That said, I’ll try playing devil’s advocate.
1. Some items are from areas now controlled by very different people to those for whom the item was originally important. Do modern descendants of the Spanish have any moral claim to Aztec or Inca artefacts, for example?
2. Some items have complex histories, where multiple competing countries could all claim it as part of their history. Where the item was found is not the end of the story. Items from Greece, Turkey, Cyprus for example.
3. By storing them in the British Museum, they are better maintained for future generations. Globally, more people have access to them right now.
Perhaps for those where the answer to all three of these is obvious, it’s indefensible that the British Museum still has the items. But there is quite a lot of stuff there where it’s not so obvious when you look into the details, though we should be putting a lot of effort into trying anyway.
2. Who has an even weaker claim than all other claimants? The British Museum.
3. 2.5M people see the Crown Jewels in a year. The Smithsonian National Museum of American History in DC sees 4.1M visitors in a year. Should the Crown Jewels be moved to the Smithsonian? Surely we could take better care of them (they could go next to Dorothy's slippers) and more people would get to see them.
One of the laziest dismissals I've ever read on this forum. Yep, the world is this zero sum game where they should just dump it on whoever and then let all the competing entities argue amongst themselves
There is also a fourth individual, a thief, who has broken in and stolen various family heirlooms of both sentimental and monetary value.
The thief claims then that, because the inheritors are squabbling, the only fair thing to do is that he should hold on to the heirlooms, at least until they sort it out (or so he says).
The response is short because the situation is simple. The British Museum contains the stolen heritage of people all over the world. Confusion or disagreement over the most rightful heirs is no defense of this crime.
> 1. Most Mexicans or Peruvians have indigenous ancestry, they are not exclusively (or even mostly) descendants of the Spanish. It would be better to return those artifacts to the descendants of those from whom it was stolen.
This is an "easy to say, near-impossible to do" task that's been shoved with little effort from the proposer onto the museum staff. Short of comprehensive DNA analysis, finding the proper descendants for a particular artifact is not trivial. The response given does not take into account multiple competing claims towards the artifact, nor the possibility of all descendants that could properly claim it being dead, whether natural or not.
>> 2. Some items have complex histories, where multiple competing countries could all claim it as part of their history. Where the item was found is not the end of the story. Items from Greece, Turkey, Cyprus for example.
> 2. Who has an even weaker claim than all other claimants? The British Museum.
Calling misdirection on this response: It does not properly address the original question posed.
In an attempt to give a proper solution: Items with histories from multiple countries will have to put it into a round-robin-style sharing agreement, where the item/artifact will pass through the countries one by one before circling back.
In principle, this is true, but in many cases the responsible party is very well-known and yet there is active resistance from the British Museum to repatriate the plundered items. For example, the Parthenon Marbles.
> For example, the Parthenon Marbles.
Can you clarify this?
There is a literal museum in Greece containing every part that wasn't stolen this way, in their exact original placement, waiting for the stolen pieces to be returned to complete it. And the British are still resistant.
Does this make it invalid?
For example the Koh-i-Noor diamond passed through many hands, often through conquest. And perhaps the ruler who originally owned it didn't obtain it through entirely fair means.
2. It’s not misdirection it’s a prioritization of claims. The British Museum’s claim is weaker than all regional inheritors. Therefore, picking one is a better solution than the British Museum keeping it.
Why? If one of the regional inheritors only possessed it in the first place because it stole it from somebody else (albeit a long time ago), what makes their claim more valid?
Another helped return works that were looted by Napoleon during his campaigns (my grandmother had one of Canova’s Ideal Heads which the ancestor received as a gift from Canova for returning those artworks).
This stuff is pretty complicated, simply returning it is not possible, for example with ISIS purposefully destroying historical artefacts.
Having artefacts in foreign countries is, in my opinion, a net good. It exposes folks to cultures that they would not otherwise get to see.
Or is it only a net good when the UK keeps the priceless cultural heritage of other nations?
Why?