't care at all about artifacts like this so the principal of the matter seems more important to me then the potential destruction of the artifacts.

It's their stuff to potentially get destroyed or go missing. If they would rather take that risk upon themselves then so be it.

> If they would rather take that risk upon themselves then so be it.

I think that's an important point - they aren't being given that choice right now - if the British Museum decided to return all the Benin Bronzes then it's not inconceivable that Nigeria would leave them in the custody of the British Museum until it had a safe space to house them - or possibly loan them to the British Museum if there were doubts of the item's safety.

What about stuff that you do care about? Would you go against your principles then?

I'm not aware of anything that would conflict with my stance. The point being that no object is more important than the principles here. The world will keep on spinning if all this stuff is destroyed. The bar for conflicting would be something that causes problems for our continued existence on earth.

Perhaps something such as a country "owning" a river and deciding to freely dump nuclear waste into it which in turn causes problems for everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com