I’m not sure how this all works going forward. There were some plausible arguments about protecting artifacts, the uk was pretty stable in comparison.
This article seems to make it clear, that’s no longer the case. If you have some money, seems like you can bribe out whatever artifacts you want.
And frankly it's fine to care about survival of (otherwise publicly accessible) pieces of art and culture first and foremost. There's not going to be more of them.
The fact that these aren't handed back really shows the true colours though. The one that personally disgusts me is the Irish Giant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Byrne_(giant)
A man who's only wish in life was not to end up a museum and the British stole his bones and put him on display.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231127211244/https://www.thegu...
As far as survival of arts and culture, the whole problem is that they aren’t the steward of historical treasures that threy claim to be. It’s insane that the British Museum, one of the preeminent museums in the world, is having stuff stolen from them, and can’t even identify what is stolen because they haven’t catalogued everything. If they want to claim that antiquities will be kept up for future generations, then they at least need to take that role seriously.
Proclaiming that because they didn't make it, they aren't the owners is hilarious and wrong. Even if they became owners through force.
ok, but the problem this article is discussing is that the British museum doesn’t have that ability either.
if you don’t know what objects you even have, how could you possibly be ensuring the proper storage conditions?
Absolutely wild logic that gets thrown around when it comes time to defend looting and pillaging that in many cases occurred during living memory or not far removed.